Noninvasive Ventilation for Preoxygenation during Emergency Intubation.

BACKGROUND: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, hypoxemia increases the risk of cardiac arrest and death. The effect of preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation, as compared with preoxygenation with an oxygen mask, on the incidence of hypoxemia during tracheal intubation is uncertain. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized trial conducted at 24 emergency departments and intensive care units in the United States, we randomly assigned critically ill adults (age, ≥18 years) undergoing tracheal intubation to receive preoxygenation with either noninvasive ventilation or an oxygen mask. The primary outcome was hypoxemia during intubation, defined by an oxygen saturation of less than 85% during the interval between induction of anesthesia and 2 minutes after tracheal intubation. RESULTS: Among the 1301 patients enrolled, hypoxemia occurred in 57 of 624 patients (9.1%) in the noninvasive-ventilation group and in 118 of 637 patients (18.5%) in the oxygen-mask group (difference, -9.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -13.2 to -5.6; P<0.001). Cardiac arrest occurred in 1 patient (0.2%) in the noninvasive-ventilation group and in 7 patients (1.1%) in the oxygen-mask group (difference, -0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.8 to -0.1). Aspiration occurred in 6 patients (0.9%) in the noninvasive-ventilation group and in 9 patients (1.4%) in the oxygen-mask group (difference, -0.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.6 to 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation resulted in a lower incidence of hypoxemia during intubation than preoxygenation with an oxygen mask. (Funded by the U.S. Department of Defense; PREOXI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05267652.).

The Use of POCUS-Obtained Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter in Intracerebral Hemorrhage.

Background: Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. ICH causes increased intracranial pressure (ICP), leading to brain herniation as the disease progresses. Neurological physical exam and monitoring of the disease progression can be challenging due to the impaired consciousness and routine clinical management in this patient population. Given the continuity of the intracranial cavity with the optic nerve subarachnoid space, an increased ICH leads to distension of the optic nerve sheath. We herein examined the correlation between the ICH volume and the optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) measured by point of care ultrasound (POCUS). Methods: Patients with ICH diagnosed with a head computed tomography (CT) scan were prospectively enrolled in this study. A portable ultrasound was used to measure the (ONSD); the volume of ICH hematoma, the Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation IV score, and the Intracerebral Hemorrhage score were collected. A Spearman rank correlation coefficient test was used to assess the relationship between continuous variables. A Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to assess differences in continuous variables between two groups. A p-value less than 0.05 was deemed as statistically significant. Results: A total of 28 subjects were enrolled. A moderate positive correlation was detected between hemorrhage volume and the average ONSD (correlation = 0.4214, p = 0.0255). A weak positive correlation was detected between average ONSD and APACHE IV (correlation = 0.2347, p = 0.2294). A weak moderate positive correlation was detected between average ONSD and ICH score (correlation = 0.1160, p = 0.5566). Conclusions: In this study we demonstrate that ONSD is moderately correlated with hematoma size. A potential application may include serial measurements of the ONSD with ultrasound. This may offer a quick, non-invasive technique that can be used in an intracerebral hemorrhage to monitor the stability or expansion of a hematoma indirectly, and potentially catch a catastrophic event like cerebral herniation.

Determinants of passive antibody efficacy in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials of passive antibodies as treatment and prophylaxis for COVID-19 have reported variable efficacy. However, the determinants of efficacy have not been identified. We aimed to assess how the dose and timing of administration affect treatment outcome. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we extracted data from published studies of passive antibody treatment from Jan 1, 2019, to Jan 31, 2023, that were identified by searching multiple databases, including MEDLINE, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included only randomised controlled trials of passive antibody administration for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. To compare administered antibody dose between different treatments, we used data on in-vitro neutralisation titres to normalise dose by antibody potency. We used mixed-effects regression and model fitting to analyse the relationship between timing, dose and efficacy. FINDINGS: We found 58 randomised controlled trials that investigated passive antibody therapies for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. Earlier clinical stage at treatment initiation was highly predictive of the efficacy of both monoclonal antibodies (p<0·0001) and convalescent plasma therapy (p=0·030) in preventing progression to subsequent stages, with either prophylaxis or treatment in outpatients showing the greatest effects. For the treatment of outpatients with COVID-19, we found a significant association between the dose administered and efficacy in preventing hospitalisation (relative risk 0·77; p<0·0001). Using this relationship, we predicted that no approved monoclonal antibody was expected to provide more than 30% efficacy against some omicron (B.1.1.529) subvariants, such as BQ.1.1. INTERPRETATION: Early administration before hospitalisation and sufficient doses of passive antibody therapy are crucial to achieving high efficacy in preventing clinical progression. The relationship between dose and efficacy provides a framework for the rational assessment of future passive antibody prophylaxis and treatment strategies for COVID-19. FUNDING: The Australian Government Department of Health, Medical Research Future Fund, National Health and Medical Research Council, the University of New South Wales, Monash University, Haematology Society of Australia and New Zealand, Leukaemia Foundation, and the Victorian Government.

