Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis during Invasive Mechanical Ventilation.

BACKGROUND: Whether proton-pump inhibitors are beneficial or harmful for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients undergoing invasive ventilation is unclear. METHODS: In this international, randomized trial, we assigned critically ill adults who were undergoing invasive ventilation to receive intravenous pantoprazole (at a dose of 40 mg daily) or matching placebo. The primary efficacy outcome was clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the intensive care unit (ICU) at 90 days, and the primary safety outcome was death from any cause at 90 days. Multiplicity-adjusted secondary outcomes included ventilator-associated pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile infection, and patient-important bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 4821 patients underwent randomization in 68 ICUs. Clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in 25 of 2385 patients (1.0%) receiving pantoprazole and in 84 of 2377 patients (3.5%) receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19 to 0.47; P<0.001). At 90 days, death was reported in 696 of 2390 patients (29.1%) in the pantoprazole group and in 734 of 2379 patients (30.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.04; P = 0.25). Patient-important bleeding was reduced with pantoprazole; all other secondary outcomes were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing invasive ventilation, pantoprazole resulted in a significantly lower risk of clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding than placebo, with no significant effect on mortality. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; REVISE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03374800.).

Antipsychotics in the Treatment of Delirium in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing whether the use of antipsychotic medications in critically ill adult patients with delirium impacts patient-important outcomes. DATA SOURCES: A medical librarian searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, APA PsycInfo, and Wiley's Cochrane Library as well as clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to November 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Independently and in duplicate, reviewers screened abstracts and titles for eligibility, then full text of qualifying studies. We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included critically ill adult patients with delirium. The intervention group was required to receive antipsychotic medications at any dose, whereas the control group received usual care or placebo. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers extracted data independently and in duplicate using a piloted abstraction form. Statistical analyses were conducted using RevMan software (version 5.4). DATA SYNTHESIS: Five RCTs ( n = 1750) met eligibility criteria. The use of antipsychotic medications compared with placebo did not increase the number of delirium- or coma-free days (mean difference 0.90 d; 95% CI, -0.32 to 2.12; moderate certainty), nor did it result in a difference in mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU, or hospital length of stay. The use of antipsychotics did not result in an increased risk of adverse events (risk ratio 1.27; 95% CI, 0.71-2.30; high certainty). Subgroup analysis of typical versus atypical antipsychotics did not identify any subgroup effect for any outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated with moderate certainty that there is no difference in delirium- or coma-free days when delirious critically ill adults are treated with antipsychotic medications. Further studies in the subset of patients with hyperactive delirium may be of benefit.

Society of Critical Care Medicine and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists Guideline for the Prevention of Stress-Related Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Critically Ill Adults.

RATIONALE: Critically ill adults can develop stress-related mucosal damage from gastrointestinal hypoperfusion and reperfusion injury, predisposing them to clinically important stress-related upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). OBJECTIVES: The objective of this guideline was to develop evidence-based recommendations for the prevention of UGIB in adults in the ICU. DESIGN: A multiprofessional panel of 18 international experts from dietetics, critical care medicine, nursing, and pharmacy, and two methodologists developed evidence-based recommendations in alignment with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Conflict-of-interest policies were strictly followed during all phases of guideline development including task force selection and voting. METHODS: The panel members identified and formulated 13 Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome questions. We conducted a systematic review for each question to identify the best available evidence, statistically analyzed the evidence, and then assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate the recommendations. Good practice statements were included to provide additional guidance. RESULTS: The panel generated nine conditional recommendations and made four good practice statements. Factors that likely increase the risk for clinically important stress-related UGIB in critically ill adults include coagulopathy, shock, and chronic liver disease. There is no firm evidence for mechanical ventilation alone being a risk factor. Enteral nutrition probably reduces UGIB risk. All critically ill adults with factors that likely increase the risk for stress-related UGIB should receive either proton pump inhibitors or histamine-2 receptor antagonists, at low dosage regimens, to prevent UGIB. Prophylaxis should be discontinued when critical illness is no longer evident or the risk factor(s) is no longer present despite ongoing critical illness. Discontinuation of stress ulcer prophylaxis before transfer out of the ICU is necessary to prevent inappropriate prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: The guideline panel achieved consensus regarding the recommendations for the prevention of stress-related UGIB. These recommendations are intended for consideration along with the patient's existing clinical status.

