New clinical prediction model for early recognition of sepsis in adult primary care patients:a prospective diagnostic cohort study of development and external validation

Background Recognising patients who need immediate hospital treatment for sepsis while simultaneously limiting unnecessary referrals is challenging for GPs.Aim To develop and validate a sepsis prediction model for adult patients in primary care.Design and setting This was a prospective cohort study in four out-of-hours primary care services in the Netherlands, conducted between June 2018 and March 2020.Method Adult patients who were acutely ill and received home visits were included. A total of nine clinical variables were selected as candidate predictors, next to the biomarkers C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and lactate. The primary endpoint was sepsis within 72 hours of inclusion, as established by an expert panel. Multivariable logistic regression with backwards selection was used to design an optimal model with continuous clinical variables. The added value of the biomarkers was evaluated. Subsequently, a simple model using single cut-off points of continuous variables was developed and externally validated in two emergency department populations.Results A total of 357 patients were included with a median age of 80 years (interquartile range 71–86), of which 151 (42%) were diagnosed with sepsis. A model based on a simple count of one point for each of six variables (aged >65 years; temperature >38°C; systolic blood pressure ≤110 mmHg; heart rate >110/min; saturation ≤95%; and altered mental status) had good discrimination and calibration (C-statistic of 0.80 [95% confidence interval = 0.75 to 0.84]; Brier score 0.175). Biomarkers did not improve the performance of the model and were therefore not included. The model was robust during external validation.Conclusion Based on this study’s GP out-of-hours population, a simple model can accurately predict sepsis in acutely ill adult patients using readily available clinical parameters

Octane in exhaled breath to diagnose acute respiratory distress syndrome in invasively ventilated intensive care unit patients

Background The concentration of exhaled octane has been postulated as a reliable biomarker for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) using metabolomics analysis with gas chromatography and mass spectrometry (GC-MS). A point-of-care (POC) breath test was developed in recent years to accurately measure octane at the bedside. The aim of the present study was to validate the diagnostic accuracy of exhaled octane for ARDS using a POC breath test in invasively ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Methods This was an observational cohort study of consecutive patients receiving invasive ventilation for at least 24 h, recruited in two university ICUs. GC-MS and POC breath tests were used to quantify the exhaled octane concentration. ARDS was assessed by three experts following the Berlin definition and used as the reference standard. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to assess diagnostic accuracy. Results 519 patients were included and 190 (37%) fulfilled the criteria for ARDS. The median (interquartile range) concentration of octane using the POC breath test was not significantly different between patients with ARDS (0.14 (0.05–0.37) ppb) and without ARDS (0.11 (0.06–0.26) ppb; p=0.64). The AUC for ARDS based on the octane concentration in exhaled breath using the POC breath test was 0.52 (95% CI 0.46–0.57). Analysis of exhaled octane with GC-MS showed similar results. Conclusions Octane in exhaled breath has insufficient diagnostic accuracy for ARDS. This disqualifies the use of octane as a biomarker in the diagnosis of ARDS and challenges most of the research performed up to now in the field of exhaled breath metabolomics

Validation of volatile metabolites of pulmonary oxidative injury: a bench to bedside study

Background Changes in exhaled volatile organic compounds (VOCs) can be used to discriminate between respiratory diseases, and increased concentrations of hydrocarbons are commonly linked to oxidative stress. However, the VOCs identified are inconsistent between studies, and translational studies are lacking. Methods In this bench to bedside study, we captured VOCs in the headspace of A549 epithelial cells after exposure to hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), to induce oxidative stress, using high-capacity polydimethylsiloxane sorbent fibres. Exposed and unexposed cells were compared using targeted and untargeted analysis. Breath samples of invasively ventilated intensive care unit patients (n=489) were collected on sorbent tubes and associated with the inspiratory oxygen fraction (FIO2) to reflect pulmonary oxidative stress. Headspace samples and breath samples were analysed using gas chromatography and mass spectrometry. Results In the cell, headspace octane concentration was decreased after oxidative stress (p=0.0013), while the other VOCs were not affected. 2-ethyl-1-hexanol showed an increased concentration in the headspace of cells undergoing oxidative stress in untargeted analysis (p=0.00014). None of the VOCs that were linked to oxidative stress showed a significant correlation with FIO2 (Rs range: −0.015 to −0.065) or discriminated between patients with FIO2 ≥0.6 or below (area under the curve range: 0.48 to 0.55). Conclusion Despite a comprehensive translational approach, validation of known and novel volatile biomarkers of oxidative stress was not possible in patients at risk of pulmonary oxidative injury. The inconsistencies observed highlight the difficulties faced in VOC biomarker validation, and that caution is warranted in the interpretation of the pathophysiological origin of discovered exhaled breath biomarkers

