Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 137
Filtrar
1.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 21(1): 218, 2021 Mar 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33691684

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Scaling-up and sustaining healthcare interventions can be challenging. Our objective was to describe how the 3 Wishes Project (3WP), a personalized end-of-life intervention, was scaled-up and sustained in an intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: In a longitudinal mixed-methods study from January 12,013 - December 31, 2018, dying patients and families were invited to participate if the probability of patient death was > 95% or after a decision to withdraw life support. A research team member or bedside clinician learned more about each of the patients and their family, then elicited and implemented at least 3 personalized wishes for patients and/or family members. We used a qualitative descriptive approach to analyze interviews and focus groups conducted with 25 clinicians who cared for the enrolled patients. We used descriptive statistics to summarize patient, wish, and clinician characteristics, and analyzed outcome data in quarters using Statistical Process Control charts. The primary outcome was enrollment of terminally ill patients and respective families; the secondary outcome was the number of wishes per patient; tertiary outcomes included wish features and stakeholder involvement. RESULTS: Both qualitative and quantitative analyses suggested a three-phase approach to the scale-up of this intervention during which 369 dying patients were enrolled, having 2039 terminal wishes implemented. From a research project to clinical program to an approach to practice, we documented a three-fold increase in enrolment with a five-fold increase in total wishes implemented, without a change in cost. Beginning as a study, the protocol provided structure; starting gradually enabled frontline staff to experience and recognize the value of acts of compassion for patients, families, and clinicians. The transition to a clinical program was marked by handover from the research staff to bedside staff, whereby project catalysts mentored project champions to create staff partnerships, and family engagement became more intentional. The final transition involved empowering staff to integrate the program as an approach to care, expanding it within and beyond the organization. CONCLUSIONS: The 3WP is an end-of-life intervention which was implemented as a study, scaled-up into a clinical program, and sustained by becoming integrated into practice as an approach to care.

2.
Europace ; 2021 Mar 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33723602

RESUMO

AIMS: Single oral dose anti-arrhythmic drugs (AADs) are used to cardiovert recent-onset atrial fibrillation (AF); however, the optimal agent is uncertain. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials testing single oral dose AADs vs. any comparator to cardiovert AF <7 days duration. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL to April 2020. The primary outcome was successful cardioversion at timepoint nearest 8 h after administration. RESULTS: From 12 712 citations, 22 trials (2320 patients) were included. Thirteen trials included patients with some degree of heart failure; 19 included patients with some degree of ischaemic heart disease vs. placebo or rate-control (32% success) at 8 h, flecainide [73%, network odds ratio (OR) 7.6, 95% credible interval (CrI) 4.4-14.0], propafenone (70%, OR 4.6, CrI 2.9-7.3), and pilsicainide (59%, OR 10.0, CrI 1.8-69.0), but not amiodarone (28%, OR 1.0, CrI 0.4-2.8) were superior. Flecainide (OR 7.5, CrI 2.6-24.0) and propafenone (OR 4.5, CrI 1.6-13.0) were superior to amiodarone; propafenone vs. flecainide did not statistically differ (OR 0.6, CrI 0.3-1.1). At longest follow-up, amiodarone was superior to placebo (OR 11.0, CrI 3.2-41.0), flecainide vs. amiodarone (OR 0.79, CrI 0.19-3.1), and propafenone vs. amiodarone (OR 0.36, CrI 0.092-1.4) were not statistically different, and flecainide was superior to propafenone (OR 2.2, CrI 1.1-4.8). Atrial and ventricular tachyarrhythmias, bradyarrhythmias, and hypotension were rare with PO AADs. CONCLUSION: Single oral dose Class 1C AADs are effective and safe for cardioversion of recent-onset AF. Flecainide may be superior to propafenone. Amiodarone is a slower acting alternative.