Protocol implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic: experiences from a randomized trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many intensive care units (ICUs) halted research to focus on COVID-19-specific studies. OBJECTIVE: To describe the conduct of an international randomized trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis (Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions in the ICU [REVISE]) during the pandemic, addressing enrolment patterns, center engagement, informed consent processes, data collection, a COVID-specific substudy, patient transfers, and data monitoring. METHODS: REVISE is a randomized trial among mechanically ventilated patients, comparing pantoprazole 40 mg IV to placebo on the primary efficacy outcome of clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding and the primary safety outcome of 90-day mortality. We documented protocol implementation status from March 11th 2020-August 30th 2022. RESULTS: The Steering Committee did not change the scientific protocol. From the first enrolment on July 9th 2019 to March 10th 2020 (8 months preceding the pandemic), 267 patients were enrolled in 18 centers. From March 11th 2020-August 30th 2022 (30 months thereafter), 41 new centers joined; 59 were participating by August 30th 2022 which enrolled 2961 patients. During a total of 1235 enrolment-months in the pandemic phase, enrolment paused for 106 (8.6%) months in aggregate (median 3 months, interquartile range 2;6). Protocol implementation involved a shift from the a priori consent model pre-pandemic (188, 58.8%) to the consent to continue model (1615, 54.1%, p < 0.01). In one new center, an opt-out model was approved. The informed consent rate increased slightly (80.7% to 85.0%, p = 0.05). Telephone consent encounters increased (16.6% to 68.2%, p < 0.001). Surge capacity necessitated intra-institutional transfers; receiving centers continued protocol implementation whenever possible. We developed a nested COVID-19 substudy. The Methods Centers continued central statistical monitoring of trial metrics. Site monitoring was initially remote, then in-person when restrictions lifted. CONCLUSION: Protocol implementation adaptations during the pandemic included a shift in the consent model, a sustained high consent rate, and launch of a COVID-19 substudy. Recruitment increased as new centers joined, patient transfers were optimized, and monitoring methods were adapted.

Ketamine Analgo-sedation for Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Adults: A Rapid Practice Guideline from the Saudi Critical Care Society and the Scandinavian Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine.

BACKGROUND: This Rapid Practice Guideline (RPG) aimed to provide evidence­based recommendations for ketamine analgo-sedation (monotherapy and adjunct) versus non-ketamine sedatives or usual care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients on invasive mechanical ventilation (iMV) and to identify knowledge gaps for future research. METHODS: The RPG panel comprised 23 multinational multidisciplinary panelists, including a patient representative. An up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis constituted the evidence base. The Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, and the evidence-to-decision framework were used to assess the certainty of evidence and to move from evidence to decision/recommendation. The panel provided input on the balance of the desirable and undesirable effects, certainty of evidence, patients' values and preferences, costs, resources, equity, feasibility, acceptability, and research priorities. RESULTS: Data from 17 randomized clinical trials (n=898) and 9 observational studies (n=1934) were included. There was considerable uncertainty about the desirable and undesirable effects of ketamine monotherapy for analgo-sedation. The evidence was very low certainty and downgraded for risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency. Uncertainty or variability in values and preferences were identified. Costs, resources, equity, and acceptability were considered varied. Adjunctive ketamine therapy had no effect on mortality (within 28 days) (relative risk [RR] 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76 to 1.27; low certainty), and may slightly reduce iMV duration (days) (mean difference [MD] -0.05 days; 95% CI -0.07 to -0.03; low certainty), and uncertain effect on the cumulative dose of opioids (mcg/kg/h morphine equivalent) (MD -11.6; 95% CI -20.4 to -2.7; very low certainty). Uncertain desirable effects (cumulative dose of sedatives and vasopressors) and undesirable effects (adverse event rate, delirium, arrhythmia, hepatotoxicity, hypersalivation, use of physical restraints) were also identified. A possibility of important uncertainty or variability in patient-important outcomes led to a balanced effect that favored neither the intervention nor the comparison. Cost, resources, and equity were considered varied. CONCLUSION: The RPG panel provided two conditional recommendations and suggested (1) against using ketamine as monotherapy analgo-sedation in critically ill adults on iMV when other analgo-sedatives are available; and (2) using ketamine as an adjunct to non-ketamine usual care sedatives (e.g., opioids, propofol, dexmedetomidine) or continuing with non-ketamine usual care sedatives alone. Large-scale trials should provide additional evidence.

