DESIGN: Harmonized data from prospective multicenter international longitudinal cohort studies SETTING:: Diverse mix of ICUs.
PATIENTS: Critically ill patients expected to be ventilated for longer than 24 hours.
INTERVENTIONS: Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale and pain were assessed every 4 hours. Delirium and mobilization were assessed daily using the Confusion Assessment Method of ICU and a standardized mobility assessment, respectively.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sedation intensity was assessed using a Sedation Index, calculated as the sum of negative Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale measurements divided by the total number of assessments. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazard models to adjust for relevant covariates. We performed subgroup and sensitivity analysis accounting for immortal time bias using the same variables within 120 and 168 hours. The main outcome was 180-day survival. We assessed 703 patients in 42 ICUs with a mean (SD) Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 22.2 (8.5) with 180-day mortality of 32.3% (227). The median (interquartile range) ventilation time was 4.54 days (2.47-8.43 d). Delirium occurred in 273 (38.8%) of patients. Sedation intensity, in an escalating dose-dependent relationship, independently predicted increased risk of death (hazard ratio [95% CI], 1.29 [1.15-1.46]; p < 0.001, delirium hazard ratio [95% CI], 1.25 [1.10-1.43]), p value equals to 0.001 and reduced chance of early extubation hazard ratio (95% CI) 0.80 (0.73-0.87), p value of less than 0.001. Agitation level independently predicted subsequent delirium hazard ratio [95% CI], of 1.25 (1.04-1.49), p value equals to 0.02. Delirium or mobilization episodes within 168 hours, adjusted for sedation intensity, were not associated with survival.
CONCLUSIONS: Sedation intensity independently, in an ascending relationship, predicted increased risk of death, delirium, and delayed time to extubation. These observations suggest that keeping sedation level equivalent to a Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale 0 is a clinically desirable goal.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of our study was to determine the efficacy of a single session of 20 min mindful breathing in alleviating multiple symptoms in palliative care.
METHODS: Adult palliative care in patients with at least one symptom scoring ≥5/10 based on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) were recruited from September 2018 to December 2018. Recruited patients were randomly assigned to either 20 min mindful breathing and standard care or standard care alone.
RESULTS: Forty patients were randomly assigned to standard care plus a 20 min mindful breathing session (n=20) or standard care alone (n=20). There was statistically significant reduction of total ESAS score in the mindful breathing group compared with the control group at minute 20 (U=98, n 1 = n 2 = 20, mean rank 1 = 15.4, mean rank 2 = 25.6, median reduction 1 = 6.5, median reduction 2 = 1.5, z=-2.763, r=0.3, p=0.005).
CONCLUSION: Our results provided evidence that a single session of 20 min mindful breathing was effective in reducing multiple symptoms rapidly for palliative care patients.
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING: Electronic search for randomized controlled trials and observational studies (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL).
PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalized adults ≥ 18 years old who were SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive.
INTERVENTIONS: High-dose and low-dose corticosteroids.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of twelve studies (n=2759 patients) were included in this review. The pooled analysis demonstrated no significant difference in mortality rate between the high-dose and low-dose corticosteroids groups (n=2632; OR: 1.07 [95%CI 0.67, 1.72], p=0.77, I2=76%, trial sequential analysis=inconclusive). No significant differences were observed in the incidence of intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate (n=1544; OR: 0.77[95%CI 0.43, 1.37], p=0.37, I2= 72%), duration of hospital stay (n=1615; MD: 0.53[95%CI -1.36, 2.41], p=0.58, I2=87%), respiratory support (n=1694; OR: 1.51[95%CI 0.77, 2.96], p=0.23, I2=84%), duration of mechanical ventilation (n=419; MD: -1.44[95%CI -4.27, 1.40], p=0.32, I2=93%), incidence of hyperglycemia (n=516, OR: 0.91[95%CI 0.58, 1.43], p=0.68, I2=0%) and infection rate (n=1485, OR: 0.86[95%CI 0.64, 1.16], p=0.33, I2=29%).
CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis demonstrated high-dose corticosteroids did not reduce mortality rate. However, high-dose corticosteroids did not pose higher risk of hyperglycemia and infection rate for COVID-19 patients. Due to the inconclusive trial sequential analysis, substantial heterogeneity and low level of evidence, future large-scale randomized clinical trials are warranted to improve the certainty of evidence for the use of high-dose compared to low-dose corticosteroids in COVID-19 patients.
