A Review Evaluating Intravascular Access for High Volume Resuscitation: Can You Keep Up?

Anesthetists and anesthesiologists are frequently in the unique position of administering high-volume resuscitation in the setting of hemorrhage, hypovolemia, or vasodilatory shock.  The ability to rapidly infuse intravenous (IV) fluid solutions differs vastly for different types and sizes of IV access. In patients that may require rapid large volume resuscitation, it is critical to understand the capacity of existing IV devices.  Selecting the most appropriate IV access for patients can be paramount in preventing hypotension, end organ dysfunction, and even death. This article objectively reviews and compares the flow rates of commonly used central and peripheral intravenous devices to demonstrate the influence of catheter length and radius.   &nbsp

A Review Evaluating Intravascular Access for High Volume Resuscitation: Can You Keep Up?

Anesthetists and anesthesiologists are frequently in the unique position of administering high-volume resuscitation in the setting of hemorrhage, hypovolemia, or vasodilatory shock.  The ability to rapidly infuse intravenous (IV) fluid solutions differs vastly for different types and sizes of IV access. In patients that may require rapid large volume resuscitation, it is critical to understand the capacity of existing IV devices.  Selecting the most appropriate IV access for patients can be paramount in preventing hypotension, end organ dysfunction, and even death. This article objectively reviews and compares the flow rates of commonly used central and peripheral intravenous devices to demonstrate the influence of catheter length and radius.   &nbsp

Balanced Crystalloids versus Saline in Critically Ill Adults — A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND: The comparative efficacy and safety of balanced crystalloid solutions and saline for fluid therapy in critically ill adults remain uncertain. METHODS: We systematically reviewed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the use of balanced crystalloids with saline in critically ill adults. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality after pooling data from low-risk-of-bias trials using a random-effects model. We also performed a Bayesian meta-analysis to describe the primary treatment effect in probability terms. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI), new treatment with renal replacement therapy (RRT), and ventilator-free and vasopressor-free days to day 28. RESULTS: We identified 13 RCTs, comprising 35,884 participants. From six trials (34,450 participants) with a low risk of bias, the risk ratio (RR) for 90-day mortality with balanced crystalloids versus saline was 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.01; I2 = 12.1%); using vague priors, the posterior probability that balanced crystalloids reduce mortality was 89.5%. The RRs of developing AKI and of being treated with RRT with balanced crystalloids versus saline were 0.96 (95% CI, 0.89 to 1.02) and 0.95 (95% CI, 0.81 to 1.11), respectively. Ventilator-free days (mean difference, 0.18 days; 95% CI, −0.45 to 0.81) and vasopressor-free days (mean difference, 0.19 days; 95% CI, −0.14 to 0.51) were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated effect of using balanced crystalloids versus saline in critically ill adults ranges from a 9% relative reduction to a 1% relative increase in the risk of death, with a high probability that the average effect of using balanced crystalloids is to reduce mortality

Early Restrictive or Liberal Fluid Management for Sepsis-Induced Hypotension

BACKGROUND: Intravenous fluids and vasopressor agents are commonly used in early resuscitation of patients with sepsis, but comparative data for prioritizing their delivery are limited. METHODS: In an unblinded superiority trial conducted at 60 U.S. centers, we randomly assigned patients to either a restrictive fluid strategy (prioritizing vasopressors and lower intravenous fluid volumes) or a liberal fluid strategy (prioritizing higher volumes of intravenous fluids before vasopressor use) for a 24-hour period. Randomization occurred within 4 hours after a patient met the criteria for sepsis-induced hypotension refractory to initial treatment with 1 to 3 liters of intravenous fluid. We hypothesized that all-cause mortality before discharge home by day 90 (primary outcome) would be lower with a restrictive fluid strategy than with a liberal fluid strategy. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 1563 patients were enrolled, with 782 assigned to the restrictive fluid group and 781 to the liberal fluid group. Resuscitation therapies that were administered during the 24-hour protocol period differed between the two groups; less intravenous fluid was administered in the restrictive fluid group than in the liberal fluid group (difference of medians, -2134 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2318 to -1949), whereas the restrictive fluid group had earlier, more prevalent, and longer duration of vasopressor use. Death from any cause before discharge home by day 90 occurred in 109 patients (14.0%) in the restrictive fluid group and in 116 patients (14.9%) in the liberal fluid group (estimated difference, -0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.4 to 2.6; P = 0.61); 5 patients in the restrictive fluid group and 4 patients in the liberal fluid group had their data censored (lost to follow-up). The number of reported serious adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with sepsis-induced hypotension, the restrictive fluid strategy that was used in this trial did not result in significantly lower (or higher) mortality before discharge home by day 90 than the liberal fluid strategy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; CLOVERS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03434028)

Factors Associated With Death in Critically Ill Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 in the US