GRADE pearls and pitfalls-Part 1: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach is used to assess the certainty of evidence in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. METHODS: We describe how the GRADE approach is used in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, including key points and examples. This overview is aimed at clinicians and researchers who are, or plan to be, involved in the development or assessment of systematic reviews with meta-analyses using GRADE. RESULTS: We outline how the certainty of evidence is assessed, how the evidence is summarized using GRADE evidence profiles or summary of findings tables, how the results are communicated, and we discuss challenges, advantages, and disadvantages with using GRADE. CONCLUSIONS: This overview aims to provide an overview of how GRADE is used in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and may be used by systematic review developers, methodologists, and evidence end-users.

GRADE pearls and pitfalls-Part 2: Clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach is the de facto standard framework for summarising evidence in systematic reviews and developing recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: We describe how the GRADE approach is used in clinical practice guidelines, including key points and examples. The intended audience of this overview of GRADE is clinicians and researchers who are, or plan to be, involved in the development or assessment of clinical practice guidelines. RESULTS: We cover guideline endorsement and adaptation; guideline panels and sponsors; conflicts of interest; guideline questions and outcome prioritisation; systematic review creation, updating and re-use; rating the overall certainty of evidence; development of recommendations and implications; and peer review, publication, implementation and updating of guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: This overview aims to help developers, assessors and users of clinical practice guidelines understand how trustworthy, high-quality guidelines are developed using the GRADE approach.

Prokinetic agents in adult intensive care unit patients (PATIENCE)-An international inception cohort study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Feeding intolerance is common in critically ill patients and can lead to malnutrition. Prokinetic agents may be used to enhance the uptake of nutrition. However, the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of prokinetic agents is sparse, and there is a lack of data on their use in intensive care units (ICU). METHODS: We will conduct an international 14-day inception cohort study of 1000 acutely admitted adult ICU patients. Data will be collected from ICU admission and daily during ICU stay for up to 90 days. The primary outcome will be the proportion of ICU patients who receive prokinetic agents. Secondary outcomes include mortality, days alive without life support, days alive out of ICU, days alive out of hospital (all within 90 days) and the number of patients with one or more serious adverse events. RESULTS: We will present data on the use of prokinetic agents descriptively and use Cox regressions with death and ICU discharge as competing events to evaluate the association between patient characteristics and the use of prokinetic agents. We will use extended Cox models with time-varying covariates and linear regression models to assess the associations between the use of prokinetic agents and the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: The outlined international cohort study will provide valuable epidemiological data on the use of prokinetic agents in adult, acutely admitted ICU patients.

Small-volume blood sample collection tubes in adult intensive care units: A rapid practice guideline.

BACKGROUND: This Intensive Care Medicine Rapid Practice Guideline (ICM-RPG) provides an evidence-based recommendation to address the question: in adult patients in intensive care units (ICUs), should we use small-volume or conventional blood collection tubes? METHODS: We included 23 panelists in 8 countries and assessed and managed financial and intellectual conflicts of interest. Methodological support was provided by the Guidelines in Intensive Care, Development, and Evaluation (GUIDE) group. We conducted a systematic review, including evidence from observational and randomized studies. Using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, we evaluated the certainty of evidence and developed recommendations using the Evidence-to-Decision framework. RESULTS: We identified 8 studies (1 cluster and 2 patient-level randomized trials; 5 observational studies) comparing small-volume to conventional tubes. We had high certainty evidence that small-volume tubes reduce daily and cumulative blood sampling volume; and moderate certainty evidence that they reduce the risk of transfusion and mean number of red blood cell units transfused, but these estimates were limited by imprecision. We had high certainty that small-volume tubes have a similar rate of specimens with insufficient quantity. The panel considered that the desirable effects of small-volume tubes outweigh the undesirable effects, are less wasteful of resources, and are feasible, as demonstrated by successful implementation across multiple countries, although there are upfront implementation costs to validate small-volume tubes on laboratory instrumentation. CONCLUSION: This ICM-RPG panel made a strong recommendation for the use of small-volume sample collection tubes in adult ICUs based on overall moderate certainty evidence.

