Preventing New Gram-negative Resistance Through Beta-lactam De-escalation in Hospitalized Patients With Sepsis: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Whether antibiotic de-escalation reduces the risk of subsequent antibiotic resistance is uncertain. We sought to determine if beta-lactam (BL) antibiotic de-escalation is associated with decreased incidence of new Gram-negative resistance in hospitalized patients with sepsis. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, patients with sepsis who were treated with at least 3 consecutive days of BL antibiotics, the first 2 days of which were with a broad-spectrum BL agent defined as a spectrum score (SS) of ≥7 were enrolled. Patients were grouped into three categories: (1) de-escalation of beta-lactam spectrum score (BLSS), (2) no change in BLSS, or (3) escalation of BLSS. The primary outcome was the isolation of a new drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria from a clinical culture within 60 days of cohort entry. Fine-Gray proportional hazards regression modeling while accounting for in-hospital death as a competing risk was performed. FINDINGS: Six hundred forty-four patients of 7742 (8.3%) patients developed new gram-negative resistance. The mean time to resistance was 23.7 days yielding an incidence rate of 1.85 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.71-2.00) per 1000 patient-days. The lowest incidence rate was observed in the de-escalated group 1.42 (95% CI: 1.16-1.68) per 1000 patient-days. Statistically significant reductions in the development of new gram-negative resistance were associated with BL de-escalation compared to no-change (hazards ratio (HR) 0.59 [95% CI: .48-.73]). CONCLUSIONS: De-escalation was associated with a decreased risk of new resistance development compared to no change. This represents the largest study to date showing the utility of de-escalation in the prevention of antimicrobial resistance.

Rezafungin versus caspofungin for treatment of candidaemia and invasive candidiasis (ReSTORE): a multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Rezafungin is a next-generation, once-a-week echinocandin in development for the treatment of candidaemia and invasive candidiasis and for the prevention of invasive fungal disease caused by Candida, Aspergillus, and Pneumocystis spp after blood and marrow transplantation. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous rezafungin versus intravenous caspofungin in patients with candidaemia and invasive candidiasis. METHODS: ReSTORE was a multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised phase 3 trial done at 66 tertiary care centres in 15 countries. Adults (≥18 years) with systemic signs and mycological confirmation of candidaemia or invasive candidiasis were eligible for inclusion and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous rezafungin once a week (400 mg in week 1, followed by 200 mg weekly, for a total of two to four doses) or intravenous caspofungin (70 mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 50 mg daily) for no more than 4 weeks. The primary endpoints were global cure (consisting of clinical cure, radiological cure, and mycological eradication) at day 14 for the European Medical Agency (EMA) and 30-day all-cause mortality for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), both with a target non-inferiority margin of 20%, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (all patients who received one or more doses of study drug and had documented Candida infection based on a culture from blood or another normally sterile site obtained within 96 h before randomisation). Safety was evaluated by the incidence and type of adverse events and deaths in the safety population, defined as all patients who received any amount of study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03667690, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Oct 12, 2018, and Aug 29, 2021, 222 patients were screened for inclusion, and 199 patients (118 [59%] men; 81 [41%] women; mean age 61 years [SD 15·2]) were randomly assigned (100 [50%] patients to the rezafungin group and 99 [50%] patients to the caspofungin group). 55 (59%) of 93 patients in the rezafungin group and 57 (61%) of 94 patients in the caspofungin group had a global cure at day 14 (weighted treatment difference -1·1% [95% CI -14·9 to 12·7]; EMA primary endpoint). 22 (24%) of 93 patients in the rezafungin group and 20 (21%) of 94 patients in the caspofungin group died or had an unknown survival status at day 30 (treatment difference 2·4% [95% CI -9·7 to 14·4]; FDA primary endpoint). In the safety analysis, 89 (91%) of 98 patients in the rezafungin group and 83 (85%) of 98 patients in the caspofungin group had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events that occurred in at least 5% of patients in either group were pyrexia, hypokalaemia, pneumonia, septic shock, and anaemia. 55 (56%) patients in the rezafungin group and 52 (53%) patients in the caspofungin group had serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Our data show that rezafungin was non-inferior to caspofungin for the primary endpoints of day-14 global cure (EMA) and 30-day all-cause mortality (FDA). Efficacy in the initial days of treatment warrants evaluation. There were no concerning trends in treatment-emergent or serious adverse events. These phase 3 results show the efficacy and safety of rezafungin and support its ongoing development. FUNDING: Cidara Therapeutics and Mundipharma.