Video versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Tracheal Intubation of Critically Ill Adults.

BACKGROUND: Whether video laryngoscopy as compared with direct laryngoscopy increases the likelihood of successful tracheal intubation on the first attempt among critically ill adults is uncertain. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized trial conducted at 17 emergency departments and intensive care units (ICUs), we randomly assigned critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation to the video-laryngoscope group or the direct-laryngoscope group. The primary outcome was successful intubation on the first attempt. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of severe complications during intubation; severe complications were defined as severe hypoxemia, severe hypotension, new or increased vasopressor use, cardiac arrest, or death. RESULTS: The trial was stopped for efficacy at the time of the single preplanned interim analysis. Among 1417 patients who were included in the final analysis (91.5% of whom underwent intubation that was performed by an emergency medicine resident or a critical care fellow), successful intubation on the first attempt occurred in 600 of the 705 patients (85.1%) in the video-laryngoscope group and in 504 of the 712 patients (70.8%) in the direct-laryngoscope group (absolute risk difference, 14.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.9 to 18.7; P<0.001). A total of 151 patients (21.4%) in the video-laryngoscope group and 149 patients (20.9%) in the direct-laryngoscope group had a severe complication during intubation (absolute risk difference, 0.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.9 to 4.9). Safety outcomes, including esophageal intubation, injury to the teeth, and aspiration, were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation in an emergency department or ICU, the use of a video laryngoscope resulted in a higher incidence of successful intubation on the first attempt than the use of a direct laryngoscope. (Funded by the U.S. Department of Defense; DEVICE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05239195.).

The role of the RAPID score in surgical planning for empyema.

Background: The RAPID [Renal (urea), Age, fluid Purulence, Infection source, Dietary (albumin)] score is a validated scoring system which allows risk stratification in patients with pleural infection at presentation. Surgical intervention plays a key role in managing pleural empyema. Methods: A retrospective study of patients with complicated pleural effusions and/or empyema undergoing thoracoscopic or open decortication admitted to multiple affiliated Texas hospitals from September 1, 2014 to September 30, 2018. The primary outcome was all-cause 90-day mortality. The secondary outcomes were organ failure, length of stay and 30-day readmission rate. The outcomes were compared between early surgery (≤3 days from diagnosis) and late surgery (>3 days from diagnosis) and low [0-3] vs. high [4-7] RAPID scores. Results: We enrolled 182 patients. Late surgery was associated with increased organ failure (64.0% vs. 45.6%, P=0.0197) and longer length of stay (16 vs. 10 days, P<0.0001). High RAPID scores were associated with a higher 90-day mortality (16.3% vs. 2.3%, P=0.0014), and organ failure (81.6% vs. 49.6%, P=0.0001). High RAPID scores with early surgery were associated with higher 90-day mortality (21.4% vs. 0%, P=0.0124), organ failure (78.6% vs. 34.9%, P=0.0044), 30-day readmission (50.0% vs. 16.3%, P=0.027) and length of stay (16 vs. 9 days, P=0.0064). High vs. low RAPID scores with late surgery was associated with a higher rate of organ failure (82.9% vs. 56.7%, P=0.0062), but there was not a significant association with mortality. Conclusions: We found a significant association between RAPID scores and surgical timing with new organ failure. Patients with complicated pleural effusions who had early surgery and low RAPID scores experienced better outcomes including decreased length of stay and organ failure compared with those who had late surgery and low RAPID scores. This suggests that using the RAPID score may help identify those who would benefit from early surgery.