METHODS: This is a systematic review and a meta-analysis evaluating the evidence from clinical trials on the effect of colchicine and corticosteroids against COVID-19. In this review, we have systematically searched five databases [(PubMed, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov, ICTRP, CINAHL (EBSCO)]. Cochrane's data extraction sheet was used to collect the required information, and RevMan-5.4.1 was used to conduct the meta-analysis and to assess the risk of bias. The review was registered in Prospero (CRD42022299718).
RESULTS: The total number of included studies was 17, with 18,956 participants; the majority were male 12,001. Out of which, 8772 participants were on colchicine, 569 took methylprednisolone, and 64 patients received prednisolone. The meta-analysis has shown that colchicine had no significant effect on reducing the mortality rate among COVID-19 patients [OR 0.98(95% CI 0.90-1.08), p = .70), I2:1%)], corticosteroids have significantly reduced the mortality rates [OR 0.55 (95% CI 0.33-0.91), p = .02, I2:40]. Colchicine did not reduce the incidence of ICU admissions [OR 0.74 (95% CI 0.39-1.40), p = .35, I2:0%], while steroidal drugs significantly reduced the ICU admissions [OR 0.42 (95% CI 0.23-0.78), p = .005, I2:0%]. Unlike steroidal drugs [OR 0.53 (95% CI 0.30-0.95), p = .03, I2:61%], colchicine failed to reduce the need for mechanical ventilation [OR 0.73 (95% CI 0.48-1.10), p = .13, I2:76%]. Steroidal drugs significantly reduced the duration of hospitalization among COVID-19 patients [OR -0.50 (95% CI -0.79-0.21), p = .0007, I2:36%].
CONCLUSIONS: The use of colchicine did not significantly reduce the mortality rate, ICU admissions, and mechanical ventilation among COVID-19 patients. Conversely, corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate, ICU admissions, mechanical ventilation, and hospitalization duration among COVID-19 patients.
METHODS: Bayesian analysis of 3904 critically ill adult patients expected to receive invasive ventilation > 24 h and enrolled in a multinational randomized controlled trial comparing early DEX with usual care sedation.
RESULTS: HTE was assessed according to age and clusters (based on 12 baseline characteristics) using a Bayesian hierarchical models. DEX was associated with lower 90-day mortality compared to usual care in patients > 65 years (odds ratio [OR], 0.83 [95% credible interval [CrI] 0.68-1.00], with 97.7% probability of reduced mortality across broad categories of illness severity. Conversely, the probability of increased mortality in patients ≤ 65 years was 98.5% (OR 1.26 [95% CrI 1.02-1.56]. Two clusters were identified: cluster 1 (976 patients) mostly operative, and cluster 2 (2346 patients), predominantly non-operative. There was a greater probability of benefit with DEX in cluster 1 (OR 0.86 [95% CrI 0.65-1.14]) across broad categories of age, with 86.4% probability that DEX is more beneficial in cluster 1 than cluster 2.
CONCLUSION: In critically ill mechanically ventilated patients, early sedation with dexmedetomidine exhibited a high probability of reduced 90-day mortality in older patients regardless of operative or non-operative cluster status. Conversely, a high probability of increased 90-day mortality was observed in younger patients of non-operative status. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.
METHODS: A retrospective, observational study was performed among infants aged 6 months and below hospitalized for COVID-19 in a tertiary state hospital in Malaysia between February 1 and April 30, 2022. The primary outcome was "serious disease," defined as pneumonia requiring respiratory support or dehydration with warning signs. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine independent predictors for serious disease.
RESULTS: A total of 102 infants were included in the study; 53.9% were males with a median age of 11 weeks (interquartile range: 5-20 weeks). Sixteen patients (15.7%) had pre-existing comorbidities, including preterm birth. Fever was the most common presenting symptom (82.4%), followed by cough (53.9%), and rhinorrhea (31.4%). Forty-one infants (40.2%) presented with serious disease, warranting either respiratory support or intravenous fluid therapy for dehydration. Recent maternal COVID-19 vaccination was associated with a reduced risk of serious disease on univariate analysis but was not significant after multivariate adjustment (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.39; 95% CI: 0.14-1.11; p = 0.08). Exclusive breastfeeding was protective against serious COVID-19 in young infants, independent of other confounding factors (aOR 0.21, 95% CI: 0.06-0.71; p = 0.01).
CONCLUSION: COVID-19 is a serious disease with non-specific clinical manifestations in young infants. Exclusive breastfeeding could play an important protective role.