Clues for improvement of research in objective structured clinical examination.

While objective clinical structured examination (OSCE) is a worldwide recognized and effective method to assess clinical skills of undergraduate medical students, the latest Ottawa conference on the assessment of competences raised vigorous debates regarding the future and innovations of OSCE. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive view of the global research activity on OSCE over the past decades and to identify clues for its improvement. We performed a bibliometric and scientometric analysis of OSCE papers published until March 2024. We included a description of the overall scientific productivity, as well as an unsupervised analysis of the main topics and the international scientific collaborations. A total of 3,224 items were identified from the Scopus database. There was a sudden spike in publications, especially related to virtual/remote OSCE, from 2020 to 2024. We identified leading journals and countries in terms of number of publications and citations. A co-occurrence term network identified three main clusters corresponding to different topics of research in OSCE. Two connected clusters related to OSCE performance and reliability, and a third cluster on student's experience, mental health (anxiety), and perception with few connections to the two previous clusters. Finally, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada were identified as leading countries in terms of scientific publications and collaborations in an international scientific network involving other European countries (the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy) as well as Saudi Arabia and Australia, and revealed the lack of important collaboration with Asian countries. Various avenues for improving OSCE research have been identified: i) developing remote OSCE with comparative studies between live and remote OSCE and issuing international recommendations for sharing remote OSCE between universities and countries; ii) fostering international collaborative studies with the support of key collaborating countries; iii) investigating the relationships between student performance and anxiety.

Thrombolysis before venoarterial ECMO for high-risk pulmonary embolism: a retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Despite systemic thrombolysis, a few patients with high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) remain hemodynamically unstable. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is a considerable lifesaving therapy but systemic thrombolysis before cannulation could carry a high risk of hemorrhage and alter the prognosis. METHODS: Between June 2012 and June 2023, we retrospectively analyzed from three intensive care units in Sorbonne University, ECMO-related complications and 90-day mortality for high-risk PE patients who received ECMO without previous systemic thrombolysis compared to those cannulated after systemic thrombolysis failure. Hospital discharge survivors were assessed for long-term health-related quality of life and echocardiographic evaluations. RESULTS: 72 high-risk PE patients [median age 48 (37-61) years, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II) 74 (60-85)] were placed on VA-ECMO for 5 (5-7) days. 31 (43%) patients underwent pre-ECMO thrombolysis (thrombolysis ECMO group, T +) compared to 41 patients (57%, no thrombolysis ECMO group, T-). There was more pre-ECMO cardiac arrest in the thrombolysis ECMO group (94% vs. 67%, p = 0.02). Ninety-day survival was not different between groups (39% vs 46%, log-rank test, p = 0.31). There was no difference in severe hemorrhages (61% vs 59%, p = 1). Twenty-five over 28 patients attended follow-up at a median time of 69 (52-95) months. Long-term quality of life was acceptable and none of them experienced chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: Ninety-day survival and bleeding events rates did not differ in patients treated with VA-ECMO after systemic thrombolysis compared to those who were not. Recent systemic thrombolysis, as a single parameter, should not be considered as a contraindication for VA-ECMO in high-risk PE.

Mesenchymal stromal cell-derived extracellular vesicles therapy openings new translational challenges in immunomodulating acute liver inflammation.

Inflammation plays a critical role in conditions such as acute liver failure, acute-on-chronic liver failure, and ischemia-reperfusion-induced liver injury. Various pathogenic pathways contribute to liver inflammation, involving inflammatory polarization of macrophages and Küpffer cells, neutrophil infiltration, dysregulation of T cell subsets, oxidative stress, and activation of hepatic stellate cells. While mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) have demonstrated beneficial properties, their clinical translation is limited by their cellular nature. However, MSC-derived extracellular vesicles (MSC-EVs) have emerged as a promising cell-free therapeutic approach for immunomodulation. MSC-EVs naturally mirror their parental cell properties, overcoming the limitations associated with the use of MSCs. In vitro and in vivo preclinical studies have demonstrated that MSC-EVs replicate the beneficial effects of MSCs in liver injury. This includes the reduction of cell death and oxidative stress, improvement of hepatocyte function, induction of immunomodulatory effects, and mitigation of cytokine storm. Nevertheless, MSC-EVs face challenges regarding the necessity of defining consistent isolation methods, optimizing MSCs culture conditions, and establishing quality control measures for EV characterization and functional assessment. By establishing standardized protocols, guidelines, and affordable cost mass production, clinicians and researchers will have a solid foundation to conduct further studies, validate the therapeutic efficacy of MSC-EVs, and ultimately pave the way for their clinical implementation in acute liver injury.