Protocol and statistical analysis plan for the PREOXI trial of preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation vs oxygen mask.

Background: Hypoxemia is a common and life-threatening complication during emergency tracheal intubation of critically ill adults. The administration of supplemental oxygen prior to the procedure ("preoxygenation") decreases the risk of hypoxemia during intubation. Research Question: Whether preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation prevents hypoxemia during tracheal intubation of critically ill adults, compared to preoxygenation with oxygen mask, remains uncertain. Study Design and Methods: The PRagmatic trial Examining OXygenation prior to Intubation (PREOXI) is a prospective, multicenter, non-blinded randomized comparative effectiveness trial being conducted in 7 emergency departments and 17 intensive care units across the United States. The trial compares preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation versus oxygen mask among 1300 critically ill adults undergoing emergency tracheal intubation. Eligible patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either noninvasive ventilation or an oxygen mask prior to induction. The primary outcome is the incidence of hypoxemia, defined as a peripheral oxygen saturation <85% between induction and 2 minutes after intubation. The secondary outcome is the lowest oxygen saturation between induction and 2 minutes after intubation. Enrollment began on 10 March 2022 and is expected to conclude in 2023. Interpretation: The PREOXI trial will provide important data on the effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation and oxygen mask preoxygenation for the prevention of hypoxemia during emergency tracheal intubation. Specifying the protocol and statistical analysis plan prior to the conclusion of enrollment increases the rigor, reproducibility, and interpretability of the trial. Clinical trial registration number: NCT05267652.

Weekly updating of guideline recommendations was feasible: the Australian National COVID-19 clinical evidence Taskforce.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate how quickly evidence was incorporated into the Australian living guidelines for COVID-19 during the first 12 months of the pandemic. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: For each study concerning drug therapies included in the guideline from April 3, 2020 to April 1, 2021, we extracted the publication date of the study, and the guideline version the study was included in. We analyzed two subgroups of studies as follows: those published in high impact factor journals and those with 100 or more participants. RESULTS: In the first year, we published 37 major versions of the guidelines, incorporating 129 studies that investigated 48 drug therapies informing 115 recommendations. The median time from first publication of a study to incorporation in the guideline was 27 days (interquartile range [IQR], 16 to 44), ranging from 9 to 234 days. For the 53 studies in the highest impact factor journals, the median was 20 days (IQR 15 to 30), and for the 71 studies with 100 or more participants the median was 22 days (IQR 15 to 36). CONCLUSION: Developing and sustaining living guidelines where evidence is rapidly incorporated is a resource- and time-intensive undertaking; however, this study demonstrates that it is feasible, even over a long period.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 1: Introduction.

OBJECTIVES: To introduce methods for living guidelines based on practical experiences by the Australian Living Evidence Consortium (ALEC), the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), with methodological support from the US Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) Network. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Members of ALEC, NICE, and the US GRADE Network, convened a working group to share experiences of the methods used to develop living guidelines and outline the key differences between traditional and living guidelines methods. RESULTS: The guidance includes the following steps: 1) deciding if the guideline is a priority for a living approach, 2) preparing for living guideline development, 3) literature surveillance and frequency of searching, 4) assessment and synthesis of the evidence, 5) publication and dissemination, and 6) transitioning recommendations out of living mode. CONCLUSION: This paper introduces methods for living guidelines and provides examples of the similarities and differences in approach across multiple organizations conducting living guidelines. It also introduces a series of papers exploring methods for living guidelines based on our practical experiences, including consumer involvement, selecting and prioritizing questions, search decisions, and methods decisions.

DirEct versus VIdeo LaryngosCopE (DEVICE): protocol and statistical analysis plan for a randomised clinical trial in critically ill adults undergoing emergency tracheal intubation.

