Suchergebnisse

Funding: The authors acknowledged the support granted by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII) (ISCIII/FIS-PI 12/01815) Spanish Government ; BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is challenging. An important aspect to improve outcome is early recognition of VAP and the initiation of the appropriate empirical treatment. We hypothesized that biological markers in plasma can rule out VAP at the moment of clinical suspicion and could rule in VAP before the diagnosis can be made clinically. METHODS: In this prospective study, patients with VAP (n = 24, microbiology confirmed) were compared to controls (n = 19) with a similar duration of mechanical ventilation. Blood samples from the day of VAP diagnosis and 1 and 3 days before were analyzed with a multiplex array for markers of inflammation, coagulation, and apoptosis. The best biomarker combination was selected and the diagnostic accuracy was given by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC). RESULTS: TNF-receptor 1 (TNFRI) and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) were selected as optimal biomarkers at the day of VAP diagnosis, which resulted in a ROC-AUC of 0.96, with excellent sensitivity. Three days before the diagnosis TNFRI and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) levels in plasma predicted VAP with a ROC-AUC of 0.79. The slope of IL-10 and PAI-1 resulted in a ROC-AUC of 0.77. These biomarkers improved the classification of the clinical pulmonary infection score when combined. CONCLUSIONS: Concentration of TNFRI and PAI-1 and the slope of PAI-1 and IL-10 may be used to predict the development of VAP as early as 3 days before the diagnosis made clinically. TNFRI and GCSF may be used to exclude VAP at the moment of clinical suspicion. Especially TNFRI seems to be a promising marker for the prediction and diagnosis of VAP. ; publishersversion ; published

Purpose: To survey healthcare workers (HCW) on availability and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) caring for COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) Materials and Method: A web-based survey distributed worldwide in April 2020. Results: We received 2711 responses from 1797 (67%) physicians, 744 (27%) nurses, and 170 (6%) Allied HCW. For routine care, most (1557, 58%) reportedly used FFP2/N95 masks, waterproof long sleeve gowns (1623; 67%), and face shields/visors (1574; 62%). Powered Air-Purifying Respirators were used routinely and for intubation only by 184 (7%) and 254 (13%) respondents, respectively. Surgical masks were used for routine care by 289 (15%) and 47 (2%) for intubations. At least one piece of standard PPE was unavailable for 1402 (52%), and 817 (30%) reported reusing single-use PPE. PPE was worn for a median of 4 hours (IQR 2, 5). Adverse effects of PPE were associated with longer shift durations and included heat (1266, 51%), thirst (1174, 47%), pressure areas (1088, 44%), headaches (696, 28%), Inability to use the bathroom (661, 27%) and extreme exhaustion (492, 20%). Conclusions: HCWs reported widespread shortages, frequent reuse of, and adverse effects related to PPE. Urgent action by healthcare administrators, policymakers, governments and industry is warranted.

Funding: This study was supported in part by a grant from the French government through the «Programme Investissement d'Avenir» (I-SITE ULNE) managed by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (coVAPid project). The funders of the study had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, or interpreta tion, writing of the report, or decision to submit for publication. ; BACKGROUND: Patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection are at higher risk for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). No study has evaluated the relationship between VAP and mortality in this population, or compared this relationship between SARS-CoV-2 patients and other populations. The main objective of our study was to determine the relationship between VAP and mortality in SARS-CoV-2 patients. METHODS: Planned ancillary analysis of a multicenter retrospective European cohort. VAP was diagnosed using clinical, radiological and quantitative microbiological criteria. Univariable and multivariable marginal Cox's regression models, with cause-specific hazard for duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay, were used to compare outcomes between study groups. Extubation, and ICU discharge alive were considered as events of interest, and mortality as competing event. FINDINGS: Of 1576 included patients, 568 were SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, 482 influenza pneumonia, and 526 no evidence of viral infection at ICU admission. VAP was associated with significantly higher risk for 28-day mortality in SARS-CoV-2 (adjusted HR 1.70 (95% CI 1.16-2.47), p = 0.006), and influenza groups (1.75 (1.03-3.02), p = 0.045), but not in the no viral infection group (1.07 (0.64-1.78), p = 0.79). VAP was associated with significantly longer duration of mechanical ventilation in the SARS-CoV-2 group, but not in the influenza or no viral infection groups. VAP was associated with significantly longer duration of ICU stay in the 3 study groups. No significant difference was found in heterogeneity of outcomes related to VAP between the 3 groups, suggesting that the impact of VAP on ...