3.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 106, 2021 03 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33726819

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented pressure on healthcare system globally. Lack of high-quality evidence on the respiratory management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (C-ARF) has resulted in wide variation in clinical practice. METHODS: Using a Delphi process, an international panel of 39 experts developed clinical practice statements on the respiratory management of C-ARF in areas where evidence is absent or limited. Agreement was defined as achieved when > 70% experts voted for a given option on the Likert scale statement or > 80% voted for a particular option in multiple-choice questions. Stability was assessed between the two concluding rounds for each statement, using the non-parametric Chi-square (χ2) test (p < 0·05 was considered as unstable). RESULTS: Agreement was achieved for 27 (73%) management strategies which were then used to develop expert clinical practice statements. Experts agreed that COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is clinically similar to other forms of ARDS. The Delphi process yielded strong suggestions for use of systemic corticosteroids for critical COVID-19; awake self-proning to improve oxygenation and high flow nasal oxygen to potentially reduce tracheal intubation; non-invasive ventilation for patients with mixed hypoxemic-hypercapnic respiratory failure; tracheal intubation for poor mentation, hemodynamic instability or severe hypoxemia; closed suction systems; lung protective ventilation; prone ventilation (for 16-24 h per day) to improve oxygenation; neuromuscular blocking agents for patient-ventilator dyssynchrony; avoiding delay in extubation for the risk of reintubation; and similar timing of tracheostomy as in non-COVID-19 patients. There was no agreement on positive end expiratory pressure titration or the choice of personal protective equipment. CONCLUSION: Using a Delphi method, an agreement among experts was reached for 27 statements from which 20 expert clinical practice statements were derived on the respiratory management of C-ARF, addressing important decisions for patient management in areas where evidence is either absent or limited. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with Clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT04534569.


Assuntos
/complicações , Consenso , Técnica Delfos , Insuficiência Respiratória/terapia , Insuficiência Respiratória/virologia , Humanos
4.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33635540

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In previous studies of predictors of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in the intensive care unit (ICU), most patients received pharmacological stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP). We aimed to assess associations between potential predictors of clinically important GI bleeding (CIB) and overt GI bleeding in adult ICU patients, while considering the effect and potential interaction with use of SUP. METHODS: We included 3291 acutely admitted adult ICU patients with risk factors for GI bleeding randomized to SUP (pantoprazole) or placebo in the SUP-ICU trial. We used logistic regression models adjusted for allocation to SUP to estimate associations between 23 potential predictors and CIB (primary outcome) and overt GI bleeding (secondary outcome). Furthermore, we assessed associations between potential predictors and both outcomes in each allocation group and assessed potential interaction with allocation to SUP. RESULTS: Increasing SAPS II and SOFA scores, use of circulatory support and renal replacement therapy were associated with increased risk of CIB and overt GI bleeding; chronic lung disease was associated with increased risk of overt GI bleeding. Results for the remaining potential predictors were compatible with both no difference or increased and decreased risks. We found no strong evidence for any interaction between treatment allocation and any potential predictors. CONCLUSION: In adult ICU patients at risk of GI bleeding, severity of illness, use of circulatory support and renal replacement therapy were associated with higher odds of CIB, with no strong evidence of interaction with SUP.

5.
Crit Care Med ; 49(3): e219-e234, 2021 03 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33555780

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues to affect millions worldwide. Given the rapidly growing evidence base, we implemented a living guideline model to provide guidance on the management of patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. METHODS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Disease 2019 panel has expanded to include 43 experts from 14 countries; all panel members completed an electronic conflict-of-interest disclosure form. In this update, the panel addressed nine questions relevant to managing severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. We used the World Health Organization's definition of severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019. The systematic reviews team searched the literature for relevant evidence, aiming to identify systematic reviews and clinical trials. When appropriate, we performed a random-effects meta-analysis to summarize treatment effects. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, then used the evidence-to-decision framework to generate recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued nine statements (three new and six updated) related to ICU patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019. For severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019, the panel strongly recommends using systemic corticosteroids and venous thromboprophylaxis but strongly recommends against using hydroxychloroquine. In addition, the panel suggests using dexamethasone (compared with other corticosteroids) and suggests against using convalescent plasma and therapeutic anticoagulation outside clinical trials. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel suggests using remdesivir in nonventilated patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 and suggests against starting remdesivir in patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019 outside clinical trials. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue a recommendation on the use of awake prone positioning. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued several recommendations to guide healthcare professionals caring for adults with critical or severe coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. Based on a living guideline model the recommendations will be updated as new evidence becomes available.


