METHODS: We randomly assigned inpatients with Covid-19 equally between one of the trial drug regimens that was locally available and open control (up to five options, four active and the local standard of care). The intention-to-treat primary analyses examined in-hospital mortality in the four pairwise comparisons of each trial drug and its control (drug available but patient assigned to the same care without that drug). Rate ratios for death were calculated with stratification according to age and status regarding mechanical ventilation at trial entry.
RESULTS: At 405 hospitals in 30 countries, 11,330 adults underwent randomization; 2750 were assigned to receive remdesivir, 954 to hydroxychloroquine, 1411 to lopinavir (without interferon), 2063 to interferon (including 651 to interferon plus lopinavir), and 4088 to no trial drug. Adherence was 94 to 96% midway through treatment, with 2 to 6% crossover. In total, 1253 deaths were reported (median day of death, day 8; interquartile range, 4 to 14). The Kaplan-Meier 28-day mortality was 11.8% (39.0% if the patient was already receiving ventilation at randomization and 9.5% otherwise). Death occurred in 301 of 2743 patients receiving remdesivir and in 303 of 2708 receiving its control (rate ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.11; P = 0.50), in 104 of 947 patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and in 84 of 906 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.59; P = 0.23), in 148 of 1399 patients receiving lopinavir and in 146 of 1372 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.25; P = 0.97), and in 243 of 2050 patients receiving interferon and in 216 of 2050 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.39; P = 0.11). No drug definitely reduced mortality, overall or in any subgroup, or reduced initiation of ventilation or hospitalization duration.
CONCLUSIONS: These remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and interferon regimens had little or no effect on hospitalized patients with Covid-19, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation, and duration of hospital stay. (Funded by the World Health Organization; ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN83971151; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04315948.).
METHODS: This is a prospective observational study conducted among critically ill patients aged ≥18 years, intubated and mechanically ventilated within 48 h of ICU admission and stayed in the ICU for at least 72 h. Information on baseline characteristics and nutritional risk status (the modified Nutrition Risk in Critically ill [NUTRIC] score) was collected on day 1. Nutritional intake was recorded daily until death, discharge, or until the twelfth evaluable days. Mortality status was assessed on day 60 based on the patient's hospital record. Patients were divided into 3 groups a) received <2/3 of prescribed energy and protein (both <2/3), b) received ≥2/3 of prescribed energy and protein (both ≥2/3) and c) either energy or protein received were ≥2/3 of prescribed (either ≥2/3). The relationship between the three groups with 60-day mortality was examined by using logistic regression with adjustment for potential confounders. Sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the influence of ICU length of stay (≥7 days) and nutritional risk status.
RESULTS: Data were collected from 154 mechanically ventilated patients (age, 51.3 ± 15.7 years; body mass index, 26.5 ± 6.7 kg/m2; 54% male). The mean modified NUTRIC score was 5.7 ± 1.9, with 56% of the patients at high nutritional risk. The patients received 64.5 ± 21.6% of the amount of energy and 56.4 ± 20.6% of the amount of protein prescribed. Provision of energy and protein at ≥2/3 compared with <2/3 of the prescribed amounts was associated with a trend towards increased 60-day mortality (Adjusted odds ratio [Adj OR] 2.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-5.38; p = 0.074). No difference in mortality status was found between energy and protein provision at either ≥2/3 compared with <2/3 of the prescribed amounts (Adj OR 1.61, 95% CI, 0.58-4.45; p = 0.357). Nutritional risk status, not ICU length of stay, influenced the relationship between nutritional adequacy and 60-day mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: Energy and protein adequacy of ≥2/3 of the prescribed amounts were associated with a trend towards increased 60-day mortality among mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. However, neither energy nor protein adequacy alone at ≥ or <2/3 adequacy affect 60-day mortality. Increased mortality was associated with provision of energy and protein at ≥2/3 of the prescribed amounts, which only affected patients with low nutritional risk.
Material and Methods: In this study, we have introduced a new technique to reduce the motion artifacts, based on data binning and low rank plus sparse (L+S) reconstruction method for DCE MRI. For Data binning, radial k-space data is acquired continuously using the golden-angle radial sampling pattern and grouped into various motion states or bins. The respiratory signal for binning is extracted directly from radially acquired k-space data. A compressed sensing- (CS-) based L+S matrix decomposition model is then used to reconstruct motion sorted DCE MR images. Undersampled free breathing 3D liver and abdominal DCE MR data sets are used to validate the proposed technique.
Results: The performance of the technique is compared with conventional L+S decomposition qualitatively along with the image sharpness and structural similarity index. Recovered images are visually sharper and have better similarity with reference images.