INTRODUCTION: Among critically ill patients undergoing orotracheal intubation in the emergency department (ED) or intensive care unit (ICU), failure to visualise the vocal cords and intubate the trachea on the first attempt is associated with an increased risk of complications. Two types of laryngoscopes are commonly available: direct laryngoscopes and video laryngoscopes. For critically ill adults undergoing emergency tracheal intubation, it remains uncertain whether the use of a video laryngoscope increases the incidence of successful intubation on the first attempt compared with the use of a direct laryngoscope. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The DirEct versus VIdeo LaryngosCopE (DEVICE) trial is a prospective, multicentre, non-blinded, randomised trial being conducted in 7 EDs and 10 ICUs in the USA. The trial plans to enrol up to 2000 critically ill adults undergoing orotracheal intubation with a laryngoscope. Eligible patients are randomised 1:1 to the use of a video laryngoscope or a direct laryngoscope for the first intubation attempt. The primary outcome is successful intubation on the first attempt. The secondary outcome is the incidence of severe complications between induction and 2 min after intubation, defined as the occurrence of one or more of the following: severe hypoxaemia (lowest oxygen saturation <80%); severe hypotension (systolic blood pressure <65 mm Hg or new or increased vasopressor administration); cardiac arrest or death. Enrolment began on 19 March 2022 and is expected to be completed in 2023. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial protocol was approved with waiver of informed consent by the single institutional review board at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and the Human Research Protection Office of the Department of Defense. The results will be presented at scientific conferences and submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT05239195).

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 5: decisions on methods for evidence synthesis and recommendation development for living guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: Producing living guidelines requires making important decisions about methods for evidence identification, appraisal, and integration to allow the living mode to function. Clarifying what these decisions are and the trade-offs between options is necessary. This article provides living guideline developers with a framework to enable them to choose the most suitable model for their living guideline topic, question, or context. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We developed this guidance through an iterative process informed by interviews, feedback, and a consensus process with an international group of living guideline developers. RESULTS: Several key decisions need to be made both before commencing and throughout the continual process of living guideline development and maintenance. These include deciding what approach is taken to the systematic review process; decisions about methods to be applied for the evidence appraisal process, including the use of unpublished data; and selection of "triggers" to incorporate new studies into living guideline recommendations. In each case, there are multiple options and trade-offs. CONCLUSION: We identify trade-offs and important decisions to be considered throughout the living guideline development process. The most appropriate, and most sustainable, mode of development and updating will be dependent on the choices made in each of these areas.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 2: consumer engagement in living guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: To describe and reflect on the consumer engagement approaches used in five living guidelines from the perspectives of consumers (i.e., patients, carers, the public, and their representatives) and guideline developers. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In a descriptive report, we used a template to capture engagement approaches and the experiences of consumers and guideline developers in living guidelines in Australia and the United Kingdom. Responses were summarized using descriptive synthesis. RESULTS: One guideline used a Consumer Panel, three included two to three consumers in the guideline development group, and one did both. Much of our experience was common to all guidelines (e.g., consumers felt welcomed but that their role initially lacked clarity). We identified six challenges and opportunities specific to living guidelines: managing the flow of work; managing engagement in online environments; managing membership of the panel; facilitating more flexibility, variety and depth in engagement; recruiting for specific skills-although these can be built over time; developing living processes to improve; and adapting consumer engagement together. CONCLUSION: Consumer engagement in living guidelines should follow established principles of consumer engagement in guidelines. Conceiving the engagement as living, underpinned by a living process evaluation, allows the approach to be developed with consumers over time.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 3: selecting and prioritizing questions for living guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: This article is part of a series on methods for living guidelines, consolidating practical experiences from developing living guidelines. It focuses on methods for identification, selection, and prioritization of clinical questions for a living approach to guideline development. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Members of the Australian Living Evidence Consortium, the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence and the US Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Network, convened a working group. All members have expertize and practical experience in the development of living guidelines. We collated methods, documents on prioritization from each organization's living guidelines, conducted interviews and held working group discussions. We consolidated these to form best practice principles which were then edited and agreed on by the working group members. RESULTS: We developed best practice principles for (1) identification, (2) selection, and (3) prioritization, of questions for a living approach to guideline development. Several different strategies for undertaking prioritizing questions are explored. CONCLUSION: The article provides guidance for prioritizing questions in living guidelines. Subsequent articles in this series explore consumer involvement, search decisions, and methods decisions that are appropriate for questions with different priority levels.

