Expert consensus statements for the management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure using a Delphi method.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented pressure on healthcare system globally. Lack of high-quality evidence on the respiratory management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (C-ARF) has resulted in wide variation in clinical practice. Using a Delphi process, an international panel of 39 experts developed clinical practice statements on the respiratory management of C-ARF in areas where evidence is absent or limited. Agreement was defined as achieved when > 70% experts voted for a given option on the Likert scale statement or > 80% voted for a particular option in multiple-choice questions. Stability was assessed between the two concluding rounds for each statement, using the non-parametric Chi-square (χ <sup>2</sup> ) test (p < 0·05 was considered as unstable). Agreement was achieved for 27 (73%) management strategies which were then used to develop expert clinical practice statements. Experts agreed that COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is clinically similar to other forms of ARDS. The Delphi process yielded strong suggestions for use of systemic corticosteroids for critical COVID-19; awake self-proning to improve oxygenation and high flow nasal oxygen to potentially reduce tracheal intubation; non-invasive ventilation for patients with mixed hypoxemic-hypercapnic respiratory failure; tracheal intubation for poor mentation, hemodynamic instability or severe hypoxemia; closed suction systems; lung protective ventilation; prone ventilation (for 16-24 h per day) to improve oxygenation; neuromuscular blocking agents for patient-ventilator dyssynchrony; avoiding delay in extubation for the risk of reintubation; and similar timing of tracheostomy as in non-COVID-19 patients. There was no agreement on positive end expiratory pressure titration or the choice of personal protective equipment. Using a Delphi method, an agreement among experts was reached for 27 statements from which 20 expert clinical practice statements were derived on the respiratory management of C-ARF, addressing important decisions for patient management in areas where evidence is either absent or limited. The study was registered with Clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT04534569

Clinical and bacteriological profile and outcome of sepsis in dermatology ward in tertiary care center in New Delhi

Background: There is paucity of data regarding the clinical and bacteriological profile of sepsis in dermatology in-patients. Aims: To study the frequency, etiology, and outcome of sepsis dermatology in-patients. Methods: The study was conducted in a 30-bedded dermatology ward of a tertiary care center. Sepsis was defined by presence of ≥2 SIRS (systemic inflammatory response syndrome) criteria along with evidence of infection (clinically obvious/culture proven infection of skin or internal organs). Patients were also assessed for known (common) risk factors of sepsis. In suspected sepsis patients, at least two samples of blood cultures by venepuncture were taken. Pus, skin swab, urine, and sputum samples were also collected for culture as needed with avoidance of contamination. Results: Among 860 admitted patients studied from November 2004 to July 2006, 103 (12%) fulfilled SIRS criteria. Of these, 63 had nonsepsis causes of SIRS positivity, while 40 (4.65%) had sepsis. Majority of the sepsis patient had vesicobullous diseases (42.5%), erythroderma (25%), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) (22.5%). Severe sepsis developed in 17 (42.5%) patients, while 15 (37.5%) died. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was the commonest organism isolated (99; 25.9%) in all culture specimens followed by Acinetobacter spp. (52; 13.6%), Pseudomonas spp. (40; 10.5%), Methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA: 33; 8.7%), and Klebsiella spp. (22; 5.8%). Various risk factors affecting mortality and sensitivity patterns for various isolates were also analyzed. Conclusion: Sepsis occurred in 40 (4.65%) inpatients in dermatology ward. The frequency of sepsis was highest in TEN (90%), followed by drug-induced maculopapular rash (20.0%), erythroderma (17.5%), and vesicobullous diseases (8.5%). MRSA, acinetobacter, pseudomonas, MSSA, and Klebsiella were important etiological agents involved in sepsis in dermatology in-patients

Net Study - Study of sepsis in dermatology ward: A preliminary report

Background: Sepsis is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in dermatology inpatients. Aims: To assess the frequency, etiology and outcome of sepsis in dermatology ward and to formulate appropriate antimicrobial regimens. Methods: All inpatients were assessed for sepsis and its risk factors. Results: Ten patients out of a total of 150 inpatients (6.6%) developed sepsis. The commonly cultured organisms from skin and blood were Staphylococcus spp. (n = 20 isolates) and gram-negative organisms (n = 28). Three (30%) patients (2 TEN, 1 dermatomyositis) died. Conclusion: Sepsis was found to be an important event in our ward patients, with Staphylococci predominating in the list of causative microorganisms

