Trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO) in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: It is suspected that microbiome-derived trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO) may enhance platelet responsiveness and accordingly be thrombophilic. The purpose of this prospective observational study is to evaluate TMAO in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) and compare it with a control group. A secondary aim was to investigate TMAO in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) from SAH patients. This should provide a better understanding of the role of TMAO in the pathogenesis of SAH and its thrombotic complications. METHODS: The study included patients with diagnosed spontaneous SAH recruited after initial treatment on admission and patients with nerve, nerve root, or plexus disorders serving as controls. Blood samples were gathered from all patients at recruitment. Additionally, sampling of SAH patients in the intensive care unit continued daily for 14 days. The CSF was collected out of existing external ventricular drains whenever possible. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients diagnosed with SAH, and 108 control patients participated in this study. Plasma TMAO levels at baseline were significantly lower in the SAH group (1.7 µmol/L) compared to the control group (2.9 µmol/L). TMAO was detectable in the CSF (0.4 µmol/L) and significantly lower than in plasma samples of the SAH group at baseline. Plasma and CSF TMAO levels correlated positively. The TMAO levels did not differ significantly during the observation period of 15 days. CONCLUSIONS: Although we assumed that patients with higher TMAO levels were at higher risk for SAH a priori, plasma TMAO levels were lower in patients with SAH compared with control subjects with nerve, nerve root, or plexus disorders on admission to the hospital. A characteristic pattern of plasma TMAO levels in patients with SAH was not found.

Key summary of German national treatment guidance for hospitalized COVID-19 patients : Key pharmacologic recommendations from a national German living guideline using an Evidence to Decision Framework (last updated 17.05.2021).

PURPOSE: This executive summary of a national living guideline aims to provide rapid evidence based recommendations on the role of drug interventions in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: The guideline makes use of a systematic assessment and decision process using an evidence to decision framework (GRADE) as recommended standard WHO (2021). Recommendations are consented by an interdisciplinary panel. Evidence analysis and interpretation is supported by the CEOsys project providing extensive literature searches and living (meta-) analyses. For this executive summary, selected key recommendations on drug therapy are presented including the quality of the evidence and rationale for the level of recommendation. RESULTS: The guideline contains 11 key recommendations for COVID-19 drug therapy, eight of which are based on systematic review and/or meta-analysis, while three recommendations represent consensus expert opinion. Based on current evidence, the panel makes strong recommendations for corticosteroids (WHO scale 5-9) and prophylactic anticoagulation (all hospitalized patients with COVID-19) as standard of care. Intensified anticoagulation may be considered for patients with additional risk factors for venous thromboembolisms (VTE) and a low bleeding risk. The IL-6 antagonist tocilizumab may be added in case of high supplemental oxygen requirement and progressive disease (WHO scale 5-6). Treatment with nMABs may be considered for selected inpatients with an early SARS-CoV-2 infection that are not hospitalized for COVID-19. Convalescent plasma, azithromycin, ivermectin or vitamin D3 should not be used in COVID-19 routine care. CONCLUSION: For COVID-19 drug therapy, there are several options that are sufficiently supported by evidence. The living guidance will be updated as new evidence emerges.

Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: With potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors represent a potential treatment for symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. They may modulate the exuberant immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, a direct antiviral effect has been described. An understanding of the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) on clinical outcomes in individuals (outpatient or in-hospital) with any severity of COVID-19, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, medRxiv, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program (VA ESP) Covid-19 Evidence Reviews to identify studies up to February 2022. We monitor newly published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) weekly using the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and have incorporated all new trials from this source until the first week of April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that compared systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) for the treatment of individuals with COVID-19. We used the WHO definitions of illness severity for COVID-19. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality (up to day 28), all-cause mortality (up to day 60), improvement in clinical status: alive and without need for in-hospital medical care (up to day 28), worsening of clinical status: new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (up to day 28), adverse events (any grade), serious adverse events, secondary infections. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs with 11,145 participants investigating systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo). Standard of care followed local protocols and included the application of glucocorticoids (five studies reported their use in a range of 70% to 95% of their participants; one study restricted glucocorticoid use to non-COVID-19 specific indications), antibiotic agents, anticoagulants, and antiviral agents, as well as non-pharmaceutical procedures. At study entry, about 65% of participants required low-flow oxygen, about 23% required high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation, about 8% did not need any respiratory support, and only about 4% were intubated. We also identified 13 ongoing studies, and 9 studies that are completed or terminated and where classification is pending. Individuals with moderate to severe disease Four studies investigated the single agent baricitinib (10,815 participants), one tofacitinib (289 participants), and one ruxolitinib (41 participants). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (95 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 131 of 1000 participants in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.91; 6 studies, 11,145 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 60 (125 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 181 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; 2 studies, 1626 participants; high-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status (discharged alive or hospitalised, but no longer requiring ongoing medical care) (801 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 778 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.06; 4 studies, 10,802 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). They probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28) (154 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 172 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98; 2 studies, 9417 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events (any grade) (427 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 441 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; 3 studies, 1885 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events (160 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 202 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; 4 studies, 2901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference to the rate of secondary infection (111 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 113 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 4 studies, 10,041 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 disease or type of JAK inhibitor did not identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease We did not identify any trial for this population. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19, moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality. Baricitinib was the most often evaluated JAK inhibitor. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that they probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status and make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events of any grade, whilst they probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events. Based on low-certainty evidence, JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference in the rate of secondary infection. Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 or type of agent failed to identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Currently, there is no evidence on the efficacy and safety of systemic JAK inhibitors for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised individuals).

Early spontaneous breathing for acute respiratory distress syndrome in individuals with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) represents the most severe course of COVID-19 (caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus), usually resulting in a prolonged stay in an intensive care unit (ICU) and high mortality rates. Despite the fact that most affected individuals need invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), evidence on specific ventilation strategies for ARDS caused by COVID-19 is scarce. Spontaneous breathing during IMV is part of a therapeutic concept comprising light levels of sedation and the avoidance of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA). This approach is potentially associated with both advantages (e.g. a preserved diaphragmatic motility and an optimised ventilation-perfusion ratio of the ventilated lung), as well as risks (e.g. a higher rate of ventilator-induced lung injury or a worsening of pulmonary oedema due to increases in transpulmonary pressure). As a consequence, spontaneous breathing in people with COVID-19-ARDS who are receiving IMV is subject to an ongoing debate amongst intensivists. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of early spontaneous breathing activity in invasively ventilated people with COVID-19 with ARDS compared to ventilation strategies that avoid spontaneous breathing. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, Clinical Trials.gov WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv) and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies from their inception to 2 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible study designs comprised randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated spontaneous breathing in participants with COVID-19-related ARDS compared to ventilation strategies that avoided spontaneous breathing (e.g. using NMBA or deep sedation levels). Additionally, we considered controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series with comparison group, prospective cohort studies and retrospective cohort studies. For these non-RCT studies, we considered a minimum total number of 50 participants to be compared as necessary for inclusion. Prioritised outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinical improvement or worsening, quality of life, rate of (serious) adverse events and rate of pneumothorax. Additional outcomes were need for tracheostomy, duration of ICU length of stay and duration of hospitalisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed the methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Two review authors independently screened all studies at the title/abstract and full-text screening stage. We also planned to conduct data extraction and risk of bias assessment in duplicate. We planned to conduct meta-analysis for each prioritised outcome, as well as subgroup analyses of mortality regarding severity of oxygenation impairment and duration of ARDS. In addition, we planned to perform sensitivity analyses for studies at high risk of bias, studies using NMBA in addition to deep sedation level to avoid spontaneous breathing and a comparison of preprints versus peer-reviewed articles. We planned to assess the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no eligible studies for this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no direct evidence on whether early spontaneous breathing in SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS is beneficial or detrimental to this particular group of patients.  RCTs comparing early spontaneous breathing with ventilatory strategies not allowing for spontaneous breathing in SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS are necessary to determine its value within the treatment of severely ill people with COVID-19. Additionally, studies should aim to clarify whether treatment effects differ between people with SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS and people with non-SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS.

