Imaging of the brain-heart axis: prognostic value in a European setting.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Increasing data suggest that stress-related neural activity (SNA) is associated with subsequent major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and may represent a therapeutic target. Current evidence is exclusively based on populations from the U.S. and Asia where limited information about cardiovascular disease risk was available. This study sought to investigate whether SNA imaging has clinical value in a well-characterized cohort of cardiovascular patients in Europe. METHODS: In this single-centre study, a total of 963 patients (mean age 58.4 ± 16.1 years, 40.7% female) with known cardiovascular status, ranging from 'at-risk' to manifest disease, and without active cancer underwent 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography between 1 January 2005 and 31 August 2019. Stress-related neural activity was assessed with validated methods and relations between SNA and MACE (non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, and cardiovascular death) or all-cause mortality by time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: Over a maximum follow-up of 17 years, 118 individuals (12.3%) experienced MACE, and 270 (28.0%) died. In univariate analyses, SNA significantly correlated with an increased risk of MACE (sub-distribution hazard ratio 1.52, 95% CI 1.05-2.19; P = .026) or death (hazard ratio 2.49, 95% CI 1.96-3.17; P < .001). In multivariable analyses, the association between SNA imaging and MACE was lost when details of the cardiovascular status were added to the models. Conversely, the relationship between SNA imaging and all-cause mortality persisted after multivariable adjustments. CONCLUSIONS: In a European patient cohort where cardiovascular status is known, SNA imaging is a robust and independent predictor of all-cause mortality, but its prognostic value for MACE is less evident. Further studies should define specific patient populations that might profit from SNA imaging.

Violence against healthcare professionals in intensive care units: a systematic review and meta-analysis of frequency, risk factors, interventions, and preventive measures.

BACKGROUND: To assess the frequency, risk factors, consequences, and prevention of violence against healthcare workers in intensive care units. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science were searched for studies on violence against healthcare workers in adult intensive care units. Risk factors, patient characteristics, and implications for healthcare workers were collected. Study quality, bias, and level of evidence were assessed using established tools. RESULTS: Seventy-five studies with 139,533 healthcare workers from 32 countries were included. The overall median frequency of violence was 51% (IQR 37-75%). Up to 97% of healthcare workers experienced verbal violence, and up to 82% were victims of physical violence. Meta-analysis of frequency revealed an average frequency of 31% (95% CI 22-41%) for physical violence, 57% for verbal violence (95% CI 48-66%), and 12% for sexual violence (95% CI 4-23%). Heterogeneity was high according to the I2 statistics. Patients were the most common perpetrators (median 56%), followed by visitors (median 22%). Twenty-two studies reported increased risk ratios of up to 2.3 or odds ratios of up to 22.9 for healthcare workers in the ICU compared to other healthcare workers. Risk factors for experiencing violence included young age, less work experience, and being a nurse. Patients who exhibited violent behavior were often male, older, and physically impaired by drugs. Violence was underreported in up to 80% of cases and associated with higher burnout rates, increased anxiety, and higher turnover intentions. Overall the level of evidence was low. CONCLUSIONS: Workplace violence is frequent and underreported in intensive care units, with potential serious consequences for healthcare workers, calling for heightened awareness, screening, and preventive measures. The potential risk factors for violence should be further investigated. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review was registered with Prospero on January 15, 2023 (ID CRD42023388449).

Sex differences in the SOFA score of ICU patients with sepsis or septic shock: a nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score is an important tool in diagnosing sepsis and quantifying organ dysfunction. However, despite emerging evidence of differences in sepsis pathophysiology between women and men, sex is currently not being considered in the SOFA score. We aimed to investigate potential sex-specific differences in organ dysfunction, as measured by the SOFA score, in patients with sepsis or septic shock and explore outcome associations. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of sex-specific differences in the SOFA score of prospectively enrolled ICU patients with sepsis or septic shock admitted to one of 85 certified Swiss ICUs between 01/2021 and 12/2022. RESULTS: Of 125,782 patients, 5947 (5%) were admitted with a clinical diagnosis of sepsis (2244, 38%) or septic shock (3703, 62%). Of these, 5078 (37% women) were eligible for analysis. A statistically significant difference of the total SOFA score on admission was found between women (mean 7.5 ± SD 3.6 points) and men (7.8 ± 3.6 points, Wilcoxon rank-sum p < 0.001). This was driven by differences in the coagulation (p = 0.008), liver (p < 0.001) and renal (p < 0.001) SOFA components. Differences between sexes were more prominent in younger patients < 52 years of age (women 7.1 ± 4.0 points vs men 8.1 ± 4.2 points, p = 0.004). No sex-specific differences were found in ICU length of stay (women median 2.6 days (IQR 1.3-5.3) vs men 2.7 days (IQR 1.2-6.0), p = 0.13) and ICU mortality (women 14% vs men 15%, p = 0.17). CONCLUSION: Sex-specific differences exist in the SOFA score of patients admitted to a Swiss ICU with sepsis or septic shock, particularly in laboratory-based components. Although the clinical meaningfulness of these differences is unclear, a reevaluation of sex-specific thresholds for SOFA score components is warranted in an attempt to make more accurate and individualised classifications.

