The association of clinical frailty with outcomes of patients reviewed by rapid response teams: an international prospective observational cohort study

Background: Frailty is a state of vulnerability to poor resolution of homeostasis after a stressor event and is strongly associated with adverse outcomes. Therefore, the assessment of frailty may be an essential part of evaluation in any healthcare encounter that might result in an escalation of care. The purpose of the study was to assess the frequency and association of frailty with clinical outcomes in patients subject to rapid response team (RRT) review. Methods: In this multi-national prospective observational cohort study, centres with existing RRTs collected data over a 7-day period, with follow up of all patients at 24 h following their RRT call and at hospital discharge or 30 days following the event trigger (whichever came sooner). Investigators also collected data on the trigg

Repair of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in COVID-19 by Stromal Cells (REALIST-COVID Trial):A Multicentre, Randomised, Controlled Trial

RationaleMesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) may modulate inflammation, promoting repair in COVID-19-related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS).ObjectivesWe investigated safety and efficacy of ORBCEL-C (CD362-enriched, umbilical cord-derived MSCs) in COVID-related ARDS.MethodsThis multicentre, randomised, double-blind, allocation concealed, placebo-controlled trial (NCT03042143) randomised patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-related ARDS to receive ORBCEL-C (400million cells) or placebo (Plasma-Lyte148).MeasurementsThe primary safety and efficacy outcomes were incidence of serious adverse events and oxygenation index at day 7 respectively. Secondary outcomes included respiratory compliance, driving pressure, PaO2/FiO2 ratio and SOFA score. Clinical outcomes relating to duration of ventilation, length of intensive care unit and hospital stays, and mortality were collected. Long-term follow up included diagnosis of interstitial lung disease at 1 year, and significant medical events and mortality at 2 years. Transcriptomic analysis was performed on whole blood at day 0, 4 and 7.Main results60 participants were recruited (final analysis n=30 ORBCEL-C, n=29 placebo: 1 in placebo group withdrew consent). 6 serious adverse events occurred in the ORBCEL-C and 3 in the placebo group, RR 2.9(0.6-13.2)p=0.25. Day 7 mean[SD] oxygenation index did not differ (ORBCEL-C 98.357.2], placebo 96.667.3). There were no differences in secondary surrogate outcomes, nor mortality at day 28, day 90, 1 or 2 years. There was no difference in prevalence of interstitial lung disease at 1year nor significant medical events up to 2 years. ORBCEL-C modulated the peripheral blood transcriptome.ConclusionORBCEL-C MSCs were safe in moderate-to-severe COVID-related ARDS, but did not improve surrogates of pulmonary organ dysfunction. Clinical trial registration available at www.Clinicaltrialsgov, ID: NCT03042143. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Speed of cooling after cardiac arrest in relation to the intervention effect: a sub-study from the TTM2-trial

Background: Targeted temperature management (TTM) is recommended following cardiac arrest; however, time to target temperature varies in clinical practice. We hypothesised the effects of a target temperature of 33 °C when compared to normothermia would differ based on average time to hypothermia and those patients achieving hypothermia fastest would have more favorable outcomes. Methods: In this post-hoc analysis of the TTM-2 trial, patients after out of hospital cardiac arrest were randomized to targeted hypothermia (33 °C), followed by controlled re-warming, or normothermia with early treatment of fever (body temperature, ≥ 37.8 °C). The average temperature at 4 h (240 min) after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was calculated for participating sites. Primary outcome was death from any cause at 6 months. Secondary outcome was poor functional outcome at 6 months (score of 4-6 on modified Rankin scale). Results: A total of 1592 participants were evaluated for the primary outcome. We found no evidence of heterogeneity of intervention effect based on the average time to target temperature on mortality (p = 0.17). Of patients allocated to hypothermia at the fastest sites, 71 of 145 (49%) had died compared to 68 of 148 (46%) of the normothermia group (relative risk with hypothermia, 1.07; 95% confidence interval 0.84-1.36). Poor functional outcome was reported in 74/144 (51%) patients in the hypothermia group, and 75/147 (51%) patients in the normothermia group (relative risk with hypothermia 1.01 (95% CI 0.80-1.26). Conclusions: Using a hospital's average time to hypothermia did not significantly alter the effect of TTM of 33 °C compared to normothermia and early treatment of fever. Keywords: Hypothermia; Out of hospital cardiac arrest; Temperature management; Time to target temperature

Quality metrics for the evaluation of Rapid Response Systems: Proceedings from the third international consensus conference on Rapid Response Systems.

BACKGROUND: Clinically significant deterioration of patients admitted to general wards is a recognized complication of hospital care. Rapid Response Systems (RRS) aim to reduce the number of avoidable adverse events. The authors aimed to develop a core quality metric for the evaluation of RRS. METHODS: We conducted an international consensus process. Participants included patients, carers, clinicians, research scientists, and members of the International Society for Rapid Response Systems with representatives from Europe, Australia, Africa, Asia and the US. Scoping reviews of the literature identified potential metrics. We used a modified Delphi methodology to arrive at a list of candidate indicators that were reviewed for feasibility and applicability across a broad range of healthcare systems including low and middle-income countries. The writing group refined recommendations and further characterized measurement tools. RESULTS: Consensus emerged that core outcomes for reporting for quality improvement should include ten metrics related to structure, process and outcome for RRS with outcomes following the domains of the quadruple aim. The conference recommended that hospitals should collect data on cardiac arrests and their potential predictability, timeliness of escalation, critical care interventions and presence of written treatment goals for patients remaining on general wards. Unit level reporting should include the presence of patient activated rapid response and metrics of organizational culture. We suggest two exploratory cost metrics to underpin urgently needed research in this area. CONCLUSION: A consensus process was used to develop ten metrics for better understanding the course and care of deteriorating ward patients. Others are proposed for further development

