European Society of Anaesthesiology.

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.

No abstract

Purpose In the critically ill, hospital-acquired bloodstream infections (HA-BSI) are associated with significant mortality. Granular data are required for optimizing management, and developing guidelines and clinical trials. Methods We carried out a prospective international cohort study of adult patients (≥ 18 years of age) with HA-BSI treated in intensive care units (ICUs) between June 2019 and February 2021. Results 2600 patients from 333 ICUs in 52 countries were included. 78% HA-BSI were ICU-acquired. Median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was 8 [IQR 5; 11] at HA-BSI diagnosis. Most frequent sources of infection included pneumonia (26.7%) and intravascular catheters (26.4%). Most frequent pathogens were Gram-negative bacteria (59.0%), predominantly Klebsiella spp. (27.9%), Acinetobacter spp . (20.3%), Escherichia coli (15.8%), and Pseudomonas spp . (14.3%). Carbapenem resistance was present in 37.8%, 84.6%, 7.4%, and 33.2%, respectively. Difficult-to-treat resistance (DTR) was present in 23.5% and pan-drug resistance in 1.5%. Antimicrobial therapy was deemed adequate within 24 h for 51.5%. Antimicrobial resistance was associated with longer delays to adequate antimicrobial therapy. Source control was needed in 52.5% but not achieved in 18.2%. Mortality was 37.1%, and only 16.1% had been discharged alive from hospital by day-28. Conclusions HA-BSI was frequently caused by Gram-negative, carbapenem-resistant and DTR pathogens. Antimicrobial resistance led to delays in adequate antimicrobial therapy. Mortality was high, and at day-28 only a minority of the patients were discharged alive from the hospital. Prevention of antimicrobial resistance and focusing on adequate antimicrobial therapy and source control are important to optimize patient management and outcomes. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-022-06944-2.

Background Nafamostat, a serine protease inhibitor, has been used for the treatment of disseminated intravascular coagulation and pancreatitis. In vitro studies and clinical reports suggest its beneficial effect in the treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods This phase 2 open-label, randomised, multicentre, controlled trial evaluated nafamostat (4.8 mg/kg/day) plus standard-of-care (SOC) in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia (i.e., those requiring nasal high-flow oxygen therapy and/or non-invasive mechanical ventilation). The primary outcome was the time to clinical improvement. Key secondary outcomes included the time to recovery, rates of recovery and National Early Warning Score (NEWS). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04623021. Findings A total of 104 patients, mean age 58.6 years were enrolled in 13 clinical centres in Russia between 25/9/2020 and 14/11/2020 and randomised to nafamostat plus SOC (n=53) or SOC alone (n=51). There was no significant difference in time to clinical improvement (primary endpoint) between the nafamostat and SOC groups (median 11 [interquartile range (IQR) 9 to 14) vs 11 [IQR 9 to 14] days; Rate Ratio [RR; the ratio for clinical improvement], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.57; p=0.953). In 36 patients with baseline NEWS ≥7, nafamostat was superior to SOC alone in median time to clinical improvement (11 vs 14 days; RR, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.17 to 7.14; p=0.012). Patients receiving nafamostat in this subgroup had a significantly higher recovery rate compared with SOC alone (61.1% (11/18) vs 11.1 % (2/18) by Day 11, p=0.002). The 28-day mortality was 1.9% (1/52) for nafamostat and 8.0% (4/50) for SOC (95% CI, -17.0 to 3.4; p=0.155). No case of COVID-19 related serious adverse events leading to death was recorded in the patients receiving nafamostat. Interpretation Our study found no significant difference in time to clinical improvement between the nafamostat and SOC groups, but a shorter median time to clinical improvement in a small group of high-risk COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen treatment. To assess the efficacy further, a larger Phase 3 clinical trial is warranted. Funding Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology [2020M3A9H5108928] and Chong Kun Dang (CKD) Pharm (Seoul, Korea).

No abstract

Background: The aim of this post hoc analysis of a large cohort study was to evaluate the association between night-time surgery and the occurrence of intraoperative adverse events (AEs) and postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). Methods: LAS VEGAS (Local Assessment of Ventilatory Management During General Anesthesia for Surgery) was a prospective international 1-week study that enrolled adult patients undergoing surgical procedures with general anaesthesia and mechanical ventilation in 146 hospitals across 29 countries. Surgeries were defined as occurring during 'daytime' when induction of anaesthesia was between 8:00 AM and 7:59 PM, and as 'night-time' when induction was between 8:00 PM and 7:59 AM. Results: Of 9861 included patients, 555 (5.6%) underwent surgery during night-time. The proportion of patients who developed intraoperative AEs was higher during night-time surgery in unmatched (43.6% vs 34.1%; P<0.001) and propensity-matched analyses (43.7% vs 36.8%; P¼0.029). PPCs also occurred more often in patients who underwent night-time surgery (14% vs 10%; P¼0.004) in an unmatched cohort analysis, although not in a propensity-matched analysis (13.8% vs 11.8%; P¼0.39). In a multivariable regression model, including patient characteristics and types of surgery and anaesthesia, night-time surgery was independently associated with a higher incidence of intraoperative AEs (odds ratio: 1.44; 95% confidence interval: 1.09e1.90; P¼0.01), but not with a higher incidence of PPCs (odds ratio: 1.32; 95% confidence interval: 0.89e1.90; P¼0.15). Conclusions: Intraoperative adverse events and postoperative pulmonary complications occurred more often in patients undergoing night-time surgery. Imbalances in patients' clinical characteristics, types of surgery, and intraoperative management at night-time partially explained the higher incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications, but not the higher incidence of adverse events. Clinical trial registration: NCT01601223.

Background The study aimed to describe the epidemiology and outcomes of hospital-acquired bloodstream infections (HABSIs) between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 critically ill patients. Methods We used data from the Eurobact II study, a prospective observational multicontinental cohort study on HABSI treated in ICU. For the current analysis, we selected centers that included both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 critically ill patients. We performed descriptive statistics between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 in terms of patients’ characteristics, source of infection and microorganism distribution. We studied the association between COVID-19 status and mortality using multivariable fragility Cox models. Results A total of 53 centers from 19 countries over the 5 continents were eligible. Overall, 829 patients (median age 65 years [IQR 55; 74]; male, n = 538 [64.9%]) were treated for a HABSI. Included patients comprised 252 (30.4%) COVID-19 and 577 (69.6%) non-COVID-19 patients. The time interval between hospital admission and HABSI was similar between both groups. Respiratory sources (40.1 vs. 26.0%, p < 0.0001) and primary HABSI (25.4% vs. 17.2%, p = 0.006) were more frequent in COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 patients had more often enterococcal (20.5% vs. 9%) and Acinetobacter spp. (18.8% vs. 13.6%) HABSIs. Bacteremic COVID-19 patients had an increased mortality hazard ratio (HR) versus non-COVID-19 patients (HR 1.91, 95% CI 1.49–2.45). Conclusions We showed that the epidemiology of HABSI differed between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. Enterococcal HABSI predominated in COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 patients with HABSI had elevated risk of mortality. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.org number NCT03937245. Registered 3 May 2019.