Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Cardiopulmonary Resusciation (ECPR) research priorities in Australia: a clinician survey

Background The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for cardiorespiratory failure and during cardiopulmonary resuscitation has increased significantly and is resource intensive. High-quality evidence to guide management of patients on ECMO is limited. Objectives The objective of this study was to determine the research priorities of clinicians for ECMO and Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Cardiopulmonary Resusciation (ECPR) in Australia and New Zealand. Methods A prospective, binational survey of clinicians was conducted in May 2022. Results There were 133 respondents; 110 (84%) worked at an Australian ECMO centre; 28 (21%) were emergency, 45 (34%) were intensive care, and 41 (31%) were nursing clinicians. All aspects of ECMO care were identified by respondents as being important for further research; however, appropriate patient selection and determining long-term outcomes were ranked the highest. While most believed ECMO was efficacious, they felt that there was insufficient evidence to determine cost-effectiveness. There was uncertainty of the best model of ECPR provision. Equipoise exists for randomised studies into anticoagulation, blood product usage, and ECPR. Conclusions This survey found strong support amongst clinicians for further research into the optimal use of ECMO and ECPR and provides a frame work for prioritising future clinical trials and research agendas

Implementation of recommendations on the use of corticosteroids in severe COVID-19

Importance Research diversity and representativeness are paramount in building trust, generating valid biomedical knowledge, and possibly in implementing clinical guidelines. Objectives To compare variations over time and across World Health Organization (WHO) geographic regions of corticosteroid use for treatment of severe COVID-19; secondary objectives were to evaluate the association between the timing of publication of the RECOVERY (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy) trial (June 2020) and the WHO guidelines for corticosteroids (September 2020) and the temporal trends observed in corticosteroid use by region and to describe the geographic distribution of the recruitment in clinical trials that informed the WHO recommendation. Design, Setting, and Participants This prospective cohort study of 434 851 patients was conducted between January 31, 2020, and September 2, 2022, in 63 countries worldwide. The data were collected under the auspices of the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC)–WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol for Severe Emerging Infections. Analyses were restricted to patients hospitalized for severe COVID-19 (a subset of the ISARIC data set). Exposure Corticosteroid use as reported to the ISARIC-WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol for Severe Emerging Infections. Main Outcomes and Measures Number and percentage of patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 who received corticosteroids by time period and by WHO geographic region. Results Among 434 851 patients with confirmed severe or critical COVID-19 for whom receipt of corticosteroids could be ascertained (median [IQR] age, 61.0 [48.0-74.0] years; 53.0% male), 174 307 (40.1%) received corticosteroids during the study period. Of the participants in clinical trials that informed the guideline, 91.6% were recruited from the United Kingdom. In all regions, corticosteroid use for severe COVID-19 increased, but this increase corresponded to the timing of the RECOVERY trial (time-interruption coefficient 1.0 [95% CI, 0.9-1.2]) and WHO guideline (time-interruption coefficient 1.9 [95% CI, 1.7-2.0]) publications only in Europe. At the end of the study period, corticosteroid use for treatment of severe COVID-19 was highest in the Americas (5421 of 6095 [88.9%]; 95% CI, 87.7-90.2) and lowest in Africa (31 588 of 185 191 [17.1%]; 95% CI, 16.8-17.3). Conclusions and Relevance The results of this cohort study showed that implementation of the guidelines for use of corticosteroids in the treatment of severe COVID-19 varied geographically. Uptake of corticosteroid treatment was lower in regions with limited clinical trial involvement. Improving research diversity and representativeness may facilitate timely knowledge uptake and guideline implementation

Nutrition care processes across hospitalisation in critically ill patients with COVID-19 in Australia: a multicentre prospective observational study

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted major challenges with usual nutrition care processes, leading to reports of malnutrition and nutrition-related issues in these patients. Objective: The objective of this study was to describe nutrition-related service delivery practices across hospitalisation in critically ill patients with COVID-19 admitted to Australian intensive care units (ICUs) in the initial pandemic phase. Methods: This was a multicentre (nine site) observational study in Australia, linked with a national registry of critically ill patients with COVID-19. Adult patients with COVID-19 who were discharged to an acute ward following ICU admission were included over a 12-month period. Data are presented as n (%), median (interquartile range [IQR]), and odds ratio (OR [95% confidence interval {CI}]). Results: A total of 103 patients were included. Oral nutrition was the most common mode of nutrition (93 [93%]). In the ICU, there were 53 (52%) patients seen by a dietitian (median 4 [2–8] occasions) and malnutrition screening occurred in 51 (50%) patients most commonly with the malnutrition screening tool (50 [98%]). The odds of receiving a higher malnutrition screening tool score increased by 36% for every screening in the ICU (1st to 4th, OR: 1.39 [95% CI: 1.05–1.77] p = 0.018) (indicating increasing risk of malnutrition). On the ward, 51 (50.5%) patients were seen by a dietitian (median time to consult: 44 [22.5–75] hours post ICU discharge). The odds of dietetic consult increased by 39% every week while on the ward (OR: 1.39 [1.03–1.89], p = 0.034). Patients who received mechanical ventilation (MV) were more likely to receive dietetic input than those who never received MV. Conclusions: During the initial phases of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia, approximately half of the patients included were seen by a dietitian. An increased number of malnutrition screens were associated with a higher risk score in the ICU and likelihood of dietetic consult increased if patients received MV and as length of ward stay increased