Effect of Early Administration of Vasopressin on New-Onset Arrhythmia Development in Patients With Septic Shock: A Retrospective, Observational Cohort Study.

Background: Adjunctive vasopressin use in septic shock reduces catecholamine requirements and is associated with a lower incidence of new-onset arrhythmias (NOAs). The association of vasopressin timing on NOA development is ill-described. Objective: To determine whether early administration of vasopressin was associated with a lower incidence of NOA in septic shock patients. Methods: A retrospective analysis of intensive care unit (ICU) patients at a large, academic medical center. Septic shock patients who required vasopressin and norepinephrine were eligible for inclusion. Patients were excluded for receipt of other vasoactive agents, history of cardiac arrhythmias, or outside hospital admission. Early vasopressin was defined as receipt within 6 hours of septic shock onset. The primary outcome was incidence of NOA. Results: In total, 436 patients, 220 (50.4%) in the early and 216 (49.6%) in the late vasopressin group, were included. Early vasopressin was not associated with a lower incidence of NOA compared with late vasopressin (9% vs 7%, median absolute difference [95% confidence interval, CI]: -2.1 [-7.2, 3.0], P = 0.41). Early vasopressin patients were observed to have shorter shock duration (2 vs 4 days, median absolute difference [95% CI]: 2 [1, 2], P < 0.001), and ICU length of stay (6 vs 7 days, median absolute difference [95% CI]: 1 [0, 2], P = 0.02). Conclusions and Relevance: Early vasopressin use was not associated with a lower incidence of NOA. Additional studies are needed to elucidate the effect of vasopressin timing on NOA and other clinical outcomes.

Understanding the nebulisation of antibiotics: the key role of lung microdialysis studies.

BACKGROUND: Nebulisation of antibiotics is a promising treatment for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) caused by multidrug-resistant organisms. Ensuring effective antibiotic concentrations at the site of infection in the interstitial space fluid is crucial for clinical outcomes. Current assessment methods, such as epithelial lining fluid and tissue homogenates, have limitations in providing longitudinal pharmacokinetic data. MAIN BODY: Lung microdialysis, an invasive research technique predominantly used in animals, involves inserting probes into lung parenchyma to measure antibiotic concentrations in interstitial space fluid. Lung microdialysis offers unique advantages, such as continuous sampling, regional assessment of antibiotic lung concentrations and avoidance of bronchial contamination. However, it also has inherent limitations including the cost of probes and assay development, the need for probe calibration and limited applicability to certain antibiotics. As a research tool in VAP, lung microdialysis necessitates specialist techniques and resource-intensive experimental designs involving large animals undergoing prolonged mechanical ventilation. However, its potential impact on advancing our understanding of nebulised antibiotics for VAP is substantial. The technique may enable the investigation of various factors influencing antibiotic lung pharmacokinetics, including drug types, delivery devices, ventilator settings, interfaces and disease conditions. Combining in vivo pharmacokinetics with in vitro pharmacodynamic simulations can become feasible, providing insights to inform nebulised antibiotic dose optimisation regimens. Specifically, it may aid in understanding and optimising the nebulisation of polymyxins, effective against multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. Furthermore, lung microdialysis holds promise in exploring novel nebulisation therapies, including repurposed antibiotic formulations, bacteriophages and immunomodulators. The technique's potential to monitor dynamic biochemical changes in pneumonia, such as cytokines, metabolites and inflammation/infection markers, opens avenues for developing theranostic tools tailored to critically ill patients with VAP. CONCLUSION: In summary, lung microdialysis can be a potential transformative tool, offering real-time insights into nebulised antibiotic pharmacokinetics. Its potential to inform optimal dosing regimen development based on precise target site concentrations and contribute to development of theranostic tools positions it as key player in advancing treatment strategies for VAP caused by multidrug-resistant organisms. The establishment of international research networks, exemplified by LUMINA (lung microdialysis applied to nebulised antibiotics), signifies a proactive step towards addressing complexities and promoting multicentre experimental studies in the future.

Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and Bronchoalveolar Cytokine Concentrations Redefine the COVID-19 Phenotypes in Critically Ill Patients.

