as co-investigators (Centre Hospitalier d'Aix-en-Provence, France). Michael Aubourg, MSc, and Pierre Castel, MiM, provided English editing service. None of these individuals received compensation for their contributions.

We aimed to compare the effects of vitamin C, glucocorticoids, vitamin B1, combinations of these drugs, and placebo or usual care on longer-term mortality in adults with sepsis or septic shock. MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO-ICTRP were searched. The final search was carried out on September 3rd, 2021. Multiple reviewers independently selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing very-high-dose vitamin C (≥ 12 g/day), high-dose vitamin C (< 12, ≥ 6 g/day), vitamin C (< 6 g/day), glucocorticoid (< 400 mg/day of hydrocortisone), vitamin B1, combinations of these drugs, and placebo/usual care. We performed random-effects network meta-analysis and, where applicable, a random-effects component network meta-analysis. We used the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis framework to assess the degree of treatment effect certainty. The primary outcome was longer-term mortality (90-days to 1-year). Secondary outcomes were severity of organ dysfunction over 72 h, time to cessation of vasopressor therapy, and length of stay in intensive care unit (ICU). Forty-three RCTs (10,257 patients) were eligible. There were no significant differences in longer-term mortality between treatments and placebo/usual care or between treatments (10 RCTs, 7,096 patients, moderate to very-low-certainty). We did not find any evidence that vitamin C or B1 affect organ dysfunction or ICU length of stay. Adding glucocorticoid to other treatments shortened duration of vasopressor therapy (incremental mean difference, − 29.8 h [95% CI − 44.1 to − 15.5]) and ICU stay (incremental mean difference, − 1.3 days [95% CI − 2.2 to − 0.3]). Metabolic resuscitation with vitamin C, glucocorticoids, vitamin B1, or combinations of these drugs was not significantly associated with a decrease in longer-term mortality. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-021-06558-0.

Objective: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is an important therapeutic tool in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) since it improves oxygenation, reduces respiratory rate and can prevent intubation and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. CPAP during pronation has seldom been described and never during sedation. Design: Case series. Setting: High dependency unit of San Carlo University Hospital (Potenza, Italy). Patients: Eleven consecutive patients with COVID-19 ARDS. Intervention. Helmet CPAP in prone position after failing a CPAP trial in the supine position. Main variable of interest: Data collection at baseline and then after 24, 48 and 72 hours of pronation. We measured PaO2/FIO2, pH, lactate, PaCO2, SpO2, respiratory rate and the status of the patients at 28-day follow up. Results: Patients were treated with helmet CPAP for a mean +SD of 7+2.7 days. Prone positioning was feasible in all patients, but in 7 of them dexmedetomidine improved comfort. PaO2/FIO2 improved from 107.5±20.8 before starting pronation to 244.4±106.2 after 72 hours (p<.001). We also observed a significantly increase in Sp02 from 90.6±2.3 to 96±3.1 (p<.001) and a decrease in respiratory rate from 27.6±4.3 to 20.1±4.7 (p=.004). No difference was observed in PaCO2 or pH. At 28 days two patients died after ICU admission, one was discharged in the main ward after ICU admission and eight were discharged home after being successfully managed outside the ICU. Conclusions: Helmet CPAP during pronation was feasible and safe in COVID-19 ARDS managed outside the ICU and sedation with dexmedetomidine safely improved comfort. We recorded an increase in PaO2/FIO2, SpO2 and a reduction in respiratory rate.

At the end of 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak spread from China all around the world, causing thousands of deaths. In Italy, the hardest hit region was Lombardy, with the first reported case on 20 February 2020. San Raffaele Scientific Institute — a large tertiary hospital and research centre in Milan, Italy — was immediately involved in the management of the public health emergency. Since the beginning of the outbreak, the elective surgical activity of the hospital was rapidly reduced and large areas of the hospital were simultaneously reorganised to admit and assist patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In addition, the hospital became the regional referral hub for cardiovascular emergencies in order to keep ensuring a high level of health care to non-COVID-19 patients in northern Italy. In a few days, a COVID-19 emergency department was created, improving the general ward capacity to a total number of 279 beds dedicated to patients with COVID-19. Moreover, the number of intensive care unit (ICU) beds was increased from 28 to 72 (54 of them dedicated to patients with COVID-19, and 18 to cardiology and cardiac surgery hub emergencies), both converting pre-existing areas and creating new high technology spaces. All the involved health care personnel were rapidly trained to use personal protection equipment and to manage this particular category of patients both in general wards and ICUs. Furthermore, besides clinical activities, continuously important research projects were carried out in order to find new strategies and more effective therapies to better face an unprecedented health emergency in Italy.

