Abdominal Compartment Syndrome in Critically Ill Patients

BACKGROUND: Abdominal compartment syndrome patients suffer severe obstacles such as kidney failure and shock. To evade further complications, identifying the abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) and Intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH), in critically ill individuals and hospitalised in the intensive care unit (ICU) is obligated. AIM: The current study intended to study the abdominal compartment syndrome and the concomitant risk factors among hospitalised patients in ICU, by using the Intra-abdominal pressure test. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and twenty-five hospitalised patients at ICU entered the current survey. Abdominal pressure was measured by standard intravesical technique. The SPSS 21 analysed the preoperative and intraoperative factors such as demographic records and comorbidities. RESULTS: Seventy-three (58.4%) participants were males, and 52 (41.6%) were women in the mean age of 55.1 ± 18.3 years. Eighty-nine patients (71.2%) showed normal intra-abdominal pressure since 31 patients (24.8%), and 5 patients (4%) developed IAH and ACS. The intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) applied to Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), Acute Physiology, shock, Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS), central venous oxygen saturation and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score (P < 0.05). Patients with high IAP have shown a higher mortality frequency, compared to others (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Current findings showed a correlation between IAP hospitalised patients in ICU and shock, SIRS, APACHE II, central venous oxygen saturation and GCS. Intra-abdominal pressure test, as a valuable prognosis test for the abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) and Intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH), may offer better results when added to the routine medical checkup of ICU patients

Procalcitonin and Proinflammatory Cytokines in Early Diagnosis of Bacterial Infections after Bronchoscopy

BACKGROUND: Fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB) guided bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) remains as the chief diagnostic tool in respiratory disorders. 1.2-16% of patients frequently experience fever after bronchoscopy. To exclude the need for multiple antibiotic prescribing in patients with post-bronchoscopy fever, the presence of the self-limiting inflammatory responses should be excluded. AIM: The current study was conducted to test the serum of patients undergoing bronchoscopy for some proinflammatory cytokines including Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha (TNF-ɑ), Interleukin-1beta (IL-1β), Interleukin-8 (IL-8) and Interleukin-6 (IL-6) and the value of Procalcitonin (PCT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Current case-control study was conducted at the National Research Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease in Iran. Nineteen patients (48.72%) that attended with a reasonable sign for a diagnostic bronchoscopy from January 2016 to December 2017 were included in the case group. The control group consisted of 20 patients who underwent a simple bronchoscopy and without FOB-BAL. The laboratory findings for PCT concentrations and cytokine levels in the three serum samples (before FOB-BAL (t0), after 6 hr. (t1), and at 24 hr. past (t2) FOB-BAL) were compared between two groups. RESULTS: The frequency of post-bronchoscopy fever was 5.12, and the prevalence of post-bronchoscopy infectious fever was 2.56%. PCT level was considerably higher in the patient with a confirmed bacterial infection when compared to other participants (p-value < 0. 05). Interestingly, IL-8 level in the bacterial infection proven fever patient was higher than in other patients (p < 0.001). IL-8 levels displayed a specificity of 72.7% and a sensitivity of 100%, at the threshold point of 5.820 pg/ml. PCT levels had a specificity of 84% and a sensitivity of 81%, at the threshold point of 0.5 ng/ml. CONCLUSION: The present findings show that in patients with fever after bronchoscopy, PCT levels and IL-8 levels are valuable indicators for antibiotic therapy, proving adequate proof for bacterial infection. The current findings also illustrate that to monitor the serum levels of PCT and proinflammatory cytokines in the patients undergoing FOB-BAL, the best time is the 24-hour postoperative bronchoscopy

