Low Versus High Blood Pressure Targets in Critically Ill and Surgical Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Hypotension is associated with adverse outcomes in critically ill and perioperative patients. However, these assumptions are supported by observational studies. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials aims to compare the impact of lower versus higher blood pressure targets on mortality. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Scholar from inception to February 10, 2024. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials comparing lower versus higher blood pressure targets in the management of critically ill and perioperative settings. DATA EXTRACTION: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up available. This review was registered in the Prospective International Register of Systematic Reviews, CRD42023452928. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 2940 studies identified by the search string, 28 (12 in critically ill and 16 in perioperative settings) were included totaling 15,672 patients. Patients in the low blood pressure target group had lower mortality (23 studies included: 1019/7679 [13.3%] vs. 1103/7649 [14.4%]; relative risk 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-0.99; p = 0.03; I2 = 0%). This corresponded to a 97.4% probability of any increase in mortality with a Bayesian approach. These findings were mainly driven by studies performed in the ICU setting and with treatment lasting more than 24 hours; however, the magnitude and direction of the results were similar in the majority of sensitivity analyses including the analysis restricted to low risk of bias studies. We also observed a lower rate of atrial fibrillation and fewer patients requiring transfusion in low-pressure target groups. No differences were found in the other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Based on pooled randomized trial evidence, a lower compared with a higher blood pressure target results in a reduction of mortality, atrial fibrillation, and transfusion requirements. Lower blood pressure targets may be beneficial but there is ongoing uncertainty. However, the present meta-analysis does not confirm previous findings and recommendations. These results might inform future guidelines and promote the study of the concept of protective hemodynamics.

Macklin Effect: From Pathophysiology to Clinical Implication.

Air leak syndromes (such as pneumomediastinum, pneumothorax, or subcutaneous emphysema) are frequent complications of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Unfortunately, the development of air leaks is associated with worse outcomes. In addition, it has been hypothesized that the development of pneumomediastinum could be a marker of disease severity in patients with respiratory failure receiving noninvasive respiratory support or assisted ventilation. The so-called Macklin effect (or pulmonary interstitial emphysema) is the air dissection of the lung bronchovascular tree from peripheral to central airways following injury to distal alveoli. Ultimately, the progression of the Macklin effect leads to the development of pneumomediastinum, subcutaneous emphysema, or pneumothorax. The Macklin effect is identifiable on a chest computed tomography (CT) scan. The Macklin effect could be an accurate predictor of barotrauma in patients with ARDS (sensitivity = 89.2% [95% CI: 74.6-96.9]; specificity = 95.6% [95% CI: 90.6-98.4]), and may be a marker of disease severity. Accordingly, the detection of the Macklin effect on a chest CT scan could be used to select which patients with ARDS might benefit from different treatment algorithms, including advanced respiratory monitoring, early intubation, or, potentially, the institution of early extracorporeal support with or without invasive ventilation. In this video, the authors summarize the pathophysiology and potential clinical significance and applications of the Macklin effect in patients with acute respiratory failure.

Methylene Blue Reduces Mortality in Critically Ill and Perioperative Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Vasodilatory hypotension is common in critically ill and perioperative patients, and is associated with adverse outcomes. As a nitric oxide production inhibitor, methylene blue (MB) exerts its vasoconstrictor property and is an adjuvant for catecholamine-refractory vasodilatory shock. However, the effects of MB on clinically relevant outcomes remain unclear. Therefore, the authors performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials on MB in critically ill and perioperative patients. The authors searched through databases for randomized trials on MB in critically ill and perioperative patients, which yielded 11 studies consisting of 556 patients. The primary outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic parameters and organ dysfunction (PROSPERO: CRD42023409243). Nine out of the 11 included randomized trials reported mortality, which was significantly lower in the MB group (risk ratio, 0.60 [95% CI 0.43-0.84] p = 0.003), with findings confirmed in septic shock and cardiac surgery subgroups. The authors found reduced lengths of stay in the intensive care unit (mean difference [MD], -0.9 days [95% CI -1.06 to -0.77] p < 0.001) and in the hospital (MD, -2.2 days [95% CI, -2.68 to -1.70] p < 0.001) in the MB group. MB was associated with increased mean arterial pressure (MD, 8.4 mmHg [95% CI 5.01-11.75] p < 0.001) and systemic vascular resistance (MD, 94.5 dyn/s/cm5 [95% CI 17.73-171.15] p = 0.02), with no difference in cardiac output (standardized MD, 0.16 [95% CI, -0.25 to 0.57] p = 0.45). This meta-analysis showed that MB reverses vasodilation in critically ill and perioperative patients and might improve survival. Further adequately powered randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: 10-year experience in a metropolitan cardiac arrest centre in Milan, Italy.