Treatment of COVID-19-associated ARDS with umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stromal cells in the STROMA-CoV-2 multicenter randomized double-blind trial: long-term safety, respiratory function, and quality of life.

BACKGROUND: The STROMA-CoV-2 study was a French phase 2b, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial that did not identify a significant efficacy of umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stromal cells in patients with SARS-CoV-2-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome. Safety on day 28 was found to be good. The aim of our extended study was to assess the 6- and 12-month safety of UC-MSCs administration in the STROMA-CoV-2 cohort. METHODS: A detailed multi-domain assessment was conducted at 6 and 12 months following hospital discharge focusing on adverse events, lung computed tomography-scan, pulmonary and muscular functional status, and quality of life in the STROMA-CoV-2 cohort including SARS-CoV-2-related early (< 96 h) mild-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. RESULTS: Between April 2020 and October 2020, 47 patients were enrolled, of whom 19 completed a 1-year follow-up. There were no significant differences in any endpoints or adverse effects between the UC-MSCs and placebo groups at the 6- and 12-month assessments. Ground-glass opacities persisted at 1 year in 5 patients (26.3%). Furthermore, diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide remained altered over 1 year, although no patient required oxygen or non-invasive ventilatory support. Quality of life revealed declines in mental, emotional and physical health throughout the follow-up period, and the six-minute walking distance remained slightly impaired at the 1-year patient assessment. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests a favorable safety profile for the use of intravenous UC-MSCs in the context of the first French wave of SARS-CoV-2-related moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, with no adverse effects observed at 1 year.

Impact of COVID-19 on posttraumatic stress disorder in ICU survivors: a prospective observational comparative cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after a stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) can affect one in five ICU survivors. At the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, admission to the ICU for COVID-19 was stressful due to the severity of this disease. This study assessed whether admission to the ICU for COVID-19 was associated with a higher prevalence of PTSD compared with other causes of ICU admission after adjustment for pre-ICU psychological factors. METHODS: This prospective observational comparative cohort study included 31 ICUs. Eligible patients were adult ICU survivors hospitalized during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic in France, regardless of the reason for admission. The prevalence of presumptive diagnosis of PTSD at 6 months was assessed using the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5). Sociodemographics, clinical data, history of childhood trauma (Childhood Trauma Questionnaire [CTQ]), and exposure to potentially traumatic events (Life Events Checklist for DSM-5 [LEC-5]) were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 778 ICU survivors included during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic in France, 417 and 361 were assigned to the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cohorts, respectively. Fourteen (4.9%) and 11 (4.9%), respectively, presented with presumptive diagnosis of PTSD at 6 months (p = 0.976). After adjusting for age, sex, severity score at admission, use of invasive mechanical ventilation, ICU duration, CTQ and LEC-5, COVID-19 status was not associated with presumptive diagnosis of PTSD using the PCL-5. Only female sex was associated with presumptive diagnosis of PTSD. However, COVID-19 patients reported significantly more intrusion and avoidance symptoms than non-COVID patients (39% vs. 29%, p = 0.015 and 27% vs. 19%, p = 0.030), respectively. The median PCL-5 score was higher in the COVID-19 than non-COVID-19 cohort (9 [3, 20] vs. 4 [2, 16], p = 0.034). CONCLUSION: Admission to the ICU for COVID-19 was not associated with a higher prevalence of PTSD compared with admission for another cause during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in France. However, intrusion and avoidance symptoms were more frequent in COVID-19 patients than in non-COVID-19 patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT03991611, registered on June 19, 2019.

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.