BACKGROUNDVasodilatory shock that does not respond to high-dose vasopressors is associated with high mortality. We investigated the effectiveness of angiotensin II for the treatment of patients with this condition. METHODSWe randomly assigned patients with vasodilatory shock who were receiving more than 0.2 μg of norepinephrine per kilogram of body weight per minute or the equivalent dose of another vasopressor to receive infusions of either angiotensin II or placebo. The primary end point was a response with respect to mean arterial pressure at hour 3 after the start of infusion, with response defined as an increase from baseline of at least 10 mm Hg or an increase to at least 75 mm Hg, without an increase in the dose of background vasopressors. RESULTSA total of 344 patients were assigned to one of the two regimens; 321 received a study intervention (163 received angiotensin II, and 158 received placebo) and were included in the analysis. The primary end point was reached by more patients in the angiotensin II group (114 of 163 patients, 69.9%) than in the placebo group (37 of 158 patients, 23.4%) (odds ratio, 7.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.76 to 13.3; P<0.001). At 48 hours, the mean improvement in the cardiovascular Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (scores range from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating more severe dysfunction) was greater in the angiotensin II group than in the placebo group (−1.75 vs. −1.28, P = 0.01). Serious adverse events were reported in 60.7% of the patients in the angiotensin II group and in 67.1% in the placebo group. Death by day 28 occurred in 75 of 163 patients (46%) in the angiotensin II group and in 85 of 158 patients (54%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.07; P = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS 420T h e ne w e ngl a nd jou r na l o f m e dicine S hock is a life-threatening syndrome characterized by decreased organ perfusion that can progress to irreversible organ failure. 1 Vasodilatory shock is the most common type of shock and is characterized by peripheral vasodilation and reduced blood pressure despite preserved cardiac output. 2 Vasodilatory shock requires immediate treatment to ensure organ perfusion through the reestablishment of adequate blood pressure while the underlying cause of shock is identified and treated. 3 Vasopressors are used when intravenous fluid resuscitation alone fails to restore blood pressure. Patients with severe vasodilation who have hypotension despite the use of high doses of vasopressors have a poor prognosis, with 30-day all-cause mortality exceeding 50%. 4,5 Currently, only two classes of vasopressors are available: catecholamines (and other sympathomimetic amines) and vasopressin. 3 Both classes have narrow therapeutic windows owing to substantial toxic effects at high doses. 6 However, when hypotension occurs, human physiology engages a third system, which is represented by hormones in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS). 7 Previously, modified bovine angiotensin II was shown to elicit consis...

Background: Patients who are going thorugh mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) often receive a high fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2 ) and have a high arterial oxygen tension. The conservative use of oxygen may reduce oxygen exposure, diminish lung and systemic oxidative injury, and thereby increase the number of ventilator-free days (days alive and free from mechanical ventilation). Methods: We randomly assigned 1000 adult patients who were anticipated to require mechanical ventilation beyond the day after recruitment in the ICU to receive conservative or usual oxygen therapy. In the two groups, the default lower limit for oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry (Spo2 ) was 90%. In the conservativeoxygen group, the upper limit of the Spo2 alarm was set to sound when the level reached 97%, and the Fio2 was decreased to 0.21 if the Spo2 was above the acceptable lower limit. In the usual-oxygen group, there were no specific measures limiting the Fio2 or the Spo2 . The primary outcome was the number of ventilatorfree days from randomization until day 28. Results: The number of ventilator-free days did not differ significantly between the conservative-oxygen group and the usualoxygen group, with a median duration of 21.3 days (interquartile range, 0 to 26.3) and 22.1 days (interquartile range, 0 to 26.2), respectively, for an absolute difference of −0.3 days (95% confidence interval [CI], −2.1 to 1.6; P=0.80). The conservativeoxygen group spent more time in the ICU with an Fio2 of 0.21 than the usual-oxygen group, with a median duration of 29 hours (interquartile range, 5 to 78) and 1 hour (interquartile range, 0 to 17), respectively (absolute difference, 28 hours; 95% CI, 22 to 34); the conservative-oxygen group spent less time with an Spo2 exceeding 96%, with a duration of 27 hours (interquartile range, 11 to 63.5) and 49 hours (interquartile range, 22 to 112), respectively (absolute difference, 22 hours; 95% CI, 14 to 30). At 180 days, mortality was 35.7% in the conservative-oxygen group and 34.5% in the usual-oxygen group, for an unadjusted odds ratio of 1.05 (95% CI, 0.81 to 1.37). Conclusions: In adults undergoing mechanical ventilation in the ICU, the use of conservative oxygen therapy, as compared with usual oxygen therapy, did not significantly affect the number of ventilator-free days.