Introduction: Growing evidence supports extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) for refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients, especially in experienced centres. We present characteristics, treatments, and outcomes of patients treated with ECPR in a high-volume cardiac arrest centre in the metropolitan area of Milan, Italy and determine prognostic factors. Methods: Refractory OHCA patients treated with ECPR between 2013 and 2022 at IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute in Milan had survival and neurological outcome assessed at hospital discharge. Results: Out of 307 consecutive OHCA patients treated with ECPR (95% witnessed, 66% shockable, low-flow 70 [IQR 58-81] minutes), 17% survived and 9.4% had favourable neurological outcome. Survival and favourable neurological outcome increased to 51% (OR = 8.7; 95% CI, 4.3-18) and 28% (OR = 6.3; 95% CI, 2.8-14) when initial rhythm was shockable and low-flow (time between CPR initiation and ROSC or ECMO flow) ≤60 minutes and decreased to 9.5% and 6.3% when low-flow exceeded 60 minutes (72% of patients). At multivariable analysis, shockable rhythm (aOR for survival = 2.39; 95% CI, 1.04-5.48), shorter low-flow (aOR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.94-0.97), intermittent ROSC (aOR = 2.5; 95% CI, 1.2-5.6), and signs of life (aOR = 3.7; 95% CI, 1.5-8.7) were associated with better outcomes. Survival reached 10% after treating 104 patients (p for trend <0.001). Conclusions: Patients with initial shockable rhythm, intermittent ROSC, signs of life, and low-flow ≤60 minutes had higher success of ECPR for refractory OHCA. Favourable outcomes were possible beyond 60 minutes of low-flow, especially with concomitant favourable prognostic factors. Outcomes improved as the case-volume increased, supporting treatment in high-volume cardiac arrest centres.

Interventions reducing mortality in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review of randomized evidence.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 pandemic changed the way medical research is published, possibly forever. As the need for rapidity led to the rise of preprint servers, the undeniable drop in the overall quality of scientific publications requires an in-depth review of all available evidence. The present manuscript aims to identify and summarize all treatments which have been reported to reduce mortality in randomized trials in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Independent investigators searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases to identify all randomized trials of any intervention influencing mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients up to August 18th, 2022. Articles were selected only when they fulfilled all the following: randomized trial design; dealing with any kind of interventions in adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients; and statistically significant reduction in mortality. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We identified 28 interventions (42 manuscripts) reducing mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. About 60% of the studies (26/42) were multicentric, for a total of 1140 centers involved worldwide. Several of these studies were published in high-ranked, peer-reviewed journals. Interventions with randomized evidence of mortality reduction in hospitalized COVID-19 patients belonged to 5 domains: corticosteroids, immunomodulators, antimicrobials, supportive therapies, and other drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Many interventions have the potential to reduce mortality in COVID-19 hospitalized patients. The correct treatment of future pandemics relies on large, multicentric randomized clinical trials for further evaluation of these promising strategies.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Without Invasive Ventilation for Respiratory Failure in Adults: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is an advanced treatment for acute severe respiratory failure. Patients on ECMO are frequently maintained sedated and immobilized until weaning from ECMO, first, and then from mechanical ventilation. Avoidance of sedation and invasive ventilation during ECMO may have potential advantages. We performed a systematic literature review to assess efficacy and safety of awake ECMO without invasive ventilation in patients with respiratory failure. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for studies reporting outcome of awake ECMO for adult patients with respiratory failure. STUDY SELECTION: We included all studies reporting outcome of awake ECMO in patients with respiratory failure. Studies on ECMO for cardiovascular failure, cardiac arrest, or perioperative support and studies on pediatric patients were excluded. Two investigators independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators abstracted data on study characteristics, rate of awake ECMO failure, and mortality. Primary outcome was rate of awake ECMO failure (need for intubation). Pooled estimates with corresponding 95% CIs were calculated. Subgroup analyses by setting were performed. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 57 studies (28 case reports) included data from 467 awake ECMO patients. The subgroup of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome showed a pooled estimate for awake ECMO failure of 39.3% (95% CI, 24.0-54.7%), while in patients bridged to lung transplantation, pooled estimate was 23.4% (95% CI, 13.3-33.5%). Longest follow-up mortality was 121 of 439 (pooled estimate, 28%; 95% CI, 22.3-33.6%). Mortality in patients who failed awake ECMO strategy was 43 of 74 (pooled estimate, 57.2%; 95% CI, 40.2-74.3%). Two cases of cannula self-removal were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Awake ECMO is feasible in selected patients, although the effect on outcome remains to be demonstrated. Mortality is almost 60% in patients who failed awake ECMO strategy.