Assuntos
Corticosteroides/uso terapêutico , Cuidados Críticos , Dexametasona/uso terapêutico , Gerenciamento Clínico , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Monofosfato de Adenosina/análogos & derivados , Monofosfato de Adenosina/uso terapêutico , Alanina/análogos & derivados , Alanina/uso terapêutico , Anticoagulantes , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Hemodinâmica , Humanos , Hidroxicloroquina , Imunização Passiva , Posicionamento do Paciente , Ventilação
6.
Can J Anaesth ; 2021 Jan 25.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33495945

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Septic shock and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are characterized by a dysregulated immune host response that may respond to steroid therapy. Eosinophils contribute to type 2 inflammation that often responds to steroid therapy; their role in immune dysregulation and outcomes in sepsis and ARDS is unclear. SOURCE: A systematic search of Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE was performed from inception to 9 September 2020. The search comprised the following terms: eosinophils, sepsis, septic shock, and ARDS. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and texts and extracted data on disease severity and clinical outcomes. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Thirty-nine studies were identified: 30 evaluated serum eosinophil count in sepsis, one evaluated eosinophil activity in sepsis, three assessed bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) eosinophil count in ARDS, four assessed eosinophil activity in ARDS, and one assessed peripheral eosinophil count in ARDS. Eleven studies showed an association between eosinopenia and sepsis, and eight studies found persistent eosinopenia at > 48 hr of intensive care unit admission to predict mortality and readmission in septic patients. Three studies found BAL eosinophil count to be low in ARDS, although one found that levels rose in late-phase ARDS. Three studies found eosinophil activity markers in BAL to be high in ARDS and correlate with ARDS severity. CONCLUSION: Persistent peripheral eosinopenia is a marker of bacterial sepsis and is independently associated with poor outcomes. Bronchoalveolar lavage eosinophil counts are low in early-phase ARDS, but increase in late-phase ARDS, while elevated markers of eosinophil activity correlate with ARDS severity. Further studies understanding the mechanisms leading to eosinopenia in sepsis and increased eosinophil activity in ARDS are needed.

7.
PLoS One ; 16(1): e0244778, 2021.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33406138

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Populations such as healthcare workers (HCW) that are unable to practice physical distancing are at high risk of acquiring Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). In these cases pharmacological prophylaxis would be a solution to reduce severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS CoV-2) transmission. Hydroxychloroquine has in vitro antiviral properties against SARS CoV-2. We therefore sought to determine the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis for COVID-19. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We electronically searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane COVID-19 Register of Controlled Trials, Epistemonikos COVID-19, clinicaltrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to September 28th, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We calculated pooled relative risks (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effect model. We identified four RCTs (n = 4921) that met our eligibility criteria. The use of hydroxychloroquine, compared to placebo, did not reduce the risks of developing COVID-19 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04, moderate certainty), hospitalization (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.50, moderate certainty), or mortality (RR 3.26, 95% CI 0.13 to 79.74, low certainty), however, hydroxychloroquine use increased the risk of adverse events (RR 2.76, 95% CI 1.38 to 5.55, moderate certainty). CONCLUSION: Although pharmacologic prophylaxis is an attractive preventive strategy against COVID-19, the current body of evidence failed to show clinical benefit for prophylactic hydroxychloroquine and showed a higher risk of adverse events when compared to placebo or no prophylaxis.