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.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has placed unprecedented burden on the delivery of intensive care services worldwide. Research question What is the global point estimate of mortality and risk factors for patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) with severe COVID-19? Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis Medline, Embase and the Cochrane library were searched up to 1 August 2020. Pooled prevalence of participant characteristics, clinical features and outcome data were calculated using random effects models. Subgroup analyses were based on geographical distribution, study type, quality assessment, sample size, end date and patient disposition Results Forty-five studies with 16561 patients from 17 countries across four continents were included. Patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICU had a mean age of 62·6 years (95%CI 60.4-64·7). Common comorbidities included hypertension (49·5% (44·9-54·0)) and diabetes (26·6% (22·7-30·8)). Over three-quarters developed Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (76·1% (65·7-85·2)). Invasive mechanical ventilation was required in 67.7% (59.1-75.7), vasopressor support in 65·9% (52.4-78.4), renal replacement therapy in 16·9% (12.1-22·2) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in 6·4% (4·1-9.1). The duration of ICU and hospital admission was 10·8 days (9·3-18·4) and 19·1 days (16·3-21·9) respectively with in-hospital mortality of 28·1% (23·4-33·0, I 2 96%). No significant subgroup effect was observed. Interpretation Critically ill patients with COVID-19 who are admitted to ICU require substantial organ support and prolonged ICU and hospital level care. The pooled estimate of global mortality for severe COVID-19 is <1/3.

Background: Gastrointestinal (GI) dysfunction is frequent in the critically ill but can be overlooked as a result of the lack of standardization of the diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. We aimed to develop a research agenda for GI dysfunction for future research. We systematically reviewed the current knowledge on a broad range of subtopics from a specific viewpoint of GI dysfunction, highlighting the remaining areas of uncertainty and suggesting future studies. Methods: This systematic scoping review and research agenda was conducted following successive steps: (1) identify clinically important subtopics within the field of GI function which warrant further research; (2) systematically review the literature for each subtopic using PubMed, CENTRAL and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; (3) summarize evidence for each subtopic; (4) identify areas of uncertainty; (5) formulate and refine study proposals that address these subtopics; and (6) prioritize study proposals via sequential voting rounds.

No abstract

Post-operative haemorrhagic complications following the ingestion of aspirin have been reported after several types of surgery, most notably coronary artery bypass surgery. In this study, aspirin ingestion also appeared to be a significant aetiological factor in post-prostatectomy haemorrhage. This is explained in terms of its inhibitory effect on platelet aggregation. A history of aspirin ingestion should be carefully sought and its haemorrhagic implications considered prior to prostatectomy.

Background: International guidelines recommend critically ill adults receive more protein than most receive. We aimed to establish the feasibility of a trial to evaluate whether feeding protein to international recommendations would improve outcomes, in which 1 group received protein doses representative of international guideline recommendations (high protein) and the other received doses similar to usual practice. Methods: We conducted a prospective, randomized, blinded, parallel-group, feasibility trial across 6 intensive care units. Critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults expected to receive enteral nutrition (EN) for ≥2 days were randomized to receive EN containing 63 or 100 g/L protein for ≤28 days. Data are mean (SD) or median (interquartile range).