Is SARS-CoV-2-induced disease a decisive factor influencing testosterone in males? Findings from a case-control ex post facto study.

BACKGROUND: Whether the observed lower total testosterone (tT) levels in male patients with COVID-19 are caused by a direct impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection or are collateral phenomena shared by other systemic inflammatory conditions has not yet been clarified. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the independent role of COVID-19 in reducing circulating tT levels in men. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared demographic, clinical, and hormonal values of patients with laboratory confirmed COVID-19 admitted during the first wave of the pandemic with a cohort of consecutive male patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of the same academic center because of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) but without SARS-CoV-2 infection and no previous history of COVID-19. Linear regression model tested the independent impact of COVID-19 on circulating tT levels. Logistic regression model was used to test predictors of death in the entire cohort. RESULTS: Of 286 patients with COVID-19, 70 men had been admitted to the ICU ( = cases) and were compared to 79 patients equally admitted to ICU because of severe ARDS but negative for SARS-CoV-2 infection and without previous history of COVID-19 ( = controls). Controls were further grouped into noninfective (n = 49) and infective-ARDS (n = 30) patients. At baseline, controls were older (p = 0.01) and had more comorbidities (p < 0.0001). Overall, cases admitted to ICU had significantly lower circulating tT levels compared to controls (0.9 nmol/L vs. 2.1 nmol/L; vs. 1.2 nmol/L; p = 0.03). At linear regression, being negative for COVID-19 was associated with higher tT levels (Coeff: 2.13; 95% confidence interval - CI 0.71-3.56; p = 0.004) after adjusting for age, BMI, comorbidities and IL-6 levels. Only age and IL-6 levels emerged to be associated with higher risk of death regardless of COVID-19 status. CONCLUSIONS: This case-control ex post facto study showed lower tT levels in men with COVID-19 compared to those without COVID-19 despite both groups have been equally admitted to ICU for severe ARDS, thus suggesting a possible direct impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection toward circulating tT levels and a consequent more severe clinical outcome.

Efficacy and Safety of Reparixin in Patients with Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Study.

