Search

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients are subject to severe skeletal muscle wasting during intensive care unit (ICU) stay, resulting in impaired short- and long-term functional outcomes and health-related quality of life. Increased protein provision may improve functional outcomes in ICU patients by attenuating skeletal muscle breakdown. Supporting evidence is limited however and results in great variety in recommended protein targets. METHODS: The PRECISe trial is an investigator-initiated, bi-national, multi-center, quadruple-blinded randomized controlled trial with a parallel group design. In 935 patients, we will compare provision of isocaloric enteral nutrition with either a standard or high protein content, providing 1.3 or 2.0 g of protein/kg/day, respectively, when fed on target. All unplanned ICU admissions with initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation within 24 h of admission and an expected stay on ventilator support of at least 3 days are eligible. The study is designed to assess the effect of the intervention on functional recovery at 1, 3, and 6 months following ICU admission, including health-related quality of life, measures of muscle strength, physical function, and mental health. The primary endpoint of the trial is health-related quality of life as measured by the Euro-QoL-5D-5-level questionnaire Health Utility Score. Overall between-group differences will be assessed over the three time points using linear mixed-effects models. DISCUSSION: The PRECISe trial will evaluate the effect of protein on functional recovery including both patient-centered and muscle-related outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04633421 . Registered on November 18, 2020. First patient in (FPI) on November 19, 2020. Expected last patient last visit (LPLV) in October 2023.

Contains fulltext : 229328.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Many studies investigate the role of pharmacological treatments on disease course in Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Sex disparities in genetics, immunological responses, and hormonal mechanisms may underlie the substantially higher fatality rates reported in male COVID-19 patients. To optimise care for COVID-19 patients, prophylactic and therapeutic studies should include sex-specific design and analyses. Therefore, in this scoping review, we investigated whether studies on pharmacological treatment in COVID-19 were performed based on a priori sex-specific design or post-hoc sex-specific analyses. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, UpToDate, clinical trial.org, and MedRxiv for studies on pharmacological treatment for COVID-19 until June 6th, 2020. We included case series, randomized controlled trials, and observational studies in humans (≥18 years) investigating antiviral, antimalarial, and immune system modulating drugs. Data were collected on 1) the proportion of included females, 2) whether sex stratification was performed (a priori by design or post-hoc), and 3) whether effect modification by sex was investigated. FINDINGS: 30 studies were eligible for inclusion, investigating remdesivir (n = 2), lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 5), favipiravir (n = 1), umifenovir (n = 1), hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine (n = 8), convalescent plasma (n = 6), interleukin-6 (IL-6) pathway inhibitors (n = 5), interleukin-1 (IL-1) pathway inhibitors (n = 1) and corticosteroids (n = 3). Only one study stratified its data based on sex in a post-hoc analysis, whereas none did a priori by design. None of the studies investigated effect modification by sex. A quarter of the studies included twice as many males as females. INTERPRETATION: Analyses assessing potential interference of sex with (side-)effects of pharmacological therapy for COVID-19 are rarely reported. Considering sex differences in case-fatality rates and genetic, immunological, and hormonal mecha

Contains fulltext : 229328.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Many studies investigate the role of pharmacological treatments on disease course in Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Sex disparities in genetics, immunological responses, and hormonal mechanisms may underlie the substantially higher fatality rates reported in male COVID-19 patients. To optimise care for COVID-19 patients, prophylactic and therapeutic studies should include sex-specific design and analyses. Therefore, in this scoping review, we investigated whether studies on pharmacological treatment in COVID-19 were performed based on a priori sex-specific design or post-hoc sex-specific analyses. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, UpToDate, clinical trial.org, and MedRxiv for studies on pharmacological treatment for COVID-19 until June 6th, 2020. We included case series, randomized controlled trials, and observational studies in humans (≥18 years) investigating antiviral, antimalarial, and immune system modulating drugs. Data were collected on 1) the proportion of included females, 2) whether sex stratification was performed (a priori by design or post-hoc), and 3) whether effect modification by sex was investigated. FINDINGS: 30 studies were eligible for inclusion, investigating remdesivir (n = 2), lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 5), favipiravir (n = 1), umifenovir (n = 1), hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine (n = 8), convalescent plasma (n = 6), interleukin-6 (IL-6) pathway inhibitors (n = 5), interleukin-1 (IL-1) pathway inhibitors (n = 1) and corticosteroids (n = 3). Only one study stratified its data based on sex in a post-hoc analysis, whereas none did a priori by design. None of the studies investigated effect modification by sex. A quarter of the studies included twice as many males as females. INTERPRETATION: Analyses assessing potential interference of sex with (side-)effects of pharmacological therapy for COVID-19 are rarely reported. Considering sex differences in case-fatality rates and genetic, immunological, and hormonal mecha

