Impact of cardiac arrest centers on the survival of patients with nontraumatic out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest : a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Background The role of cardiac arrest centers (CACs) in out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest care systems is continuously evolving. Interpretation of existing literature is limited by heterogeneity in CAC characteristics and types of patients transported to CACs. This study assesses the impact of CACs on survival in out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest according to varying definitions of CAC and prespecified subgroups. Methods and Results Electronic databases were searched from inception to March 9, 2021 for relevant studies. Centers were considered CACs if self‐declared by study authors and capable of relevant interventions. Main outcomes were survival and neurologically favorable survival at hospital discharge or 30 days. Meta‐analyses were performed for adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and crude odds ratios. Thirty‐six studies were analyzed. Survival with favorable neurological outcome significantly improved with treatment at CACs (aOR, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.52–2.26]), even when including high‐volume centers (aOR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.18–1.91]) or including improved‐care centers (aOR, 2.13 [95% CI, 1.75–2.59]) as CACs. Survival significantly increased with treatment at CACs (aOR, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.59–2.32]), even when including high‐volume centers (aOR, 1.74 [95% CI, 1.38–2.18]) or when including improved‐care centers (aOR, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.71–2.26]) as CACs. The treatment effect was more pronounced among patients with shockable rhythm ( P =0.006) and without prehospital return of spontaneous circulation ( P =0.005). Conclusions were robust to sensitivity analyses, with no publication bias detected. Conclusions Care at CACs was associated with improved survival and neurological outcomes for patients with nontraumatic out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest regardless of varying CAC definitions. Patients with shockable rhythms and those without prehospital return of spontaneous circulation benefited more from CACs. Evidence for bypassing hospitals or interhospital transfer remains inconclusive

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)

Observational in-vitro study comparing the efficacy of fluid warming devices: Ranger 24500 versus ANIMEC AM-2S

Background: Intraoperative hypothermia is detrimental to the patient. This, however, can be minimized with infusion of warmed fluids. Objectives: We investigated the warming capabilities of the Ranger © 24500 (Ranger) and ANIMEC AM-2S (ANIMEC) at various low infusion rates. We also examined the use of two ANIMEC warmers placed in series along the intravenous tubing. Methods: We had three comparative trial groups for our experiment. Trial group 1 involved the use of an ANIMEC fluid warmer. Trial group 2 involved the use of two ANIMEC fluid warmers placed in series. Trial group 3 involved the use of the Ranger. Three different infusion rates (1 ml/min, 5 ml/min and 10 ml/min) were examined. Results: The use of two ANIMEC fluid warmers delivered the warmest fluid in all three study infusion rates. The mean (SD) delivered temperature was 24.11 (0.62)°C at 1 ml/min, 29.59 (0.10)°C at 5 ml/min and 29.27 (0.10)°C at 10 ml/min. The Ranger delivered the lowest temperatures at infusion rates of 1 ml/min and 5 ml/min. The mean temperatures were 21.01 (0.38)°C and 23.87 (0.34)°C respectively. The mean temperatures of utilizing one ANIMEC fluid warmer were 21.49 (0.35)°C, 25.47 (0.08)°C and 24.78 (0.12)°C at infusion rates of 1 ml/min, 5 ml/min and 10 ml/min respectively. Conclusion: The ANIMEC performs better than the Ranger at low flow rates of up to 5 ml/min. A novel method of placing the two ANIMEC warming devices in series can further improve its warming capabilities

Preliminary Report on Efficacy of Acupuncture versus meToclopramide for Management of Post-Operative Gastroparesis (EAT POSTOP Trial)

Introduction: Gastroparesis is common in intensive care patients and may increase the incidence of malnutrition and nosocomial pneumonia, leading to poorer patient outcomes. Current pharmacotherapy has shown only modest efficacy. Acupuncture without pharmacotherapy has been shown to improve gastroparesis in animal studies and in recent clinical trials. However, no trials studying the efficacy of acupuncture as an adjunctive therapy for surgical intensive care patients have been done. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of adding electro-acupuncture therapy to pharmacotherapy in the management of gastroparesis in these patients. Methods: For this prospective block randomised controlled trial, we aim to recruit 200 adult surgical intensive care patients who require gastric enteral nutrition, and mechanical-assisted ventilation, and who have gastroparesis (gastric residual volumes more than 120 mL twice four hours apart). Patients will receive either metoclopramide 20 mg intravenously thrice daily (Group M) or electro-acupuncture comprising four sessions of 30-minute electro-acupuncture at specific sites over 48 hours in addition to intravenous metoclopramide 20 mg thrice daily (Group A). Gastroparesis resolution is defined as 24-hour cumulative gastric residual volumes less than 200 mL. Patients are followed-up for 48 hours from the commencement of therapy. Results: Three patients have been recruited in a four-month period thus far. Two are in Group A and one in Group M. All have met the study definition of gastroparesis resolution. The incidence of gastroparesis in this period among longer stayers in the unit (n = 92) is 8.7%. Conclusions: The trial is on-going. Reasons for the low incidence of gastroparesis are discussed. The study of the use of acupuncture in the treatment of intensive care patients with gastroparesis is worthwhile due to its excellent side-effect profile and if successful, will be a tool to improve nutritional support