INTRODUCTION: Polymorphonuclear cell influx into the interstitial and bronchoalveolar spaces is a cardinal feature of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), principally mediated by interleukin-8 (IL-8). We sought to determine whether reparixin, a novel IL-8 pathway inhibitor, could reduce disease progression in patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: In this Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study, hospitalized adult patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia were randomized 2:1 to receive oral reparixin 1200 mg three times daily or placebo for up to 21 days or until hospital discharge. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28, with key secondary endpoints being the proportion of patients free of respiratory failure at Day 60, incidence of intensive care unit (ICU) admission by Day 28 and time to recovery by Day 28. RESULTS: Of 279 patients randomized, 182 received at least one dose of reparixin and 88 received placebo. The proportion of patients alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28 was similar in the two groups {83.5% versus 80.7%; odds ratio 1.63 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75, 3.51]; p = 0.216}. There were no statistically significant differences in the key secondary endpoints, but a numerically higher proportion of patients in the reparixin group were alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 60 (88.7% versus 84.6%; p = 0.195), fewer required ICU admissions by Day 28 (15.8% versus 21.7%; p = 0.168), and a higher proportion recovered by Day 28 compared with placebo (81.6% versus 74.9%; p = 0.167). Fewer patients experienced adverse events with reparixin than placebo (45.6% versus 54.5%), most mild or moderate intensity and not related to study treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This trial did not meet the primary efficacy endpoints, yet reparixin showed a trend toward limiting disease progression as an add-on therapy in COVID-19 severe pneumonia and was well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04878055, EudraCT: 2020-005919-51.

Baseline Characteristics and 3-Year Outcome of Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients Treated with the Four Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs).

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) represent the cornerstone therapy for cardioembolic events prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). In practice, the choice of one DOAC over another is guided by the decision-making process of the physician, which considers specific patient and drug characteristics. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical features and long-term outcomes of a real-world population treated with DOACs, where the use of the 4 different DOACs is quite equal. We conducted a retrospective observational, single-center, multidisciplinary study enrolling consecutive NVAF patients treated with one of the 4 DOACs. From an initial number of 753 patients, we excluded 72 patients because of loss to follow-up, at the end we enrolled 681:174 (23%) treated with dabigatran, 175 (23%) with apixaban, 190 (25%) with rivaroxaban, and 214 (29%) with edoxaban. Patients treated with apixaban were significantly older, more women represented (p <0.001), and with a higher cardioembolic and bleeding risk (p <0.001). Dabigatran was preferred in patients with liver failure (p = 0.008), whereas Apixaban and Edoxaban were chosen in chronic kidney disease (p = 0.002). At 3-year follow-up, 20 patients (2.7%) experienced a systemic thromboembolic event without significant differences in the 4 DOACs. In the same period, an International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis classification major bleeding event occurred in 26 patients (3.6%), more statistically correlated to edoxaban (6.1%) (p = 0.038). Thromboembolic events or major bleeding were higher in the edoxaban group (10%) compared with the others (p = 0.014). In our single-center real-world experience, the choice of the DOAC for a patient with NVAF was tailored to specific clinical features and drug pharmacokinetics of the patient. As a result, a small number of adverse events were observed.

Feasibility, safety and efficacy of COVID-19 severe acute respiratory distress syndrome management without invasive mechanical ventilation.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is often managed with mechanical ventilation (MV), requiring sedation and paralysis, with associated risk of complications. There is limited evidence on the use of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC). We hypothesized that management of COVID-19 ARDS without MV is feasible. METHODS: Included were all adult patients diagnosed with COVID-19 ARDS, with PaO2/FiO2 ratio <100 at admission, and whose management was initially performed without MV. We evaluated need for intubation during ICU stay, mortality and hospital/ICU length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: Out of 118 patients, 41 were managed only with HFNC from hospital admission (and at least during first 24 hours in ICU) and had a PaO2/FiO2 ratio <100 (72.9±13.0). Twenty-nine out of 41 patients never required MV: 24 of them survived and were discharged home. Their median ICU LOS was 11 (7-17) days, and their hospital LOS was 29 (18-45) days. We identified PaO2/FiO2 ratio at ICU admission as the only significant predictor for need for MV during ICU stay. We also identified age, length of non-invasive respiratory support before ICU admission, mean value of PaO2/FiO2 ratio during first half and whole ICU stay as predictors of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: It is safe to monitor in ICU and use HFNC in patients affected by COVID-19 ARDS who initially present data suggesting an early need for intubation. The 41 patients admitted with a PaO2/FiO2 ratio <100 and initially treated only with HFNC show a 22% mortality that is in the lower range of what is reported in recent literature.