Higher versus lower oxygenation targets in adult ICU patients: A rapid practice guideline.

The aim of this Intensive Care Medicine Rapid Practice Guideline (ICM-RPG) was to provide evidence-based clinical guidance about the use of higher versus lower oxygenation targets for adult patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). The guideline panel comprised 27 international panelists, including content experts, ICU clinicians, methodologists, and patient representatives. We adhered to the methodology for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines, including the use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of evidence, and used the Evidence-to-Decision framework to generate recommendations. A recently published updated systematic review and meta-analysis constituted the evidence base. Through teleconferences and web-based discussions, the panel provided input on the balance and magnitude of the desirable and undesirable effects, the certainty of evidence, patients' values and preferences, costs and resources, equity, feasibility, acceptability, and research priorities. The updated systematic review and meta-analysis included data from 17 randomized clinical trials with 10,248 participants. There was little to no difference between the use of higher versus lower oxygenation targets for all outcomes with available data, including all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, stroke, functional outcomes, cognition, and health-related quality of life (very low certainty of evidence). The panel felt that values and preferences, costs and resources, and equity favored the use of lower oxygenation targets. The ICM-RPG panel issued one conditional recommendation against the use of higher oxygenation targets: "We suggest against the routine use of higher oxygenation targets in adult ICU patients (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). Remark: an oxygenation target of SpO2 88%-92% or PaO2 8 kPa/60 mmHg is relevant and safe for most adult ICU patients."

Ketamine analgo-sedation for mechanically ventilated critically ill adults: A rapid practice guideline from the Saudi Critical Care Society and the Scandinavian Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine.

BACKGROUND: This Rapid Practice Guideline (RPG) aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for ketamine analgo-sedation (monotherapy and adjunct) versus non-ketamine sedatives or usual care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients on invasive mechanical ventilation (iMV) and to identify knowledge gaps for future research. METHODS: The RPG panel comprised 23 multinational multidisciplinary panelists, including a patient representative. An up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis constituted the evidence base. The Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, and the evidence-to-decision framework were used to assess the certainty of evidence and to move from evidence to decision/recommendation. The panel provided input on the balance of the desirable and undesirable effects, certainty of evidence, patients' values and preferences, costs, resources, equity, feasibility, acceptability, and research priorities. RESULTS: Data from 17 randomized clinical trials (n = 898) and nine observational studies (n = 1934) were included. There was considerable uncertainty about the desirable and undesirable effects of ketamine monotherapy for analgo-sedation. The evidence was very low certainty and downgraded for risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency. Uncertainty or variability in values and preferences were identified. Costs, resources, equity, and acceptability were considered varied. Adjunctive ketamine therapy had no effect on mortality (within 28 days) (relative risk [RR] 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76 to 1.27; low certainty), and may slightly reduce iMV duration (days) (mean difference [MD] -0.05 days; 95% CI -0.07 to -0.03; low certainty), and uncertain effect on the cumulative dose of opioids (mcg/kg/h morphine equivalent) (MD -11.6; 95% CI -20.4 to -2.7; very low certainty). Uncertain desirable effects (cumulative dose of sedatives and vasopressors) and undesirable effects (adverse event rate, delirium, arrhythmia, hepatotoxicity, hypersalivation, use of physical restraints) were also identified. A possibility of important uncertainty or variability in patient-important outcomes led to a balanced effect that favored neither the intervention nor the comparison. Cost, resources, and equity were considered varied. CONCLUSION: The RPG panel provided two conditional recommendations and suggested (1) against using ketamine as monotherapy analgo-sedation in critically ill adults on iMV when other analgo-sedatives are available; and (2) using ketamine as an adjunct to non-ketamine usual care sedatives (e.g., opioids, propofol, dexmedetomidine) or continuing with non-ketamine usual care sedatives alone. Large-scale trials should provide additional evidence.