Conclusion: L+S decomposition provides improved MR images with data binning as preprocessing step in free breathing scenario. Data binning resolves the respiratory motion by dividing different respiratory positions in multiple bins. It also differentiates the respiratory motion and contrast agent (CA) variations. MR images recovered for each bin are better as compared to the method without data binning.
METHOD: The CAE model was trained using 12,170,655 simulated SB flow and normal flow data (NB). The paired SB and NB flow data were simulated using a Gaussian Effort Model (GEM) with 5 basis functions. When the CAE model is given a SB flow input, it is capable of predicting a corresponding NB flow for the SB flow input. The magnitude of SB effort (SBEMag) is then quantified as the difference between the SB and NB flows. The CAE model was used to evaluate the SBEMag of 9 pressure control/ support datasets. Results were validated using a mean squared error (MSE) fitting between clinical and training SB flows.
RESULTS: The CAE model was able to produce NB flows from the clinical SB flows with the median SBEMag of the 9 datasets being 25.39% [IQR: 21.87-25.57%]. The absolute error in SBEMag using MSE validation yields a median of 4.77% [IQR: 3.77-8.56%] amongst the cohort. This shows the ability of the GEM to capture the intrinsic details present in SB flow waveforms. Analysis also shows both intra-patient and inter-patient variability in SBEMag.
CONCLUSION: A Convolutional Autoencoder model was developed with simulated SB and NB flow data and is capable of quantifying the magnitude of patient spontaneous breathing effort. This provides potential application for real-time monitoring of patient respiratory drive for better management of patient-ventilator interaction.
METHODS: This study shows the design and development of the "VENT" protocol, which integrates the single compartment linear lung model with clinical recommendations from landmark studies, to aid clinical decision-making in selecting mechanical ventilation settings. Using retrospective breath data from a cohort of 24 patients, 3,566 and 2,447 clinically implemented VC and PC settings were extracted respectively. Using this data, a VENT protocol application case study and clinical comparison is performed, and the prediction accuracy of the VENT protocol is validated against actual measured outcomes of pressure and volume.
RESULTS: The study shows the VENT protocols' potential use in narrowing an overwhelming number of possible mechanical ventilation setting combinations by up to 99.9%. The comparison with retrospective clinical data showed that only 33% and 45% of clinician settings were approved by the VENT protocol. The unapproved settings were mainly due to exceeding clinical recommended settings. When utilising the single compartment model in the VENT protocol for forecasting peak pressures and tidal volumes, median [IQR] prediction error values of 0.75 [0.31 - 1.83] cmH2O and 0.55 [0.19 - 1.20] mL/kg were obtained.
CONCLUSIONS: Comparing the proposed protocol with retrospective clinically implemented settings shows the protocol can prevent harmful mechanical ventilation setting combinations for which clinicians would be otherwise unaware. The VENT protocol warrants a more detailed clinical study to validate its potential usefulness in a clinical setting.
OBJECTIVES: To determine if prophylactic nasal CPAP commenced soon after birth regardless of respiratory status in the very preterm or very low birth weight infant reduces the use of IPPV and the incidence of chronic lung disease (CLD) without adverse effects.
SEARCH STRATEGY: The search was updated in April 2005. The standard search strategy of the Neonatal Review Group was used. This included searches of the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, Cochrane Library Issue 1 2005, MEDLINE 1966-April 2005, previous reviews including cross references, abstracts, conferences, symposia, proceedings, expert informants, journal hand searching mainly in the English language.
SELECTION CRITERIA: All trials using random or quasi-random patient allocation of very preterm infants < 32 weeks gestation and / or < 1500 gms at birth were eligible. Comparison had to be between prophylactic nasal CPAP commencing soon after birth regardless of the respiratory status of the infant compared with "standard" methods of treatment where CPAP or IPPV is used for a defined respiratory condition.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Standard methods of the Cochrane Collaboration and its Neonatal Review Group, including independent assessment of trial quality and extraction of data by each author, were used. Data were analysed using relative risk (RR). Meta-analysis was performed using a fixed effects model.
MAIN RESULTS: There are no statistically significant differences in any of the outcomes studied in either of the eligible trials (Han 1987; Sandri 2004) reporting on 82 and 230 infants respectively. In Han 1987 there are trends towards increases in the incidence of BPD at 28 days [RR 2.27 (0.77, 6.65)], death [RR 3.63 (0.42, 31.08)] and any IVH [RR 2.18 (0.84, 5.62)] in the CPAP group. In Sandri 2004 there is a trend towards an increase in IVH grade 3 or 4 [RR 3.0 (0.96, 28.42)] in the CPAP group. No outcome was significantly different in any of the meta-analyses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient information to evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic nasal CPAP in very preterm infants. Neither of the included studies reviewed showed evidence of benefit in reducing the use of IPPV. The tendency for some adverse outcomes to be increased is of concern and further multicentre randomized controlled trials are needed to clarify this.