Importance: The US is currently an epicenter of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, yet few national data are available on patient characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of critical illness from COVID-19. Objectives: To assess factors associated with death and to examine interhospital variation in treatment and outcomes for patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter cohort study assessed 2215 adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who were admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) at 65 hospitals across the US from March 4 to April 4, 2020. Exposures: Patient-level data, including demographics, comorbidities, and organ dysfunction, and hospital characteristics, including number of ICU beds. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 28-day in-hospital mortality. Multilevel logistic regression was used to evaluate factors associated with death and to examine interhospital variation in treatment and outcomes. Results: A total of 2215 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.5 [14.5] years; 1436 [64.8%] male; 1738 [78.5%] with at least 1 chronic comorbidity) were included in the study. At 28 days after ICU admission, 784 patients (35.4%) had died, 824 (37.2%) were discharged, and 607 (27.4%) remained hospitalized. At the end of study follow-up (median, 16 days; interquartile range, 8-28 days), 875 patients (39.5%) had died, 1203 (54.3%) were discharged, and 137 (6.2%) remained hospitalized. Factors independently associated with death included older age (≥80 vs <40 years of age: odds ratio [OR], 11.15; 95% CI, 6.19-20.06), male sex (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.19-1.90), higher body mass index (≥40 vs <25: OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.01-2.25), coronary artery disease (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.07-2.02), active cancer (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.35-3.43), and the presence of hypoxemia (Pao2:Fio2<100 vs ≥300 mm Hg: OR, 2.94; 95% CI, 2.11-4.08), liver dysfunction (liver Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 2 vs 0: OR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.30–5.25), and kidney dysfunction (renal Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 4 vs 0: OR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.46–4.05) at ICU admission. Patients admitted to hospitals with fewer ICU beds had a higher risk of death (<50 vs ≥100 ICU beds: OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 2.16-4.99). Hospitals varied considerably in the risk-adjusted proportion of patients who died (range, 6.6%-80.8%) and in the percentage of patients who received hydroxychloroquine, tocilizumab, and other treatments and supportive therapies. Conclusions and Relevance: This study identified demographic, clinical, and hospital-level risk factors that may be associated with death in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and can facilitate the identification of medications and supportive therapies to improve outcomes.Dr. Gupta reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and is a scientific coordinator for GlaxoSmithKline’s ASCEND (Anemia Studies in Chronic Kidney Disease: Erythropoiesis via a Novel Prolyl Hydroxylase Inhibitor Daprodustat) trial. Dr. Chan reported receiving grants from the Renal Research Institute outside the submitted work. Dr. Mathews reported receiving grants from the NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) during the conduct of the study and serves on the steering committee for the BREATHE trial (Breathing Retraining for Asthma–Trial of Home Exercises), funded by Roivant/Kinevant Sciences. Dr. Melamed reported receiving honoraria from the American Board of Internal Medicine and Icon Medical Consulting. Dr. Reiser reported receiving personal fees from Biomarin, TRISAQ, Thermo BCT, Astellas, Massachusetts General Hospital, Genentech, UptoDate, Merck, Inceptionsci, GLG, and Clearview and grants from the NIH and Nephcure outside the submitted work. Dr. Srivastava reported receiving personal fees from Horizon Pharma PLC, AstraZeneca, and CVS Caremark outside the submitted work. Dr. Vijayan reported receiving personal fees from NxStage, Boeringer Ingelheim, and Sanofi outside the submitted work. Dr. Velez reported receiving personal fees from Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Retrophin, and Otsuka Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr. Shaefi reported receiving grants from the NIH/National Institute on Aging and NIH/National Institute of General Medical Sciences outside the submitted work. Dr. Admon reported receiving grants from the NIH/NHLBI during the conduct of the study. Dr. Donnelly reported receiving grants from the NIH/NHLBI during the conduct of the study and personal fees from the American College of Emergency Physicians/Annals of Emergency Medicine outside the submitted work. Dr. Hernán reported receiving grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study. Dr. Semler reported receiving grants from the NIH/NHLBI during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported

Association Between Early Treatment With Tocilizumab and Mortality Among Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19

