ARDS seems to be a common and fatal syndrome in a hospital in Rwanda, with few patients admitted to an ICU. The Berlin definition is likely to underestimate the impact of ARDS in low-income countries, where resources to meet the definition requirements are lacking. Although the Kigali modification requires validation before widespread use, we hope this study stimulates further work in refining an ARDS definition that can be consistently used in all settings.

Importance: Adjusting positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) to offset pleural pressure might attenuate lung injury and improve patient outcomes in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Objective: To determine whether PEEP titration guided by esophageal pressure (PES), an estimate of pleural pressure, was more effective than empiric high PEEP-FiO2 in moderate-to-severe ARDS. Design, Setting, and Participants: Phase-II randomized clinical trial conducted at 14 hospitals in North America. Two hundred mechanically ventilated patients aged ≥ 16 years with moderate-to-severe ARDS (PaO2:FiO2 ≤ 200) were enrolled between October 31, 2012 and September 14, 2017; long-term follow-up completed July 30, 2018. Interventions: Participants were randomized to PES-guided PEEP (n = 102) or empiric high PEEP-FiO2 (n = 98). All participants received low tidal volumes. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a ranked composite score incorporating death and days free from mechanical ventilation among survivors through day 28. Pre-specified secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, days free from mechanical ventilation among survivors, and need for rescue therapy. Results: Two hundred patients were enrolled (mean [SD] age 56 [16] years; 46% female) and completed 28-day follow-up. The primary composite endpoint was not significantly different between treatment groups (probability of more favorable outcome with PES-guided PEEP: 49.6% [95% CI 41.7% to 57.5%]; p = 0.92). At 28 days, 33 of 102 patients (32.4%) assigned to PES-guided PEEP and 33 of 98 patients (30.6%) assigned to empiric PEEP-FiO2 died (risk difference 1.7% [95% CI −11.1% to 14.6%]; p = 0.88). Days free from mechanical among survivors was not significantly different (22 [15-24] vs. 21 [16.5-24] days; median difference 0 [95% CI −1 to 2] days; p = 0.85). Patients assigned to PES-guided PEEP were significantly less likely to receive rescue therapy (4/102 [3.9%] vs. 12/98 [12.2%]; risk difference −8.3% [95% CI −15.8% to −0.8%]; p = 0.04). None of the seven other pre-specified secondary clinical endpoints were significantly different. Adverse events included gross barotrauma, which occurred in six patients with PES-guided PEEP and five patients with empiric PEEP-FiO2. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS, PES-guided PEEP, compared to empiric high PEEP-FiO2, resulted in no significant difference in death and days free from mechanical ventilation. These findings do not support PES-guided PEEP titration in ARDS. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier

IMPORTANCEPostoperative delirium is common following cardiac surgery and may be affected by choice of analgesic and sedative.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of postoperative intravenous (IV) acetaminophen (paracetamol) vs placebo combined with IV propofol vs dexmedetomidine on postoperative delirium among older patients undergoing cardiac surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized, placebo-controlled, factorial clinical trial among 120 patients aged 60 years or older undergoing on-pump coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery or combined CABG/valve surgeries at a US center. Enrollment was September 2015 to April 2018, with follow-up ending in April 2019.INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to 1 of 4 groups receiving postoperative analgesia with IV acetaminophen or placebo every 6 hours for 48 hours and postoperative sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol starting at chest closure and continued for up to 6 hours (acetaminophen and dexmedetomidine: n = 29; placebo and dexmedetomidine: n = 30; acetaminophen and propofol: n = 31; placebo and propofol: n = 30). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was incidence of postoperative in-hospital delirium by the Confusion Assessment Method. Secondary outcomes included delirium duration, cognitive decline, breakthrough analgesia within the first 48 hours, and ICU and hospital length of stay. RESULTS Among 121 patients randomized (median age, 69 years; 19 women [15.8%]), 120 completed the trial. Patients treated with IV acetaminophen had a significant reduction in delirium (10% vs 28% placebo; difference, −18% [95% CI, −32% to −5%]; P = .01; HR, 2.8 [95% CI, 1.1-7.8]). Patients receiving dexmedetomidine vs propofol had no significant difference in delirium (17% vs 21%; difference, −4% [95% CI, −18% to 10%]; P = .54; HR, 0.8 [95% CI, 0.4-1.9]). There were significant differences favoring acetaminophen vs placebo for 3 prespecified secondary outcomes: delirium duration (median, 1 vs 2 days; difference, −1 [95% CI, −2 to 0]), ICU length of stay (median, 29.5 vs 46.7 hours; difference, −16.7 [95% CI, −20.3 to −0.8]), and breakthrough analgesia (median, 322.5 vs 405.3 μg morphine equivalents; difference, −83 [95% CI, −154 to −14]). For dexmedetomidine vs propofol, only breakthrough analgesia was significantly different (median, 328.8 vs 397.5 μg; difference, −69 [95% CI, −155 to −4]; P = .04). Fourteen patients in both the placebo-dexmedetomidine and acetaminophen-propofol groups (46% and 45%) and 7 in the acetaminophendexmedetomidine and placebo-propofol groups (24% and 23%) had hypotension.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among older patients undergoing cardiac surgery, postoperative scheduled IV acetaminophen, combined with IV propofol or dexmedetomidine, reduced in-hospital delirium vs placebo. Additional research, including comparison of IV vs oral acetaminophen and other potentially opioid-sparing analgesics, on the incidence of postoperative delirium is warranted.

