Herbicide Options to Control Naturalised Infestations of Cereus uruguayanus in Rangeland Environments of Australia

While there are many high profile Opuntioid cactus species invading rangeland environments in Australia, Cereus uruguayanus Ritt. ex Kiesl. has also naturalised and formed large and dense infestations at several locations. With no herbicides registered for control of C. uruguayanus in Australia, the primary aim of this study was to identify effective herbicides to control it using a range of techniques. This involved a large screening trial of twelve herbicides and four techniques, followed by a rate refinement trial for cut stump applications and another to test residual herbicides. Despite most treatments (except monosodium methylarsonate (MSMA)) taking a long time to kill plants, at least one effective herbicide was identified for basal bark (triclopyr/picloram), cut stump (aminopyralid/metsulfuron-methyl, glyphosate, metsulfuron-methyl, triclopyr/picloram, triclopyr/picloram/aminopyralid), stem injection (glyphosate, MSMA, triclopyr/picloram/aminopyralid) and foliar applications (aminopyralid/metsulfuron-methyl, MSMA, triclopyr, triclopyr/picloram/aminopyralid) due to their ability to kill both small and large plants. Ground application of residual herbicides was less conclusive with neither hexazinone nor tebuthiuron causing adequate mortality at the rates applied. This study has identified effective herbicides for the control of C. uruguayanus using several techniques, but further research is needed to refine herbicide rates and develop integrated management strategies for a range of situations and infestation sizes and densities

The WHICH? trial: rationale and design of a pragmatic randomized, multicentre comparison of home- vs. clinic-based management of chronic heart failure patients

Aims: To describe the rationale and design of the Which Heart failure Intervention is most Cost-effective & consumer friendly in reducing Hospital care (WHICH?) trial. Methods: WHICH? is a pragmatic, multicentre, randomized controlled trial that seeks to determine if multidisciplinary management of chronic heart failure (CHF) patients post-acute hospitalization delivered in a patient's own home is superior to care delivered via a specialist CHF outpatient clinic. The composite primary endpoint is all-cause, unplanned recurrent hospitalization or death during 12–18 months of follow-up. Of 688 eligible patients, 280 patients (73% male and 66% principal diagnosis of CHF) with a mean age of 71 ± 14 years have been randomized to home- (n = 143) or clinic-based (n = 137) post-discharge management. This will provide 80% power (two-sided alpha of 0.05) to detect a 15% absolute difference in both the primary end-point and rate of all-cause hospital stay. Preliminary data suggest that the two groups are well matched in nearly all baseline socio-economic and clinical parameters. The majority of patients have significant co-morbidity, including hypertension (63%), coronary artery disease (55%), and atrial fibrillation (53%) with an accordingly high Charlson Index of Comorbidity Score (6.1 ± 2.4). Perspective: Despite its relatively small size, the WHICH? trial is well placed to examine the relative impact of two of the most commonly applied forms of face-to-face management designed to reduce recurrent hospitalization and prolong survival in CHF patients.Simon Stewart, Melinda J. Carrington, Thomas Marwick, Patricia M. Davidson, Peter Macdonald, John Horowitz, Henry Krum, Phillip J. Newton, Christopher Reid, and Paul A. Scuffham on behalf of the Which Heart failure Intervention is most Cost-effective & consumer friendly in reducing Hospital care (WHICH?) trial Investigator

Epidemiological characteristics, practice of ventilation, and clinical outcome in patients at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units from 16 countries (PRoVENT): an international, multicentre, prospective study