Objectives: The outcomes reported in trials in coronavirus disease 2019 are extremely heterogeneous and of uncertain patient relevance, limiting their applicability for clinical decision-making. The aim of this workshop was to establish a core outcomes set for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019. Design: Four international online multistakeholder consensus workshops were convened to discuss proposed core outcomes for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019, informed by a survey involving 9,289 respondents from 111 countries. The transcripts were analyzed thematically. The workshop recommendations were used to finalize the core outcomes set. Setting: International. Subjects: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, researchers). Interventions: None. Measurements: None. Main Results: Six themes were identified. "Responding to the critical and acute health crisis" reflected the immediate focus on saving lives and preventing life-threatening complications that underpinned the high prioritization of mortality, respiratory failure, and multiple organ failure. "Capturing different settings of care" highlighted the need to minimize the burden on hospitals and to acknowledge outcomes in community settings. "Encompassing the full trajectory and severity of disease" was addressing longer term impacts and the full spectrum of illness (e.g. shortness of breath and recovery). "Distinguishing overlap, correlation and collinearity" meant recognizing that symptoms such as shortness of breath had distinct value and minimizing overlap (e.g. lung function and pneumonia were on the continuum toward respiratory failure). "Recognizing adverse events" refers to the potential harms of new and evolving interventions. "Being cognizant of family and psychosocial wellbeing" reflected the pervasive impacts of coronavirus disease 2019. Conclusions: Mortality, respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, and recovery are critically important outcomes to be consistently reported in coronavirus disease 2019 trials. ; Flinders University National Coronavirus Disease 2019 Clinical Evidence Taskforce Australian Government CGIAR Victorian Department of Health and Human Services Ian Potter Foundation Walter Cottman Endowment Fund Lord Mayor's Charitable Foundation

Objectives: There are over 4,000 trials conducted in people with coronavirus disease 2019. However, the variability of outcomes and the omission of patient-centered outcomes may diminish the impact of these trials on decision-making. The aim of this study was to generate a consensus-based, prioritized list of outcomes for coronavirus disease 2019 trials. Design: In an online survey conducted in English, Chinese, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish languages, adults with coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, health professionals, and the general public rated the importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (7-9, critical importance) and completed a Best-Worst Scale to estimate relative importance. Participant comments were analyzed thematically. Setting: International. Subjects: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public, and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, and researchers). Interventions: None. Measurements: None. Main Results: In total, 9,289 participants from 111 countries (776 people with coronavirus disease 2019 or family members, 4,882 health professionals, and 3,631 members of the public) completed the survey. The four outcomes of highest priority for all three groups were: mortality, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and organ failure. Lung function, lung scarring, sepsis, shortness of breath, and oxygen level in the blood were common to the top 10 outcomes across all three groups (mean > 7.5, median >= 8, and > 70% of respondents rated the outcome as critically important). Patients/family members rated fatigue, anxiety, chest pain, muscle pain, gastrointestinal problems, and cardiovascular disease higher than health professionals. Four themes underpinned prioritization: fear of life-threatening, debilitating, and permanent consequences; addressing knowledge gaps; enabling preparedness and planning; and tolerable or infrequent outcomes. Conclusions: Life-threatening respiratory and other organ outcomes were consistently highly prioritized by all stakeholder groups. Patients/family members gave higher priority to many patient-reported outcomes compared with health professionals. ; Flinders University National Coronavirus Disease 2019 Clinical Evidence Taskforce Australian Government CGIAR Victorian Department of Health and Human Services Ian Potter Foundation Walter Cottman Endowment Fund Lord Mayor's Charitable Foundation

ABSTRACT Objective: There are over 4000 trials conducted in people with COVID-19. However, the variability of outcomes and the omission of patient-centered outcomes may diminish the impact of these trials on decision-making. The aim of this study was to generate a consensus-based, prioritized list of outcomes for COVID-19 trials. Design: In an online survey conducted in English, Chinese, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish languages, adults with COVID-19, their family members, health professionals and the general public rated the importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (7-9, critical importance) and completed a Best-Worst Scale to estimate relative importance. Participant comments were analysed thematically. Setting: International Participants: Adults aged 18 years and over with confirmed or suspected COVID-19, their family members, members of the general public and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, researchers). Main Results: In total, 9289 participants from 111 countries (776 people with COVID-19 or family members, 4882 health professionals, and 3631 members of the public) completed the survey. The four outcomes of highest priority for all three groups were: mortality, respiratory failure, pneumonia and organ failure. Lung function, lung scarring, sepsis, shortness of breath, and oxygen level in the blood were common to the top 10 outcomes across all three groups (mean >7.5, median ≥ 8, and >70% of respondents rated the outcome as critically important). Patients/family members rated fatigue, anxiety, chest pain, muscle pain, gastrointestinal problems and cardiovascular disease higher than health professionals. Four themes underpinned prioritization: fear of life-threatening, debilitating and permanent consequences; addressing knowledge gaps; enabling preparedness and planning; and tolerable or infrequent outcomes. Conclusions: Life-threatening respiratory and other organ outcomes were consistently highly prioritized by all stakeholder groups. Patients/family members gave higher priority to many patient-reported outcomes compared with health professionals. ; The project is funded by the Flinders University and the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce, convened by the Australian Living Evidence Consortium, hosted by Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University supported by the Australian Government, Victorian Department of Health and Human Services, Ian Potter Foundation, Walter Cottman Endowment Fund (managed by Equity Trustees) and the Lord Mayor's Charitable Foundation). AT is supported by The University of Sydney Robinson Fellowship. ACM is supported by a Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship from the Wellcome Trust (WT 2055214/Z/16/Z)