Diagnosis and outcome of acute respiratory failure in immunocompromised patients after bronchoscopy

Objective We wished to explore the use, diagnostic capability and outcomes of bronchoscopy added to noninvasive testing in immunocompromised patients. In this setting, an inability to identify the cause of acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure is associated with worse outcome. Every effort should be made to obtain a diagnosis, either with noninvasive testing alone or combined with bronchoscopy. However, our understanding of the risks and benefits of bronchoscopy remains uncertain. Patients and methods This was a pre-planned secondary analysis of Efraim, a prospective, multinational, observational study of 1611 immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). We compared patients with noninvasive testing only to those who had also received bronchoscopy by bivariate analysis and after propensity score matching. Results Bronchoscopy was performed in 618 (39%) patients who were more likely to have haematological malignancy and a higher severity of illness score. Bronchoscopy alone achieved a diagnosis in 165 patients (27% adjusted diagnostic yield). Bronchoscopy resulted in a management change in 236 patients (38% therapeutic yield). Bronchoscopy was associated with worsening of respiratory status in 69 (11%) patients. Bronchoscopy was associated with higher ICU (40% versus 28%; p\textless0.0001) and hospital mortality (49% versus 41%; p=0.003). The overall rate of undiagnosed causes was 13%. After propensity score matching, bronchoscopy remained associated with increased risk of hospital mortality (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.08\textendash1.81). Conclusions Bronchoscopy was associated with improved diagnosis and changes in management, but also increased hospital mortality. Balancing risk and benefit in individualised cases should be investigated further

Ventilation management and clinical outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 (PRoVENT-COVID): a national, multicentre, observational cohort study

Background: Little is known about the practice of ventilation management in patients with COVID-19. We aimed to describe the practice of ventilation management and to establish outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 in a single country during the first month of the outbreak. Methods: PRoVENT-COVID is a national, multicentre, retrospective observational study done at 18 intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands. Consecutive patients aged at least 18 years were eligible for participation if they had received invasive ventilation for COVID-19 at a participating ICU during the first month of the national outbreak in the Netherlands. The primary outcome was a combination of ventilator variables and parameters over the first 4 calendar days of ventilation: tidal volume, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), respiratory system compliance, and driving pressure. Secondary outcomes included the use of adjunctive treatments for refractory hypoxaemia and ICU complications. Patient-centred outcomes were ventilator-free days at day 28, duration of ventilation, duration of ICU and hospital stay, and mortality. PRoVENT-COVID is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04346342). Findings: Between March 1 and April 1, 2020, 553 patients were included in the study. Median tidal volume was 6·3 mL/kg predicted bodyweight (IQR 5·7–7·1), PEEP was 14·0 cm H2O (IQR 11·0–15·0), and driving pressure was 14·0 cm H2O (11·2–16·0). Median respiratory system compliance was 31·9 mL/cm H2O (26·0–39·9). Of the adjunctive treatments for refractory hypoxaemia, prone positioning was most often used in the first 4 days of ventilation (283 [53%] of 530 patients). The median number of ventilator-free days at day 28 was 0 (IQR 0–15); 186 (35%) of 530 patients had died by day 28. Predictors of 28-day mortality were gender, age, tidal volume, respiratory system compliance, arterial pH, and heart rate on the first day of invasive ventilation. Interpretation: In patients with COVID-19 who were invasively ventilated during the first month of the outbreak in the Netherlands, lung-protective ventilation with low tidal volume and low driving pressure was broadly applied and prone positioning was often used. The applied PEEP varied widely, despite an invariably low respiratory system compliance. The findings of this national study provide a basis for new hypotheses and sample size calculations for future trials of invasive ventilation for COVID-19. These data could also help in the interpretation of findings from other studies of ventilation practice and outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19. Funding: Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location Academic Medical Center