RATIONALE: Recent studies suggest that both hypo- and hyperinflammatory acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) phenotypes characterize severe COVID-19-related pneumonia. The role of lung Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome - Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral load in contributing to these phenotypes remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To redefine COVID-19 ARDS phenotypes when considering quantitative SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR in the bronchoalveolar lavage of intubated patients. To compare the relevance of deep respiratory samples versus plasma in linking the immune response and the quantitative viral loads. METHODS: Eligible subjects were adults diagnosed with COVID-19 ARDS who required mechanical ventilation and underwent bronchoscopy. We recorded the immune response in the bronchoalveolar lavage and plasma and the quantitative SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR in the bronchoalveolar lavage. Hierarchical clustering on principal components was applied separately on the 2 compartments' datasets. Baseline characteristics were compared between clusters. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Twenty subjects were enrolled between August 2020 and March 2021. Subjects underwent bronchoscopy on average 3.6 days after intubation. All subjects were treated with dexamethasone prior to bronchoscopy, 11 of 20 (55.6%) received remdesivir and 1 of 20 (5%) received tocilizumab. Adding viral load information to the classic 2-cluster model of ARDS revealed a new cluster characterized by hypoinflammatory responses and high viral load in 23.1% of the cohort. Hyperinflammatory ARDS was noted in 15.4% of subjects. Bronchoalveolar lavage clusters were more stable compared to plasma. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a unique group of critically ill subjects with COVID-19 ARDS who exhibit hypoinflammatory responses but high viral loads in the lower airways. These clusters may warrant different treatment approaches to improve clinical outcomes.

ERS/ESICM/ESCMID/ALAT guidelines for the management of severe community-acquired pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Severe community-acquired pneumonia (sCAP) is associated with high morbidity and mortality, and while European and non-European guidelines are available for community-acquired pneumonia, there are no specific guidelines for sCAP. MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY: The European Respiratory Society (ERS), European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) and Latin American Thoracic Association (ALAT) launched a task force to develop the first international guidelines for sCAP. The panel comprised a total of 18 European and four non-European experts, as well as two methodologists. Eight clinical questions for sCAP diagnosis and treatment were chosen to be addressed. Systematic literature searches were performed in several databases. Meta-analyses were performed for evidence synthesis, whenever possible. The quality of evidence was assessed with GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Evidence to Decision frameworks were used to decide on the direction and strength of recommendations. RESULTS: Recommendations issued were related to diagnosis, antibiotics, organ support, biomarkers and co-adjuvant therapy. After considering the confidence in effect estimates, the importance of outcomes studied, desirable and undesirable consequences of treatment, cost, feasibility, acceptability of the intervention and implications to health equity, recommendations were made for or against specific treatment interventions. CONCLUSIONS: In these international guidelines, ERS, ESICM, ESCMID and ALAT provide evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for diagnosis, empirical treatment and antibiotic therapy for sCAP, following the GRADE approach. Furthermore, current knowledge gaps have been highlighted and recommendations for future research have been made.

The Relationship Between Hospital Capability and Mortality in Sepsis: Development of a Sepsis-Related Hospital Capability Index.

OBJECTIVES: Regionalized sepsis care could improve sepsis outcomes by facilitating the interhospital transfer of patients to higher-capability hospitals. There are no measures of sepsis capability to guide the identification of such hospitals, although hospital case volume of sepsis has been used as a proxy. We evaluated the performance of a novel hospital sepsis-related capability (SRC) index as compared with sepsis case volume. DESIGN: Principal component analysis (PCA) and retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A total of 182 New York (derivation) and 274 Florida and Massachusetts (validation) nonfederal hospitals, 2018. PATIENTS: A total of 89,069 and 139,977 adult patients (≥ 18 yr) with sepsis were directly admitted into the derivation and validation cohort hospitals, respectively. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We derived SRC scores by PCA of six hospital resource use characteristics (bed capacity, annual volumes of sepsis, major diagnostic procedures, renal replacement therapy, mechanical ventilation, and major therapeutic procedures) and classified hospitals into capability score tertiles: high, intermediate, and low. High-capability hospitals were mostly urban teaching hospitals. Compared with sepsis volume, the SRC score explained more variation in hospital-level sepsis mortality in the derivation (unadjusted coefficient of determination [ R2 ]: 0.25 vs 0.12, p < 0.001 for both) and validation (0.18 vs 0.05, p < 0.001 for both) cohorts; and demonstrated stronger correlation with outward transfer rates for sepsis in the derivation (Spearman coefficient [ r ]: 0.60 vs 0.50) and validation (0.51 vs 0.45) cohorts. Compared with low-capability hospitals, patients with sepsis directly admitted into high-capability hospitals had a greater number of acute organ dysfunctions, a higher proportion of surgical hospitalizations, and higher adjusted mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.55; 95% CI, 1.25-1.92). In stratified analysis, worse mortality associated with higher hospital capability was only evident among patients with three or more organ dysfunctions (OR, 1.88 [1.50-2.34]). CONCLUSIONS: The SRC score has face validity for capability-based groupings of hospitals. Sepsis care may already be de facto regionalized at high-capability hospitals. Low-capability hospitals may have become more adept at treating less complicated sepsis.

