High-flow nasal cannula versus non-invasive ventilation for acute hypercapnic respiratory failure in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) with bi-level positive pressure ventilation is a first-line intervention for selected patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure. Compared to conventional oxygen therapy, NIV may reduce endotracheal intubation, death, and intensive care unit length of stay (LOS), but its use is often limited by patient tolerance and treatment failure. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a potential alternative treatment in this patient population and may be better tolerated. RESEARCH QUESTION: For patients presenting with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure, is HFNC an effective alternative to NIV in reducing the need for intubation? METHODS: We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane library from database inception through to October 2021 for randomized clinical trials (RCT) of adults with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure assigned to receive HFNC or NIV. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials was used to assess risk of bias. We calculated pooled relative risks (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a random-effects model. RESULTS: We included eight RCTs (n = 528) in the final analysis. The use of HFNC compared to NIV did not reduce the risk of our primary outcome of mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48-1.56, low certainty), or our secondary outcomes including endotracheal intubation (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.46-1.39, low certainty), or hospital LOS (MD - 0.82 days, 95% CI - 1.83-0.20, high certainty). There was no difference in change in partial pressure of carbon dioxide between groups (MD - 1.87 mmHg, 95% CI - 5.34-1.60, moderate certainty). INTERPRETATION: The current body of evidence is limited in determining whether HFNC may be either superior, inferior, or equivalent to NIV for patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure given imprecision and study heterogeneity. Further studies are needed to better understand the effect of HFNC on this population.

Oxygen therapy for acutely ill medical patients: a clinical practice guideline

What is the best way to use oxygen therapy for patients with an acute medical illness? A systematic review published in the Lancet in April 2018 found that supplemental oxygen in inpatients with normal oxygen saturation increases mortality.1 Its authors concluded that oxygen should be administered conservatively, but they did not make specific recommendations on how to do it. An international expert panel used that review to inform this guideline. It aims to promptly and transparently translate potentially practice-changing evidence to usable recommendations for clinicians and patients.2 The panel used the GRADE framework and following standards for trustworthy guidelines.3

Approaches to interpreting and choosing the best treatments in network meta-analyses.

When randomized trials have addressed multiple interventions for the same health problem, network meta-analyses (NMAs) permit researchers to statistically pool data from individual studies including evidence from both direct and indirect comparisons. Grasping the significance of the results of NMAs may be very challenging. Authors may present the findings from such analyses in several numerical and graphical ways. In this paper, we discuss ranking strategies and visual depictions of rank, including the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve method. We present ranking approaches' merits and limitations and provide an example of how to apply the results of a NMA to clinical practice.

Early enteral nutrition in critically ill patients: ESICM clinical practice guidelines

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based guidelines for early enteral nutrition (EEN) during critical illness. METHODS: We aimed to compare EEN vs. early parenteral nutrition (PN) and vs. delayed EN. We defined "early" EN as EN started within 48 h independent of type or amount. We listed, a priori, conditions in which EN is often delayed, and performed systematic reviews in 24 such subtopics. If sufficient evidence was available, we performed meta-analyses; if not, we qualitatively summarized the evidence and based our recommendations on expert opinion. We used the GRADE approach for guideline development. The final recommendations were compiled via Delphi rounds. RESULTS: We formulated 17 recommendations favouring initiation of EEN and seven recommendations favouring delaying EN. We performed five meta-analyses: in unselected critically ill patients, and specifically in traumatic brain injury, severe acute pancreatitis, gastrointestinal (GI) surgery and abdominal trauma. EEN reduced infectious complications in unselected critically ill patients, in patients with severe acute pancreatitis, and after GI surgery. We did not detect any evidence of superiority for early PN or delayed EN over EEN. All recommendations are weak because of the low quality of evidence, with several based only on expert opinion. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest using EEN in the majority of critically ill under certain precautions. In the absence of evidence, we suggest delaying EN in critically ill patients with uncontrolled shock, uncontrolled hypoxaemia and acidosis, uncontrolled upper GI bleeding, gastric aspirate >500 ml/6 h, bowel ischaemia, bowel obstruction, abdominal compartment syndrome, and high-output fistula without distal feeding access.

Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012". DESIGN: A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy wasdeveloped at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroupsand among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.(AU)

Liberation from mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults: an official American College of Chest Physicians/American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline: inspiratory pressure augmentation during spontaneous breathing trials, protocols minimizing sedation, and noninvasive ventilation immediately after extubation

DESCRIPTION: The Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, which comprises representatives of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) and the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI), formed a workgroup to review evidence and provide guidance to health care providers on the initial pharmacologic treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis in patients aged 12 years or older. METHODS: To update a prior systematic review, the workgroup searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 18 July 2012 to 29 July 2016 to identify studies that addressed efficacy and adverse effects of single or combination pharmacotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis. In conjunction with the Joint Task Force, the workgroup reviewed the evidence and developed recommendations about initial treatment approaches by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Members of the AAAAI, the ACAAI, and the general public provided feedback on the draft document, which the Joint Task Force reviewed before finalizing the guideline. RECOMMENDATION 1: For initial treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis in persons aged 12 years or older, routinely prescribe monotherapy with an intranasal corticosteroid rather than an intranasal corticosteroid in combination with an oral antihistamine. (Strong recommendation). RECOMMENDATION 2: For initial treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis in persons aged 15 years or older, recommend an intranasal corticosteroid over a leukotriene receptor antagonist. (Strong recommendation). RECOMMENDATION 3: For treatment of moderate to severe seasonal allergic rhinitis in persons aged 12 years or older, the clinician may recommend the combination of an intranasal corticosteroid and an intranasal antihistamine for initial treatment. (Weak recommendation).

An Official American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline: Liberation from Mechanical Ventilation in Critically Ill Adults. Rehabilitation Protocols, Ventilator Liberation Protocols, and Cuff Leak Tests

"BACKGROUND: Interventions that lead to earlier liberation from mechanical ventilation can improve patient outcomes. This guideline, a collaborative effort between the American Thoracic Society and the American College of Chest Physicians, provides evidence-based recommendations to optimize liberation from mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults. METHODS: Two methodologists performed evidence syntheses to summarize available evidence relevant to key questions about liberation from mechanical ventilation. The methodologists appraised the certainty in the evidence (i.e., the quality of evidence) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and summarized the results in evidence profiles. The guideline panel then formulated recommendations after considering the balance of desirable consequences (benefits) versus undesirable consequences (burdens, adverse effects, and costs), the certainty in the evidence, and the feasibility and acceptability of various interventions. Recommendations were rated as strong or conditional. RESULTS: The guideline panel made four conditional recommendations related to rehabilitation protocols, ventilator liberation protocols, and cuff leak tests. The recommendations were for acutely hospitalized adults mechanically ventilated for more than 24 hours to receive protocolized rehabilitation directed toward early mobilization, be managed with a ventilator liberation protocol, be assessed with a cuff leak test if they meet extubation criteria but are deemed high risk for postextubation stridor, and be administered systemic steroids for at least 4 hours before extubation if they fail the cuff leak test. CONCLUSIONS: The American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians recommendations are intended to support healthcare professionals in their decisions related to liberating critically ill adults from mechanical ventilation.