Biomarker-guided antibiotic stewardship in suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAPrapid2) : a randomised controlled trial and process evaluation

Background Ventilator-associated pneumonia is the most common intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired infection, yet accurate diagnosis remains difficult, leading to overuse of antibiotics. Low concentrations of IL-1β and IL-8 in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid have been validated as effective markers for exclusion of ventilator-associated pneumonia. The VAPrapid2 trial aimed to determine whether measurement of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid IL-1β and IL-8 could effectively and safely improve antibiotic stewardship in patients with clinically suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia. Methods VAPrapid2 was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in patients admitted to 24 ICUs from 17 National Health Service hospital trusts across England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Patients were screened for eligibility and included if they were 18 years or older, intubated and mechanically ventilated for at least 48 h, and had suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to biomarker-guided recommendation on antibiotics (intervention group) or routine use of antibiotics (control group) using a web-based randomisation service hosted by Newcastle Clinical Trials Unit. Patients were randomised using randomly permuted blocks of size four and six and stratified by site, with allocation concealment. Clinicians were masked to patient assignment for an initial period until biomarker results were reported. Bronchoalveolar lavage was done in all patients, with concentrations of IL-1β and IL-8 rapidly determined in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from patients randomised to the biomarker-based antibiotic recommendation group. If concentrations were below a previously validated cutoff, clinicians were advised that ventilator-associated pneumonia was unlikely and to consider discontinuing antibiotics. Patients in the routine use of antibiotics group received antibiotics according to usual practice at sites. Microbiology was done on bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from all patients and ventilator-associated pneumonia was confirmed by at least 104 colony forming units per mL of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. The primary outcome was the distribution of antibiotic-free days in the 7 days following bronchoalveolar lavage. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis, with an additional per-protocol analysis that excluded patients randomly assigned to the intervention group who defaulted to routine use of antibiotics because of failure to return an adequate biomarker result. An embedded process evaluation assessed factors influencing trial adoption, recruitment, and decision making. This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN65937227, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01972425. Findings Between Nov 6, 2013, and Sept 13, 2016, 360 patients were screened for inclusion in the study. 146 patients were ineligible, leaving 214 who were recruited to the study. Four patients were excluded before randomisation, meaning that 210 patients were randomly assigned to biomarker-guided recommendation on antibiotics (n=104) or routine use of antibiotics (n=106). One patient in the biomarker-guided recommendation group was withdrawn by the clinical team before bronchoscopy and so was excluded from the intention-to-treat analysis. We found no significant difference in the primary outcome of the distribution of antibiotic-free days in the 7 days following bronchoalveolar lavage in the intention-to-treat analysis (p=0·58). Bronchoalveolar lavage was associated with a small and transient increase in oxygen requirements. Established prescribing practices, reluctance for bronchoalveolar lavage, and dependence on a chain of trial-related procedures emerged as factors that impaired trial processes

Defining the characteristics and expectations of fluid bolus therapy : A worldwide perspective

Purpose: The purpose of the study is to understand what clinicians believe defines fluid bolus therapy (FBT) and the expected response to such intervention. Methods: We asked intensive care specialists in 30 countries to participate in an electronic questionnaire of their practice, definition, and expectations of FBT. Results: We obtained 3138 responses. Despite much variation, more than 80% of respondents felt that more than 250 mL of either colloid or crystalloid fluid given over less than 30 minutes defined FBT, with crystalloids most acceptable. The most acceptable crystalloid and colloid for use as FBT were 0.9% saline and 4% albumin solution, respectively. Most respondents believed that one or more of the following physiological changes indicates a response to FBT: a mean arterial pressure increase greater than 10 mm Hg, a heart rate decrease greater than 10 beats per minute, an increase in urinary output by more than 10 mL/h, an increase in central venous oxygen saturation greater than 4%, or a lactate decrease greater than 1 mmol/L. Conclusions: Despite wide variability between individuals and countries, clear majority views emerged to describe practice, define FBT, and identify a response to it. Further investigation is now required to describe actual FBT practice and to identify the magnitude and duration of the physiological response to FBT and its relationship to patient-centered outcomes. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Peer reviewe

Defining the characteristics and expectations of fluid bolus therapy: a worldwide perspective

Purpose: The purpose of the study is to understand what clinicians believe defines fluid bolus therapy (FBT) and the expected response to such intervention. Methods: We asked intensive care specialists in 30 countries to participate in an electronic questionnaire of their practice, definition, and expectations of FBT. Results: We obtained 3138 responses. Despite much variation, more than 80% of respondents felt that more than 250 mL of either colloid or crystalloid fluid given over less than 30 minutes defined FBT, with crystalloids most acceptable. The most acceptable crystalloid and colloid for use as FBT were 0.9% saline and 4% albumin solution, respectively. Most respondents believed that one or more of the following physiological changes indicates a response to FBT: a mean arterial pressure increase greater than 10 mm Hg, a heart rate decrease greater than 10 beats per minute, an increase in urinary output by more than 10 mL/h, an increase in central venous oxygen saturation greater than 4%, or a lactate decrease greater than 1 mmol/L. Conclusions: Despite wide variability between individuals and countries, clear majority views emerged to describe practice, define FBT, and identify a response to it. Further investigation is now required to describe actual FBT practice and to identify the magnitude and duration of the physiological response to FBT and its relationship to patient-centered outcomes.Facultad de Ciencias Médica

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570