Assuntos
/tratamento farmacológico , Hidroxicloroquina/efeitos adversos , Hidroxicloroquina/uso terapêutico , Antibioticoprofilaxia/métodos , Antivirais/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Hidroxicloroquina/metabolismo , Profilaxia Pré-Exposição/métodos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , /patogenicidade
8.
Chest ; 2021 Jan 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33434496

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Although clinical studies have evaluated dexmedetomidine as a strategy to improve noninvasive ventilation (NIV) comfort and tolerance in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF), their results have not been summarized. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does dexmedetomidine, when compared with another sedative or placebo, reduce the risk of delirium, mortality, need for intubation and mechanical ventilation, or ICU length of stay (LOS) in adults with ARF initiated on NIV in the ICU? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We electronically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception through July 31, 2020, for randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We calculated pooled relative risks (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes with the corresponding 95% CIs using a random-effect model. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs were included in our final analysis (N = 738 patients). The use of dexmedetomidine, compared with other sedation strategies or placebo, reduced the risk of intubation (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.41-0.71; moderate certainty), delirium (RR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.22-0.54; moderate certainty), and ICU LOS (MD, -2.40 days; 95% CI, -3.51 to -1.29 days; low certainty). Use of dexmedetomidine was associated with an increased risk of bradycardia (RR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.92-4.07; moderate certainty) and hypotension (RR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.32-2.98; moderate certainty). INTERPRETATION: Compared with any sedation strategy or placebo, dexmedetomidine reduced the risk of delirium and the need for mechanical ventilation while increasing the risk of bradycardia and hypotension. The results are limited by imprecision, and further large RCTs are needed. TRIAL REGISTRY: PROSPERO; No.: 175086; URL: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.

9.
J Crit Care ; 61: 89-95, 2020 Oct 20.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33157310

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Fever is frequently encountered in ICU. It is unclear if targeted temperature control is beneficial in critically ill patients with suspected or confirmed infection. We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis to answer this question. METHODS: We systematically reviewed major databases before January 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared antipyretic with placebo for temperature control in non-neurocritical ill adult patients with suspected or confirmed infection. Outcomes of interest were 28-day mortality, temperature level, hospital mortality, length of stay, shock reversal, and patient comfort. RESULT: 13 RCTs enrolling 1963 patients were included. No difference in 28-day mortality between antipyretic compared with placebo (risk ratio [RR] 1.03; 95% CI 0.79-1.35). Lower temperature levels were achieved in the antipyretic group (MD [mean difference] -0.41; 95% CI -0.66 to -0.16). Antipyretic use did not affect the risk of hospital mortality (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.73-1.30), ICU length of stay (MD -0.07; 95% CI -0.70 to 0.56), or shock reversal (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.76-1.62). CONCLUSION: Antipyretic therapy effectively reduces temperature in non-neurocritical ill patients but does not reduce mortality or impact other outcomes.

11.
Intensive Care Med ; 2020 Oct 20.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33079217

RESUMO

PURPOSE: With the publication of a large randomized-controlled trial (RCT) suggesting that tranexamic acid (TXA) may improve head-injury-related deaths, we aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of TXA in acute traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, CINHAL, ACPJC, Google Scholar, and unpublished sources from inception until June 24, 2020 for randomized-controlled trials comparing TXA and placebo in adults and adolescents (≥ 15 years of age) with acute TBI. We screened studies and extracted summary estimates independently and in duplicate. We assessed the quality of evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020164232). RESULTS: Nine RCTs enrolled 14,747 patients. Compared to placebo, TXA had no effect on mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.88-1.02; RD 1.0% reduction; 95% CI 2.5% reduction to 0.4% increase, moderate certainty) or disability assessed by the Disability Rating Scale (MD, - 0.18 points; 95% CI - 0.43 to 0.08; moderate certainty). TXA may reduce hematoma expansion on subsequent imaging (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.58-1.03, RD 3.6%, 95% CI 6.6% reduction to 0.5% increase, low certainty). Risks of adverse events (all moderate, low, or very low certainty) were similar between placebo and TXA. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute TBI, TXA probably has no effect on mortality or disability. TXA may decrease hematoma expansion on subsequent imaging; however, this outcome is likely of less importance to patients. The use of TXA probably does not increase the risk of adverse events.

