Diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill adult patients-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The accuracy of the signs and tests that clinicians use to diagnose ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and initiate antibiotic treatment has not been well characterized. We sought to characterize and compare the accuracy of physical examination, chest radiography, endotracheal aspirate (ETA), bronchoscopic sampling cultures (protected specimen brush [PSB] and bronchoalveolar lavage [BAL]), and CPIS > 6 to diagnose VAP. We searched six databases from inception through September 2019 and selected English-language studies investigating accuracy of any of the above tests for VAP diagnosis. Reference standard was histopathological analysis. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. We included 25 studies (1639 patients). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of physical examination findings for VAP were poor: fever (66.4% [95% confidence interval [CI]: 40.7–85.0], 53.9% [95% CI 34.5–72.2]) and purulent secretions (77.0% [95% CI 64.7–85.9], 39.0% [95% CI 25.8–54.0]). Any infiltrate on chest radiography had a sensitivity of 88.9% (95% CI 73.9–95.8) and specificity of 26.1% (95% CI 15.1–41.4). ETA had a sensitivity of 75.7% (95% CI 51.5–90.1) and specificity of 67.9% (95% CI 40.5–86.8). Among bronchoscopic sampling methods, PSB had a sensitivity of 61.4% [95% CI 43.7–76.5] and specificity of 76.5% [95% CI 64.2–85.6]; while BAL had a sensitivity of 71.1% [95% CI 49.9–85.9] and specificity of 79.6% [95% CI 66.2–85.9]. CPIS > 6 had a sensitivity of 73.8% (95% CI 50.6–88.5) and specificity of 66.4% (95% CI 43.9–83.3). Classic clinical indicators had poor accuracy for diagnosis of VAP. Reliance upon these indicators in isolation may result in misdiagnosis and potentially unnecessary antimicrobial use

Atraumatic (pencil-point) versus conventional needles for lumbar puncture:a clinical practice guideline

Is the needle tip configuration important when performing a lumbar puncture for any indication? A systematic review published in the Lancet in December 2017 suggests that it is. The review found that using atraumatic (pencil-point) lumbar puncture needles instead of conventional lumbar puncture needles reduced the risk of post-dural-puncture headache and of return to hospital for additional pain control.1 This guideline recommendation aims to promptly and transparently translate this evidence to a clinical recommendation, following standards for GRADE methodology and trustworthy guidelines.2 The BMJ Rapid Recommendations panel makes a strong recommendation for the use of atraumatic needles for lumbar puncture in all patients regardless of age (adults and children) or indication instead of conventional needles.3 4 Box 1 shows the article and evidence linked to this Rapid Recommendation. The main infographic provides an overview of the absolute benefits and harms (although none were present here) of atraumatic needles. Table 1 below shows any evidence that has emerged since the publication of this guideline.publishedVersio

Early enteral nutrition in critically ill patients: ESICM clinical practice guidelines.

To provide evidence-based guidelines for early enteral nutrition (EEN) during critical illness. We aimed to compare EEN vs. early parenteral nutrition (PN) and vs. delayed EN. We defined "early" EN as EN started within 48 h independent of type or amount. We listed, a priori, conditions in which EN is often delayed, and performed systematic reviews in 24 such subtopics. If sufficient evidence was available, we performed meta-analyses; if not, we qualitatively summarized the evidence and based our recommendations on expert opinion. We used the GRADE approach for guideline development. The final recommendations were compiled via Delphi rounds. We formulated 17 recommendations favouring initiation of EEN and seven recommendations favouring delaying EN. We performed five meta-analyses: in unselected critically ill patients, and specifically in traumatic brain injury, severe acute pancreatitis, gastrointestinal (GI) surgery and abdominal trauma. EEN reduced infectious complications in unselected critically ill patients, in patients with severe acute pancreatitis, and after GI surgery. We did not detect any evidence of superiority for early PN or delayed EN over EEN. All recommendations are weak because of the low quality of evidence, with several based only on expert opinion. We suggest using EEN in the majority of critically ill under certain precautions. In the absence of evidence, we suggest delaying EN in critically ill patients with uncontrolled shock, uncontrolled hypoxaemia and acidosis, uncontrolled upper GI bleeding, gastric aspirate >500 ml/6 h, bowel ischaemia, bowel obstruction, abdominal compartment syndrome, and high-output fistula without distal feeding access