Background Scant information exists about the epidemiological characteristics and outcome of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and how ventilation is managed in these individuals. We aimed to establish the epidemiological characteristics of patients at risk of ARDS, describe ventilation management in this population, and assess outcomes compared with people at no risk of ARDS. Methods PRoVENT (PRactice of VENTilation in critically ill patients without ARDS at onset of ventilation) is an international, multicentre, prospective study undertaken at 119 ICUs in 16 countries worldwide. All patients aged 18 years or older who were receiving mechanical ventilation in participating ICUs during a 1-week period between January, 2014, and January, 2015, were enrolled into the study. The Lung Injury Prediction Score (LIPS) was used to stratify risk of ARDS, with a score of 4 or higher defining those at risk of ARDS. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients at risk of ARDS. Secondary outcomes included ventilatory management (including tidal volume [VT] expressed as mL/kg predicted bodyweight [PBW], and positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP] expressed as cm H2O), development of pulmonary complications, and clinical outcomes. The PRoVENT study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01868321. The study has been completed. Findings Of 3023 patients screened for the study, 935 individuals fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of these critically ill patients, 282 were at risk of ARDS (30%, 95% CI 27\u201333), representing 0\ub714 cases per ICU bed over a 1-week period. VT was similar for patients at risk and not at risk of ARDS (median 7\ub76 mL/kg PBW [IQR 6\ub77\u20139\ub71] vs 7\ub79 mL/kg PBW [6\ub78\u20139\ub71]; p=0\ub7346). PEEP was higher in patients at risk of ARDS compared with those not at risk (median 6\ub70 cm H2O [IQR 5\ub70\u20138\ub70] vs 5\ub70 cm H2O [5\ub70\u20137\ub70]; p<0\ub70001). The prevalence of ARDS in patients at risk of ARDS was higher than in individuals not at risk of ARDS (19/260 [7%] vs 17/556 [3%]; p=0\ub7004). Compared with individuals not at risk of ARDS, patients at risk of ARDS had higher in-hospital mortality (86/543 [16%] vs 74/232 [32%]; p<0\ub70001), ICU mortality (62/533 [12%] vs 66/227 [29%]; p<0\ub70001), and 90-day mortality (109/653 [17%] vs 88/282 [31%]; p<0\ub70001). VT did not differ between patients who did and did not develop ARDS (p=0\ub7471 for those at risk of ARDS; p=0\ub7323 for those not at risk). Interpretation Around a third of patients receiving mechanical ventilation in the ICU were at risk of ARDS. Pulmonary complications occur frequently in patients at risk of ARDS and their clinical outcome is worse compared with those not at risk of ARDS. There is potential for improvement in the management of patients without ARDS. Further refinements are needed for prediction of ARDS

Epidemiological characteristics, practice of ventilation, and clinical outcome in patients at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units from 16 countries (PRoVENT): an international, multicentre, prospective study

Background Scant information exists about the epidemiological characteristics and outcome of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and how ventilation is managed in these individuals. We aimed to establish the epidemiological characteristics of patients at risk of ARDS, describe ventilation management in this population, and assess outcomes compared with people at no risk of ARDS. Methods PRoVENT (PRactice of VENTilation in critically ill patients without ARDS at onset of ventilation) is an international, multicentre, prospective study undertaken at 119 ICUs in 16 countries worldwide. All patients aged 18 years or older who were receiving mechanical ventilation in participating ICUs during a 1-week period between January, 2014, and January, 2015, were enrolled into the study. The Lung Injury Prediction Score (LIPS) was used to stratify risk of ARDS, with a score of 4 or higher defining those at risk of ARDS. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients at risk of ARDS. Secondary outcomes included ventilatory management (including tidal volume [VT] expressed as mL/kg predicted bodyweight [PBW], and positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP] expressed as cm H2O), development of pulmonary complications, and clinical outcomes. The PRoVENT study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01868321. The study has been completed. Findings Of 3023 patients screened for the study, 935 individuals fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of these critically ill patients, 282 were at risk of ARDS (30%, 95% CI 27–33), representing 0·14 cases per ICU bed over a 1-week period. VT was similar for patients at risk and not at risk of ARDS (median 7·6 mL/kg PBW [IQR 6·7–9·1] vs 7·9 mL/kg PBW [6·8–9·1]; p=0·346). PEEP was higher in patients at risk of ARDS compared with those not at risk (median 6·0 cm H2O [IQR 5·0–8·0] vs 5·0 cm H2O [5·0–7·0]; p<0·0001). The prevalence of ARDS in patients at risk of ARDS was higher than in individuals not at risk of ARDS (19/260 [7%] vs 17/556 [3%]; p=0·004). Compared with individuals not at risk of ARDS, patients at risk of ARDS had higher in-hospital mortality (86/543 [16%] vs 74/232 [32%]; p<0·0001), ICU mortality (62/533 [12%] vs 66/227 [29%]; p<0·0001), and 90-day mortality (109/653 [17%] vs 88/282 [31%]; p<0·0001). VT did not differ between patients who did and did not develop ARDS (p=0·471 for those at risk of ARDS; p=0·323 for those not at risk). Interpretation Around a third of patients receiving mechanical ventilation in the ICU were at risk of ARDS. Pulmonary complications occur frequently in patients at risk of ARDS and their clinical outcome is worse compared with those not at risk of ARDS. There is potential for improvement in the management of patients without ARDS. Further refinements are needed for prediction of ARDS