Airway Pressure Release Ventilation for Acute Respiratory Failure Due to Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective: To explore the evidence surrounding the use of Airway Pressure Release Ventilation (APRV) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: A Systematic electronic search of PUBMED, EMBASE, and the WHO COVID-19 database. We also searched the grey literature via Google and preprint servers (medRxive and research square). Eligible studies included randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing APRV to conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) in adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and reporting at least one of the following outcomes; in-hospital mortality, ventilator free days (VFDs), ICU length of stay (LOS), changes in gas exchange parameters, and barotrauma. Two authors independently screened and selected articles for inclusion and extracted data in a pre-specified form. Results: Of 181 articles screened, seven studies (one randomised controlled trial, two cohort studies, and four before-after studies) were included comprising 354 patients. APRV was initiated at a mean of 1.2-13 days after intubation. APRV wasn't associated with improved mortality compared to CMV (relative risk [RR], 1.20; 95% CI 0.70-2.05; I2, 61%) neither better VFDs (ratio of means [RoM], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.52-1.24; I2, 0%) nor ICU LOS (RoM, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.79-1.51; I2, 57%). Compared to CMV, APRV was associated with a 33% increase in PaO2/FiO2 ratio (RoM, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.21-1.48; I2, 29%) and a 9% decrease in PaCO2 (RoM, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.15; I2, 0%). There was no significant increased risk of barotrauma compared to CMV (RR, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.60-4.00; I2, 0%). Conclusions: In adult patients with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation, APRV is associated with improved gas exchange but not mortality nor VFDs when compared with CMV. The results were limited by high uncertainty given the low quality of the available studies and limited number of patients. Adequately powered and well-designed clinical trials to define the role of APRV in COVID-19 patients are still needed. Registration: PROSPERO; CRD42021291234.

Is early goal-directed therapy associated with a higher risk of adverse events?

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 suggested against the use of the early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) in patients with septic shock. This recommendation was based on the three large-scale trials (ProCESS, ARISE, and ProMISe). Although the three trials showed no difference in mortality between EGDT and usual care, the guidelines determined that the potential harms presented by EGDT likely outweigh its potential benefits. On the contrary, analysis of data from the three trials showed an approaching statistical significance lower risk of serious adverse events in the EGDT group compared to usual care (risk difference = - 1%, 95% confidence interval; - 2% to 0%, P = 0.05). EGDT may still be beneficial in patients with high disease severity and low central venous oxygen saturation, especially when managed by less experienced staff.

The FOUR score predicts mortality, endotracheal intubation and ICU length of stay after traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is the most widely accepted scale for assessing levels of consciousness, clinical status, as well as prognosis of traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients. The Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score is a new coma scale developed addressing the limitations of the GCS. The aim of this prospective cohort study was to compare the performance of the FOUR score vs. the GCS in predicting TBI outcomes. METHODS: From April to July 2011, 60 consecutive adult patients with TBI admitted to the Alexandria Main University Hospital intensive care units (ICU) were enrolled in the study. GCS and FOUR score were documented on arrival to emergency room. Outcomes were in-hospital mortality, unfavorable outcome [Glasgow outcome scale extended (GOSE) 1-4], endotracheal intubation, and ICU length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: Fifteen (25 %) patients died and 35 (58 %) had unfavorable outcome. When predicting mortality, the FOUR score showed significantly higher area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) than the GCS score (0.850 vs. 0.796, p = 0.025). The FOUR score and the GCS score were not different in predicting unfavorable outcome (AUC 0.813 vs. 0.779, p = 0.136) and endotracheal intubation (AUC 0.961 vs. 0.982, p = 0.06). Both scores were good predictors of ICU LOS (r (2) = 0.40 [FOUR score] vs. 0.41 [GCS score]). CONCLUSIONS: The FOUR score was superior to the GCS in predicting in-hospital mortality in TBI patients. There was no difference between both scores in predicting unfavorable outcome, endotracheal intubation, and ICU LOS.