Prevalence and prognostic impact of inhalation injury among burn patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Meta-analisis[Abstract] Background: The objective of our study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at assessing the prevalence of inhalation injury in burn patients and its prognostic value in relation to in-hospital mortality. Methods: We searched the PubMed and EMBASE databases for noninterventional studies published between 1990 and 2018 investigating in-hospital mortality predictors among burn patients.The primary meta-analysis evaluated the association between inhalation injury and mortality. A secondary meta-analysis determined the global estimate of the prevalence of inhalation injury and the rate of mortality. Random effects models were used, and univariate meta-regressions were used to assess sources of heterogeneity. This study is registered in the PROSPERO database with code CRD42019127356. Findings: Fifty-four studies including a total of 408,157 patients were selected for the analysis. A pooled inhalation prevalence of 15.7% (95% confidence interval, 13.4%-18.3%) was calculated.The summarized odds ratio of in-hospital mortality secondary to an inhalation injury was 3.2 (95% confidence interval, 2.5-4.3). A significantly higher odd of mortality was found among the studies that included all hospitalized burn patients, those that included a lower proportion of male patients, those with a lower mean total body surface area, and those with a lower prevalence of inhalation injury. Conclusion: Despite our study's limitations due to the high risk of bias and the interstudy heterogeneity of some of our analyses, our results revealed a wide range of prevalence rates of inhalation injury and a significant association between this entity and in-hospital mortality in burn patients. However, this association is not significant if adjusted for disease severity

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

Sepsis grave/shock séptico: ¿hacemos lo que se supone que hay que hacer?: monitorización de la adherencia de un centro a la Surviving Sepsis Campaign = Severe sepsis/septic shock: do we do what we are supposed to do?: monitoring the adherence of one centre to the Surviving Sepsis Campaign

Aims: To monitor adherence to the recommendations of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign during the first six hours of intervention for severe sepsis/septic shock in an academic tertiary care center. Methods: Cases of patients who were admitted into the Intensive Care Unit of the University Hospital Complex A Coruña, Galicia, Spain, during the months of May-June 2009, with criteria for severe sepsis/septic shock, were analyzed using an observational prospective study. We studied five indicators that comprise the set of intervention measures within the first six hours of diagnosis of severe shock/septic shock: delay on the onset of resuscitation, determination of blood lactate, obtaining appropriate cultures before starting antibiotics, delay on the onset of appropriate antibiotics, and initial resuscitation. Results: In the 13 patients studied, hospital mortality was 30. 8% (95% CI: 9. 09-61. 42). The average APACHE II was 25. 46±9. 38. The delay in initiation of antibiotic treatment was 1. 23±1. 76 hours. The average delay in initiation of resuscitation from presentation of symptoms was 3. 83±8. 85 hours. In 84. 62% (95% IC: 54. 55-98. 08) of the patients, central oxygen saturation was higher than 70% within the first six hours of diagnosis. Conclusions: Adherence to the set of measures of resuscitation from severe sepsis/septic shock was hig

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

Mechanical ventilation in patients with cardiogenic pulmonary edema: a sub-analysis of the LUNG SAFE study

International audienceBackground: Patients with acute respiratory failure caused by cardiogenic pulmonary edema (CPE) may require mechanical ventilation that can cause further lung damage. Our aim was to determine the impact of ventilatory settings on CPE mortality. Methods: Patients from the LUNG SAFE cohort, a multicenter prospective cohort study of patients undergoing mechanical ventilation, were studied. Relationships between ventilatory parameters and outcomes (ICU discharge/ hospital mortality) were assessed using latent mixture analysis and a marginal structural model. Results: From 4499 patients, 391 meeting CPE criteria (median age 70 [interquartile range 59-78], 40% female) were included. ICU and hospital mortality were 34% and 40%, respectively. ICU survivors were younger (67 [57-77] vs 74 [64-80] years, p < 0.001) and had lower driving (12 [8-16] vs 15 [11-17] cmH 2 O, p < 0.001), plateau (20 [15-23] vs 22 [19-26] cmH 2 O, p < 0.001) and peak (21 [17-27] vs 26 [20-32] cmH 2 O, p < 0.001) pressures. Latent mixture analysis of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation on ICU day 1 revealed a subgroup ventilated with high pressures with lower probability of being discharged alive from the ICU (hazard ratio [HR] 0.79 [95% confidence interval 0.60-1.05], p = 0.103) and increased hospital mortality (HR 1.65 [1.16-2.36], p = 0.005). In a marginal structural model, driving pressures in the first week (HR 1.12 [1.06-1.18], p < 0.001) and tidal volume after day 7 (HR 0.69 [0.52-0.93], p = 0.015) were related to survival. Conclusions: Higher airway pressures in invasively ventilated patients with CPE are related to mortality. These patients may be exposed to an increased risk of ventilator-induced lung injury