Background The prevalence of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) has been increasing rapidly worldwide. However, guidelines or clinical studies do not provide sufficient data on ECPR practice. The aim of this study was to provide real-world data on ECPR for patients with OHCA, including details of complications. Methods We did a retrospective database analysis of observational multicenter cohort study in Japan. Adult patients with OHCA of presumed cardiac etiology who received ECPR between 2013 and 2018 were included. The primary outcome was favorable neurological outcome at hospital discharge, defined as a cerebral performance category of 1 or 2. Results A total of 1644 patients with OHCA were included in this study. The patient age was 18–93 years (median: 60 years). Shockable rhythm in the initial cardiac rhythm at the scene was 69.4%. The median estimated low flow time was 55 min (interquartile range: 45–66 min). Favorable neurological outcome at hospital discharge was observed in 14.1% of patients, and the rate of survival to hospital discharge was 27.2%. The proportions of favorable neurological outcome at hospital discharge in terms of shockable rhythm, pulseless electrical activity, and asystole were 16.7%, 9.2%, and 3.9%, respectively. Complications were observed during ECPR in 32.7% of patients, and the most common complication was bleeding, with the rates of cannulation site bleeding and other types of hemorrhage at 16.4% and 8.5%, respectively. Conclusions In this large cohort, data on the ECPR of 1644 patients with OHCA show that the proportion of favorable neurological outcomes at hospital discharge was 14.1%, survival rate at hospital discharge was 27.2%, and complications were observed during ECPR in 32.7%.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J‐SSCG 2020), a Japanese‐specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J‐SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English‐language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese‐language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high‐quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J‐SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU‐acquired weakness [ICU‐AW], post‐intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J‐SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient‐ and family‐centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro‐intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large‐scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members. As a result, 79 GRADE‐based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J‐SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Purpose: The DIANA study aimed to evaluate how often antimicrobial de-escalation (ADE) of empirical treatment is performed in the intensive care unit (ICU) and to estimate the effect of ADE on clinical cure on day 7 following treatment initiation. Methods: Adult ICU patients receiving empirical antimicrobial therapy for bacterial infection were studied in a prospective observational study from October 2016 until May 2018. ADE was defined as (1) discontinuation of an antimicrobial in case of empirical combination therapy or (2) replacement of an antimicrobial with the intention to narrow the antimicrobial spectrum, within the first 3 days of therapy. Inverse probability (IP) weighting was used to account for time-varying confounding when estimating the effect of ADE on clinical cure. Results: Overall, 1495 patients from 152 ICUs in 28 countries were studied. Combination therapy was prescribed in 50%, and carbapenems were prescribed in 26% of patients. Empirical therapy underwent ADE, no change and change other than ADE within the first 3 days in 16%, 63% and 22%, respectively. Unadjusted mortality at day 28 was 15.8% in the ADE cohort and 19.4% in patients with no change [p = 0.27; RR 0.83 (95% CI 0.60-1.14)]. The IP-weighted relative risk estimate for clinical cure comparing ADE with no-ADE patients (no change or change other than ADE) was 1.37 (95% CI 1.14-1.64). Conclusion: ADE was infrequently applied in critically ill-infected patients. The observational effect estimate on clinical cure suggested no deleterious impact of ADE compared to no-ADE. However, residual confounding is likely.

We report the first two cases of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) who were receiving intensive care including favipiravir, and were clinically diagnosed with neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) to focus attention on NMS in COVID-19 management. Case 1: A 46-year-old-man with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by COVID-19 infection was being administered favipiravir. Fentanyl, propofol, and rocuronium were also given. On day 3, midazolam administration was initiated for deep sedation. On day 5, his high body temperature increased to 41.2°C, creatine kinase level elevated, and he developed tachycardia, tachypnea, altered consciousness, and diaphoresis. NMS was suspected, and supportive therapy was initiated. High-grade fever persisted for 4 days and subsided on day 9. Case 2: A 44-year-old-man with ARDS caused by COVID-19 infection was being treated with favipiravir. On day 5, risperidone was started for delirium. On day 7, his body temperature suddenly increased to 40.8°C, his CK level elevated, and he developed tachycardia, tachypnea, altered consciousness, and diaphoresis. NMS diagnosis was confirmed, and both, favipiravir and risperidone were discontinued on day 8. On the same day, his CK levels decreased, and his body temperature normalized on day 9. Patients with COVID-19 infection frequently require deep sedation and develop delirium; therefore, more attention should be paid to the development of NMS in patients who are being administered such causative agents. The mechanism underlying the occurrence of NMS in COVID-19 patients treated with favipiravir remains unknown. Therefore, careful consideration of NMS development is necessary in the management of COVID-19 patients.