Global, regional, and national burden of colorectal cancer and its risk factors, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Funding: F Carvalho and E Fernandes acknowledge support from Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P. (FCT), in the scope of the project UIDP/04378/2020 and UIDB/04378/2020 of the Research Unit on Applied Molecular Biosciences UCIBIO and the project LA/P/0140/2020 of the Associate Laboratory Institute for Health and Bioeconomy i4HB; FCT/MCTES through the project UIDB/50006/2020. J Conde acknowledges the European Research Council Starting Grant (ERC-StG-2019-848325). V M Costa acknowledges the grant SFRH/BHD/110001/2015, received by Portuguese national funds through Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT), IP, under the Norma Transitória DL57/2016/CP1334/CT0006.proofepub_ahead_of_prin

Intermediate versus standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation and statin therapy versus placebo in critically-ill patients with COVID-19: Rationale and design of the INSPIRATION/INSPIRATION-S studies

Background: Microvascular and macrovascular thrombotic events are among the hallmarks of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Furthermore, the exuberant immune response is considered an important driver of pulmonary and extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. The optimal management strategy to prevent thrombosis in critically-ill patients with COVID-19 remains unknown. Methods: The Intermediate versus Standard-dose Prophylactic anticoagulation In cRitically-ill pATIents with COVID-19: An opeN label randomized controlled trial (INSPIRATION) and INSPIRATION-statin (INSPIRATION-S) studies test two independent hypotheses within a randomized controlled trial with 2 � 2 factorial design. Hospitalized critically-ill patients with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction confirmed COVID-19 will be randomized to intermediate-dose versus standard dose prophylactic anticoagulation. The 600 patients undergoing this randomization will be screened and if meeting the eligibility criteria, will undergo an additional double-blind stratified randomization to atorvastatin 20 mg daily versus matching placebo. The primary endpoint, for both hypotheses will be tested for superiority and includes a composite of adjudicated acute arterial thrombosis, venous thromboembolism (VTE), use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or all-cause death within 30 days from enrollment. Key secondary endpoints include all-cause mortality, adjudicated VTE, and ventilator-free days. Key safety endpoints include major bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium definition and severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count 3 times upper normal limit and clinically-diagnosed myopathy. The primary analyses will be performed in the modified intention-to-treat population. Results will be tested in exploratory analyses across key subgroups and in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol cohorts. Conclusions: INSPIRATION and INSPIRATON-S studies will help address clinically-relevant questions for antithrombotic therapy and thromboinflammatory therapy in critically-ill patients with COVID-19. © 2020 Elsevier Lt

The global burden of cancer attributable to risk factors, 2010-19 : a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Background Understanding the magnitude of cancer burden attributable to potentially modifiable risk factors is crucial for development of effective prevention and mitigation strategies. We analysed results from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 to inform cancer control planning efforts globally. Methods The GBD 2019 comparative risk assessment framework was used to estimate cancer burden attributable to behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risk factors. A total of 82 risk-outcome pairs were included on the basis of the World Cancer Research Fund criteria. Estimated cancer deaths and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in 2019 and change in these measures between 2010 and 2019 are presented. Findings Globally, in 2019, the risk factors included in this analysis accounted for 4.45 million (95% uncertainty interval 4.01-4.94) deaths and 105 million (95.0-116) DALYs for both sexes combined, representing 44.4% (41.3-48.4) of all cancer deaths and 42.0% (39.1-45.6) of all DALYs. There were 2.88 million (2.60-3.18) risk-attributable cancer deaths in males (50.6% [47.8-54.1] of all male cancer deaths) and 1.58 million (1.36-1.84) risk-attributable cancer deaths in females (36.3% [32.5-41.3] of all female cancer deaths). The leading risk factors at the most detailed level globally for risk-attributable cancer deaths and DALYs in 2019 for both sexes combined were smoking, followed by alcohol use and high BMI. Risk-attributable cancer burden varied by world region and Socio-demographic Index (SDI), with smoking, unsafe sex, and alcohol use being the three leading risk factors for risk-attributable cancer DALYs in low SDI locations in 2019, whereas DALYs in high SDI locations mirrored the top three global risk factor rankings. From 2010 to 2019, global risk-attributable cancer deaths increased by 20.4% (12.6-28.4) and DALYs by 16.8% (8.8-25.0), with the greatest percentage increase in metabolic risks (34.7% [27.9-42.8] and 33.3% [25.8-42.0]). Interpretation The leading risk factors contributing to global cancer burden in 2019 were behavioural, whereas metabolic risk factors saw the largest increases between 2010 and 2019. Reducing exposure to these modifiable risk factors would decrease cancer mortality and DALY rates worldwide, and policies should be tailored appropriately to local cancer risk factor burden. Copyright (C) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.Peer reviewe