Daily Oxygenation Support for Patients Hospitalized With SARS-CoV-2 in an Integrated Health System.

BACKGROUND: Many COVID-19 studies are constructed to report hospitalization outcomes, with few large multi-center population-based reports on the time course of intra-hospitalization characteristics, including daily oxygenation support requirements. Comprehensive epidemiologic profiles of oxygenation methods used by day and by week during hospitalization across all severities are important to illustrate the clinical and economic burden of COVID-19 hospitalizations. METHODS: This was a retrospective, multi-center observational cohort study of 15,361 consecutive hospitalizations of patients with COVID-19 at 25 adult acute care hospitals in Texas participating in the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Respiratory Illness Universal Study COVID-19 registry. RESULTS: At initial hospitalization, the majority required nasal cannula (44.0%), with an increasing proportion of invasive mechanical ventilation in the first week and particularly the weeks to follow. After 4 weeks of acute illness, 69.9% of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 required intermediate (eg, high-flow nasal cannula, noninvasive ventilation) or advanced respiratory support (ie, invasive mechanical ventilation), with similar proportions that extended to hospitalizations that lasted ≥ 6 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Data representation of intra-hospital processes of care drawn from hospitals with varied size, teaching and trauma designations is important to presenting a balanced perspective of care delivery mechanisms employed, such as daily oxygen method utilization.

The National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce: pregnancy and perinatal guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: Pregnant women are at higher risk of severe illness from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) than non-pregnant women of a similar age. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, it was clear that evidenced-based guidance was needed, and that it would need to be updated rapidly. The National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce provided a resource to guide care for people with COVID-19, including during pregnancy. Care for pregnant and breastfeeding women and their babies was included as a priority when the Taskforce was set up, with a Pregnancy and Perinatal Care Panel convened to guide clinical practice. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: As of May 2022, the Taskforce has made seven specific recommendations on care for pregnant women and those who have recently given birth. This includes supporting usual practices for the mode of birth, umbilical cord clamping, skin-to-skin contact, breastfeeding, rooming-in, and using antenatal corticosteroids and magnesium sulfate as clinically indicated. There are 11 recommendations for COVID-19-specific treatments, including conditional recommendations for using remdesivir, tocilizumab and sotrovimab. Finally, there are recommendations not to use several disease-modifying treatments for the treatment of COVID-19, including hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. The recommendations are continually updated to reflect new evidence, and the most up-to-date guidance is available online (https://covid19evidence.net.au). CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT RESULTING FROM THE GUIDELINES: The National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce has been a critical component of the infrastructure to support Australian maternity care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Taskforce has shown that a rapid living guidelines approach is feasible and acceptable.

Care for adults with COVID-19: living guidelines from the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce.

INTRODUCTION: The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce was established in March 2020 to maintain up-to-date recommendations for the treatment of people with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The original guideline (April 2020) has been continuously updated and expanded from nine to 176 recommendations, facilitated by the rapid identification, appraisal, and analysis of clinical trial findings and subsequent review by expert panels. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: In this article, we describe the recommendations for treating non-pregnant adults with COVID-19, as current on 1 August 2022 (version 61.0). The Taskforce has made specific recommendations for adults with severe/critical or mild disease, including definitions of disease severity, recommendations for therapy, COVID-19 prophylaxis, respiratory support, and supportive care. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THE GUIDELINE: The Taskforce currently recommends eight drug treatments for people with COVID-19 who do not require supplemental oxygen (inhaled corticosteroids, casirivimab/imdevimab, molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, regdanvimab, remdesivir, sotrovimab, tixagevimab/cilgavimab) and six for those who require supplemental oxygen (systemic corticosteroids, remdesivir, tocilizumab, sarilumab, baricitinib, casirivimab/imdevimab). Based on evidence of their achieving no or only limited benefit, ten drug treatments or treatment combinations are not recommended; an additional 42 drug treatments should only be used in the context of randomised trials. Additional recommendations include support for the use of continuous positive airway pressure, prone positioning, and endotracheal intubation in patients whose condition is deteriorating, and prophylactic anticoagulation for preventing venous thromboembolism. The latest updates and full recommendations are available at www.covid19evidence.net.au.