The Practice Change and Clinical Impact of Lung-Protective Ventilation Initiated in the Emergency Department: A Secondary Analysis of Individual Patient-Level Data From Prior Clinical Trials and Cohort Studies.

OBJECTIVES: Mechanically ventilated emergency department (ED) patients experience high morbidity and mortality. In a prior trial at our center, ED-based lung-protective ventilation was associated with improved care delivery and outcomes. Whether this strategy has persisted in the years after the trial remains unclear. The objective was to assess practice change and clinical outcomes associated with ED lung-protective ventilation. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of individual patient-level data from prior clinical trials and cohort studies. SETTING: ED and ICUs of a single academic center. PATIENTS: Mechanically ventilated adults. INTERVENTIONS: A lung-protective ventilator protocol used as the default approach in the ED. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary ventilator-related outcome was tidal volume, and the primary clinical outcome was hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included ventilator-, hospital-, and ICU-free days. Multivariable logistic regression, propensity score (PS)-adjustment, and multiple a priori subgroup analyses were used to evaluate outcome as a function of the intervention. A total of 1,796 patients in the preintervention period and 1,403 patients in the intervention period were included. In the intervention period, tidal volume was reduced from 8.2 mL/kg predicted body weight (PBW) (7.3-9.1) to 6.5 mL/kg PBW (6.1-7.1), and low tidal volume ventilation increased from 46.8% to 96.2% ( p < 0.01). The intervention period was associated with lower mortality (35.9% vs 19.1%), remaining significant after multivariable logistic regression analysis (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.43; 95% CI, 0.35-0.53; p < 0.01). Similar results were seen after PS adjustment and in subgroups. The intervention group had more ventilator- (18.8 [10.1] vs 14.1 [11.9]; p < 0.01), hospital- (12.2 [9.6] vs 9.4 [9.5]; p < 0.01), and ICU-free days (16.6 [10.1] vs 13.1 [11.1]; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: ED lung-protective ventilation has persisted in the years since implementation and was associated with improved outcomes. These data suggest the use of ED-based lung-protective ventilation as a means to improve outcome.

Efficacy and safety of ceftazidime/avibactam in patients with infections caused by ß-lactamase-producing Gram-negative pathogens: a pooled analysis from the Phase 3 clinical trial programme.

OBJECTIVES: This post hoc pooled analysis evaluated clinical and microbiological outcomes and safety in patients with infections caused by ß-lactamase-producing Gram-negative pathogens across five Phase 3, randomized, controlled, multicentre trials of ceftazidime/avibactam in adults with complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI), complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI)/pyelonephritis and nosocomial pneumonia (NP), including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). METHODS: In each trial, RECLAIM/RECLAIM 3 (cIAI), REPRISE (cIAI/cUTI), RECAPTURE (cUTI) and REPROVE (NP, including VAP) patients were randomized 1:1 to IV ceftazidime/avibactam (plus metronidazole for patients with cIAI) or comparators (carbapenems in >97% patients) for 5-21 days. Clinical and microbiological responses at the test-of-cure visit were assessed for patients with ESBLs, and/or plasmidic and/or overexpression of chromosomal AmpC, and/or serine carbapenemases without MBLs identified in baseline Gram-negative isolates by phenotypic screening and molecular characterization in the pooled microbiological modified ITT (mMITT) population. RESULTS: In total, 813 patients (ceftazidime/avibactam, n = 389; comparator, n = 424) had ≥1 ß-lactamase-producing baseline pathogen identified, amongst whom 792 patients (ceftazidime/avibactam, n = 379; comparator, n = 413) had no MBLs. The most frequent ß-lactamase-producing pathogens across treatment groups were Escherichia coli (n = 381), Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 261) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 53). Clinical cure rates in the pooled non-MBL ß-lactamase-producing mMITT population were 88.1% (334/379) for ceftazidime/avibactam and 88.1% (364/413) for comparators; favourable microbiological response rates were 76.5% (290/379) and 68.8% (284/413), respectively. The safety profile of ceftazidime/avibactam was consistent with previous observations. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis provides supportive evidence of the efficacy and safety of ceftazidime/avibactam in patients with infections caused by ESBLs, AmpC and serine carbapenemase-producing Gram-negative pathogens. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01499290; NCT01726023; NCT01644643; NCT01595438/NCT01599806; NCT01808092.