Intraoperative hypotension and postoperative outcomes: a meta-analysis of randomised trials.

INTRODUCTION: Intraoperative hypotension is associated with adverse postoperative outcomes; however these findings are supported only by observational studies. The aim of this meta-analysis of randomised trials was to compare the postoperative effects permissive management with targeted management of intraoperative blood pressure. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase up to June 2023 for studies comparing permissive (mean arterial pressure ≤60 mm Hg) with targeted (mean arterial pressure >60 mm Hg) intraoperative blood pressure management. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up available. Secondary outcomes were atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, acute kidney injury, delirium, stroke, number of patients requiring transfusion, time on mechanical ventilation, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: We included 10 randomised trials including a total of 9359 patients. Mortality was similar between permissive and targeted blood pressure management groups (89/4644 [1.9%] vs 99/4643 [2.1%], odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.18, P=0.38, I2=0% with nine studies included). Atrial fibrillation (102/3896 [2.6%] vs 130/3887 [3.3%] odds ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.53-0.96, P=0.03, I2=0%), and length of hospital stay (mean difference -0.20 days, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.13, P<0.001, I2=0%) were reduced in the permissive management group. No significant differences were found in subgroup analysis for cardiac and noncardiac surgery. CONCLUSION: Pooled randomised evidence shows that a target intraoperative mean arterial pressure ≤60 mm Hg is not associated with increased mortality; nevertheless it is surprisingly associated with a reduced rate of atrial fibrillation and of length of hospital stay. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO CRD42023393725.

High dose esomeprazole as an anti-inflammatory agent in sepsis: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is caused by dysregulated immune responses due to infection and still presents high mortality rate and limited efficacious therapies, apart from antibiotics. Recent evidence suggests that very high dose proton pump inhibitors might regulate major sepsis mediators' secretion by monocytes, which might attenuate excessive host reactions and improve clinical outcomes. This effect is obtained with doses which are approximately 50 times higher than prophylactic esomeprazole single daily administration and 17 times higher than the cumulative dose of a three day prophylaxis. We aim to perform a randomized trial to investigate if high dose esomeprazole reduces organ dysfunction in patients with sepsis or septic shock. METHODS: This study, called PPI-SEPSIS, is a multicenter, randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial on critically ill septic patients admitted to the emergency department or intensive care unit. A total of 300 patients will be randomized to receive high dose esomeprazole (80 mg bolus followed by 12 mg/h for 72 h and a second 80 mg bolus 12 h after the first one) or equivolume placebo (sodium chloride 0.9%), with 1:1 allocation. The primary endpoint of the study will be mean daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score over 10 days. Secondary outcomes will include antibiotic-free days, single organ failure severity, intensive care unit-free days at day 28, and mortality. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to test the efficacy of high dose esomeprazole to reduce acute organ dysfunction in patients with septic shock. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with the trial identification NCT03452865 in March 2018.

Left ventricular assist devices promote changes in the expression levels of platelet microRNAs.

Introduction: MicroRNAs (miRs) emerged as promising diagnostic and therapeutic biomarkers in cardiovascular diseases. The potential clinical utility of platelet miRs in the setting of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support is unexplored. Methods: We prospectively measured the expression levels of 12 platelet miRs involved in platelet activation, coagulation, and cardiovascular diseases in LVAD patients by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. Data were longitudinally measured before LVAD implant and after 1, 6, and 12 months of LVAD support, and compared with those measured in healthy volunteers (controls). In silico analysis was also performed to identify pathways targeted by differentially expressed miRs. Results: Data from 15 consecutive patients and 5 controls were analyzed. Pre-implant expression levels of platelet miR-126, miR-374b, miR-223, and miR-320a were significantly different in patients vs. controls. The expression levels of platelet miR-25, miR-144, miR-320, and miR-451a changed significantly over the course of LVAD support; in silico analysis revealed that these miRs are implicated in both cardiac- and coagulation-associated pathways. Furthermore, the patients who suffered from bleeding (n = 5, 33%) had significantly higher pre-implant expression levels of platelet miR-151a and miR-454 with respect to the patients who did not. The same miRs were also differentially expressed in bleeders following LVAD implantation early before the clinical manifestation of the events. Discussion: This study provides a proof-of-concept evidence of significant modulation of platelet miRs expression driven by LVADs. The possible existence of a platelet miRs signature predictive of the development of bleeding events warrants further validation studies.

