Metformin (MF) accumulation during acute kidney injury is associated with high anion gap lactic acidosis type B (MF-associated lactic acidosis, MALA), a serious medical condition leading to high mortality. Despite dose adjustment for renal failure, diabetic patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage III-IV are at risk for rapid decline in renal function by whatever reason, so that MF toxicity might arise if the drug is not timely withdrawn. Sixteen consecutive patients were admitted to our Hospital's Emergency Department with clinical findings consistent with MALA. Fifteen had prior history of CKD, 60 % of them with GFR between 30 and 60 ml/min. Of these, 5 required mechanical ventilation and cardiovascular support; 3 promptly recovered renal function after rehydration, whereas 10 (62 %) required continuous veno-venous renal replacement treatment. SOFA and SAPS II scores were significantly related to the degree of lactic acidosis. In addition, lactate levels were relevant to therapeutic choices, since they were higher in dialyzed patients than in those on conservative treatment (11.92 mmol/l vs 5.7 mmol/l, p = 0.03). The overall death rate has been 31 %, with poorer prognosis for worse acidemia, as serum pH was significantly lower in non-survivors (pH 6.96 vs 7.16, p > 0.04). Our own data and a review of the literature suggest that aged, hemodynamically frail patients, with several comorbidities and CKD, are at greater risk of MALA, despite MF dosage adjustment. Moreover, renal replacement therapy rather than simple acidosis correction by administration of alkali seems the treatment of choice, based on eventual renal recovery and overall outcome.

Background: Evidence is needed on the effectiveness of wearing face masks in the community to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission.Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and effectiveness of face mask use in a community setting and to predict the effectiveness of wearing a mask. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCISEARCH, The Cochrane Library, and pre-prints from inception to 22 April 2020 without restriction by language. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane and GRADE approach.Findings: Our search identified 35 studies, including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (4,017 patients), 10 comparative studies (18,984 patients), 13 predictive models, nine laboratory experimental studies. For reducing infection rates, the estimates of cluster-RCTs were in favor of wearing face masks vs. no mask, but not at statistically significant levels (adjusted OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.78–1.05). Similar findings were reported in observational studies. Mathematical models indicated an important decrease in mortality when the population mask coverage is near-universal, regardless of mask efficacy. In the best-case scenario, when the mask efficacy is at 95%, the R0 can fall to 0.99 from an initial value of 16.90. Levels of mask filtration efficiency were heterogeneous, depending on the materials used (surgical mask: 45–97%). One laboratory study suggested a viral load reduction of 0.25 (95% CI 0.09–0.67) in favor of mask vs. no mask.Interpretation: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support the use of face masks in a community setting. Robust randomized trials on face mask effectiveness are needed to inform evidence-based policies.PROSPERO registration: CRD42020184963.

Background We conducted a systematic review to evaluate and compare the accuracy of pre-hospital triage tools for major trauma in the context of the development of the Italian National Institute of Health guidelines on major trauma integrated management. Methods PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched up to November 2019 for studies investigating pre-hospital triage tools. The ROC (receiver operating characteristics) curve and net clinical benefit for all selected triage tools were performed. Quality assessment was performed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies–2. Certainty of the evidence was judged with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results We found 15 observational studies of 13 triage tools for adults and 11 for children. In adults, according to the ROC curve and the net clinical benefit, the most reliable tool was the Northern French Alps Trauma System (TRENAU), adopting injury severity score (ISS) > 15 as reference (sensitivity (Sn), 0.92; specificity (Sp), 0.41; 1 study; sample size, 2572; high certainty of the evidence). When mortality as reference was considered, the pre-hospital triage tool with the best net clinical benefit trajectory was the New Trauma Score (NTS) < 18 (Sn, 0.82; Sp, 0.86; 1 study; sample size, 1001; moderate certainty of the evidence). In children, high variability among all triage tools for sensitivity and specificity was found. Conclusion Sensitivity and specificity varied across all available pre-hospital trauma triage tools. TRENAU and NTS are the best accurate triage tools for adults, whereas in the pediatric area a large variability prevents any firm conclusion.

Highlights Epidemiological conditions and surveillance actions should be closely monitored and enforced. As a prerequisite to the implementation of any exit strategy, COVID-19 must be under control below thresholds of safeguards. Large-scale testing, contact tracing, and isolation strategies emerged as essential components that allowed the easing of the lockdown. The maintenance of social distancing measures emerged as an overarching mitigation strategy. The benefit gained from the practical implementation of social distancing (i.e., limiting classes to small cohorts of students, school shifts, avoidance of pattern mixing, gradual returning, and teleworking) was evident.