Clinical Guideline for Treating Acute Respiratory Insufficiency with Invasive Ventilation and Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Evidence-Based Recommendations for Choosing Modes and Setting Parameters of Mechanical Ventilation.

For patients with acute respiratory insufficiency, mechanical ("invasive") ventilation is a fundamental therapeutic measure to ensure sufficient gas exchange. Despite decades of strong research efforts, central questions on mechanical ventilation therapy are still answered incompletely. Therefore, many different ventilation modes and settings have been used in daily clinical practice without scientifically sound bases. At the same time, implementation of the few evidence-based therapeutic concepts (e.g., "lung protective ventilation") into clinical practice is still insufficient. The aim of our guideline project "Mechanical ventilation and extracorporeal gas exchange in acute respiratory insufficiency" was to develop an evidence-based decision aid for treating patients with and on mechanical ventilation. It covers the whole pathway of invasively ventilated patients (including indications of mechanical ventilation, ventilator settings, additional and rescue therapies, and liberation from mechanical ventilation). To assess the quality of scientific evidence and subsequently derive recommendations, we applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation method. For the first time, using this globally accepted methodological standard, our guideline contains recommendations on mechanical ventilation therapy not only for acute respiratory distress syndrome patients but also for all types of acute respiratory insufficiency. This review presents the two main chapters of the guideline on choosing the mode of mechanical ventilation and setting its parameters. The guideline group aimed that - by thorough implementation of the recommendations - critical care teams may further improve the quality of care for patients suffering from acute respiratory insufficiency. By identifying relevant gaps of scientific evidence, the guideline group intended to support the development of important research projects.

The effects of hemoglobin glutamer-200 and iNO on pulmonary vascular tone and arterial oxygenation in an experimental acute respiratory distress syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers (HBOC) have been developed as an alternative to blood transfusions. Their nitric-oxide-scavenging properties HBOC also induce vasoconstriction. In acute lung injury, an excess of nitric oxide results in a general vasodilation, reducing oxygenation by impairing the hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction. Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) is used to correct the ventilation perfusion mismatch. We hypothesized that the additional use of HBOC might increase this effect. In a rodent model of ARDS we evaluated the combined effect of HBOC and iNO on vascular tone and gas exchange. METHODS: ARDS was induced in anaesthetized Wistar rats by saline lavage and aggressive ventilation. Two groups received either hydroxyethylstarch 10% (HES; n = 10) or the HBOC hemoglobin glutamer-200 (HBOC-200; n = 10) via a central venous infusion. Additionally, both groups received iNO. Monitoring of the right ventricular pressure (RVP) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) was performed with microtip transducers. Arterial oxygenation was measured via arterial blood gas analyses. RESULTS: Application of HBOC-200 led to a significant increase of MAP and RVP when compared to baseline and to the HES group. This effect was reversed by iNO. The application of HBOC and iNO had no effect on the arterial oxygenation over time. No difference in arterial oxygenation was found between the groups. CONCLUSION: Application of HBOC led to an increase of systemic and pulmonary vascular resistance in this animal model of ARDS. The increase in RVP was reversed by iNO. Pulmonary vasoconstriction by hemoglobin glutamer-200 in combination with iNO did not improve arterial oxygenation in ARDS.