Continuous vs Intermittent Meropenem Administration in Critically Ill Patients With Sepsis: The MERCY Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Meropenem is a widely prescribed ß-lactam antibiotic. Meropenem exhibits maximum pharmacodynamic efficacy when given by continuous infusion to deliver constant drug levels above the minimal inhibitory concentration. Compared with intermittent administration, continuous administration of meropenem may improve clinical outcomes. Objective: To determine whether continuous administration of meropenem reduces a composite of mortality and emergence of pandrug-resistant or extensively drug-resistant bacteria compared with intermittent administration in critically ill patients with sepsis. Design, Setting, and Participants: A double-blind, randomized clinical trial enrolling critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock who had been prescribed meropenem by their treating clinicians at 31 intensive care units of 26 hospitals in 4 countries (Croatia, Italy, Kazakhstan, and Russia). Patients were enrolled between June 5, 2018, and August 9, 2022, and the final 90-day follow-up was completed in November 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive an equal dose of the antibiotic meropenem by either continuous administration (n = 303) or intermittent administration (n = 304). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and emergence of pandrug-resistant or extensively drug-resistant bacteria at day 28. There were 4 secondary outcomes, including days alive and free from antibiotics at day 28, days alive and free from the intensive care unit at day 28, and all-cause mortality at day 90. Seizures, allergic reactions, and mortality were recorded as adverse events. Results: All 607 patients (mean age, 64 [SD, 15] years; 203 were women [33%]) were included in the measurement of the 28-day primary outcome and completed the 90-day mortality follow-up. The majority (369 patients, 61%) had septic shock. The median time from hospital admission to randomization was 9 days (IQR, 3-17 days) and the median duration of meropenem therapy was 11 days (IQR, 6-17 days). Only 1 crossover event was recorded. The primary outcome occurred in 142 patients (47%) in the continuous administration group and in 149 patients (49%) in the intermittent administration group (relative risk, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.81-1.13], P = .60). Of the 4 secondary outcomes, none was statistically significant. No adverse events of seizures or allergic reactions related to the study drug were reported. At 90 days, mortality was 42% both in the continuous administration group (127 of 303 patients) and in the intermittent administration group (127 of 304 patients). Conclusions and Relevance: In critically ill patients with sepsis, compared with intermittent administration, the continuous administration of meropenem did not improve the composite outcome of mortality and emergence of pandrug-resistant or extensively drug-resistant bacteria at day 28. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03452839.

Coronary angiography findings in resuscitated and refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Coronary angiography (CAG) frequently reveals coronary artery disease (CAD) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), but its use is not standardized and often reported in different subpopulations. This systematic review and meta-analysis accurately describes angiographic features in resuscitated and refractory OHCA. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to October 31, 2022. Studies reporting coronary angiography findings after OHCA were considered eligible. The primary outcome was location and rate of coronary lesions. Coronary angiography findings with 95% confidence intervals were pooled with a meta-analysis of proportion. RESULTS: 128 studies (62,845 patients) were included. CAG, performed in 69% (63-75%) of patients, found a significant CAD in 75% (70-79%), a culprit lesion in 63% (59-66%), and a multivessel disease in 46% (41-51%). Compared to patients with return of spontaneous circulation, refractory OHCA was associated with more severe CAD due to a higher rate of left main involvement (17% [12-24%] vs 5.7% [3.1-10%]; p = 0.002) and acute occlusion of left anterior descending artery (27% [17-39%] vs 15% [13-18%]; p = 0.02). Nonshockable patients without ST-elevation were those receiving CAG less frequently, despite significant disease in 54% (31-76%). Left anterior descending artery was the most frequently involved (34% [30-39%]). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with OHCA have a high prevalence of significant CAD caused by acute and treatable coronary lesions. Refractory OHCA was associated with more severe coronary lesions. CAD was also present in patients with nonshockable rhythm and without ST elevation. However, heterogeneity of studies and selection of patients undergoing CAG limit the certainty of findings.