Global age-sex-specific mortality, life expectancy, and population estimates in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1950–2021, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic: a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

Background: Estimates of demographic metrics are crucial to assess levels and trends of population health outcomes. The profound impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on populations worldwide has underscored the need for timely estimates to understand this unprecedented event within the context of long-term population health trends. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 provides new demographic estimates for 204 countries and territories and 811 additional subnational locations from 1950 to 2021, with a particular emphasis on changes in mortality and life expectancy that occurred during the 2020–21 COVID-19 pandemic period. Methods: 22 223 data sources from vital registration, sample registration, surveys, censuses, and other sources were used to estimate mortality, with a subset of these sources used exclusively to estimate excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 2026 data sources were used for population estimation. Additional sources were used to estimate migration; the effects of the HIV epidemic; and demographic discontinuities due to conflicts, famines, natural disasters, and pandemics, which are used as inputs for estimating mortality and population. Spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression (ST-GPR) was used to generate under-5 mortality rates, which synthesised 30 763 location-years of vital registration and sample registration data, 1365 surveys and censuses, and 80 other sources. ST-GPR was also used to estimate adult mortality (between ages 15 and 59 years) based on information from 31 642 location-years of vital registration and sample registration data, 355 surveys and censuses, and 24 other sources. Estimates of child and adult mortality rates were then used to generate life tables with a relational model life table system. For countries with large HIV epidemics, life tables were adjusted using independent estimates of HIV-specific mortality generated via an epidemiological analysis of HIV prevalence surveys, antenatal clinic serosurveillance, and other data sources. Excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021 was determined by subtracting observed all-cause mortality (adjusted for late registration and mortality anomalies) from the mortality expected in the absence of the pandemic. Expected mortality was calculated based on historical trends using an ensemble of models. In location-years where all-cause mortality data were unavailable, we estimated excess mortality rates using a regression model with covariates pertaining to the pandemic. Population size was computed using a Bayesian hierarchical cohort component model. Life expectancy was calculated using age-specific mortality rates and standard demographic methods. Uncertainty intervals (UIs) were calculated for every metric using the 25th and 975th ordered values from a 1000-draw posterior distribution. Findings: Global all-cause mortality followed two distinct patterns over the study period: age-standardised mortality rates declined between 1950 and 2019 (a 62·8% [95% UI 60·5–65·1] decline), and increased during the COVID-19 pandemic period (2020–21; 5·1% [0·9–9·6] increase). In contrast with the overall reverse in mortality trends during the pandemic period, child mortality continued to decline, with 4·66 million (3·98–5·50) global deaths in children younger than 5 years in 2021 compared with 5·21 million (4·50–6·01) in 2019. An estimated 131 million (126–137) people died globally from all causes in 2020 and 2021 combined, of which 15·9 million (14·7–17·2) were due to the COVID-19 pandemic (measured by excess mortality, which includes deaths directly due to SARS-CoV-2 infection and those indirectly due to other social, economic, or behavioural changes associated with the pandemic). Excess mortality rates exceeded 150 deaths per 100 000 population during at least one year of the pandemic in 80 countries and territories, whereas 20 nations had a negative excess mortality rate in 2020 or 2021, indicating that all-cause mortality in these countries was lower during the pandemic than expected based on historical trends. Between 1950 and 2021, global life expectancy at birth increased by 22·7 years (20·8–24·8), from 49·0 years (46·7–51·3) to 71·7 years (70·9–72·5). Global life expectancy at birth declined by 1·6 years (1·0–2·2) between 2019 and 2021, reversing historical trends. An increase in life expectancy was only observed in 32 (15·7%) of 204 countries and territories between 2019 and 2021. The global population reached 7·89 billion (7·67–8·13) people in 2021, by which time 56 of 204 countries and territories had peaked and subsequently populations have declined. The largest proportion of population growth between 2020 and 2021 was in sub-Saharan Africa (39·5% [28·4–52·7]) and south Asia (26·3% [9·0–44·7]). From 2000 to 2021, the ratio of the population aged 65 years and older to the population aged younger than 15 years increased in 188 (92·2%) of 204 nations. Interpretation: Global adult mortality rates markedly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021, reversing past decreasing trends, while child mortality rates continued to decline, albeit more slowly than in earlier years. Although COVID-19 had a substantial impact on many demographic indicators during the first 2 years of the pandemic, overall global health progress over the 72 years evaluated has been profound, with considerable improvements in mortality and life expectancy. Additionally, we observed a deceleration of global population growth since 2017, despite steady or increasing growth in lower-income countries, combined with a continued global shift of population age structures towards older ages. These demographic changes will likely present future challenges to health systems, economies, and societies. The comprehensive demographic estimates reported here will enable researchers, policy makers, health practitioners, and other key stakeholders to better understand and address the profound changes that have occurred in the global health landscape following the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic, and longer-term trends beyond the pandemic