Importance: Therapies that improve survival in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed. Tocilizumab, a monoclonal antibody against the interleukin 6 receptor, may counteract the inflammatory cytokine release syndrome in patients with severe COVID-19 illness. Objective: To test whether tocilizumab decreases mortality in this population. Design, Setting, and Participants: The data for this study were derived from a multicenter cohort study of 4485 adults with COVID-19 admitted to participating intensive care units (ICUs) at 68 hospitals across the US from March 4 to May 10, 2020. Critically ill adults with COVID-19 were categorized according to whether they received or did not receive tocilizumab in the first 2 days of admission to the ICU. Data were collected retrospectively until June 12, 2020. A Cox regression model with inverse probability weighting was used to adjust for confounding. Exposures: Treatment with tocilizumab in the first 2 days of ICU admission. Main Outcomes and Measures: Time to death, compared via hazard ratios (HRs), and 30-day mortality, compared via risk differences. Results: Among the 3924 patients included in the analysis (2464 male [62.8%]; median age, 62 [interquartile range {IQR}, 52-71] years), 433 (11.0%) received tocilizumab in the first 2 days of ICU admission. Patients treated with tocilizumab were younger (median age, 58 [IQR, 48-65] vs 63 [IQR, 52-72] years) and had a higher prevalence of hypoxemia on ICU admission (205 of 433 [47.3%] vs 1322 of 3491 [37.9%] with mechanical ventilation and a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen of <200 mm Hg) than patients not treated with tocilizumab. After applying inverse probability weighting, baseline and severity-of-illness characteristics were well balanced between groups. A total of 1544 patients (39.3%) died, including 125 (28.9%) treated with tocilizumab and 1419 (40.6%) not treated with tocilizumab. In the primary analysis, during a median follow-up of 27 (IQR, 14-37) days, patients treated with tocilizumab had a lower risk of death compared with those not treated with tocilizumab (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92). The estimated 30-day mortality was 27.5% (95% CI, 21.2%-33.8%) in the tocilizumab-treated patients and 37.1% (95% CI, 35.5%-38.7%) in the non-tocilizumab–treated patients (risk difference, 9.6%; 95% CI, 3.1%-16.0%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 in this cohort study, the risk of in-hospital mortality in this study was lower in patients treated with tocilizumab in the first 2 days of ICU admission compared with patients whose treatment did not include early use of tocilizumab. However, the findings may be susceptible to unmeasured confounding, and further research from randomized clinical trials is needed.The writing committee was supported by grants F32HL149337 (Dr. Admon), K23DK120811 (Dr. Srivastava), R01HL085757 (Dr. Parikh), R01HL144566 and R01DK125786 (Dr. Leaf), K12HL138039 (Dr. Donnelly), K23HL130648 (Dr. Mathews), R37AI102634 (Dr. Hernán), F32DC017342 (Dr. Gupta), K08GM134220 and R03AG060179 (Dr. Shaefi), K23HL143053 (Dr. Semler), and R01HL153384 (Dr. Hayek) from the NIH and grant U-M G024231 from the Frankel Cardiovascular Center COVID-19: Impact Research Ignitor (Dr. Hayek)

Thrombosis, Bleeding, and the Observational Effect of Early Therapeutic Anticoagulation on Survival in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19

This article is made available for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.Background: Hypercoagulability may be a key mechanism of death in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective: To evaluate the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and examine the observational effect of early therapeutic anticoagulation on survival. Design: In a multicenter cohort study of 3239 critically ill adults with COVID-19, the incidence of VTE and major bleeding within 14 days after intensive care unit (ICU) admission was evaluated. A target trial emulation in which patients were categorized according to receipt or no receipt of therapeutic anticoagulation in the first 2 days of ICU admission was done to examine the observational effect of early therapeutic anticoagulation on survival. A Cox model with inverse probability weighting to adjust for confounding was used. Setting: 67 hospitals in the United States. Participants: Adults with COVID-19 admitted to a participating ICU. Measurements: Time to death, censored at hospital discharge, or date of last follow-up. Results: Among the 3239 patients included, the median age was 61 years (interquartile range, 53 to 71 years), and 2088 (64.5%) were men. A total of 204 patients (6.3%) developed VTE, and 90 patients (2.8%) developed a major bleeding event. Independent predictors of VTE were male sex and higher D-dimer level on ICU admission. Among the 2809 patients included in the target trial emulation, 384 (11.9%) received early therapeutic anticoagulation. In the primary analysis, during a median follow-up of 27 days, patients who received early therapeutic anticoagulation had a similar risk for death as those who did not (hazard ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.35]). Limitation: Observational design. Conclusion: Among critically ill adults with COVID-19, early therapeutic anticoagulation did not affect survival in the target trial emulation

Virology under the microscope—a call for rational discourse

Viruses have brought humanity many challenges: respiratory infection, cancer, neurological impairment and immunosuppression to name a few. Virology research over the last 60+ years has responded to reduce this disease burden with vaccines and antivirals. Despite this long history, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented attention to the field of virology. Some of this attention is focused on concern about the safe conduct of research with human pathogens. A small but vocal group of individuals has seized upon these concerns – conflating legitimate questions about safely conducting virus-related research with uncertainties over the origins of SARS-CoV-2. The result has fueled public confusion and, in many instances, ill-informed condemnation of virology. With this article, we seek to promote a return to rational discourse. We explain the use of gain-of-function approaches in science, discuss the possible origins of SARS-CoV-2 and outline current regulatory structures that provide oversight for virological research in the United States. By offering our expertise, we – a broad group of working virologists – seek to aid policy makers in navigating these controversial issues. Balanced, evidence-based discourse is essential to addressing public concern while maintaining and expanding much-needed research in virology

Best PEEP trials are dependent on tidal volume

Abstract Determining the optimal positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome remains an area of active investigation. Most trials individualizing PEEP optimize one physiologic parameter (e.g., driving pressure) by titrating PEEP while holding other ventilator settings constant. Optimal PEEP, however, may depend on the tidal volume, and changing the tidal volume with which a best PEEP trial is performed may lead to different best PEEP settings in the same patient. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02871102. Registered on 12 August 2016