12.
Intensive Care Med ; 46(11): 1977-1986, 2020 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33104824

RESUMO

The aim of this Intensive Care Medicine Rapid Practice Guideline (ICM-RPG) is to formulate an evidence-based guidance for the use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) in adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The panel comprised 20 international clinical experts from 12 countries, and 2 patient representatives. We adhered to the methodology for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines and followed a strict conflict of interest policy. We convened panelists through teleconferences and web-based discussions. Guideline experts from the guidelines in intensive care, development, and evaluation Group provided methodological support. Two content experts provided input and shared their expertise with the panel but did not participate in drafting the final recommendations. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of evidence and grade recommendations and suggestions. We used the evidence to decision framework to generate recommendations. The panel provided input on guideline implementation and monitoring, and suggested future research priorities. The overall certainty in the evidence was low. The ICM-RPG panel issued one recommendation and two suggestions regarding the use of NMBAs in adults with ARDS. Current evidence does not support the early routine use of an NMBA infusion in adults with ARDS of any severity. It favours avoiding a continuous infusion of NMBA for patients who are ventilated using a lighter sedation strategy. However, for patients who require deep sedation to facilitate lung protective ventilation or prone positioning, and require neuromuscular blockade, an infusion of an NMBA for 48 h is a reasonable option.

13.
Intensive Care Med Exp ; 8(1): 61, 2020 Oct 23.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33095344

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Existing clinical practice guidelines support the use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); however, a recent large randomized clinical trial (RCT) has questioned this practice. Therefore, we updated a previous systematic review to determine the efficacy and safety of NMBAs in ARDS. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE (October 2012 to July 2019), the Cochrane (Central) database, and clinical trial registries ( ClinicalTrials.gov , ISRCTN Register, and WHO ICTRP) for RCTs comparing the effects of NMBA as a continuous infusion versus placebo or no NMBA infusion (but allowing intermittent NMBA boluses) on patient-important outcomes for adults with ARDS. Two independent reviewers assessed the methodologic quality of the primary studies and abstracted data. RESULTS: Seven RCTs, including four new RCTs, met eligibility criteria for this review. These trials enrolled 1598 patients with moderate to severe ARDS at centers in the USA, France, and China. All trials assessed short-term continuous infusions of cisatracurium or vecuronium. The pooled estimate for mortality outcomes showed significant statistical heterogeneity, which was only explained by a subgroup analysis by depth of sedation in the control arm. A continuous NMBA infusion did not improve mortality when compared to a light sedation strategy with no NMBA infusion (relative risk [RR] 0.99; 95% CI 0.86-1.15; moderate certainty; P = 0.93). On the other hand, continuous NMBA infusion reduced mortality when compared to deep sedation with as needed NMBA boluses (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.57-0.89; low certainty; P = 0.003). Continuous NMBA infusion reduced the rate of barotrauma (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.35-0.85, moderate certainty; P = 0.008) across eligible trials, but the effect on ventilator-free days, duration of mechanical ventilation, and ICU-acquired weakness was uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: Inconsistency in study methods and findings precluded the pooling of all trials for mortality. In a pre-planned sensitivity analysis, the impact of NMBA infusion on mortality depends on the strategy used in the control arm, showing reduced mortality when compared to deep sedation, but no effect on mortality when compared to lighter sedation. In both situations, a continuous NMBA infusion may reduce the risk of barotrauma, but the effects on other patient-important outcomes remain unclear. Future research, including an individual patient data meta-analysis, could help clarify some of the observed findings in this updated systematic review.

14.
Pediatr Crit Care Med ; 21(11): e1031-e1037, 2020 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32886460

RESUMO

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is a novel cause of organ dysfunction in children, presenting as either coronavirus disease 2019 with sepsis and/or respiratory failure or a hyperinflammatory shock syndrome. Clinicians must now consider these diagnoses when evaluating children for septic shock and sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign International Guidelines for the Management of Septic Shock and Sepsis-associated Organ Dysfunction in Children provide an appropriate framework for the early recognition and initial resuscitation of children with sepsis or septic shock caused by all pathogens, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. However, the potential benefits of select adjunctive therapies may differ from non-coronavirus disease 2019 sepsis.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus/complicações , Pediatria/normas , Pneumonia Viral/complicações , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Sepse/terapia , Algoritmos , Atitude Frente a Saúde , Betacoronavirus , Criança , Cuidados Críticos/normas , Humanos , Insuficiência de Múltiplos Órgãos/etiologia , Insuficiência de Múltiplos Órgãos/terapia , Pandemias , Ressuscitação/normas , Sepse/etiologia , Choque Séptico/etiologia , Choque Séptico/terapia , Vasoconstritores/uso terapêutico
17.
Crit Care Med ; 48(10): 1403-1410, 2020 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32796181