Impact of sex and gender on post-COVID-19 syndrome, Switzerland, 2020.

BackgroundWomen are overrepresented among individuals with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). Biological (sex) as well as sociocultural (gender) differences between women and men might account for this imbalance, yet their impact on PASC is unknown.AimWe assessed the impact of sex and gender on PASC in a Swiss population.MethodOur multicentre prospective cohort study included 2,856 (46% women, mean age 44.2 ± 16.8 years) outpatients and hospitalised patients with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.ResultsAmong those who remained outpatients during their first infection, women reported persisting symptoms more often than men (40.5% vs 25.5% of men; p < 0.001). This sex difference was absent in hospitalised patients. In a crude analysis, both female biological sex (RR = 1.59; 95% CI: 1.41-1.79; p < 0.001) and a score summarising gendered sociocultural variables (RR = 1.05; 95% CI: 1.03-1.07; p < 0.001) were significantly associated with PASC. Following multivariable adjustment, biological female sex (RR = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.74-1.25; p = 0.763) was outperformed by feminine gender-related factors such as a higher stress level (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 1.01-1.06; p = 0.003), lower education (RR = 1.16; 95% CI: 1.03-1.30; p = 0.011), being female and living alone (RR = 1.91; 95% CI: 1.29-2.83; p = 0.001) or being male and earning the highest income in the household (RR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.60-0.97; p = 0.030).ConclusionSpecific sociocultural parameters that differ in prevalence between women and men, or imply a unique risk for women, are predictors of PASC and may explain, at least in part, the higher incidence of PASC in women. Once patients are hospitalised during acute infection, sex differences in PASC are no longer evident.

Lower vs Higher Oxygenation Target and Days Alive Without Life Support in COVID-19: The HOT-COVID Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Supplemental oxygen is ubiquitously used in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, but a lower dose may be beneficial. Objective: To assess the effects of targeting a Pao2 of 60 mm Hg vs 90 mm Hg in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia in the intensive care unit (ICU). Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized clinical trial including 726 adults with COVID-19 receiving at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation in 11 ICUs in Europe from August 2020 to March 2023. The trial was prematurely stopped prior to outcome assessment due to slow enrollment. End of 90-day follow-up was June 1, 2023. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to a Pao2 of 60 mm Hg (lower oxygenation group; n = 365) or 90 mm Hg (higher oxygenation group; n = 361) for up to 90 days in the ICU. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support (mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, or kidney replacement therapy) at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included mortality, proportion of patients with serious adverse events, and number of days alive and out of hospital, all at 90 days. Results: Of 726 randomized patients, primary outcome data were available for 697 (351 in the lower oxygenation group and 346 in the higher oxygenation group). Median age was 66 years, and 495 patients (68%) were male. At 90 days, the median number of days alive without life support was 80.0 days (IQR, 9.0-89.0 days) in the lower oxygenation group and 72.0 days (IQR, 2.0-88.0 days) in the higher oxygenation group (P = .009 by van Elteren test; supplemental bootstrapped adjusted mean difference, 5.8 days [95% CI, 0.2-11.5 days]; P = .04). Mortality at 90 days was 30.2% in the lower oxygenation group and 34.7% in the higher oxygenation group (risk ratio, 0.86 [98.6% CI, 0.66-1.13]; P = .18). There were no statistically significant differences in proportion of patients with serious adverse events or in number of days alive and out of hospital. Conclusion and Relevance: In adult ICU patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, targeting a Pao2 of 60 mm Hg resulted in more days alive without life support in 90 days than targeting a Pao2 of 90 mm Hg. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04425031.