Clinico-social parameters of diabetes among patientsutilizing emergency medical services

Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is increasing in its potential in developing countries. Rise in diabetic patients calling emergency medical services (EMS) is expected. It calls for thorough assessment of patients with DM utilizing EMS. In the present study, was to assess magnitude of DM among patients utilizing EMS and its clinico-social parameters.Methods: It was hospital record based observational study of patients calling EMS delivered by a tertiary care hospital in Pune, Maharashtra, India during 1st January 2013 to 31st December 2014. Patients with incomplete records were excluded. A person with medical background was trained to extract required information from hospital records. Patients with previously diagnosed DM were considered those who were on diet, oral hypoglycemic agents or taking insulin therapy and newly diagnosed patients with DM were considered those with the value of glycemia on admission >200 mg/dl in first 24 hours. Data analysis was done using SPSS 15.0 software.Results: 45.8% (894/1951) were Patients with DM out of that 78.19% (699/894) were known to have DM while 28.81% (195/1951) were new cases of DM. 5.1% (100/1951) patients had uncontrolled DM. DM was significantly more in >60 years age group and in urban residents (p<0.001). Patients with DM were significantly more to have breathlessness, altered sensorium and dyspnoea as major purpose to call EMS (p<0.001, <0.001 and 0.045 respectively). Other co-morbidities in the form of Hypertension, other cardiovascular abnormalities, COPD, CKD and history of CVA were significantly more among Patients with DM (p<0.001, except for COPD, p=0.027).Conclusions: There was a high burden of patients with DM on EMS. EMS teams should be well trained to diagnose and manage such emergencies. Mass awareness of screening for DM and its proper management will help to decrease such burden

Hyperoxemia and excess oxygen use in early acute respiratory distress syndrome : Insights from the LUNG SAFE study

Publisher Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s). Copyright: Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.Background: Concerns exist regarding the prevalence and impact of unnecessary oxygen use in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We examined this issue in patients with ARDS enrolled in the Large observational study to UNderstand the Global impact of Severe Acute respiratory FailurE (LUNG SAFE) study. Methods: In this secondary analysis of the LUNG SAFE study, we wished to determine the prevalence and the outcomes associated with hyperoxemia on day 1, sustained hyperoxemia, and excessive oxygen use in patients with early ARDS. Patients who fulfilled criteria of ARDS on day 1 and day 2 of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure were categorized based on the presence of hyperoxemia (PaO2 > 100 mmHg) on day 1, sustained (i.e., present on day 1 and day 2) hyperoxemia, or excessive oxygen use (FIO2 ≥ 0.60 during hyperoxemia). Results: Of 2005 patients that met the inclusion criteria, 131 (6.5%) were hypoxemic (PaO2 < 55 mmHg), 607 (30%) had hyperoxemia on day 1, and 250 (12%) had sustained hyperoxemia. Excess FIO2 use occurred in 400 (66%) out of 607 patients with hyperoxemia. Excess FIO2 use decreased from day 1 to day 2 of ARDS, with most hyperoxemic patients on day 2 receiving relatively low FIO2. Multivariate analyses found no independent relationship between day 1 hyperoxemia, sustained hyperoxemia, or excess FIO2 use and adverse clinical outcomes. Mortality was 42% in patients with excess FIO2 use, compared to 39% in a propensity-matched sample of normoxemic (PaO2 55-100 mmHg) patients (P = 0.47). Conclusions: Hyperoxemia and excess oxygen use are both prevalent in early ARDS but are most often non-sustained. No relationship was found between hyperoxemia or excessive oxygen use and patient outcome in this cohort. Trial registration: LUNG-SAFE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02010073publishersversionPeer reviewe

Early mobilisation in critically ill COVID-19 patients: a subanalysis of the ESICM-initiated UNITE-COVID observational study