Accounting for Research Quality: Research Audits and the Journal Rankings Debate

The question of whether and how research quality should be measured, and the consequences of research audits such as the UK's Research Excellence Framework (REF) – formerly the RAE – are considered in relation to the role of journal ratings such as the Association of Business Schools Academic Journal Quality Guide (the ABS Guide). Criticism of the ABS Guide has distracted attention from the results of successive RAEs, where the panel for Business and Management has been one of the most selective in its allocation of the highest grades, especially when compared with the neighbouring field of Economics. If the ABS Guide had been used to grade outputs submitted for Business and Management in the RAE 2008 then many more outputs would have received the highest grades, especially in accounting where outputs from journals such as Critical Perspectives on Accounting, which are highly rated in the ABS Guide, appear to have been downgraded by the RAE panel. The alleged bias against accounting in the ABS Guide rests on a particular interpretation of citation impact factors for journals, and a narrow definition of subject fields. Critics of the ABS Guide would be better advised to direct their attention to scrutinizing the results of the REF and considering whether it provides an adequate research ranking for UK business schools. 15% of all full time students in the UK study business and management, including accounting and finance, but only 6.7% of the full time equivalent research active staff submitted in the RAE 2008 were in business and management, or accounting and finance. Research audits are therefore forcing the separation of teaching from research in UK business schools. With an estimated ratio of 71 full time students per research active faculty member in UK business schools, it may be time to consider a more appropriate, inclusive, and economical form of ranking for research in business and management

Clinical characteristics, risk factors and outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 registered in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium WHO clinical characterisation protocol: a prospective, multinational, multicentre, observational study

Due to the large number of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many were treated outside the traditional walls of the intensive care unit (ICU), and in many cases, by personnel who were not trained in critical care. The clinical characteristics and the relative impact of caring for severe COVID-19 patients outside the ICU is unknown. This was a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium World Health Organization COVID-19 platform. Severe COVID-19 patients were identified as those admitted to an ICU and/or those treated with one of the following treatments: invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula, inotropes or vasopressors. A logistic generalised additive model was used to compare clinical outcomes among patients admitted or not to the ICU. A total of 40 440 patients from 43 countries and six continents were included in this analysis. Severe COVID-19 patients were frequently male (62.9%), older adults (median (interquartile range (IQR), 67 (55-78) years), and with at least one comorbidity (63.2%). The overall median (IQR) length of hospital stay was 10 (5-19) days and was longer in patients admitted to an ICU than in those who were cared for outside the ICU (12 (6-23) days versus 8 (4-15) days, p<0.0001). The 28-day fatality ratio was lower in ICU-admitted patients (30.7% (5797 out of 18 831) versus 39.0% (7532 out of 19 295), p<0.0001). Patients admitted to an ICU had a significantly lower probability of death than those who were not (adjusted OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.65-0.75; p<0.0001). Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to an ICU had significantly lower 28-day fatality ratio than those cared for outside an ICU

Simvastatin in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of simvastatin in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: In an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated simvastatin (80 mg daily) as compared with no statin (control) in critically ill patients with Covid-19 who were not receiving statins at baseline. The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, assessed on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support through day 21 in survivors; the analyis used a Bayesian hierarchical ordinal model. The adaptive design included prespecified statistical stopping criteria for superiority (\u3e99% posterior probability that the odds ratio was \u3e1) and futility (\u3e95% posterior probability that the odds ratio was \u3c1.2). RESULTS: Enrollment began on October 28, 2020. On January 8, 2023, enrollment was closed on the basis of a low anticipated likelihood that prespecified stopping criteria would be met as Covid-19 cases decreased. The final analysis included 2684 critically ill patients. The median number of organ support-free days was 11 (interquartile range, -1 to 17) in the simvastatin group and 7 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) in the control group; the posterior median adjusted odds ratio was 1.15 (95% credible interval, 0.98 to 1.34) for simvastatin as compared with control, yielding a 95.9% posterior probability of superiority. At 90 days, the hazard ratio for survival was 1.12 (95% credible interval, 0.95 to 1.32), yielding a 91.9% posterior probability of superiority of simvastatin. The results of secondary analyses were consistent with those of the primary analysis. Serious adverse events, such as elevated levels of liver enzymes and creatine kinase, were reported more frequently with simvastatin than with control. CONCLUSIONS: Although recruitment was stopped because cases had decreased, among critically ill patients with Covid-19, simvastatin did not meet the prespecified criteria for superiority to control. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707.

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

Hyperoxia and mortality in conventional versus extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Purpose: Hyperoxia has been associated with adverse outcomes in post cardiac arrest (CA) patients. Study-objective was to examine the association between hyperoxia and 30-day mortality in a mixed cohort of two different modes of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR): Extracorporeal (ECPR) vs. Conventional (CCPR). Material and methods: In this retrospective cohort study of CA patients admitted to a tertiary level CA centre in Australia (over a 6.5-year time period) mean arterial oxygen levels (PaO2) and episodes of extreme hyperoxia (maximum of mean PaO2 >= 300 mmHg) were analysed over the first 8 days post CA. Results: One hundred and sixty-nine post CA patients were assessed (ECPR n = 79 / CCPR n = 90). Mean PaO2- levels were higher in the ECPR vs CCPR group (211 mmHg +/- 58.4 vs 119 mmHg +/- 18.1; p < 0.0001) as was the proportion with at least one episode of extreme hyperoxia (74.7% vs 16.7%; p < 0.001). After adjusting for confounders and the mode of CPR any episode of extreme hyperoxia was independently associated with a 2.52-fold increased risk of 30-day mortality (OR: 2.52, 95% CI: 1.06-5.98; p = 0.036). Conclusions: We found extreme hyperoxia was more common in ECPR patients in the first 8 days post CA and independently associated with higher 30-day mortality, irrespective of the CPR-mode. (C) 2022 Published by Elsevier Inc