How to use new antibiotics in the therapy of serious multidrug resistant Gram-negative infections?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Multidrug resistant Gram-negative infections are becoming more common and pose a serious threat to both individual patients and the population as a whole. Treatment of these infections can be difficult and result in significant morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this review is to discuss information and strategies for using new antibiotics to combat these infections. RECENT FINDINGS: Eight new antibiotics represent possible means to treat multidrug resistant Gram-negative infections. Although no new mechanisms of action are present amongst these new antibiotics, novel additions to previously utilized mechanisms have been shown to be viable options for treatment of highly resistant organisms. SUMMARY: The novel antibiotics considered in this review have varying data on their use as empiric treatment of patients at high risk for multidrug resistant organisms and as final therapy for identified multidrug resistant organisms. Cefiderocol, ceftazidime-avibactam, ceftolozane-tazobactam, meropenem-vaborbactam, and imipenem-relabactam have the best support evidence for use in this patient population.

How to use new antibiotics in the therapy of ventilator-associated pneumonia.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a common nosocomial infection in critically ill patients requiring endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation. Recently, the emergence of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria, including carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter species, has complicated the selection of appropriate antimicrobials and contributed to treatment failure. Although novel antimicrobials are crucial to treating VAP caused by these multidrug-resistant organisms, knowledge of how to optimize their efficacy while minimizing the development of resistance should be a requirement for their use. RECENT FINDINGS: Several studies have assessed the efficacy of novel antimicrobials against multidrug-resistant organisms, but high-quality studies focusing on optimal dosing, infusion time and duration of therapy in patients with VAP are still lacking. Antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship should be combined to optimize the use of these novel agents. SUMMARY: Improvements in diagnostic tests, stewardship practices and a better understanding of dosing, infusion time, duration of treatment and the effects of combining various antimicrobials should help optimize the use of novel antimicrobials for VAP and maximize clinical outcomes while minimizing the development of resistance.

Race Does Not Impact Sepsis Outcomes When Considering Socioeconomic Factors in Multilevel Modeling.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether race is a major determinant of sepsis outcomes when controlling for socioeconomic factors. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Barnes-Jewish Hospital a 1,350 bed academic medical center. PATIENTS: Eleven-thousand four-hundred thirty-two patients hospitalized between January 2010 and April 2017 with sepsis and septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: Multilevel random effects modeling was employed whereby patients were nested within ZIP codes. Individual patient characteristics and socioeconomic variables aggregated at the ZIP code level (education, employment status, income, poverty level, access to healthcare) were included in the model. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In hospital mortality, length of stay, need for vasopressors, and mechanical ventilation were the main endpoints. Black patients had more comorbidities than White patients except for cirrhosis and malignancy. In unadjusted comparisons, White individuals were more likely to require mechanical ventilation and had higher mortality rates and longer hospital stays for both low- and high-income groups. When nesting within ZIP codes and accounting for socioeconomic variables, race did not have a significant effect on mortality. Non-White races had lower odds ratio for mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that race is not an independent risk factor for sepsis mortality, as well as sepsis-related length of stay. We should expand our inquiry into determinants of sepsis outcomes by including socioeconomic variables.

Therapeutic Hyperthermia Is Associated With Improved Survival in Afebrile Critically Ill Patients With Sepsis: A Pilot Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that forced-air warming of critically ill afebrile sepsis patients improves immune function compared to standard temperature management. DESIGN: Single-center, prospective, open-label, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: One thousand two hundred-bed academic medical center. PATIENTS: Eligible patients were mechanically ventilated septic adults with: 1) a diagnosis of sepsis within 48 hours of enrollment; 2) anticipated need for mechanical ventilation of greater than 48 hours; and 3) a maximum temperature less than 38.3°C within the 24 hours prior to enrollment. Primary exclusion criteria included: immunologic diseases, immune-suppressing medications, and any existing condition sensitive to therapeutic hyperthermia (e.g., brain injury). The primary outcome was monocyte human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-DR expression, with secondary outcomes of CD3/CD28-induced interferon gamma (IFN-γ) production, mortality, and 28-day hospital-free days. INTERVENTIONS: External warming using a forced-air warming blanket for 48 hours, with a goal temperature 1.5°C above the lowest temperature documented in the previous 24 hours. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We enrolled 56 participants in the study. No differences were observed between the groups in HLA-DR expression (692 vs 2,002; p = 0.396) or IFN-γ production (31 vs 69; p = 0.678). Participants allocated to external warming had lower 28-day mortality (18% vs 43%; absolute risk reduction, 25%; 95% CI, 2-48%) and more 28-day hospital-free days (difference, 2.6 d; 95% CI, 0-11.6). CONCLUSIONS: Participants randomized to external forced-air warming did not have a difference in HLA-DR expression or IFN-γ production. In this pilot study, however, 28-day mortality was lower in the intervention group. Future research should seek to better elucidate the impact of temperature modulation on immune and nonimmune organ failure pathways in sepsis.