SummaryBackgroundInfluenza causes significant morbidity and mortality despite currently available treatments. Anecdotal reports suggest plasma with high antibody titers towards influenza may be of benefit in the treatment of severe influenza.MethodsWe conducted a randomized, open-label, multicenter phase 2 trial at 29 academic medical centers in the United States to assess the safety and efficacy of anti-influenza plasma with hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) antibody titers of ≥ 1:80 to the infecting strain. Hospitalized children and adults (including pregnant women) with severe influenza A or B (defined as hypoxia or tachypnea) were randomly assigned to receive either 2 units (or pediatric equivalent) of anti-influenza plasma plus standard care (P+S), versus standard care alone (S), and were followed for 28 days. The primary endpoint was time to normalization of patients’ respiratory status (respiratory rate of ≤ 20 for adults or age defined thresholds of 20–38 for children), and a room air saturation of oxygen ≥ 93%. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01052480FindingsBetween January 13, 2011 and March 2, 2015, 113 participants were screened, and 98 were randomized. Of the participants with confirmed influenza, 28 of 42 (67%) of P+S participants normalized their respiratory status by Day 28, as compared to 24 of 45 (53%) of S participants (p=0·069). The estimated hazard ratio comparing P+S to S was 1·71 (95% CI: 0·96 to 3·06). Six participants died, 1 (2%) and 5 (10%) from the P+S and S arms respectively (p=0·093). P+S participants had non-significant reductions in days in hospital (median 6 vs. 11 days, p=0·13) and days on mechanical ventilation (median 0 vs. 3 days, p=0·14), and significantly improved clinical status at Day 7 (p=0·020). Fewer P+S participants experienced SAEs compared to S recipients (20% vs. 38%, p= 0·041), the most frequent of which were acute respiratory distress syndrome (1 [2%] vs 2 [4%]) and stroke (1 [2%] vs 2 [4%]).InterpretationResults from this Phase II randomized trial of immune plasma for the treatment of severe influenza provides support for a possible benefit of immunotherapy across the primary and secondary endpoints. A Phase III randomized trial is now underway to further evaluate this intervention.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Little information is available about the geo-economic variations in demographics, management, and outcomes of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We aimed to characterise the effect of these geo-economic variations in patients enrolled in the Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG SAFE). Methods LUNG SAFE was done during 4 consecutive weeks in winter, 2014, in a convenience sample of 459 intensivecare units in 50 countries across six continents. Inclusion criteria were admission to a participating intensive-care unit (including transfers) within the enrolment window and receipt of invasive or non-invasive ventilation. One of the trial's secondary aims was to characterise variations in the demographics, management, and outcome of patients with ARDS. We used the 2016 World Bank countries classification to define three major geo-economic groupings, namely European high-income countries (Europe-High), high-income countries in the rest of the world (rWORLD-High), and middle-income countries (Middle). We compared patient outcomes across these three groupings. LUNG SAFE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02010073. Findings Of the 2813 patients enrolled in LUNG SAFE who fulfilled ARDS criteria on day 1 or 2, 1521 (54%) were recruited from Europe-High, 746 (27%) from rWORLD-High, and 546 (19%) from Middle countries. We noted significant geographical variations in demographics, risk factors for ARDS, and comorbid diseases. The proportion of patients with severe ARDS or with ratios of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO 2) to the fractional concentration of oxygen in inspired air (F I O 2) less than 150 was significantly lower in rWORLD-High countries than in the two other regions. Use of prone positioning and neuromuscular blockade was significantly more common in Europe-High countries than in the other two regions. Adjusted duration of invasive mechanical ventilation and length of stay in the intensive-care unit were significantly shorter in patients in rWORLD-High countries than in Europe-High or Middle countries. High gross national income per person was associated with increased survival in ARDS; hospital survival was significantly lower in Middle countries than in Europe-High or rWORLD-High countries. Interpretation Important geo-economic differences exist in the severity, clinician recognition, and management of ARDS, and in patients' outcomes. Income per person and outcomes in ARDS are independently associated.

How many days prior to admission was COVID testing performed? text, Required