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To describe the importance of critical care clinical research that is not pandemic-focused during pandemic times; outline principles to assist in the prioritization of nonpandemic research during pandemic times; and propose a guiding framework for decisions about whether, when and how to continue nonpandemic research while still honoring the moral and scientific imperative to launch research that is pandemic-focused. DESIGN/DATA SOURCES: Using in-person, email, and videoconference exchanges, we convened an interprofessional clinical research group, conducted a literature review of empirical studies, ethics documents and expert commentaries (2010 to present), and viewed traditional and social media posts (March 2020 to May 2020). Stakeholder consultation involved scientific, ethics, clinical, and administrative leaders. SETTING: Clinical research in the ICU. PATIENTS: Patients with and without coronavirus disease 2019. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: While clinical research should be prioritized to advantage patients with coronavirus disease 2019 in order to care for affected patients, it ideally would not unduly disadvantage patients without coronavirus disease 2019. Thus, timely, rigorous, relevant, and ethical clinical research is needed to improve the care and optimize outcomes for both patients with and without coronavirus disease 2019, acknowledging how many studies that are not exclusively focused on coronavirus disease 2019 remain relevant to patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Considerations to continue nonpandemic-focused research include the status of the pandemic, local jurisdictional guidance, capacity and safety of bedside and research personnel, disposition of patients already enrolled in nonpandemic studies, analyzing characteristics of each nonpandemic-focused study, research oversight, and final reporting requirements. CONCLUSIONS: Deliberation about continuing nonpandemic research should use objective, transparent criteria considering several aspects of the research process such as bedside and research staff safety, infection control, the informed consent model, protocol complexity, data collection, and implementation integrity. Decisions to pause or pursue nonpandemic research should be proportionate, transparent, and revisited as the pandemic abates.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/organização & administração , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Cuidados Críticos/normas , Pandemias/estatística & dados numéricos , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Infecções por Coronavirus/prevenção & controle , Estado Terminal/mortalidade , Estado Terminal/terapia , Feminino , Saúde Global , Humanos , Controle de Infecções/normas , Masculino , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Pneumonia Viral/prevenção & controle , Projetos de Pesquisa , Gestão da Segurança
18.
Intensive Care Med ; 46(11): 1987-2000, 2020 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32833040

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Motivated by a new randomized trial (the PEPTIC trial) that raised the issue of an increase in mortality with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) relative to histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), we updated our prior systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) addressing the impact of pharmacological gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients. METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs, H2RAs, or sucralfate versus one another or placebo or no prophylaxis in adult critically ill patients. We performed Bayesian random-effects NMA and conducted analyses using all PEPTIC data as well as a restricted analysis using only PEPTIC data from high compliance centers. We used the GRADE approach to quantify absolute effects and assess the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Seventy-four trials enrolling 39 569 patients proved eligible. Both PPIs (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% credible interval 0.93 to 1.14, moderate certainty) and H2RAs (RR 0.98, 0.89 to 1.08, moderate certainty) probably have little or no impact on mortality compared with no prophylaxis. There may be no important difference between PPIs and H2RAs on mortality (RR 1.05, 0.97 to 1.14, low certainty), the 95% credible interval of the complete analysis has not excluded an important increase in mortality with PPIs. Both PPIs (RR 0.46, 0.29 to 0.66) and H2RAs (RR 0.67, 0.48 to 0.94) probably reduce clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding; the magnitude of reduction is probably greater in PPIs than H2RAs (RR 0.69, 0.45 to 0.93), and the difference may be important in higher, but not lower bleeding risk patients. PPIs (RR 1.08, 0.88 to 1.45, low certainty) and H2RAs (RR 1.07, 0.85 to 1.37, low certainty) may have no important impact on pneumonia compared with no prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: This updated NMA confirmed that PPIs and H2RAs are most likely to have a similar effect on mortality compared to each other and compared to no prophylaxis; however, the possibility that PPIs may slightly increase mortality cannot be excluded (low certainty evidence). PPIs and H2RAs probably achieve important reductions in clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding; for higher bleeding risk patients, the greater benefit of PPIs over H2RAs may be important. PPIs or H2RAs may not result in important increases in pneumonia but the certainty of evidence is low.