A Canadian survey of perceptions and practices related to ordering of blood tests in the intensive care unit.

PURPOSE: The ordering of routine blood test panels in advance is common in intensive care units (ICUs), with limited consideration of the pretest probability of finding abnormalities. This practice contributes to anemia, false positive results, and health care costs. We sought to understand practices and attitudes of Canadian adult intensivists regarding ordering of blood tests in critically ill patients. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide Canadian cross-sectional survey consisting of 15 questions assessing three domains (global perceptions, test ordering, daily practice), plus 11 demographic questions. The target sample was one intensivist per adult ICU in Canada. We summarized responses using descriptive statistics and present data as mean with standard deviation (SD) or count with percentage as appropriate. RESULTS: Over seven months, 80/131 (61%) physicians responded from 77 ICUs, 50% of which were from Ontario. Respondents had a mean (SD) clinical experience of 12 (9) years, and 61% worked in academic centres. When asked about their perceptions of how frequently unnecessary blood tests are ordered, 61% responded "sometimes" and 23% responded "almost always." Fifty-seven percent favoured ordering complete blood counts one day in advance. Only 24% of respondents believed that advanced blood test ordering frequently led to changes in management. The most common factors perceived to influence blood test ordering in the ICU were physician preferences, institutional patterns, and order sets. CONCLUSION: Most respondents to this survey perceived that unnecessary blood testing occurs in the ICU. The survey identified possible strategies to decrease the number of blood tests.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: La prescription à l'avance de tests sanguins de routine est courante dans les unités de soins intensifs (USI), avec une prise en compte limitée de la probabilité de découverte d'anomalies avant le test. Cette pratique contribue à l'anémie, aux résultats faussement positifs et aux coûts des soins de santé. Nous avons cherché à comprendre les pratiques et les attitudes des intensivistes pour adultes au Canada en ce qui concerne la prescription d'analyses sanguines chez la patientèle gravement malade. MéTHODE: Nous avons mené un sondage transversal à l'échelle nationale au Canada en posant 15 questions évaluant trois domaines (perceptions globales, commande de tests, pratique quotidienne), ainsi que 11 questions démographiques. L'échantillon cible était composé d'un·e intensiviste par unité de soins intensifs pour adultes au Canada. Nous avons résumé les réponses à l'aide de statistiques descriptives et présenté les données sous forme de moyennes avec écarts type (ET) ou de dénombrements avec pourcentages, selon le cas. RéSULTATS: Sur une période de sept mois, 80 médecins sur 131 (61%) ont répondu dans 77 unités de soins intensifs, dont 50% en Ontario. Les répondant·es avaient une expérience clinique moyenne (ET) de 12 (9) ans, et 61% travaillaient dans des centres universitaires. Lorsqu'on leur a demandé ce qu'ils ou elles pensaient de la fréquence à laquelle des tests sanguins inutiles étaient prescrits, 61% ont répondu « parfois ¼ et 23% ont répondu « presque toujours ¼. Cinquante-sept pour cent étaient en faveur de la réalisation d'une formule sanguine complète un jour à l'avance. Seulement 24% des personnes interrogées estimaient que la prescription de tests sanguins à l'avance entraînait fréquemment des changements dans la prise en charge. Les facteurs les plus souvent perçus comme influençant la prescription d'analyses sanguines à l'unité de soins intensifs étaient les préférences des médecins, les habitudes institutionnelles et les ensembles d'ordonnances. CONCLUSION: La plupart des répondant·es à ce sondage ont l'impression que des tests sanguins inutiles sont prescrits aux soins intensifs. L'enquête a permis d'identifier des stratégies possibles pour réduire le nombre de tests sanguins.

