METHODS: This is a retrospective review of all mechanically ventilated surgical patients in the wards, in a tertiary hospital, in 2020. Sixty-two patients out of 116 patients ventilated in surgical wards fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Demography, surgical diagnosis and procedures and physiologic, biochemical and survival data were analyzed to explore the outcomes and predictors of mortality.
RESULTS: Twenty-two out of 62 patients eventually gained ICU admission. Mean time from intubation to ICU entry and mean length of ICU stay were 48 h (0 to 312) and 10 days (1 to 33), respectively. Survival for patients admitted to ICU compared to ventilation in the acute surgery wards was 54.5% (12/22) vs 17.5% (7/40). Thirty-four patients underwent surgery, and the majority were bowel-related emergency operations. SAPS2 score validation revealed AUC of 0.701. More than half of patients with mortality risk care for critically ill surgical patients provides better survival. There is a need to improve triaging for intensive care, especially for low-mortality-risk patients using risk scores which are locally validated.
DATA SOURCES: The articles published in PubMed, MEDLINE and Google Scholar were searched using text words: off-label, unlicensed, paediatric and children. Additional articles were identified by reviewing the bibliography of the retrieved articles. Full-text articles published in English which reported on the prevalence of off-label prescribing in children between January 1996 and December 2016 were included.
RESULTS: A total of 101 studies met the inclusion criteria. Off-label prescribing definition included four main categories: age, indication, dose and route of administration. The three most common reference sources used in the studies were summary of product characteristics, national formularies and package inserts. Overall, the off-label prescribing rates in children ranged from 1.2 to 99.7%. The most common category of off-label prescribing in children was dose and age.
CONCLUSIONS: This review highlighted that off-label prescribing in children was found to be highly prevalent throughout the past two decades, persistently in the neonatal intensive care units. This suggests that besides legislative and regulatory initiatives, behavioural, knowledge aspects and efforts to integrate evidence into practice related to off-label prescribing also need to be evaluated and consolidated as part of the concerted efforts to narrow the gaps in prescribing for children.
METHODS: A web-based survey was conducted between February 2019 and August 2021. Quantifying skin injuries and describing skincare practices in extremely preterm infants were the main outcomes. The association between skin injuries and skincare practices was established using binary multivariable logistic regression adjusted for regions.
RESULTS: Responses from 848 neonatal intensive care units, representing all geographic regions and income status groups were received. Diaper dermatitis (331/840, 39%) and medical adhesive-related skin injuries (319/838, 38%) were the most common injuries. Following a local skincare guideline reduced skin injuries [medical adhesive-related injuries: adjusted odds ratios (aOR) = 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.45-0.88; perineal injuries: aOR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.45-0.96; local skin infections: OR = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.26-0.65; chemical burns: OR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.26-0.83; thermal burns: OR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.27-0.96]. Performing skin assessments at least every four hours reduced skin injuries (abrasion: aOR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.33-0.67; pressure: aOR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.34-0.78; diaper dermatitis: aOR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.51-0.99; perineal: aOR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.36-0.75). Regional and resource settings-based variations in skin injuries and skincare practices were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: Skin injuries were common in extremely preterm infants. Consistency in practice and improved surveillance appears to reduce the occurrence of these injuries. Better evidence regarding optimal practices is needed to reduce skin injuries and minimize practice variations.
METHODS: It is a prospective, open-labeled, randomized controlled study conducted at National Heart Institute, Kuala Lumpur from July 2018 to July 2019. All patients with simple and complex congenital heart diseases (CHD) with good left ventricular function (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] >50%) were included while those with LVEF <50% were excluded. A total of 100 patients were randomized into two groups of 50 each receiving either del Nido or BSTH cardioplegia. Primary end points were the spontaneous return of activity following aortic cross-clamp release and ventricular function between two groups. Secondary end point was myocardial injury as assessed by troponin T levels.
RESULTS: Cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp time, return of spontaneous cardiac activity following the aortic cross-clamp release, the duration of mechanical ventilation, and intensive care unit stay were comparable between two groups. Statistically significant difference was seen in the amount and number of cardioplegia doses delivered (P < .001). The hemodilution was significantly less in the del Nido complex CHD group compared to BSTH cardioplegia (P = .001) but no difference in blood usage (P = .36). The myocardial injury was lesser (lower troponin T release) with del Nido compared to BSTH cardioplegia (P = .6).
CONCLUSION: Our study showed that both del Nido and BSTH cardioplegia are comparable in terms of myocardial protection. However, single, less frequent, and lesser volume of del Nido cardioplegia makes it more suitable for complex repair.
Method: Field data collected during the COVID-19 outbreak in Selangor, Malaysia, up to 13 April 2020 were used, comprising socio-demographic characteristics, comorbidities and presenting symptoms of COVID-19 cases. ICU admission was determined from medical records. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with ICU admission requiring intubation/mechanical ventilation among COVID-19 cases.
Results: A total of 1287 COVID-19-positive cases were included for analysis. The most common comorbidities were hypertension (15.5%) and diabetes (11.0%). More than one third of cases presented with fever (43.8%) or cough (37.1%). Of the 25 cases that required intubation/mechanical ventilation, 68.0% had hypertension, 88.0% had fever, 40.0% had dyspnoea and 44.0% were lethargic. Multivariate regression showed that cases that required intubation/mechanical ventilation had significantly higher odds of being older (aged 360 years) [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 3.9] and having hypertension (aOR = 5.7), fever (aOR = 9.8), dyspnoea (aOR = 9.6) or lethargy (aOR = 7.9) than cases that did not require intubation/mechanical ventilation.