Restrictive transfusion practice during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Recommendations concerning the management of hemoglobin levels and hematocrit in patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) still advise maintenance of a normal hematocrit. In contrast, current transfusion guidelines for critically ill patients support restrictive transfusion practice. We report on a series of patients receiving venovenous ECMO (vvECMO) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) treated according to the restrictive transfusion regimen recommended for critically ill patients. We retrospectively analyzed 18 patients receiving vvECMO due to severe ARDS. Hemoglobin concentrations were kept between 7 and 9 g/dL with a transfusion trigger at 7 g/dL or when physiological transfusion triggers were apparent. We assessed baseline data, hospital mortality, time on ECMO, hemoglobin levels, hematocrit, quantities of packed red blood cells received, and lactate concentrations and compared survivors and nonsurvivors. The overall mortality of all patients on vvECMO was 38.9%. Mean hemoglobin concentration over all patients and ECMO days was 8.30 ± 0.51 g/dL, and hematocrit was 0.25 ± 0.01, with no difference between survivors and nonsurvivors. Mean numbers of given PRBCs showed a trend towards higher quantities in the group of nonsurvivors, but the difference was not significant (1.97 ± 1.47 vs. 0.96 ± 0.76 units; P = 0.07). Mean lactate clearance from the first to the third day was 45.4 ± 28.3%, with no significant difference between survivors and nonsurvivors (P = 0.19). In our cohort of patients treated with ECMO due to severe ARDS, the application of a restrictive transfusion protocol did not result in an increased mortality. Safety and feasibility of the application of a restrictive transfusion protocol in patients on ECMO must further be evaluated in randomized controlled trials.

[Social aspects of emergency calls in the rescue service]. / Soziale Aspekte von Einsätzen im Rettungsdienst.

BACKGROUND: Many missions in the preclinical emergency services seem to be triggered by false indications as defined by the Federal State Rescue Act. These emergency calls are often a result of or associated with social issues. Emergency rescue personnel are confronted with social problems and as a result often feel left alone with the problem. AIM: This article promotes the understanding of emergency service personnel for the associations between social problems and health. Solution strategies for frequent social emergencies are described. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This article demonstrates the associations between socioeconomic status, health and disease. Typical indications for missions in which social aspects play an important role are presented and solution strategies for the approach are suggested. A discussion is presented on how to deal with cases of child abuse and domestic violence. Three classical psychiatric problem areas with common social components are explained: psychomotor state of excitation, suicide and alcohol-associated incidents and special attention is paid to danger to third parties and aggressive patients. In addition to the treatment of medical conditions, social problems play an important role particularly for the elderly and chronically ill patients. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Emergency personnel have only limited options for dealing with such problems; however, it is important to be aware of regional structures and non-medical organizations, which might be of help in such situations. These include social services, youth welfare services, crisis interventions teams and social psychiatric services.

Characterization of a double-hit murine model of acute respiratory distress syndrome.

The aim of the present study was to characterize a murine model of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) abiding by the Berlin definition of human ARDS and guidelines for animal models of ARDS. To this end, C57BL/6NCrl mice were challenged with lipopolysaccharide (LPS; 15 mg/kg, i.p.) followed 18 h later by injection of oleic acid (OA; 0.12 mL/kg, i.v.). Controls received saline injection at both time points. Haemodynamics were monitored continuously. Arterial blood gas analyses were performed just before and every 30 min after OA challenge. Ninety minutes after OA challenge, the chest of mice was scanned using micro-computed tomography (CT). Cytokine concentrations were measured in plasma samples. Lungs were harvested 90 min after OA challenge for histology, immunohistochemistry, lung weight measurements and tissue cytokine detection. A histological lung injury score was determined. Eighteen hours after LPS challenge, mice exhibited a severe systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Oxygenation declined significantly after OA injections (Pa o2 /Fi o2 283 ± 73 and 256 ± 71 mmHg at 60 and 90 min, respectively; P < 0.001). Bilateral patchy infiltrates were present on the micro-CT scans. Histology revealed parenchymal damage with accumulation of polymorphonuclear neutrophils, intra-alveolar proteinacous debris and few hyaline membranes. The lung wet : dry ratio indicated damage to the alveolar capillary membrane. Cytokine patterns evidenced a severe local and systemic inflammatory state in plasma and lung tissue. In conclusion, the described two-hit model of ARDS shows a pathological picture of ARDS closely mimicking human ARDS according to the Berlin definition and may facilitate interpretation of prospective experimental results.