Effect of Fluid Bolus Administration on Cardiovascular Collapse Among Critically Ill Patients Undergoing Tracheal Intubation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Hypotension is common during tracheal intubation of critically ill adults and increases the risk of cardiac arrest and death. Whether administering an intravenous fluid bolus to critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation prevents severe hypotension, cardiac arrest, or death remains uncertain. Objective: To determine the effect of fluid bolus administration on the incidence of severe hypotension, cardiac arrest, and death. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial enrolled 1067 critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation with sedation and positive pressure ventilation at 11 intensive care units in the US between February 1, 2019, and May 24, 2021. The date of final follow-up was June 21, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either a 500-mL intravenous fluid bolus (n = 538) or no fluid bolus (n = 527). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was cardiovascular collapse (defined as new or increased receipt of vasopressors or a systolic blood pressure <65 mm Hg between induction of anesthesia and 2 minutes after tracheal intubation, or cardiac arrest or death between induction of anesthesia and 1 hour after tracheal intubation). The secondary outcome was the incidence of death prior to day 28, which was censored at hospital discharge. Results: Among 1067 patients randomized, 1065 (99.8%) completed the trial and were included in the primary analysis (median age, 62 years [IQR, 51-70 years]; 42.1% were women). Cardiovascular collapse occurred in 113 patients (21.0%) in the fluid bolus group and in 96 patients (18.2%) in the no fluid bolus group (absolute difference, 2.8% [95% CI, -2.2% to 7.7%]; P = .25). New or increased receipt of vasopressors occurred in 20.6% of patients in the fluid bolus group compared with 17.6% of patients in the no fluid bolus group, a systolic blood pressure of less than 65 mm Hg occurred in 3.9% vs 4.2%, respectively, cardiac arrest occurred in 1.7% vs 1.5%, and death occurred in 0.7% vs 0.6%. Death prior to day 28 (censored at hospital discharge) occurred in 218 patients (40.5%) in the fluid bolus group compared with 223 patients (42.3%) in the no fluid bolus group (absolute difference, -1.8% [95% CI, -7.9% to 4.3%]; P = .55). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, administration of an intravenous fluid bolus compared with no fluid bolus did not significantly decrease the incidence of cardiovascular collapse. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03787732.

Bowel perforation in morbid obesity secondary to COVID-19 infection.

The pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 is unique in the different pathways the virus utilizes to induce severe systemic inflammation, leading to a higher potential for critical care requirements and a poorer prognosis. Although there are several risk factors for the development of severe infection, one associated with poorer outcome is obesity. In this report, we present a case of bowel perforation in an obese patient with severe COVID-19 infection.

Care of older people and people requiring palliative care with COVID-19: guidance from the Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce.

INTRODUCTION: Older people living with frailty and/or cognitive impairment who have coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) experience higher rates of critical illness. There are also people who become critically ill with COVID-19 for whom a decision is made to take a palliative approach to their care. The need for clinical guidance in these two populations resulted in the formation of the Care of Older People and Palliative Care Panel of the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce in June 2020. This specialist panel consists of nursing, medical, pharmacy and allied health experts in geriatrics and palliative care from across Australia. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: The panel was tasked with developing two clinical flow charts for the management of people with COVID-19 who are i) older and living with frailty and/or cognitive impairment, and ii) receiving palliative care for COVID-19 or other underlying illnesses. The flow charts focus on goals of care, communication, medication management, escalation of care, active disease-directed care, and managing symptoms such as delirium, anxiety, agitation, breathlessness or cough. The Taskforce also developed living guideline recommendations for the care of adults with COVID-19, including a commentary to discuss special considerations when caring for older people and those requiring palliative care. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS RESULT OF THE GUIDELINE: The practice points in the flow charts emphasise quality clinical care, with a focus on addressing the most important challenges when caring for older individuals and people with COVID-19 requiring palliative care. The adult recommendations contain additional considerations for the care of older people and those requiring palliative care.