Protecting Health Care Workers (HCWs) during routine care of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients is of paramount importance to halt the SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus-2) pandemic. The WHO, ECDC and CDC have issued conflicting guidelines on the use of respiratory filters (N95) by HCWs. We searched PubMed, Embase and The Cochrane Library from the inception to March 21, 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing N95 respirators versus surgical masks for prevention of COVID-19 or any other respiratory infection among HCWs. The grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. Four RCTs involving 8736 HCWs were included. We did not find any trial specifically on prevention of COVID-19.However, wearing N95 respirators can prevent 73 more (95% CI 46-91) clinical respiratory infections per 1000 HCWs compared to surgical masks (2 RCTs; 2594 patients; low quality of evidence). A protective effect of N95 respirators in laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR= 0.41; 95%CI 0.28-0.61) was also found. A trend in favour of N95 respirators was observed in preventing laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, and influenza like illness. We found no direct high quality evidence on whether N95 respirators are better than surgical masks for HCWs protection from SARS-CoV-2. However, low quality evidence suggests that N95 respirators protect HCWs from clinical respiratory infections. This finding should be contemplated to decide the best strategy to support the resilience of healthcare systems facing the potentially catastrophic SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Background Multiple studies regarding the use of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) in patients with non-compressible torso injuries and uncontrolled haemorrhagic shock were recently published. To date, the clinical evidence of the efficacy of REBOA is still debated. We aimed to conduct a systematic review assessing the clinical efficacy and safety of REBOA in patients with major trauma and uncontrolled haemorrhagic shock. Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE and CENTRAL up to June 2020. All randomized controlled trials and observational studies that investigated the use of REBOA compared to resuscitative thoracotomy (RT) with/without REBOA or no-REBOA were eligible. We followed the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Two authors independently extracted data and appraised the risk of bias of included studies. Effect sizes were pooled in a meta-analysis using random-effects models. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Primary outcomes were mortality, volume of infused blood components, health-related quality of life, time to haemorrhage control and any adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were improvement in haemodynamic status and failure/success of REBOA technique. Results We included 11 studies (5866 participants) ranging from fair to good quality. REBOA was associated with lower mortality when compared to RT (aOR 0.38; 95% CI 0.20–0.74), whereas no difference was observed when REBOA was compared to no-REBOA (aOR 1.40; 95% CI 0.79–2.46). No significant difference in health-related quality of life between REBOA and RT (p = 0.766). The most commonly reported complications were amputation, haematoma and pseudoaneurysm. Sparse data and heterogeneity of reporting for all other outcomes prevented any estimate. Conclusions Our findings on overall mortality suggest a positive effect of REBOA among non-compressible torso injuries when compared to RT but no differences compared to no-REBOA. Variability in indications and patient characteristics prevents any conclusion deserving further investigation. REBOA should be promoted in specific training programs in an experimental setting in order to test its effectiveness and a randomized trial should be planned.

Protecting Health Care Workers (HCWs) during routine care of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients is of paramount importance to halt the SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus-2) pandemic. The WHO, ECDC and CDC have issued conflicting guidelines on the use of respiratory filters (N95) by HCWs. We searched PubMed, Embase and The Cochrane Library from the inception to March 21, 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing N95 respirators versus surgical masks for prevention of COVID-19 or any other respiratory infection among HCWs. The grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. Four RCTs involving 8736 HCWs were included. We did not find any trial specifically on prevention of COVID-19. However, wearing N95 respirators can prevent 73 more (95% CI 46-91) clinical respiratory infections per 1000 HCWs compared to surgical masks (2 RCTs; 2594 patients; low quality of evidence). A protective effect of N95 respirators in laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.41; 95%CI 0.28-0.61) was also found. A trend in favour of N95 respirators was observed in preventing laboratoryconfirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, and influenza like illness. We found no direct high quality evidence on whether N95 respirators are better than surgical masks for HCWs protection from SARS-CoV-2. However, low quality evidence suggests that N95 respirators protect HCWs from clinical respiratory infections. This finding should be contemplated to decide the best strategy to support the resilience of healthcare systems facing the potentially catastrophic SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Trauma is one of the leading causes of uncontrolled haemorrhage, death, and disability. Use of a tourniquet can be considered an optimal anti-haemorrhagic resource, in pre-hospital and emergency settings, and its lifesaving effect is clinically contradictory. This review aims to assess the clinical efficacy of the tourniquet in the emergency pre-hospital care setting for the management of haemorrhage. We conducted the systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, the PRISMA statement. We searched the following electronic databases: EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane-CENTRAL. All studies included were appraised for risk of bias. Prevalent primary outcomes were mortality and use of blood products. Secondary outcomes were related to adverse effects. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE). Four studies were involved (1762 trauma patients). The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.47 (95% confidence Interval (CI) 0.19–1.16; three studies; 377 patients) for overall mortality estimates did not give a clear indication of the benefits of emergency pre-hospital tourniquets (PH-TQ) versus no pre-hospital tourniquet (NO PH-TQ) placement. The adjusted mean difference for blood product use was −3.28 (95% CI −11.22, 4.66) for packed red blood cells (pRBC) and −4.80 (95% CI −5.61, −3.99) for plasma, respectively. The certainty of evidence was downgraded to very low for all outcomes. Our results suggest an unclear effect of emergency pre-hospital tourniquet placement on overall mortality and blood product use. However, this systematic review highlights the availability of only observational studies and the absence of high quality RCTs assessing the efficacy of PH-TQs. Randomized controlled trials are needed.