RAND appropriateness panel to determine the applicability of UK guidelines on the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and other strategies in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has become the most common cause of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) worldwide. Features of the pathophysiology and clinical presentation partially distinguish it from 'classical' ARDS. A Research and Development (RAND) analysis gauged the opinion of an expert panel about the management of ARDS with and without COVID-19 as the precipitating cause, using recent UK guidelines as a template. METHODS: An 11-person panel comprising intensive care practitioners rated the appropriateness of ARDS management options at different times during hospital admission, in the presence or absence of, or varying severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection on a scale of 1-9 (where 1-3 is inappropriate, 4-6 is uncertain and 7-9 is appropriate). A summary of the anonymised results was discussed at an online meeting moderated by an expert in RAND methodology. The modified online survey comprising 76 questions, subdivided into investigations (16), non-invasive respiratory support (18), basic intensive care unit management of ARDS (20), management of refractory hypoxaemia (8), pharmacotherapy (7) and anticoagulation (7), was completed again. RESULTS: Disagreement between experts was significant only when addressing the appropriateness of diagnostic bronchoscopy in patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Adherence to existing published guidelines for the management of ARDS for relevant evidence-based interventions was recommended. Responses of the experts to the final survey suggested that the supportive management of ARDS should be the same, regardless of a COVID-19 diagnosis. For patients with ARDS with COVID-19, the panel recommended routine treatment with corticosteroids and a lower threshold for full anticoagulation based on a high index of suspicion for venous thromboembolic disease. CONCLUSION: The expert panel found no reason to deviate from the evidence-based supportive strategies for managing ARDS outlined in recent guidelines.

Hospital-Acquired Blood Stream Infection in an Adult Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired blood stream infections are a common and serious complication in critically ill patients. METHODS: A retrospective case series was undertaken investigating the incidence and causes of bacteraemia in an adult intensive care unit with a high proportion of postoperative cardiothoracic surgical and oncology patients. RESULTS: 405 eligible patients were admitted to the intensive care unit over the course of nine months. 12 of these patients developed a unit-acquired blood stream infection. The average Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score of patients who developed bacteraemia was greater than that of those who did not (19.8 versus 16.8, respectively). The risk of developing bacteraemia was associated with intubation and higher rates of invasive procedures. The mortality rate amongst the group of patients that developed bacteraemia was 33%; this is in contrast to the mortality rate in our unit as 27.2%. There was a higher proportion of Gram-negative bacteria isolated on blood cultures (9 out of 13 isolates) than in intensive care units reported in other studies. CONCLUSION: Critical-care patients are at risk of secondary bloodstream infection. This study highlights the importance of measures to reduce the risk of infection in the intensive-care setting, particularly in patients who have undergone invasive procedures.

New approaches in the management of male breast cancer.

Male breast cancer (MBC) is a rare condition that accounts for 0.1% of all male cancers. Our current evidence base for treatment is derived from female breast cancer (FBC) patients. Risk factors for MBC include age, genetic predisposition, race, sex hormone exposure, and environmental factors. Most patients present later and with more advanced disease than comparable FBC patients. Tumors are likely to be estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor positive, with the most common histologic type being invasive ductal carcinoma. Triple assessment remains the criterion standard for diagnosis. Primary MBC is mostly managed initially by simple mastectomy, with the option of breast conserving surgery, which carries an increased risk of recurrence. Sentinel node biopsy is recommended as the initial procedure for staging the axilla. Reconstructive surgery focuses on achieving primary skin closure, and radiotherapy largely follows treatment protocols validated in FBC. We recommend chemotherapy for men with more advanced disease, in particular, those with estrogen receptor negative histology. MBC responds well to endocrine therapy, although it is associated with significant adverse effects. Third-generation aromatase inhibitors are promising but raise concerns due to their failure to prevent estrogen synthesis in the testes. Fulvestrant remains unproven as a therapy, and data on trastuzumab is equivocal with HER2 receptor expression and functionality unclear in MBC. In metastatic disease, drug-based hormonal manipulation remains a first-line therapy, followed by systemic chemotherapy for hormone-refractory disease. Prognosis for MBC has improved over the past 30 years, with survival affected by disease staging, histologic classification, and comorbidity.