Mean Arterial Pressure Targets and Patient-Important Outcomes in Critically Ill Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether targeting a higher mean arterial pressure (MAP) compared with a lower MAP in adults with shock results in differences in patient important outcomes. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov through May 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Titles and abstracts were screened independently and in duplicate to identify potentially eligible studies, then full text for final eligibility. We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials in adult patients with a diagnosis of shock requiring vasoactive medications. The higher MAP group was required to receive vasoactive medications to target a higher MAP as established by study authors, whereas the lower MAP group received vasoactive medications to target lower MAP. DATA EXTRACTION: In triplicate, reviewers independently extracted data using a prepiloted abstraction form. Statistical analyses were conducted using the RevMan software Version 5.3. DATA SYNTHESIS: Six randomized controlled trials (n = 3,690) met eligibility criteria. Targeting a higher MAP (75-85 mm Hg) compared with lower MAP of 65 mm Hg resulted in no difference in mortality (relative risk [RR], 1.06; 95% CI, 0.98-1.15; I2 = 0%; p = 0.12; moderate certainty. Targeting a higher MAP resulted in no difference in the risk of undergoing renal replacement therapy (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.83-1.11; I2 = 24%; p = 0.57; moderate certainty); however, a subgroup analysis comparing patients with and without chronic hypertension demonstrated that a higher MAP may reduce the risk of undergoing renal replacement therapy (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.98; I2 = 0%; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated with moderate certainty that there is no difference in mortality when a higher MAP is targeted in critically ill adult patients with shock. Further studies are needed to determine the impact of mean arterial pressure on need for renal replacement therapy in this population.

Society of Critical Care Medicine and the Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines for Evaluating New Fever in Adult Patients in the ICU.

RATIONALE: Fever is frequently an early indicator of infection and often requires rigorous diagnostic evaluation. OBJECTIVES: This is an update of the 2008 Infectious Diseases Society of America and Society (IDSA) and Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) guideline for the evaluation of new-onset fever in adult ICU patients without severe immunocompromise, now using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. PANEL DESIGN: The SCCM and IDSA convened a taskforce to update the 2008 version of the guideline for the evaluation of new fever in critically ill adult patients, which included expert clinicians as well as methodologists from the Guidelines in Intensive Care, Development and Evaluation Group. The guidelines committee consisted of 12 experts in critical care, infectious diseases, clinical microbiology, organ transplantation, public health, clinical research, and health policy and administration. All task force members followed all conflict-of-interest procedures as documented in the American College of Critical Care Medicine/SCCM Standard Operating Procedures Manual and the IDSA. There was no industry input or funding to produce this guideline. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review for each population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak or as best-practice statements. RESULTS: The panel issued 12 recommendations and 9 best practice statements. The panel recommended using central temperature monitoring methods, including thermistors for pulmonary artery catheters, bladder catheters, or esophageal balloon thermistors when these devices are in place or accurate temperature measurements are critical for diagnosis and management. For patients without these devices in place, oral or rectal temperatures over other temperature measurement methods that are less reliable such as axillary or tympanic membrane temperatures, noninvasive temporal artery thermometers, or chemical dot thermometers were recommended. Imaging studies including ultrasonography were recommended in addition to microbiological evaluation using rapid diagnostic testing strategies. Biomarkers were recommended to assist in guiding the discontinuation of antimicrobial therapy. All recommendations issued were weak based on the quality of data. CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines panel was able to formulate several recommendations for the evaluation of new fever in a critically ill adult patient, acknowledging that most recommendations were based on weak evidence. This highlights the need for the rapid advancement of research in all aspects of this issue-including better noninvasive methods to measure core body temperature, the use of diagnostic imaging, advances in microbiology including molecular testing, and the use of biomarkers.

Guidelines for the Management of Adult Acute and Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure in the ICU: Neurology, Peri-Transplant Medicine, Infectious Disease, and Gastroenterology Considerations.

OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for adults with acute liver failure (ALF) or acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) in the ICU. DESIGN: The guideline panel comprised 27 members with expertise in aspects of care of the critically ill patient with liver failure or methodology. We adhered to the Society of Critical Care Medicine standard operating procedures manual and conflict-of-interest policy. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the panel, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development. INTERVENTIONS: In part 2 of this guideline, the panel was divided into four subgroups: neurology, peri-transplant, infectious diseases, and gastrointestinal groups. We developed and selected Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) questions according to importance to patients and practicing clinicians. For each PICO question, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis where applicable. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence to decision framework to facilitate recommendations formulation as strong or conditional. We followed strict criteria to formulate best practice statements. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We report 28 recommendations (from 31 PICO questions) on the management ALF and ACLF in the ICU. Overall, five were strong recommendations, 21 were conditional recommendations, two were best-practice statements, and we were unable to issue a recommendation for five questions due to insufficient evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary, international experts formulated evidence-based recommendations for the management ALF and ACLF patients in the ICU, acknowledging that most recommendations were based on low quality and indirect evidence.

