AimThrombolytic therapy induces faster clot dissolution than anticoagulation in patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) but is associated with an increased risk of haemorrhage. We reviewed the risks and benefits of thrombolytic therapy in the management of patients with acute PE.Methods and resultsWe systematically reviewed randomized controlled studies comparing systemic thrombolytic therapy plus anticoagulation with anticoagulation alone in patients with acute PE. Fifteen trials involving 2057 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Compared with heparin, thrombolytic therapy was associated with a significant reduction of overall mortality (OR; 0.59, 95% CI: 0.36–0.96). This reduction was not statistically significant after exclusion of studies including high-risk PE (OR; 0.64, 95% CI: 0.35–1.17). Thrombolytic therapy was associated with a significant reduction in the combined endpoint of death or treatment escalation (OR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.22–0.53), PE-related mortality (OR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.14–0.60) and PE recurrence (OR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.27–0.94). Major haemorrhage (OR; 2.91, 95% CI: 1.95–4.36) and fatal or intracranial bleeding (OR: 3.18, 95% CI: 1.25–8.11) were significantly more frequent among patients receiving thrombolysis.ConclusionsThrombolytic therapy reduces total mortality, PE recurrence, and PE-related mortality in patients with acute PE. The decrease in overall mortality is, however, not significant in haemodynamically stable patients with acute PE. Thrombolytic therapy is associated with an increase of major and fatal or intracranial haemorrhage.

IntroductionSeverity assessment and site-of-care decisions for patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) are pivotal for patients' safety and adequate allocation of resources. Late admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) has been associated with increased mortality in CAP. We aimed to review and meta-analyze systematically the performance of clinical prediction rules to identify CAP patients requiring ICU admission or intensive treatment.MethodsWe systematically searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials registry for clinical trials evaluating the performance of prognostic rules to predict the need for ICU admission, intensive treatment, or the occurrence of early mortality in patients with CAP.ResultsSufficient data were available to perform a meta-analysis on eight scores: PSI, CURB-65, CRB-65, CURB, ATS 2001, ATS/IDSA 2007, SCAP score, and SMART-COP. The estimated AUC of PSI and CURB-65 scores to predict ICU admission was 0.69. Among scores proposed for prediction of ICU admission, ATS-2001 and ATS/IDSA 2007 scores had better operative characteristics, with a sensitivity of 70% (CI, 61 to 77) and 84% (48 to 97) and a specificity of 90% (CI, 82 to 95) and 78% (46 to 93), but their clinical utility is limited by the use of major criteria.ATS/IDSA 2007 minor criteria have good specificity (91% CI, 84 to 95) and moderate sensitivity (57% CI, 46 to 68). SMART-COP and SCAP score have good sensitivity (79% CI, 69 to 97, and 94% CI, 88 to 97) and moderate specificity (64% CI, 30 to 66, and 46% CI, 27 to 66). Major differences in populations, prognostic factor measurement, and outcome definition limit comparison. Our analysis also highlights a high degree of heterogeneity among the studies.ConclusionsNew severity scores for predicting the need for ICU or intensive treatment in patients with CAP, such as ATS/IDSA 2007 minor criteria, SCAP score, and SMART-COP, have better discriminative performances compared with PSI and CURB-65. High negative predictive value is the most consistent finding among the different prediction rules. These rules should be considered an aid to clinical judgment to guide ICU admission in CAP patients.

No abstract

Rationale and objectivesProne positioning as a complement to oxygen therapy to treat hypoxemia in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pneumonia in spontaneously breathing patients has been widely adopted, despite a lack of evidence for its benefit.To test the hypothesis that a simple incentive to self-prone for a maximum of 12 h per day would decrease oxygen needs in patients admitted to the ward for COVID-19 pneumonia on low-flow oxygen therapy.MethodsTwenty-seven patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to Geneva University Hospitals were included in the study. Ten patients were randomised to self-prone positioning and 17 to usual care.Measurements and Main ResultsOxygen needs assessed by oxygen flow on nasal cannula at inclusion were similar between groups. Twenty-four hours after starting the intervention, the median oxygen flow was 1.0 L·min−1 (interquartile range, 0.1–2.9) in the prone position group and 2.0 L·min−1 (interquartile range, 0.5–3.0) in the control group (p=0.507). Median oxygen saturation/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio was 390 (interquartile range, 300–432) in the prone position group and 336 (interquartile range, 294–422) in the control group (p=0.633). One patient from the intervention group who did not self-prone was transferred to the high-dependency unit. Self-prone positioning was easy to implement. The intervention was well tolerated and only mild side-effects were reported.ConclusionsSelf-prone positioning in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring low-flow oxygen therapy resulted in a clinically meaningful reduction of oxygen flow, but without reaching statistical significance.