Comparison of bronchoscopic and non-bronchoscopic techniques for diagnosis of ventilator associated pneumonia

Background: The diagnosis of ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) remains a challenge because the clinical signs and symptoms lack both sensitivity and specificity and the selection of microbiologic diagnostic procedure is still a matter of debate. Aims and Objective: To study the role of various bronchoscopic and non-bronchoscopic diagnostic techniques for diagnosis of VAP. Settings and Design: This prospective comparative study was conducted in a medical ICU of a tertiary care center. Materials and Methods: Twenty-five patients, clinically diagnosed with VAP, were evaluated by bronchoscopic and non-bronchoscopic procedures for diagnosis. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of various bronchoscopic and non-bronchoscopic techniques were calculated, taking clinical pulmonary infection score (CPIS) of 656 as reference standard. Results: Our study has shown that for the diagnosis of VAP, bronchoscopic brush had a sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of 94.9% [confidence interval (CI): 70.6-99.7], 57.1% (CI: 13.4-86.1), 85% (CI: 61.1-96) and 80% (CI: 21.9-98.7), respectively. Bronchoscopic bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) had a sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of 77.8% (CI: 51.9-92.6), 71.8% (CI: 24.1-94), 87.3% (CI: 60.4-97.8) and 55.5% (CI: 17.4-82.6), respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for non-bronchoscopic BAL (NBAL) were 83.3% (CI: 57.7-95.6), 71.43% (CI: 24.1-94), 88.2% (CI: 62.3-97.4) and 62.5% (CI: 20.2-88.2), respectively. Endotracheal aspirate (ETA) yield was only 52% and showed poor concordance with BAL (k-0.351; P-0.064) and NBAL (k-0.272; P-0.161). There was a good microbiologic concordance among different bronchoscopic and non-bronchoscopic distal airway sampling techniques. Conclusion: NBAL is an inexpensive, easy, and useful technique for microbiologic diagnosis of VAP. Our findings, if verified, might simplify the approach for the diagnosis of VAP

Guidelines for diagnosis and management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Joint ICS/NCCP (I) recommendations

10.4103/0970-2113.116248Lung India303228-26

Expert consensus statements for the management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure using a Delphi method

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented pressure on healthcare system globally. Lack of high-quality evidence on the respiratory management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (C-ARF) has resulted in wide variation in clinical practice. Methods: Using a Delphi process, an international panel of 39 experts developed clinical practice statements on the respiratory management of C-ARF in areas where evidence is absent or limited. Agreement was defined as achieved when > 70% experts voted for a given option on the Likert scale statement or > 80% voted for a particular option in multiple-choice questions. Stability was assessed between the two concluding rounds for each statement, using the non-parametric Chi-square (χ) test (p < 0·05 was considered as unstable). Results: Agreement was achieved for 27 (73%) management strategies which were then used to develop expert clinical practice statements. Experts agreed that COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is clinically similar to other forms of ARDS. The Delphi process yielded strong suggestions for use of systemic corticosteroids for critical COVID-19; awake self-proning to improve oxygenation and high flow nasal oxygen to potentially reduce tracheal intubation; non-invasive ventilation for patients with mixed hypoxemic-hypercapnic respiratory failure; tracheal intubation for poor mentation, hemodynamic instability or severe hypoxemia; closed suction systems; lung protective ventilation; prone ventilation (for 16-24 h per day) to improve oxygenation; neuromuscular blocking agents for patient-ventilator dyssynchrony; avoiding delay in extubation for the risk of reintubation; and similar timing of tracheostomy as in non-COVID-19 patients. There was no agreement on positive end expiratory pressure titration or the choice of personal protective equipment. Conclusion: Using a Delphi method, an agreement among experts was reached for 27 statements from which 20 expert clinical practice statements were derived on the respiratory management of C-ARF, addressing important decisions for patient management in areas where evidence is either absent or limited. Trial registration: The study was registered with Clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT04534569

Guidelines for diagnosis and management of bronchial asthma: Joint ICS/NCCP (I) recommendations

10.4103/0970-2113.154517Lung India327S3-S4