Effect of Intermediate-Dose vs Standard-Dose Prophylactic Anticoagulation on Thrombotic Events, Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Treatment, or Mortality among Patients with COVID-19 Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit: The INSPIRATION Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: Thrombotic events are commonly reported in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Limited data exist to guide the intensity of antithrombotic prophylaxis. Objective: To evaluate the effects of intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation among patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized trial with a 2 � 2 factorial design performed in 10 academic centers in Iran comparing intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (first hypothesis) and statin therapy vs matching placebo (second hypothesis; not reported in this article) among adult patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19. Patients were recruited between July 29, 2020, and November 19, 2020. The final follow-up date for the 30-day primary outcome was December 19, 2020. Interventions: Intermediate-dose (enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg daily) (n = 276) vs standard prophylactic anticoagulation (enoxaparin, 40 mg daily) (n = 286), with modification according to body weight and creatinine clearance. The assigned treatments were planned to be continued until completion of 30-day follow-up. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mortality within 30 days, assessed in randomized patients who met the eligibility criteria and received at least 1 dose of the assigned treatment. Prespecified safety outcomes included major bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (type 3 or 5 definition), powered for noninferiority (a noninferiority margin of 1.8 based on odds ratio), and severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count <20 �103/µL). All outcomes were blindly adjudicated. Results: Among 600 randomized patients, 562 (93.7) were included in the primary analysis (median interquartile range age, 62 50-71 years; 237 42.2% women). The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 126 patients (45.7%) in the intermediate-dose group and 126 patients (44.1%) in the standard-dose prophylaxis group (absolute risk difference, 1.5% 95% CI,-6.6% to 9.8%; odds ratio, 1.06 95% CI, 0.76-1.48; P =.70). Major bleeding occurred in 7 patients (2.5%) in the intermediate-dose group and 4 patients (1.4%) in the standard-dose prophylaxis group (risk difference, 1.1% 1-sided 97.5% CI,-� to 3.4%; odds ratio, 1.83 1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.00-5.93), not meeting the noninferiority criteria (P for noninferiority >.99). Severe thrombocytopenia occurred only in patients assigned to the intermediate-dose group (6 vs 0 patients; risk difference, 2.2% 95% CI, 0.4%-3.8%; P =.01). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19, intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, did not result in a significant difference in the primary outcome of a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mortality within 30 days. These results do not support the routine empirical use of intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation in unselected patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04486508. © 2021 American Medical Association. All rights reserved