Effect of perioperative benzodiazepine use on intraoperative awareness and postoperative delirium: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepine use is associated with delirium, and guidelines recommend avoiding them in older and critically ill patients. Their perioperative use remains common because of perceived benefits. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Web of Science from inception to June 2021. Pairs of reviewers identified randomised controlled trials and prospective observational studies comparing perioperative use of benzodiazepines with other agents or placebo in patients undergoing surgery. Two reviewers independently abstracted data, which we combined using a random-effects model. Our primary outcomes were delirium, intraoperative awareness, and mortality. RESULTS: We included 34 randomised controlled trials (n=4354) and nine observational studies (n=3309). Observational studies were considered separately. Perioperative benzodiazepines did not increase the risk of delirium (n=1352; risk ratio [RR] 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.9-2.27; I2=72%; P=0.13; very low-quality evidence). Use of benzodiazepines instead of dexmedetomidine did, however, increase the risk of delirium (five studies; n=429; RR 1.83; 95% CI: 1.24-2.72; I2=13%; P=0.002). Perioperative benzodiazepine use decreased the risk of intraoperative awareness (n=2245; RR 0.26; 95% CI: 0.12-0.58; I2=35%; P=0.001; very low-quality evidence). When considering non-events, perioperative benzodiazepine use increased the probability of not having intraoperative awareness (RR 1.07; 95% CI: 1.01-1.13; I2=98%; P=0.03; very low-quality evidence). Mortality was reported by one randomised controlled trial (n=800; RR 0.90; 95% CI: 0.20-3.1; P=0.80; very low quality). CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, perioperative benzodiazepine use did not increase postoperative delirium and decreased intraoperative awareness. Previously observed relationships of benzodiazepine use with delirium could be explained by comparisons with dexmedetomidine. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO CRD42019128144.

Use of prokinetic agents in hospitalised adult patients: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal motility is important for adequate uptake of fluids and nutrition but is often impaired in hospitalised patients. Prokinetic agents enhance gastrointestinal motility and are prescribed for many hospitalised patients. In this scoping review, we aimed to systematically describe the body of evidence on the use of prokinetic agents in hospitalised patients. We hypothesised, that the body of evidence would be limited and derive from heterogeneous populations. METHODS: We conducted this scoping review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews statement. We searched Medline, Embase, Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Library for studies assessing the use of prokinetic agents on any indication and outcome in adult hospitalised patients. We used a modified version of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included 102 studies with a total of 8830 patients. Eighty-six studies were clinical trials (84%), and 52 (60%) of these were conducted in the intensive care unit, with feeding intolerance as the main indication. In the non-intensive care setting the indications were wider; most studies assessed use of prokinetic agents before gastroscopy to improve visualisation. The most studied prokinetic agent was metoclopramide (49% of studies) followed by erythromycin (31%). In total 147 outcomes were assessed with only 67% of the included studies assessing patient-centred outcomes, and with gastric emptying as the most frequently reported outcome. Overall, the data provided no firm evidence on the balance between the desirable and undesirable effects of prokinetic agents. CONCLUSIONS: In this scoping review, we found that the studies addressing prokinetic agents in hospitalised adults had considerable variations in indications, drugs and outcomes assessed, and that the certainty of evidence was judged to be low to very low.

Intravenous vitamin C therapy in adult patients with sepsis: A rapid practice guideline.