Low Tidal Volume Ventilation for Emergency Department Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Practice Patterns and Clinical Impact.

OBJECTIVES: Data suggest that low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) initiated in the emergency department (ED) has a positive impact on outcome. This systematic review and meta-analysis quantify the impact of ED-based LTVV on outcomes and ventilator settings in the ED and ICU. DATA SOURCES: We systematically reviewed MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, references, conferences, and ClinicalTrials.gov. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized and nonrandomized studies of mechanically ventilated ED adults were eligible. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently screened abstracts. The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included ventilation duration, lengths of stay, and occurrence rate of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We assessed impact of ED LTVV interventions on ED and ICU tidal volumes. DATA SYNTHESIS: The search identified 1,023 studies. Eleven studies (n = 12,912) provided outcome data and were meta-analyzed; 10 additional studies (n = 1,863) provided descriptive ED tidal volume data. Overall quality of evidence was low. Random effect meta-analytic models revealed that ED LTVV was associated with lower mortality (26.5%) versus non-LTVV (31.1%) (odds ratio, 0.80 [0.72-0.88]). ED LTVV was associated with shorter ICU (mean difference, -1.0; 95% CI, -1.7 to -0.3) and hospital (mean difference, -1.2; 95% CI, -2.3 to -0.1) lengths of stay, more ventilator-free days (mean difference, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.4-2.4), and lower occurrence rate (4.5% vs 8.3%) of ARDS (odds ratio, 0.57 [0.44-0.75]). ED LTVV interventions were associated with reductions in ED (-1.5-mL/kg predicted body weight [PBW] [-1.9 to -1.0]; p < 0.001) and ICU (-1.0-mL/kg PBW [-1.8 to -0.2]; p = 0.01) tidal volume. CONCLUSIONS: The use of LTVV in the ED is associated with improved clinical outcomes and increased use of lung protection, recognizing low quality of evidence in this domain. Interventions aimed at implementing and sustaining LTVV in the ED should be explored.

Awareness With Paralysis Among Critically Ill Emergency Department Patients: A Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: In mechanically ventilated patients, awareness with paralysis (AWP) can have devastating consequences, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and thoughts of suicide. Single-center data from the emergency department (ED) demonstrate an event rate for AWP factors higher than that reported from the operating room. However, there remains a lack of data on AWP among critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients. The objective was to assess the proportion of ED patients experiencing AWP and investigate modifiable variables associated with its occurrence. DESIGN: An a priori planned secondary analysis of a multicenter, prospective, before-and-after clinical trial. SETTING: The ED of three academic medical centers. PATIENTS: Mechanically ventilated adult patients that received neuromuscular blockers. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: All data related to sedation and analgesia were collected. AWP was the primary outcome, assessed with the modified Brice questionnaire, and was independently adjudicated by three expert reviewers. Perceived threat, in the causal pathway for PTSD, was the secondary outcome. A total of 388 patients were studied. The proportion of patients experiencing AWP was 3.4% ( n = 13), the majority of whom received rocuronium ( n = 12/13; 92.3%). Among patients who received rocuronium, 5.5% ( n = 12/230) experienced AWP, compared with 0.6% ( n = 1/158) among patients who did not receive rocuronium in the ED (odds ratio, 8.64; 95% CI, 1.11-67.15). Patients experiencing AWP had a higher mean ( sd ) threat perception scale score, compared with patients without AWP (15.6 [5.8] vs 7.7 [6.0]; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: AWP was present in a concerning proportion of mechanically ventilated ED patients, was associated with rocuronium exposure in the ED, and led to increased levels of perceived threat, placing patients at greater risk for PTSD. Studies that aim to further quantify AWP in this vulnerable population and eliminate its occurrence are urgently needed.

