Pathogenesis, diagnosis and management of pneumorrhachis

Pneumorrhachis (PR), the presence of intraspinal air, is an exceptional but eminent radiographic finding, accompanied by different aetiologies and possible pathways of air entry into the spinal canal. By reviewing the literature and analysing a personal case of traumatic cervical PR after head injury, we present current data regarding the pathoanatomy, clinical and radiological presentation, diagnosis and differential diagnosis and treatment modalities of patients with PR and associated pathologies to highlight this uncommon phenomenon and outline aetiology-based guidelines for the practical management of PR. Air within the spinal canal can be divided into primary and secondary PR, descriptively classified into extra- or intradural PR and aetiologically subsumed into iatrogenic, traumatic and nontraumatic PR. Intraspinal air is usually found isolated not only in the cervical, thoracic and, less frequently, the lumbosacral regions but can also be located in the entire spinal canal. PR is almost exceptional associated with further air distributions in the body. The pathogenesis and aetiologies of PR are multifold and can be a diagnostic challenge. The diagnostic procedure should include spinal CT, the imaging tool of choice. PR has to be differentiated from free intraspinal gas collections and the coexistence of air and gas within the spinal canal has to be considered differential diagnostically. PR usually represents an asymptomatic epiphenomenon but can also be symptomatic by itself as well as by its underlying pathology. The latter, although often severe, might be concealed and has to be examined carefully to enable adequate patient treatment. The management of PR has to be individualized and frequently requires a multidisciplinary regime

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Regional Practice Variation and Outcomes in the Standard Versus Accelerated Initiation of Renal Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) Trial: A Post Hoc Secondary Analysis.

ObjectivesAmong patients with severe acute kidney injury (AKI) admitted to the ICU in high-income countries, regional practice variations for fluid balance (FB) management, timing, and choice of renal replacement therapy (RRT) modality may be significant.DesignSecondary post hoc analysis of the STandard vs. Accelerated initiation of Renal Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02568722).SettingOne hundred-fifty-three ICUs in 13 countries.PatientsAltogether 2693 critically ill patients with AKI, of whom 994 were North American, 1143 European, and 556 from Australia and New Zealand (ANZ).InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsTotal mean FB to a maximum of 14 days was +7199 mL in North America, +5641 mL in Europe, and +2211 mL in ANZ (p p p p p p p p = 0.007).ConclusionsAmong STARRT-AKI trial centers, significant regional practice variation exists regarding FB, timing of initiation of RRT, and initial use of continuous RRT. After adjustment, such practice variation was associated with lower ICU and hospital stay and 90-day mortality among ANZ patients compared with other regions

A Bayesian reanalysis of the Standard versus Accelerated Initiation of Renal-Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) trial

Background Timing of initiation of kidney-replacement therapy (KRT) in critically ill patients remains controversial. The Standard versus Accelerated Initiation of Renal-Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) trial compared two strategies of KRT initiation (accelerated versus standard) in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury and found neutral results for 90-day all-cause mortality. Probabilistic exploration of the trial endpoints may enable greater understanding of the trial findings. We aimed to perform a reanalysis using a Bayesian framework. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of all 2927 patients randomized in multi-national STARRT-AKI trial, performed at 168 centers in 15 countries. The primary endpoint, 90-day all-cause mortality, was evaluated using hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression. A spectrum of priors includes optimistic, neutral, and pessimistic priors, along with priors informed from earlier clinical trials. Secondary endpoints (KRT-free days and hospital-free days) were assessed using zero–one inflated beta regression. Results The posterior probability of benefit comparing an accelerated versus a standard KRT initiation strategy for the primary endpoint suggested no important difference, regardless of the prior used (absolute difference of 0.13% [95% credible interval [CrI] − 3.30%; 3.40%], − 0.39% [95% CrI − 3.46%; 3.00%], and 0.64% [95% CrI − 2.53%; 3.88%] for neutral, optimistic, and pessimistic priors, respectively). There was a very low probability that the effect size was equal or larger than a consensus-defined minimal clinically important difference. Patients allocated to the accelerated strategy had a lower number of KRT-free days (median absolute difference of − 3.55 days [95% CrI − 6.38; − 0.48]), with a probability that the accelerated strategy was associated with more KRT-free days of 0.008. Hospital-free days were similar between strategies, with the accelerated strategy having a median absolute difference of 0.48 more hospital-free days (95% CrI − 1.87; 2.72) compared with the standard strategy and the probability that the accelerated strategy had more hospital-free days was 0.66. Conclusions In a Bayesian reanalysis of the STARRT-AKI trial, we found very low probability that an accelerated strategy has clinically important benefits compared with the standard strategy. Patients receiving the accelerated strategy probably have fewer days alive and KRT-free. These findings do not support the adoption of an accelerated strategy of KRT initiation

Initiation of continuous renal replacement therapy versus intermittent hemodialysis in critically ill patients with severe acute kidney injury: a secondary analysis of STARRT-AKI trial

Background: There is controversy regarding the optimal renal-replacement therapy (RRT) modality for critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI). Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of the STandard versus Accelerated Renal Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) trial to compare outcomes among patients who initiated RRT with either continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) or intermittent hemodialysis (IHD). We generated a propensity score for the likelihood of receiving CRRT and used inverse probability of treatment with overlap-weighting to address baseline inter-group differences. The primary outcome was a composite of death or RRT dependence at 90-days after randomization. Results: We identified 1590 trial participants who initially received CRRT and 606 who initially received IHD. The composite outcome of death or RRT dependence at 90-days occurred in 823 (51.8%) patients who commenced CRRT and 329 (54.3%) patients who commenced IHD (unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-1.09). After balancing baseline characteristics with overlap weighting, initial receipt of CRRT was associated with a lower risk of death or RRT dependence at 90-days compared with initial receipt of IHD (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.66-0.99). This association was predominantly driven by a lower risk of RRT dependence at 90-days (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.39-0.94). Conclusions: In critically ill patients with severe AKI, initiation of CRRT, as compared to IHD, was associated with a significant reduction in the composite outcome of death or RRT dependence at 90-days