19.
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med ; : 1-8, 2020 Jul 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32611247

RESUMO

Background: Studies on COVID-19 infection in pregnancy thus far have largely focused on characterizing maternal and neonatal clinical characteristics. However, another evolving focus is assessing and mitigating the risk of vertical transmission amongst COVID-19-positive mothers. The objective of this review was to summarize the current evidence on the vertical transmission potential of COVID-19 infection in the third trimester and its effects on the neonate.Methods: OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial (CENTRAL) were searched from January 2020 to May 2020, with continuous surveillance.Results: 18 studies met the inclusion criteria, consisting of 157 mothers and 160 neonates. The mean age of the pregnant patients was 30.8 years and the mean gestational period was 37 weeks and 1 d. Currently, there is currently no conclusive evidence to suggest that vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurs. Amongst 81 (69%) neonates who were tested for SARS-CoV-2, 5 (6%) had a positive result. However, amongst these 5 neonates, the earliest test was performed at 16 h after birth, and only 1 neonate was positive when they were later re-tested. However, this neonate initially tested negative at birth, suggesting that the SARS-CoV-2 infection was likely hospital-acquired rather than vertically transmitted. 13 (8%) neonates had complications or symptoms.Conclusions: The findings of this rapid descriptive review based on early clinical evidence suggest that vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from mother to neonate/newborn did not occur. Future studies are needed to determine the optimal management of neonates born to COVID-19-positive mothers.

20.
Crit Care Explor ; 2(7): e0157, 2020 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32696016

RESUMO

This systematic review and meta-analysis addresses the efficacy and safety of nonopioid adjunctive analgesics for patients in the ICU. Data Sources: We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL Plus, and Web of Science. Study Selection: Two independent reviewers screened citations. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials comparing efficacy and safety of an adjuvant-plus-opioid regimen to opioids alone in adult ICU patients. Data Extraction: We conducted duplicate screening of citations and data abstraction. Data Synthesis: Of 10,949 initial citations, we identified 34 eligible trials. These trials examined acetaminophen, carbamazepine, clonidine, dexmedetomidine, gabapentin, ketamine, magnesium sulfate, nefopam, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (including diclofenac, indomethacin, and ketoprofen), pregabalin, and tramadol as adjunctive analgesics. Use of any adjuvant in addition to an opioid as compared to an opioid alone led to reductions in patient-reported pain scores at 24 hours (standard mean difference, -0.88; 95% CI, -1.29 to -0.47; low certainty) and decreased opioid consumption (in oral morphine equivalents over 24 hr; mean difference, 25.89 mg less; 95% CI, 19.97-31.81 mg less; low certainty). In terms of individual medications, reductions in opioid use were demonstrated with acetaminophen (mean difference, 36.17 mg less; 95% CI, 7.86-64.47 mg less; low certainty), carbamazepine (mean difference, 54.69 mg less; 95% CI, 40.39-to 68.99 mg less; moderate certainty), dexmedetomidine (mean difference, 10.21 mg less; 95% CI, 1.06-19.37 mg less; low certainty), ketamine (mean difference, 36.81 mg less; 95% CI, 27.32-46.30 mg less; low certainty), nefopam (mean difference, 70.89 mg less; 95% CI, 64.46-77.32 mg less; low certainty), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (mean difference, 11.07 mg less; 95% CI, 2.7-19.44 mg less; low certainty), and tramadol (mean difference, 22.14 mg less; 95% CI, 6.67-37.61 mg less; moderate certainty). Conclusions: Clinicians should consider using adjunct agents to limit opioid exposure and improve pain scores in critically ill patients.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...