Background Early mobilisation (EM) is an intervention that may improve the outcome of critically ill patients. There is limited data on EM in COVID-19 patients and its use during the first pandemic wave. Methods This is a pre-planned subanalysis of the ESICM UNITE-COVID, an international multicenter observational study involving critically ill COVID-19 patients in the ICU between February 15th and May 15th, 2020. We analysed variables associated with the initiation of EM (within 72 h of ICU admission) and explored the impact of EM on mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, as well as discharge location. Statistical analyses were done using (generalised) linear mixed-effect models and ANOVAs. Results Mobilisation data from 4190 patients from 280 ICUs in 45 countries were analysed. 1114 (26.6%) of these patients received mobilisation within 72 h after ICU admission; 3076 (73.4%) did not. In our analysis of factors associated with EM, mechanical ventilation at admission (OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.25, 0.35; p = 0.001), higher age (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.98, 1.00; p ≤ 0.001), pre-existing asthma (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73, 0.98; p = 0.028), and pre-existing kidney disease (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.71, 0.99; p = 0.036) were negatively associated with the initiation of EM. EM was associated with a higher chance of being discharged home (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.08, 1.58; p = 0.007) but was not associated with length of stay in ICU (adj. difference 0.91 days; 95% CI − 0.47, 1.37, p = 0.34) and hospital (adj. difference 1.4 days; 95% CI − 0.62, 2.35, p = 0.24) or mortality (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.7, 1.09, p = 0.24) when adjusted for covariates. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that a quarter of COVID-19 patients received EM. There was no association found between EM in COVID-19 patients' ICU and hospital length of stay or mortality. However, EM in COVID-19 patients was associated with increased odds of being discharged home rather than to a care facility. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04836065 (retrospectively registered April 8th 2021)

Clinico-social parameters of diabetes among patientsutilizing emergency medical services

Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is increasing in its potential in developing countries. Rise in diabetic patients calling emergency medical services (EMS) is expected. It calls for thorough assessment of patients with DM utilizing EMS. In the present study, was to assess magnitude of DM among patients utilizing EMS and its clinico-social parameters.Methods: It was hospital record based observational study of patients calling EMS delivered by a tertiary care hospital in Pune, Maharashtra, India during 1st January 2013 to 31st December 2014. Patients with incomplete records were excluded. A person with medical background was trained to extract required information from hospital records. Patients with previously diagnosed DM were considered those who were on diet, oral hypoglycemic agents or taking insulin therapy and newly diagnosed patients with DM were considered those with the value of glycemia on admission &gt;200 mg/dl in first 24 hours. Data analysis was done using SPSS 15.0 software.Results: 45.8% (894/1951) were Patients with DM out of that 78.19% (699/894) were known to have DM while 28.81% (195/1951) were new cases of DM. 5.1% (100/1951) patients had uncontrolled DM. DM was significantly more in &gt;60 years age group and in urban residents (p&lt;0.001). Patients with DM were significantly more to have breathlessness, altered sensorium and dyspnoea as major purpose to call EMS (p&lt;0.001, &lt;0.001 and 0.045 respectively). Other co-morbidities in the form of Hypertension, other cardiovascular abnormalities, COPD, CKD and history of CVA were significantly more among Patients with DM (p&lt;0.001, except for COPD, p=0.027).Conclusions: There was a high burden of patients with DM on EMS. EMS teams should be well trained to diagnose and manage such emergencies. Mass awareness of screening for DM and its proper management will help to decrease such burden

Fluid administration for acute circulatory dysfunction using basic monitoring:narrative review and expert panel recommendations from an ESICM task force

An international team of experts in the field of fluid resuscitation was invited by the ESICM to form a task force to systematically review the evidence concerning fluid administration using basic monitoring. The work included a particular emphasis on pre-ICU hospital settings and resource-limited settings. The work focused on four main questions: (1) What is the role of clinical assessment to guide fluid resuscitation in shock? (2) What basic monitoring is required to perform and interpret a fluid challenge? (3) What defines a fluid challenge in terms of fluid type, ranges of volume, and rate of administration? (4) What are the safety endpoints during a fluid challenge? The expert panel found insufficient evidence to provide recommendations according to the GRADE system, and was only able to make recommendations for basic interventions, based on the available evidence and expert opinion. The panel identified significant gaps in the scientific evidence on fluid administration outside the ICU (excluding the operating theater). Globally, scientific communities and health care systems should address these critical gaps in evidence through research on how basic fluid administration in resource-rich and resource-limited settings can be improved for the benefit of patients and societies worldwide.SCOPUS: re.jSCOPUS: er.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome : Secondary analysis of the LUNG SAFE database

