Say it in Croatian - Croatian translation of the EGPRN definition of Multimorbidity using a Delphi consensus technique

Patients coming to their family physician (FP) usually have more than one condition or problem. Multimorbidity as well as dealing with it, is challenging for FPs even as a mere concept. The World Health Organization (WHO) has simply defined multimorbidity as two or more chronic conditions existing in one patient. However, this definition seems inadequate for a holistic approach to patient care within Family Medicine. Using systematic literature review the European General Practitioners Research Network (EGPRN) developed a comprehensive definition of multimorbidity. For practical and wider use, this definition had to be translated into other languages, including Croatian. Here presented is the Croatian translation of this comprehensive definition using a Delphi consensus procedure for Forward/Backward translation. 23 expert FPs fluent in English were asked to rank the translation from 1 (absolutely disagreeable) to 9 (fully agreeable) and to explain each score under 7. It was previously defined that consensus would be reached when 70 % of the scores are above 6. Finally, a backward translation from Croatian into English was undertaken and approved by the authors of the English definition. Consensus was reached after the first Delphi round with 100% of the scores above 6; therefore the Croatian translation was immediately accepted. The authors of the English definition accepted the backward translation. A comprehensive definition of multimorbidity is now available in English and Croatian, as well as other European languages which will surely make further implications for clinicians, researchers or policy makers

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome associated with COVID-19: An Emulated Target Trial Analysis.

RATIONALE: Whether COVID patients may benefit from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) compared with conventional invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effect of ECMO on 90-Day mortality vs IMV only Methods: Among 4,244 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 included in a multicenter cohort study, we emulated a target trial comparing the treatment strategies of initiating ECMO vs. no ECMO within 7 days of IMV in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (PaO2/FiO2 <80 or PaCO2 ≥60 mmHg). We controlled for confounding using a multivariable Cox model based on predefined variables. MAIN RESULTS: 1,235 patients met the full eligibility criteria for the emulated trial, among whom 164 patients initiated ECMO. The ECMO strategy had a higher survival probability at Day-7 from the onset of eligibility criteria (87% vs 83%, risk difference: 4%, 95% CI 0;9%) which decreased during follow-up (survival at Day-90: 63% vs 65%, risk difference: -2%, 95% CI -10;5%). However, ECMO was associated with higher survival when performed in high-volume ECMO centers or in regions where a specific ECMO network organization was set up to handle high demand, and when initiated within the first 4 days of MV and in profoundly hypoxemic patients. CONCLUSIONS: In an emulated trial based on a nationwide COVID-19 cohort, we found differential survival over time of an ECMO compared with a no-ECMO strategy. However, ECMO was consistently associated with better outcomes when performed in high-volume centers and in regions with ECMO capacities specifically organized to handle high demand. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)