The Feasibility of Implementing Targeted SEDation in Mechanically Ventilated Emergency Department Patients: The ED-SED Pilot Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Deep sedation in the emergency department (ED) is common, increases deep sedation in the ICU, and is negatively associated with outcome. Limiting ED deep sedation may, therefore, be a high-yield intervention to improve outcome. However, the feasibility of conducting an adequately powered ED-based clinical sedation trial is unknown. Our objectives were to assess trial feasibility in terms of: 1) recruitment, 2) protocol implementation and practice change, and 3) safety. Patient-centered clinical outcomes were assessed to better plan for a future large-scale clinical trial. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicenter ( n = 3), prospective before-after pilot and feasibility trial. SETTING: The ED and ICUs at three medical centers. PATIENTS: Consecutive, adult mechanically ventilation ED patients. INTERVENTIONS: An educational initiative aimed at reliable ED sedation depth documentation and reducing the proportion of deeply sedated patients (primary outcome). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sedation-related data in the ED and the first 48 ICU hours were recorded. Deep sedation was defined as a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of -3 to -5 or a Sedation-Agitation Scale of 1-3. One thousand three hundred fifty-six patients were screened; 415 comprised the final population. Lighter ED sedation was achieved in the intervention group, and the proportion of deeply sedated patients was reduced from 60.2% to 38.8% ( p < 0.01). There were no concerning trends in adverse events (i.e., inadvertent extubation, device removal, and awareness with paralysis). Mortality was 10.0% in the intervention group and 20.4% in the preintervention group ( p < 0.01). Compared with preintervention, the intervention group experienced more ventilator-free days [22.0 (9.0) vs 19.9 (10.6)] and ICU-free days [20.8 (8.7) vs 18.1 (10.4)], p < 0.05 for both. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot trial confirmed the feasibility of targeting the ED in order to improve sedation practices and reduce deep sedation. These findings justify an appropriately powered clinical trial regarding ED-based sedation to improve clinical outcomes.

Clinical and microbiological outcomes, by causative pathogen, in the ASPECT-NP randomized, controlled, Phase 3 trial comparing ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem for treatment of hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia.

OBJECTIVES: In the ASPECT-NP trial, ceftolozane/tazobactam was non-inferior to meropenem for treating nosocomial pneumonia; efficacy outcomes by causative pathogen were to be evaluated. METHODS: Mechanically ventilated participants with hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia were randomized to 3 g ceftolozane/tazobactam (2 g ceftolozane/1 g tazobactam) q8h or 1 g meropenem q8h. Lower respiratory tract (LRT) cultures were obtained ≤36 h before first dose; pathogen identification and susceptibility were confirmed at a central laboratory. Prospective secondary per-pathogen endpoints included 28 day all-cause mortality (ACM), and clinical and microbiological response at test of cure (7-14 days after the end of therapy) in the microbiological ITT (mITT) population. RESULTS: The mITT population comprised 511 participants (264 ceftolozane/tazobactam, 247 meropenem). Baseline LRT pathogens included Klebsiella pneumoniae (34.6%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (25.0%) and Escherichia coli (18.2%). Among baseline Enterobacterales isolates, 171/456 (37.5%) were ESBL positive. For Gram-negative baseline LRT pathogens, susceptibility rates were 87.0% for ceftolozane/tazobactam and 93.3% for meropenem. For Gram-negative pathogens, 28 day ACM [52/259 (20.1%) and 62/240 (25.8%)], clinical cure rates [157/259 (60.6%) and 137/240 (57.1%)] and microbiological eradication rates [189/259 (73.0%) and 163/240 (67.9%)] were comparable with ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem, respectively. Per-pathogen microbiological eradication for Enterobacterales [145/195 (74.4%) and 129/185 (69.7%); 95% CI: -4.37 to 13.58], ESBL-producing Enterobacterales [56/84 (66.7%) and 52/73 (71.2%); 95% CI: -18.56 to 9.93] and P. aeruginosa [47/63 (74.6%) and 41/65 (63.1%); 95% CI: -4.51 to 19.38], respectively, were also comparable. CONCLUSIONS: In mechanically ventilated participants with nosocomial pneumonia owing to Gram-negative pathogens, ceftolozane/tazobactam was comparable with meropenem for per-pathogen 28 day ACM and clinical and microbiological response.

New antimicrobial treatment options for severe Gram-negative infections.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review will provide rationale for the development of new antibiotics to treat severe or multidrug-resistant (MDR) Gram-negative infections. It will also provide an overview of recently approved and pipeline antibiotics for severe/MDR Gram-negative infections. RECENT FINDINGS: MDR Gram-negative infections are recognized as critical threats by global and national organizations and carry a significant morbidity and mortality risk. Increasing antibiotic resistance amongst Gram-negative bacteria, including carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii , extended-spectrum ß-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa , with difficult-to-treat-resistance has made both empiric and definitive treatment of these infections increasingly problematic. In recent years, several antibiotics have been approved for treatment of MDR Gram-negative infections and ongoing clinical trials are poised to provide additional options to clinicians' armamentarium. These agents include various ß-lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitor combinations, eravacycline, plazomicin and cefiderocol. SUMMARY: Severe/MDR Gram-negative infections continue to be important infections due to their impact on patient outcomes, especially in critically ill and immunocompromised hosts. The availability of new antibiotics offers an opportunity to improve empiric and definitive treatment of these infections.