Direct and indirect low skill fibre-optic intubation: A randomised crossover manikin study of six supraglottic airway devices

Background and Aims: Fibre-optic intubation (FOI) through supraglottic airway devices (SADs) is useful in the management of the difficult airway. We compared two methods of FOI through seven SADs in a randomised crossover manikin study to assess each device's performance and discuss implications on SAD selection. Methods: Thirty anaesthetsiologists, 15 seniors and 15 juniors, each performed low skill FOI (LSFOI) with seven SADs using both 'direct' and 'indirect' methods. The order of method and device used were randomised. The primary end point was success rate of intubation; secondary end points were time taken for intubation, incidence of difficulties with direct and indirect LSFOI and operator device preference. Statistical analysis was with univariable analysis and comparison of proportions. Results: Data from six devices were analysed due to a protocol breach with one SAD. There was no difference in intubation success rate across all SADs and intubation methods. Intubation time was significantly shorter in AmbuAuragain than other SADs and shorter with the direct method of LSFOI than the indirect method (mean difference of 6.9 s, P = 0.027). Ambu Auragain had the least SAD and bronchoscope-related difficulties. Seniors had significantly shorter mean intubation times than juniors by 11.6 s (P = 0.0392). The most preferred SAD for both methods was AmbuAuragain. Conclusion: Low skill FOI consistently achieves a high intubation success rate regardless of experience, choice of method, or SAD used. SAD design features may significantly affect the performance of low skill FOI

Comparing organ donation decisions for next-of-kin versus the self: Results of a national survey

10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051273BMJ Open11111-1

Clinical features and predictors of severity in COVID-19 patients with critical illness in Singapore

10.1038/s41598-021-81377-3SCIENTIFIC REPORTS11

Low incidence of venous thrombosis but high incidence of arterial thrombotic complications among critically ill COVID-19 patients in Singapore

BACKGROUND: Arterial and venous thrombosis are reported to be common in critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a national multicenter retrospective observational study involving all consecutive adult COVID-19 patients who required intensive care units (ICU) admission between 23 January 2020 and 30 April 2020 in Singapore. One hundred eleven patients were included and the venous and arterial thrombotic rates in ICU were 1.8% (n = 2) and 9.9% (n = 11), respectively. Major bleeding rate was 14.8% (n = 16). CONCLUSIONS: Critically ill COVID-19 patients in Singapore have lower venous thromboembolism but higher arterial thrombosis rates and bleeding manifestations than other reported cohorts

Co-infection and ICU-acquired infection in COIVD-19 ICU patients: a secondary analysis of the UNITE-COVID data set

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic presented major challenges for critical care facilities worldwide. Infections which develop alongside or subsequent to viral pneumonitis are a challenge under sporadic and pandemic conditions; however, data have suggested that patterns of these differ between COVID-19 and other viral pneumonitides. This secondary analysis aimed to explore patterns of co-infection and intensive care unit-acquired infections (ICU-AI) and the relationship to use of corticosteroids in a large, international cohort of critically ill COVID-19 patients.Methods: This is a multicenter, international, observational study, including adult patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis admitted to ICUs at the peak of wave one of COVID-19 (February 15th to May 15th, 2020). Data collected included investigator-assessed co-infection at ICU admission, infection acquired in ICU, infection with multi-drug resistant organisms (MDRO) and antibiotic use. Frequencies were compared by Pearson's Chi-squared and continuous variables by Mann-Whitney U test. Propensity score matching for variables associated with ICU-acquired infection was undertaken using R library MatchIT using the "full" matching method.Results: Data were available from 4994 patients. Bacterial co-infection at admission was detected in 716 patients (14%), whilst 85% of patients received antibiotics at that stage. ICU-AI developed in 2715 (54%). The most common ICU-AI was bacterial pneumonia (44% of infections), whilst 9% of patients developed fungal pneumonia; 25% of infections involved MDRO. Patients developing infections in ICU had greater antimicrobial exposure than those without such infections. Incident density (ICU-AI per 1000 ICU days) was in considerable excess of reports from pre-pandemic surveillance. Corticosteroid use was heterogenous between ICUs. In univariate analysis, 58% of patients receiving corticosteroids and 43% of those not receiving steroids developed ICU-AI. Adjusting for potential confounders in the propensity-matched cohort, 71% of patients receiving corticosteroids developed ICU-AI vs 52% of those not receiving corticosteroids. Duration of corticosteroid therapy was also associated with development of ICU-AI and infection with an MDRO.Conclusions: In patients with severe COVID-19 in the first wave, co-infection at admission to ICU was relatively rare but antibiotic use was in substantial excess to that indication. ICU-AI were common and were significantly associated with use of corticosteroids