The aim of this study was to describe data on epidemiology, ventilatory management, and outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in immunocompromised patients. Methods: We performed a post hoc analysis on the cohort of immunocompromised patients enrolled in the Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG SAFE) study. The LUNG SAFE study was an international, prospective study including hypoxemic patients in 459 ICUs from 50 countries across 5 continents. Results: Of 2813 patients with ARDS, 584 (20.8%) were immunocompromised, 38.9% of whom had an unspecified cause. Pneumonia, nonpulmonary sepsis, and noncardiogenic shock were their most common risk factors for ARDS. Hospital mortality was higher in immunocompromised than in immunocompetent patients (52.4% vs 36.2%; p < 0.0001), despite similar severity of ARDS. Decisions regarding limiting life-sustaining measures were significantly more frequent in immunocompromised patients (27.1% vs 18.6%; p < 0.0001). Use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) as first-line treatment was higher in immunocompromised patients (20.9% vs 15.9%; p = 0.0048), and immunodeficiency remained independently associated with the use of NIV after adjustment for confounders. Forty-eight percent of the patients treated with NIV were intubated, and their mortality was not different from that of the patients invasively ventilated ab initio. Conclusions: Immunosuppression is frequent in patients with ARDS, and infections are the main risk factors for ARDS in these immunocompromised patients. Their management differs from that of immunocompetent patients, particularly the greater use of NIV as first-line ventilation strategy. Compared with immunocompetent subjects, they have higher mortality regardless of ARDS severity as well as a higher frequency of limitation of life-sustaining measures. Nonetheless, nearly half of these patients survive to hospital discharge. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02010073. Registered on 12 December 2013

Immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: Secondary analysis of the LUNG SAFE database

Background: The aim of this study was to describe data on epidemiology, ventilatory management, and outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in immunocompromised patients. Methods: We performed a post hoc analysis on the cohort of immunocompromised patients enrolled in the Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG SAFE) study. The LUNG SAFE study was an international, prospective study including hypoxemic patients in 459 ICUs from 50 countries across 5 continents. Results: Of 2813 patients with ARDS, 584 (20.8%) were immunocompromised, 38.9% of whom had an unspecified cause. Pneumonia, nonpulmonary sepsis, and noncardiogenic shock were their most common risk factors for ARDS. Hospital mortality was higher in immunocompromised than in immunocompetent patients (52.4% vs 36.2%; p &lt; 0.0001), despite similar severity of ARDS. Decisions regarding limiting life-sustaining measures were significantly more frequent in immunocompromised patients (27.1% vs 18.6%; p &lt; 0.0001). Use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) as first-line treatment was higher in immunocompromised patients (20.9% vs 15.9%; p = 0.0048), and immunodeficiency remained independently associated with the use of NIV after adjustment for confounders. Forty-eight percent of the patients treated with NIV were intubated, and their mortality was not different from that of the patients invasively ventilated ab initio. Conclusions: Immunosuppression is frequent in patients with ARDS, and infections are the main risk factors for ARDS in these immunocompromised patients. Their management differs from that of immunocompetent patients, particularly the greater use of NIV as first-line ventilation strategy. Compared with immunocompetent subjects, they have higher mortality regardless of ARDS severity as well as a higher frequency of limitation of life-sustaining measures. Nonetheless, nearly half of these patients survive to hospital discharge. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02010073. Registered on 12 December 2013

The role for high flow nasal cannula as a respiratory support strategy in adults: a clinical practice guideline

Purpose: High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a relatively recent respiratory support technique which delivers high flow, heated and humidified controlled concentration of oxygen via the nasal route. Recently, its use has increased for a variety of clinical indications. To guide clinical practice, we developed evidence-based recommendations regarding use of HFNC in various clinical settings. Methods: We formed a guideline panel composed of clinicians, methodologists and experts in respiratory medicine. Using GRADE, the panel developed recommendations for four actionable questions. Results: The guideline panel made a strong recommendation for HFNC in hypoxemic respiratory failure compared to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) (moderate certainty), a conditional recommendation for HFNC following extubation (moderate certainty), no recommendation regarding HFNC in the peri-intubation period (moderate certainty), and a conditional recommendation for postoperative HFNC in high risk and/or obese patients following cardiac or thoracic surgery (moderate certainty). Conclusions: This clinical practice guideline synthesizes current best-evidence into four recommendations for HFNC use in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure, following extubation, in the peri-intubation period, and postoperatively for bedside clinicians