Outcomes in participants with failure of initial antibacterial therapy for hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia prior to enrollment in the randomized, controlled phase 3 ASPECT-NP trial of ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem.

BACKGROUND: Ceftolozane/tazobactam, a combination antibacterial agent comprising an anti-pseudomonal cephalosporin and ß-lactamase inhibitor, is approved for the treatment of hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) in adults. Participants in the ASPECT-NP trial received ceftolozane/tazobactam (3 g [2 g ceftolozane/1 g tazobactam] every 8 h) or meropenem (1 g every 8 h). Participants failing prior antibacterial therapy for the current HABP/VABP episode at study entry had lower 28-day all-cause mortality (ACM) rates with ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem treatment. Here, we report a post hoc analysis examining this result. METHODS: The phase 3, randomized, controlled, double-blind, multicenter, noninferiority trial compared ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem for treatment of adults with ventilated HABP/VABP; eligibility included those failing prior antibacterial therapy for the current HABP/VABP episode at study entry. The primary and key secondary endpoints were 28-day ACM and clinical response at test of cure (TOC), respectively. Participants who were failing prior therapy were a prospectively defined subgroup; however, subgroup analyses were not designed for noninferiority testing. The 95% CIs for treatment differences were calculated as unstratified Newcombe CIs. Post hoc analyses were performed using multivariable logistic regression analysis to determine the impact of baseline characteristics and treatment on clinical outcomes in the subgroup who were failing prior antibacterial therapy. RESULTS: In the ASPECT-NP trial, 12.8% of participants (93/726; ceftolozane/tazobactam, n = 53; meropenem, n = 40) were failing prior antibacterial therapy at study entry. In this subgroup, 28-day ACM was higher in participants who received meropenem versus ceftolozane/tazobactam (18/40 [45.0%] vs 12/53 [22.6%]; percentage difference [95% CI]: 22.4% [3.1 to 40.1]). Rates of clinical response at TOC were 26/53 [49.1%] for ceftolozane/tazobactam versus 15/40 [37.5%] for meropenem (percentage difference [95% CI]: 11.6% [- 8.6 to 30.2]). Multivariable regression analysis determined concomitant vasopressor use and treatment with meropenem were significant factors associated with risk of 28-day ACM. Adjusting for vasopressor use, the risk of dying after treatment with ceftolozane/tazobactam was approximately one-fourth the risk of dying after treatment with meropenem. CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis further supports the previously demonstrated lower ACM rate for ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem among participants who were failing prior therapy, despite the lack of significant differences in clinical cure rates. CLINICALTRIALS: gov registration NCT02070757 . Registered February 25, 2014, clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02070757 .

A dual-center cohort study on the association between early deep sedation and clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: The COVID-SED study.

BACKGROUND: Mechanically ventilated patients have experienced greater periods of prolonged deep sedation during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Multiple studies from the pre-COVID era demonstrate that early deep sedation is associated with worse outcome. Despite this, there is a lack of data on sedation depth and its impact on outcome for mechanically ventilated patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to characterize the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU) sedation practices during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to determine if early deep sedation was associated with worse clinical outcomes. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Dual-center, retrospective cohort study conducted over 6 months (March-August, 2020), involving consecutive, mechanically ventilated adults. All sedation-related data during the first 48 h were collected. Deep sedation was defined as Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of - 3 to - 5 or Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale of 1-3. To examine impact of early sedation depth on hospital mortality (primary outcome), we used a multivariable logistic regression model. Secondary outcomes included ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days. RESULTS: 391 patients were studied, and 283 (72.4%) experienced early deep sedation. Deeply sedated patients received higher cumulative doses of fentanyl, propofol, midazolam, and ketamine when compared to light sedation. Deep sedation patients experienced fewer ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days, and greater mortality (30.4% versus 11.1%) when compared to light sedation (p < 0.01 for all). After adjusting for confounders, early deep sedation remained significantly associated with higher mortality (adjusted OR 3.44; 95% CI 1.65-7.17; p < 0.01). These results were stable in the subgroup of patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: The management of sedation for mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU has changed during the COVID pandemic. Early deep sedation is common and independently associated with worse clinical outcomes. A protocol-driven approach to sedation, targeting light sedation as early as possible, should continue to remain the default approach.