Non-intubated patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 could benefit from awake proning. Awake proning is an attractive intervention in settings with limited resources, as it comes with no additional costs. However, awake proning remains poorly used probably because of unfamiliarity and uncertainties regarding potential benefits and practical application. To summarize evidence for benefit and to develop a set of pragmatic recommendations for awake proning in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, focusing on settings where resources are limited, international healthcare professionals from high and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with known expertise in awake proning were invited to contribute expert advice. A growing number of observational studies describe the effects of awake proning in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in whom hypoxemia is refractory to simple measures of supplementary oxygen. Awake proning improves oxygenation in most patients, usually within minutes, and reduces dyspnea and work of breathing. The effects are maintained for up to 1 hour after turning back to supine, and mostly disappear after 6–12 hours. In available studies, awake proning was not associated with a reduction in the rate of intubation for invasive ventilation. Awake proning comes with little complications if properly implemented and monitored. Pragmatic recommendations including indications and contraindications were formulated and adjusted for resource-limited settings. Awake proning, an adjunctive treatment for hypoxemia refractory to supplemental oxygen, seems safe in non-intubated patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory failure. We provide pragmatic recommendations including indications and contraindications for the use of awake proning in LMICs.

More than one million peri-operative patients die each year. Thus, small improvements in peri-operative care may save thousands of lives. However, clinicians need confidence in the robustness of trial findings. The Fragility Index may complement frequentist analysis and provide quantitative assessment of robustness. We searched MEDLINE for peri-operative critical care randomised controlled trials that reported a statistically significant difference in mortality. We identified 46 trials with 37,347 participants. The median (IQR [range]) Fragility Index was 2 (1-3 [0-49]). Eleven trials had a Fragility Index of zero (changing from the Chi-square test to Fisher's exact test removed significance) and seven trials had a Fragility Index of 1. Only 23/46 trials had a Fragility Index greater than the number of patients lost to follow-up. There was a strong positive correlation between the Fragility Index and: the number of participants, R 2 = 0.97, p < 0.0001; the number of centres that recruited participants, R 2 = 0.96, p < 0.0001; the number of nations that recruited participants, R 2 = 0.93, p < 0.0001; and the number of deaths, R 2 = 0.97, p < 0.0001. As measured by the Fragility Index, the effect of perioperative interventions on mortality in individual randomised controlled trials are not robust.

No abstract

OBJECTIVES Epinephrine is frequently used as an inotropic and vasopressor agent in critically ill patients requiring hemodynamic support. Data from observational trials suggested that epinephrine use is associated with a worse outcome as compared with other adrenergic and nonadrenergic vasoactive drugs. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to investigate the effect of epinephrine administration on outcome of critically ill patients. DATA SOURCES PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane central register were searched by two independent investigators up to March 2019. STUDY SELECTION Inclusion criteria were: administration of epinephrine as IV continuous infusion, patients admitted to an ICU or undergoing major surgery, and randomized controlled trials. Studies on epinephrine administration as bolus (e.g., during cardiopulmonary resuscitation), were excluded. The primary outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up available. DATA EXTRACTION Two independent investigators examined and extracted data from eligible trials. DATA SYNTHESIS A total of 5,249 studies were assessed, with a total of 12 studies (1,227 patients) finally included in the meta-analysis. The majority of the trials were performed in the setting of septic shock, and the most frequent comparator was a combination of norepinephrine plus dobutamine. We found no difference in all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up available (197/579 [34.0%] in the epinephrine group vs 219/648 [33.8%] in the control group; risk ratio = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.82-1.10; p = 0.49; I = 0%). No differences in the need for renal replacement therapy, occurrence rate of myocardial ischemia, occurrence rate of arrhythmias, and length of ICU stay were observed. CONCLUSIONS Current randomized evidence showed that continuous IV administration of epinephrine as inotropic/vasopressor agent is not associated with a worse outcome in critically ill patients.