BACKGROUND: This Rapid Practice Guideline provides an evidence-based recommendation to address the question: in adults with sepsis or septic shock, should we recommend using or not using intravenous vitamin C therapy? METHODS: The panel included 21 experts from 16 countries and used a strict policy for potential financial and intellectual conflicts of interest. Methodological support was provided by the Guidelines in Intensive Care, Development, and Evaluation (GUIDE) group. Based on an updated systematic review, and the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation approach, we evaluated the certainty of evidence and developed recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. We conducted an electronic vote, requiring >80% agreement among the panel for a recommendation to be adopted. RESULTS: At longest follow-up, 90 days, intravenous vitamin C probably does not substantially impact (relative risk 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94 to 1.17; absolute risk difference 1.8%, 95% CI -2.2 to 6.2; 6 trials, n = 2148, moderate certainty). Effects of vitamin C on mortality at earlier timepoints was of low or very low certainty due to risk of bias of the included studies and significant heterogeneity between study results. Few adverse events were reported with the use of vitamin C. The panel did not identify any major differences in other outcomes, including duration of mechanical ventilation, ventilator free days, hospital or intensive care unit length of stay, acute kidney injury, need for renal replacement therapy. Vitamin C may result in a slight reduction in duration of vasopressor support (MD -18.9 h, 95% CI -26.5 to -11.4; 21 trials, n = 2661, low certainty); but may not reduce sequential organ failure assessment scores (MD -0.69, 95% CI -1.55 to 0.71; 24 trials, n = 4002, low certainty). The panel judged the undesirable consequences of using IV vitamin C to probably outweigh the desirable consequences, and therefore issued a conditional recommendation against using IV vitamin C therapy in sepsis. CONCLUSIONS: The panel suggests against use of intravenous vitamin C in adult patients with sepsis, beyond that of standard nutritional supplementation. Small and single center trials on this topic should be discouraged.

Awake proning in patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: A rapid practice guideline.

This rapid practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the use of awake proning in adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19. The panel included 20 experts from 12 countries, including one patient representative, and used a strict conflict of interest policy for potential financial and intellectual conflicts of interest. Methodological support was provided by the guidelines in intensive care, development, and evaluation (GUIDE) group. Based on an updated systematic review, and the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) method we evaluated the certainty of evidence and developed recommendations using the Evidence-to-Decision framework. We conducted an electronic vote, requiring >80% agreement amongst the panel for a recommendation to be adopted. The panel made a strong recommendation for a trial of awake proning in adult patients with COVID-19 related hypoxemic acute respiratory failure who are not invasively ventilated. Awake proning appears to reduce the risk of tracheal intubation, although it may not reduce mortality. The panel judged that most patients would want a trial of awake proning, although this may not be feasible in some patients and some patients may not tolerate it. However, given the high risk of clinical deterioration amongst these patients, awake proning should be conducted in an area where patients can be monitored by staff experienced in rapidly detecting and managing clinical deterioration. This RPG panel recommends a trial of awake prone positioning in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19.

The Comparative Effectiveness of Vasoactive Treatments for Hepatorenal Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Evidence examining commonly used drug treatments remains uncertain. We assessed the comparative effectiveness of inpatient treatments for HRS by performing a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Pairs of reviewers independently identified eligible RCTs that enrolled patients with type 1 or 2 HRS. Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data. DATA SYNTHESIS: We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool for RCTs and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach. Our main outcomes are all-cause mortality, HRS reversal, and serious adverse events. Of 3,079 citations, we included 26 RCTs examining 1,736 patients. Based on pooled analysis, terlipressin increases HRS reversal compared with placebo (142 reversals per 1,000 [95% CI, >87.7 to >210.9]; high certainty). Norepinephrine (112.7 reversals per 1,000 [95% CI, 52.6 to >192.3]) may increase HRS reversal compared with placebo (low certainty). The effect of midodrine+octreotide (67.8 reversals per 1,000 [95% CI, <2.8 to >177.4]; very low) on HRS reversal is uncertain. Terlipressin may reduce mortality compared with placebo (93.7 fewer deaths [95% CI, 168.7 to <12.5]; low certainty). Terlipressin probably increases the risk of serious adverse events compared with placebo (20.4 more events per 1,000 [95% CI, <5.1 to >51]; moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: Terlipressin increases HRS reversal compared with placebo. Terlipressin may reduce mortality. Until access to terlipressin improves, initial norepinephrine administration may be more appropriate than initial trial with midodrine+octreotide. Our review has the potential to inform future guideline and practice in the treatment of HRS.