Etomidate as an induction agent for endotracheal intubation in critically ill patients: A meta-analysis of randomized trials.

PURPOSE: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate if etomidate impacted mortality in critically ill adults when compared with other induction agents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials which compared etomidate with any other induction agent in critically ill adult patients undergoing endotracheal intubation. The primary outcome was mortality at the main timepoint defined by the study. We conducted a fixed-effects meta-analysis for the risk ratio. Using that risk ratio and 95% confidence interval, we then estimated the probability of any harm (RR > 1) and the number needed to harm ≤100 (RR ≥ 1.05). RESULTS: We included 11 randomized trials comprising 2704 patients. We found that etomidate increased mortality (319/1359 [23%] vs. 267/1345 [20%]; risk ratio (RR) = 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01-1.33; P = 0.03; I2 = 0%; number needed to harm = 31). The probabilities of any increase and a 1% increase (NNH ≤100) in mortality were 98.1% and 92.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis found a high probability that etomidate increases mortality when used as an induction agent in critically ill patients with a number needed to harm of 31.

Four-Factor Prothrombin Complex Concentrate in Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation: Inverse Propensity Score-Weighted Analysis.

We compare the effect of intraoperative administration of four-factor prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs) versus fresh frozen plasma (FFP) on major bleeding, transfusions, and complications. Out of 138 patients undergoing left ventricle assist device (LVAD) implantation, 32 received PCCs as first-line hemostatic agents and 102 FFP (standard group). The crude treatment estimates indicated that, compared with the standard group, the PCC group required more FFP units (odds ratio [OR]: 4.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.58-11; p = 0.004) intraoperatively, whereas a greater number of patients received FFP at 24 hours (OR: 3.01, 95% CI: 1.19-7.59; p = 0.021) and less packed red blood cells (RBC) at 48 hours (OR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.01-1.21; p = 0.046). After the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjusted analyses, in the PCC group there was still a higher number of patients who required FFP (OR: 2.9, 95% CI: 1.02-8.25; p = 0.048) or RBC (OR: 6.23, 95% CI: 1.67-23.14; p = 0.007] at 24 hours and RBC at 48 hours (OR: 3.09, 95% CI: 0.89-10.76; p = 0.007). Adverse events and survival were similar before and after the ITPW adjustment. In conclusion, the PCCs, although relatively safe with respect to thrombotic events, were not associated with a reduction of major bleeding and blood product transfusions.

Reparixin improves survival in critically ill and transplant patients: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Reparixin, an anti-inflammatory drug that inhibits interleukin 8 (IL-8) activity, might be life-saving for high-risk in-hospital patients without increasing the risk of infection according to a previous meta-analysis. With the increasing availability of randomised data the aim of the current study is to update previous findings by including any randomised control trials (RCTs) investigating the impact of reparixin on survival of critically ill or transplant patients. METHODS: A search strategy was developed to identify all RCTs involving reparixin in critically ill or transplant patients, with the exclusion of oncological patients. Two trained and independent authors conducted a thorough search of relevant databases. In addition, backward snowballing was employed. Language restrictions were not imposed. RESULTS: Our analysis included a total of nine studies involving 733 patients: 437 received reparixin and 296 the comparator. The reparixin group had a significantly lower all-cause mortality rate compared to the control group [15/437 (3.4%) vs. 19/294 (6.4%), odds ratio = 0.47 (95% confidence interval 0.23-0.96), p-value for effect .04, I2 = 22%, number needed to treat = 33]. These findings had the same direction and magnitude of effect across COVID-19 patients (n = 325) and non-COVID-19 patients (n = 408). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in the rate of pneumonia, sepsis or non-serious infections between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this meta-analysis indicate that reparixin, an anti-inflammatory drug, improved survival in critically ill or transplant patients (including both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients) without increasing the risk of infection.