Official Executive Summary of an American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline: Liberation from Mechanical Ventilation in Critically Ill Adults

"BACKGROUND: This clinical practice guideline addresses six questions related to liberation from mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults. It is the result of a collaborative effort between the American Thoracic Society and the American College of Chest Physicians. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel posed six clinical questions in a Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes format. A comprehensive literature search and evidence synthesis was performed for each question, which included appraising the certainty in the evidence (i.e., the quality of evidence) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The Evidence-to-Decision framework was applied to each question, requiring the panel to evaluate and weigh the importance of the problem, the confidence in the evidence, the certainty about how much the public values the main outcomes, the magnitude and balance of desirable and undesirable outcomes, the resources and costs associated with the intervention, the impact on health disparities, and the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. RESULTS: Evidence-based recommendations were formulated and graded initially by subcommittees and then modified after full-panel discussions. The recommendations were confirmed by confidential electronic voting; approval required that at least 80% of the panel members agree with the recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: The panel provides recommendations regarding liberation from mechanical ventilation. The details regarding the evidence and rationale for each recommendation are presented in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine and Chest."

National Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Saudi Arabia with strength of recommendations and quality of evidence

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the most common cancer among Saudi men and the third commonest among Saudi women. Given the predominance of colorectal cancer compared with other cancers in Saudi Arabia, context-specific guidelines are needed for screening. METHODS: Experts from the Saudi Society of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Saudi Gastroenterology Association, Saudi Oncology Society, Saudi Chapter of Enterostomal Therapy, Family Medicine and Department of Public Health at the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Health and a patient advocate was assembled by the Saudi Centre for Evidence-Based Healthcare, a subsidiary of the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Health. The panel collaborated with a methodological team from McMaster University, Canada to develop national guidelines for colorectal cancer screening. After identifying key questions, the panel conducted a systematic review of all reports on the utility of screening, the cost of screening for colorectal cancer in Saudi Arabia and on the values and preferences of Saudi patients. Meta- analyses, when appropriate, were performed to generate pooled estimates of effect. Using the GRADE approach, the panel used the evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework to assess all domains important in determining the strength and direction of the recommendations (benefits and harms, values and preferences, resource implications, equity, acceptability, and feasibility). Judgments related to the EtD domains were resolved through consensus or voting, if consensus was not reached. The final recommendations were developed during a two-day meeting held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in March 2015. Conflicts of interests among the panel members were handled according to the World Health Organization rules. LIMITATIONS: There is lack of national data on the incidence of adenomatous polyps or the age groups in which the incidence surges. There were no national clinical trials assessing the effectiveness of the different modalities of screening for colorectal cancer and their impact on mortality. CONCLUSION: The panel recommends screening for colorectal cancer in Saudi Arabia in asymptomatic Saudi patients at average risk of colorectal cancer. An infrastructure should be built to achieve that goal.(AU)

Fluid type and the use of renal replacement therapy in sepsis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Fluid resuscitation, along with the early administration of antibiotics, is the cornerstone of treatment for patients with sepsis. However, whether differences in resuscitation fluids impact on the requirements for renal replacement therapy (RRT) remains unclear. To examine this issue, we performed a network meta-analysis (NMA), including direct and indirect comparisons, that addressed the effect of different resuscitation fluids on the use of RRT in patients with sepsis. The data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, ACPJC, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register were searched up to March 2014. Eligible studies included randomized trials reported in any language that enrolled adult patients with sepsis or septic shock and addressed the use of RRT associated with alternative resuscitation fluids. The risk of bias for individual studies and the overall certainty of the evidence were assessed. Ten studies (6664 patients) that included a total of nine direct comparisons were assessed. NMA at the four-node level showed that an increased risk of receiving RRT was associated with fluid resuscitation with starch versus crystalloid [odds ratio (OR) 1.39, 95% credibility interval (CrI) 1.17-1.66, high certainty]. The data suggested no difference between fluid resuscitation with albumin and crystalloid (OR 1.04, 95% CrI 0.78-1.38, moderate certainty) or starch (OR 0.74, 95% CrI 0.53-1.04, low certainty). NMA at the six-node level showed a decreased risk of receiving RRT with balanced crystalloid compared to heavy starch (OR 0.50, 95% CrI 0.34-0.74, moderate certainty) or light starch (OR 0.70, 95% CrI 0.49-0.99, high certainty). There was no significant difference between balanced crystalloid and saline (OR 0.85, 95% CrI 0.56-1.30, low certainty) or albumin (OR 0.82, 95% CrI 0.49-1.37, low certainty). Of note, these trials vary in terms of case mix, fluids evaluated, duration of fluid exposure and risk of bias. Imprecise estimates contributed to low confidence in most estimates of effect. Among the patients with sepsis, fluid resuscitation with crystalloids compared to starch resulted in reduced use of RRT; the same may be true for albumin versus starch.

Prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: the Saudi clinical practice guideline

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is commonly encountered in the daily clinical practice. Cancer is an important VTE risk factor. Proper thromboprophylaxis is key to prevent VTE in patients with cancer, and proper treatment is essential to reduce VTE complications and adverse events associated with the therapy. DESIGN AND SETTINGS: As a result of an initiative of the Ministry of Health of Saudi Arabia, an expert panel led by the Saudi Association for Venous Thrombo-Embolism (a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society) and the Saudi Scientific Hematology Society with the methodological support of the McMaster University working group produced this clinical practice guideline to assist health care providers in evidence-based clinical decision-making for VTE prophylaxis and treatment in patients with cancer. METHODS: Six questions related to thromboprophylaxis and antithrombotic therapy were identified and the corresponding recommendations were made following the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. RESULTS: Question 1. Should heparin versus no heparin be used in outpatients with cancer who have no other therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation? RECOMMENDATION: For outpatients with cancer, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests against routine thromboprophylaxis with heparin (weak recommendation; moderate quality evidence).Question 2. Should oral anticoagulation versus no oral anticoagulation be used in outpatients with cancer who have no other therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation? RECOMMENDATION: For outpatients with cancer, the Saudi Expert Panel recommends against thromboprophylaxis with oral anticoagulation (strong recommendation; moderate quality evidence).Question 3. Should parenteral anticoagulation versus no anticoagulation be used in patients with cancer and central venous catheters? RECOMMENDATION: For outpatients with cancer and central venous catheters, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests thromboprophylaxis with parenteral anticoagulation (weak recommendation; moderate quality evidence).Question 4. Should oral anticoagulation versus no anticoagulation be used in patients with cancer and central venous catheters? RECOMMENDATION: For outpatients with cancer and central venous catheters, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests against thromboprophylaxis with oral anticoagulation (weak recommendation; low quality evidence).Question 5. Should low-molecular-weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin be used in patients with cancer being initiated on treatment for venous thromboembolism? RECOMMENDATION: In patients with cancer being initiated on treatment for venous thromboembolism, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests low-molecular-weight heparin over intravenous unfractionated heparin (weak; very low quality evidence).Question 6. Should heparin versus oral anticoagulation be used in patients with cancer requiring long-term treatment of VTE? RECOMMENDATION: In patients with metastatic cancer requiring long-term treatment of VTE, the Saudi Expert Panel recommends low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) over vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) (strong recommendation; moderate quality evidence). In patients with non-metastatic cancer requiring long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests LMWH over VKA (weak recommendation; moderate quality evidence).

The Saudi Clinical Practice Guideline for the treatment of venous thromboembolism: outpatient versus inpatient management

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) is commonly encountered in daily clinical practice. After diagnosis, its management frequently carries significant challenges to the clinical practitioner. Treatment of VTE with the inappropriate modality and/or in the inappropriate setting may lead to serious complications and have life-threatening consequences. As a result of an initiative of the Ministry of Health of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, an expert panel led by the Saudi Association for Venous Thrombo-Embolism (a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society) and the Saudi Scientific Hematology Society with the methodological support of the McMaster University Guideline working group, this clinical practice guideline was produced to assist health care providers in VTE management. Two questions were identified and were related to the inpatient versus outpatient treatment of acute DVT, and the early versus standard discharge from hospital for patients with acute PE. The corresponding recommendations were made following the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.