Conclusion: The COVID-19 cases in Selangor, Malaysia requiring intubation/mechanical ventilation were significantly older, with a higher proportion of hypertension and symptoms of fever, dyspnoea and lethargy. These risk factors have been reported previously for severe COVID-19 cases, and highlight the role that ageing and underlying comorbidities play in severe outcomes to respiratory disease.
METHODS: We conducted an international, retrospective cohort study using 2019 and 2020 data from 11 national clinical quality registries covering 15 countries. Non-COVID-19 admissions in 2020 were compared with all admissions in 2019, prepandemic. The primary outcome was intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and standardised mortality ratio (SMR). Analyses were stratified by the country income level(s) of each registry.
FINDINGS: Among 1 642 632 non-COVID-19 admissions, there was an increase in ICU mortality between 2019 (9.3%) and 2020 (10.4%), OR=1.15 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.17, p<0.001). Increased mortality was observed in middle-income countries (OR 1.25 95% CI 1.23 to 1.26), while mortality decreased in high-income countries (OR=0.96 95% CI 0.94 to 0.98). Hospital mortality and SMR trends for each registry were consistent with the observed ICU mortality findings. The burden of COVID-19 was highly variable, with COVID-19 ICU patient-days per bed ranging from 0.4 to 81.6 between registries. This alone did not explain the observed non-COVID-19 mortality changes.
INTERPRETATION: Increased ICU mortality occurred among non-COVID-19 patients during the pandemic, driven by increased mortality in middle-income countries, while mortality decreased in high-income countries. The causes for this inequity are likely multi-factorial, but healthcare spending, policy pandemic responses, and ICU strain may play significant roles.
METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Epistemonikos, as well as MEDLINE from 1966 till August 2019. Screening of full texts, evaluation for eligibility, and data extraction were done by four independent reviewers. We estimated risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) using a random-effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The primary outcomes included the number of participants who achieved the target mean arterial pressure (MAP), time to achieve the target MAP, and number of participants with all-cause 28-day mortality. The secondary outcomes included the length of stay in the intensive care unit, length of hospital stay, incidence of arrhythmia and myocardial infarction, vasopressor-free days, and number of participants with all-cause 90-day mortality.
RESULTS: We identified 11 randomized controlled trials with a total of 4,803 participants. There was no difference in the number of participants who achieved the target MAP between those patients receiving norepinephrine and other vasopressors (RR 1.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 6.54; P = 0.640; I2 = 94%; two trials, 116 participants). There was no significant difference in time to achieve the target MAP (MD -0.05; 95%, CI, -0.32 to 0.21; P = 0.690; I2 = 26%; two trials, 1763 participants) and all-cause 28-day mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.02; P = 0.160; I2 = 0%; seven trials, 4,139 participants). Regarding the secondary outcome, norepinephrine may significantly reduce the incidence of arrhythmia as compared to other vasopressors (RR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.97; P = 0.030; I2 = 64%; six trials, 3974 participants). There was no difference in the incidence of myocardial infarction (RR 1.28; 95% CI, 0.79 to 2.09), vasopressor-free day (RR 0.46; 95% CI, -1.82 to 2.74) and all-cause 90-day mortality (RR 1.08; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.21) between norepinephrine and vasopressors.
CONCLUSION: In minimizing the occurrence of an arrhythmia, norepinephrine is superior to other vasopressors, making it safe to be used in septic shock. However, there was insufficient evidence concerning mortality and achievement of the target MAP outcomes.
METHODS: In an open-label, randomized trial, we enrolled critically ill adults who had been undergoing ventilation for less than 12 hours in the ICU and were expected to continue to receive ventilatory support for longer than the next calendar day to receive dexmedetomidine as the sole or primary sedative or to receive usual care (propofol, midazolam, or other sedatives). The target range of sedation-scores on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (which is scored from -5 [unresponsive] to +4 [combative]) was -2 to +1 (lightly sedated to restless). The primary outcome was the rate of death from any cause at 90 days.
RESULTS: We enrolled 4000 patients at a median interval of 4.6 hours between eligibility and randomization. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis involving 3904 patients, the primary outcome event occurred in 566 of 1948 (29.1%) in the dexmedetomidine group and in 569 of 1956 (29.1%) in the usual-care group (adjusted risk difference, 0.0 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -2.9 to 2.8). An ancillary finding was that to achieve the prescribed level of sedation, patients in the dexmedetomidine group received supplemental propofol (64% of patients), midazolam (3%), or both (7%) during the first 2 days after randomization; in the usual-care group, these drugs were administered as primary sedatives in 60%, 12%, and 20% of the patients, respectively. Bradycardia and hypotension were more common in the dexmedetomidine group.
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in the ICU, those who received early dexmedetomidine for sedation had a rate of death at 90 days similar to that in the usual-care group and required supplemental sedatives to achieve the prescribed level of sedation. More adverse events were reported in the dexmedetomidine group than in the usual-care group. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; SPICE III ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01728558.).