The efficacy and safety of prokinetic agents in critically ill patients receiving enteral nutrition: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Intolerance to enteral nutrition is common in critically ill adults, and may result in significant morbidity including ileus, abdominal distension, vomiting and potential aspiration events. Prokinetic agents are prescribed to improve gastric emptying. However, the efficacy and safety of these agents in critically ill patients is not well-defined. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of prokinetic agents in critically ill patients. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from inception up to January 2016. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of critically ill adults assigned to receive a prokinetic agent or placebo, and that reported relevant clinical outcomes. Two independent reviewers screened potentially eligible articles, selected eligible studies, and abstracted pertinent data. We calculated pooled relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference for continuous outcomes, with the corresponding 95 % confidence interval (CI). We assessed risk of bias using Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the quality of evidence using grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) methodology. RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs (enrolling 1341 patients) met our inclusion criteria. Prokinetic agents significantly reduced feeding intolerance (RR 0.73, 95 % CI 0.55, 0.97; P = 0.03; moderate certainty), which translated to 17.3 % (95 % CI 5, 26.8 %) absolute reduction in feeding intolerance. Prokinetics also reduced the risk of developing high gastric residual volumes (RR 0.69; 95 % CI 0.52, 0.91; P = 0.009; moderate quality) and increased the success of post-pyloric feeding tube placement (RR 1.60, 95 % CI 1.17, 2.21; P = 0.004; moderate quality). There was no significant improvement in the risk of vomiting, diarrhea, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay or mortality. Prokinetic agents also did not significantly increase the rate of diarrhea. CONCLUSION: There is moderate-quality evidence that prokinetic agents reduce feeding intolerance in critically ill patients compared to placebo or no intervention. However, the impact on other clinical outcomes such as pneumonia, mortality, and ICU length of stay is unclear

Using patient values and preferences to inform the importance of health outcomes in practice guideline development following the GRADE approach

Q2Q1Artículo de investigación1-10Background: There are diverse opinions and confusion about defining and including patient values and preferences (i.e. the importance people place on the health outcomes) in the guideline development processes. This article aims to provide an overview of a process for systematically incorporating values and preferences in guideline development. Methods: In 2013 and 2014, we followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to adopt, adapt and develop 226 recommendations in 22 guidelines for the Ministry of Health of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. To collect context-specific values and preferences for each recommendation, we performed systematic reviews, asked clinical experts to provide feedback according to their clinical experience, and consulted patient representatives. Results: We found several types of studies addressing the importance of outcomes, including those reporting utilities, non-utility measures of health states based on structured questionnaires or scales, and qualitative studies. Guideline panels used the relative importance of outcomes based on values and preferences to weigh the balance of desirable and undesirable consequences of alternative intervention options. However, we found few studies addressing local values and preferences. Conclusions: Currently there are different but no firmly established processes for integrating patient values and preferences in healthcare decision-making of practice guideline development. With GRADE Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) frameworks, we provide an empirical strategy to find and incorporate values and preferences in guidelines by performing systematic reviews and eliciting information from guideline panel members and patient representatives. However, more research and practical guidance are needed on how to search for relevant studies and grey literature, assess the certainty of this evidence, and best summarize and present the findings

Ventilation Techniques and Risk for Transmission of Coronavirus Disease, Including COVID-19 A Living Systematic Review of Multiple Streams of Evidence

Background: Mechanical ventilation is used to treat respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Purpose: To review multiple streams of evidence regarding the benefits and harms of ventilation techniques for coronavirus infections, including that causing COVID-19. (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020178187) Data Sources: 21 standard, World Health Organization–specific and COVID-19–specific databases, without language restrictions, until 1 May 2020. Study Selection: Studies of any design and language comparing different oxygenation approaches in patients with coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), or with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Animal, mechanistic, laboratory, and preclinical evidence was gathered regarding aerosol dispersion of coronavirus. Studies evaluating risk for virus transmission to health care workers from aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) were included. Data Extraction: Independent and duplicate screening, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment (GRADE for certainty of evidence and AMSTAR 2 for included systematic reviews). Data Synthesis: 123 studies were eligible (45 on COVID-19, 70 on SARS, 8 on MERS), but only 5 studies (1 on COVID-19, 3 on SARS, 1 on MERS) adjusted for important confounders. A study in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 reported slightly higher mortality with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) than with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), but 2 opposing studies, 1 in patients with MERS and 1 in patients with SARS, suggest a reduction in mortality with NIV (very low-certainty evidence). Two studies in patients with SARS report a reduction in mortality with NIV compared with no mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence). Two systematic reviews suggest a large reduction in mortality with NIV compared with conventional oxygen therapy. Other included studies suggest increased odds of transmission from AGPs. Limitation: Direct studies in COVID-19 are limited and poorly reported. Conclusion: Indirect and low-certainty evidence suggests that use of NIV, similar to IMV, probably reduces mortality but may increase the risk for transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers