| 1. |
- Munch, Marie W., et al.
(författare)
-
Effect of 12 mg vs 6 mg of Dexamethasone on the Number of Days Alive Without Life Support in Adults With COVID-19 and Severe Hypoxemia The COVID STEROID 2 Randomized Trial
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). - : AMER MEDICAL ASSOC. - 0098-7484 .- 1538-3598. ; 326:18, s. 1807-1817
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Question What is the effect of 12 mg vs 6 mg of dexamethasone on the number of days alive without life support at 28 days in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia? Findings In this randomized trial that included 1000 patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, treatment with 12 mg/d of dexamethasone resulted in 22.0 days alive without life support at 28 days compared with 20.5 days in those receiving 6 mg/d of dexamethasone. This difference was not statistically significant. Meaning Compared with 6 mg of dexamethasone, 12 mg of dexamethasone did not statistically significantly reduce the number of days alive without life support at 28 days. This multicenter randomized clinical trial compares the effects of 12 mg/d vs 6 mg/d of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia. IMPORTANCE A daily dose with 6 mg of dexamethasone is recommended for up to 10 days in patients with severe and critical COVID-19, but a higher dose may benefit those with more severe disease. OBJECTIVE To assess the effects of 12 mg/d vs 6 mg/d of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A multicenter, randomized clinical trial was conducted between August 2020 and May 2021 at 26 hospitals in Europe and India and included 1000 adults with confirmed COVID-19 requiring at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation. End of 90-day follow-up was on August 19, 2021. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized 1:1 to 12 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 503) or 6 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 497) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support (invasive mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, or kidney replacement therapy) at 28 days and was adjusted for stratification variables. Of the 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, 5 are included in this analysis (the number of days alive without life support at 90 days, the number of days alive out of the hospital at 90 days, mortality at 28 days and at 90 days, and >= 1 serious adverse reactions at 28 days). RESULTS Of the 1000 randomized patients, 982 were included (median age, 65 [IQR, 55-73] years; 305 [31%] women) and primary outcome data were available for 971 (491 in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 480 in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group). The median number of days alive without life support was 22.0 days (IQR, 6.0-28.0 days) in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 20.5 days (IQR, 4.0-28.0 days) in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted mean difference, 1.3 days [95% CI, 0-2.6 days]; P = .07). Mortality at 28 days was 27.1% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 32.3% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.86 [99% CI, 0.68-1.08]). Mortality at 90 days was 32.0% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 37.7% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.87 [99% CI, 0.70-1.07]). Serious adverse reactions, including septic shock and invasive fungal infections, occurred in 11.3% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 13.4% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.83 [99% CI, 0.54-1.29]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, 12 mg/d of dexamethasone compared with 6 mg/d of dexamethasone did not result in statistically significantly more days alive without life support at 28 days. However, the trial may have been underpowered to identify a significant difference.
|
|
| 2. |
- Grasselli, Giacomo, et al.
(författare)
-
ESICM guidelines on acute respiratory distress syndrome : definition, phenotyping and respiratory support strategies
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Intensive Care Medicine. - : Springer Nature. - 0342-4642 .- 1432-1238. ; 49, s. 727-759
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The aim of these guidelines is to update the 2017 clinical practice guideline (CPG) of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). The scope of this CPG is limited to adult patients and to non-pharmacological respiratory support strategies across different aspects of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), including ARDS due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). These guidelines were formulated by an international panel of clinical experts, one methodologist and patients' representatives on behalf of the ESICM. The review was conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement recommendations. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and grade recommendations and the quality of reporting of each study based on the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network guidelines. The CPG addressed 21 questions and formulates 21 recommendations on the following domains: (1) definition; (2) phenotyping, and respiratory support strategies including (3) high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNO); (4) non-invasive ventilation (NIV); (5) tidal volume setting; (6) positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment maneuvers (RM); (7) prone positioning; (8) neuromuscular blockade, and (9) extracorporeal life support (ECLS). In addition, the CPG includes expert opinion on clinical practice and identifies the areas of future research.
|
|
| 3. |
- Russotto, Vincenzo, et al.
(författare)
-
Efficacy and adverse events profile of videolaryngoscopy in critically ill patients : subanalysis of the INTUBE study
- 2023
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Anaesthesia. - 0007-0912. ; 131:3, s. 607-616
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Tracheal intubation is a high-risk procedure in the critically ill, with increased intubation failure rates and a high risk of other adverse events. Videolaryngoscopy might improve intubation outcomes in this population, but evidence remains conflicting, and its impact on adverse event rates is debated. Methods: This is a subanalysis of a large international prospective cohort of critically ill patients (INTUBE Study) performed from 1 October 2018 to 31 July 2019 and involving 197 sites from 29 countries across five continents. Our primary aim was to determine the first-pass intubation success rates of videolaryngoscopy. Secondary aims were characterising (a) videolaryngoscopy use in the critically ill patient population and (b) the incidence of severe adverse effects compared with direct laryngoscopy. Results: Of 2916 patients, videolaryngoscopy was used in 500 patients (17.2%) and direct laryngoscopy in 2416 (82.8%). First-pass intubation success was higher with videolaryngoscopy compared with direct laryngoscopy (84% vs 79%, P=0.02). Patients undergoing videolaryngoscopy had a higher frequency of difficult airway predictors (60% vs 40%, P<0.001). In adjusted analyses, videolaryngoscopy increased the probability of first-pass intubation success, with an OR of 1.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05–1.87). Videolaryngoscopy was not significantly associated with risk of major adverse events (odds ratio 1.24, 95% CI 0.95–1.62) or cardiovascular events (odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.60–1.02). Conclusions: In critically ill patients, videolaryngoscopy was associated with higher first-pass intubation success rates, despite being used in a population at higher risk of difficult airway management. Videolaryngoscopy was not associated with overall risk of major adverse events. Clinical trial registration: NCT03616054.
|
|