Contains fulltext : 229328.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Many studies investigate the role of pharmacological treatments on disease course in Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Sex disparities in genetics, immunological responses, and hormonal mechanisms may underlie the substantially higher fatality rates reported in male COVID-19 patients. To optimise care for COVID-19 patients, prophylactic and therapeutic studies should include sex-specific design and analyses. Therefore, in this scoping review, we investigated whether studies on pharmacological treatment in COVID-19 were performed based on a priori sex-specific design or post-hoc sex-specific analyses. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, UpToDate, clinical trial.org, and MedRxiv for studies on pharmacological treatment for COVID-19 until June 6th, 2020. We included case series, randomized controlled trials, and observational studies in humans (≥18 years) investigating antiviral, antimalarial, and immune system modulating drugs. Data were collected on 1) the proportion of included females, 2) whether sex stratification was performed (a priori by design or post-hoc), and 3) whether effect modification by sex was investigated. FINDINGS: 30 studies were eligible for inclusion, investigating remdesivir (n = 2), lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 5), favipiravir (n = 1), umifenovir (n = 1), hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine (n = 8), convalescent plasma (n = 6), interleukin-6 (IL-6) pathway inhibitors (n = 5), interleukin-1 (IL-1) pathway inhibitors (n = 1) and corticosteroids (n = 3). Only one study stratified its data based on sex in a post-hoc analysis, whereas none did a priori by design. None of the studies investigated effect modification by sex. A quarter of the studies included twice as many males as females. INTERPRETATION: Analyses assessing potential interference of sex with (side-)effects of pharmacological therapy for COVID-19 are rarely reported. Considering sex differences in case-fatality rates and genetic, immunological, and hormonal mecha

Part: B

Purpose: Whether the quality of the ethical climate in the intensive care unit (ICU) improves the identification of patients receiving excessive care and affects patient outcomes is unknown. Methods: In this prospective observational study, perceptions of excessive care (PECs) by clinicians working in 68 ICUs in Europe and the USA were collected daily during a 28-day period. The quality of the ethical climate in the ICUs was assessed via a validated questionnaire. We compared the combined endpoint (death, not at home or poor quality of life at 1 year) of patients with PECs and the time from PECs until written treatment-limitation decisions (TLDs) and death across the four climates defined via cluster analysis. Results: Of the 4747 eligible clinicians, 2992 (63%) evaluated the ethical climate in their ICU. Of the 321 and 623 patients not admitted for monitoring only in ICUs with a good (n = 12, 18%) and poor (n = 24, 35%) climate, 36 (11%) and 74 (12%), respectively were identified with PECs by at least two clinicians. Of the 35 and 71 identified patients with an available combined endpoint, 100% (95% CI 90.0–1.00) and 85.9% (75.4–92.0) (P = 0.02) attained that endpoint. The risk of death (HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.20–2.92) or receiving a written TLD (HR 2.32, CI 1.11–4.85) in patients with PECs by at least two clinicians was higher in ICUs with a good climate than in those with a poor one. The differences between ICUs with an average climate, with (n = 12, 18%) or without (n = 20, 29%) nursing involvement at the end of life, and ICUs with a poor climate were less obvious but still in favour of the former. Conclusion: Enhancing the quality of the ethical climate in the ICU may improve both the identification of patients receiving excessive care and the decision-making process at the end of life.

__Background:__ The multicentre randomised controlled PEPaNIC trial showed that withholding parenteral nutrition (PN) during the first week of critical illness in children was clinically superior to providing early PN. This study descr

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We examined whether liposome bupivacaine (Exparel) given in the interscalene brachial plexus block lowers pain in the setting of multimodal postoperative pain management for major shoulder surgery. METHODS: Fifty-two adult patients were randomized to receive either 5 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine HCl immediately followed by 10 mL of liposome bupivacaine 133 mg (n = 26) or 15 mL of 0.25% standard bupivacaine alone (n = 26) in interscalene brachial plexus block. The primary outcome (worst pain in the first postoperative week) was assessed by the Modified Brief Pain Inventory short form. Secondary outcomes were overall satisfaction with analgesia (OBAS), functionality of the surgical arm, sleep duration, time to first opioid (tramadol) request and opioid consumption (mEq), sensory-motor block characteristics, and the occurrence of adverse effects. RESULTS: Worst pain was lower in patients given liposome bupivacaine added to standard bupivacaine than in patients given standard bupivacaine alone (generalized estimating equation [GEE] estimated marginal mean values, 3.6 +/- 0.3 vs 5.3 +/- 0.4 points on the Numeric Rating Scale, respectively, although the effect was modest, 1.6 +/- 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-2.5). Total OBAS scores indicated greater satisfaction (GEE estimated marginal mean values, 1.8 +/- 0.3 vs 3.3 +/- 0.4 on total OBAS, respectively, with modest effect, difference, 1.4 +/- 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.5-2.4). There were no differences in any of the other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Liposome bupivacaine added to standard bupivacaine may lower pain and enhance patient's satisfaction in the first postoperative week even in the setting of multimodal analgesia for major shoulder surgery.This study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02554357) on July 11, 2015, by Principal Investigator Catherine Vandepitte, MD.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We examined whether liposome bupivacaine (Exparel) given in the interscalene brachial plexus block lowers pain in the setting of multimodal postoperative pain management for major shoulder surgery. METHODS: Fifty-two adult patients were randomized to receive either 5 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine HCl immediately followed by 10 mL of liposome bupivacaine 133 mg (n = 26) or 15 mL of 0.25% standard bupivacaine alone (n = 26) in interscalene brachial plexus block. The primary outcome (worst pain in the first postoperative week) was assessed by the Modified Brief Pain Inventory short form. Secondary outcomes were overall satisfaction with analgesia (OBAS), functionality of the surgical arm, sleep duration, time to first opioid (tramadol) request and opioid consumption (mEq), sensory-motor block characteristics, and the occurrence of adverse effects. RESULTS: Worst pain was lower in patients given liposome bupivacaine added to standard bupivacaine than in patients given standard bupivacaine alone (generalized estimating equation [GEE] estimated marginal mean values, 3.6 +/- 0.3 vs 5.3 +/- 0.4 points on the Numeric Rating Scale, respectively, although the effect was modest, 1.6 +/- 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-2.5). Total OBAS scores indicated greater satisfaction (GEE estimated marginal mean values, 1.8 +/- 0.3 vs 3.3 +/- 0.4 on total OBAS, respectively, with modest effect, difference, 1.4 +/- 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.5-2.4). There were no differences in any of the other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Liposome bupivacaine added to standard bupivacaine may lower pain and enhance patient's satisfaction in the first postoperative week even in the setting of multimodal analgesia for major shoulder surgery.This study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02554357) on July 11, 2015, by Principal Investigator Catherine Vandepitte, MD.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We examined whether liposome bupivacaine (Exparel) given in the interscalene brachial plexus block lowers pain in the setting of multimodal postoperative pain management for major shoulder surgery. METHODS: Fifty-two adult patients were randomized to receive either 5 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine HCl immediately followed by 10 mL of liposome bupivacaine 133 mg (n = 26) or 15 mL of 0.25% standard bupivacaine alone (n = 26) in interscalene brachial plexus block. The primary outcome (worst pain in the first postoperative week) was assessed by the Modified Brief Pain Inventory short form. Secondary outcomes were overall satisfaction with analgesia (OBAS), functionality of the surgical arm, sleep duration, time to first opioid (tramadol) request and opioid consumption (mEq), sensory-motor block characteristics, and the occurrence of adverse effects. RESULTS: Worst pain was lower in patients given liposome bupivacaine added to standard bupivacaine than in patients given standard bupivacaine alone (generalized estimating equation [GEE] estimated marginal mean values, 3.6 +/- 0.3 vs 5.3 +/- 0.4 points on the Numeric Rating Scale, respectively, although the effect was modest, 1.6 +/- 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-2.5). Total OBAS scores indicated greater satisfaction (GEE estimated marginal mean values, 1.8 +/- 0.3 vs 3.3 +/- 0.4 on total OBAS, respectively, with modest effect, difference, 1.4 +/- 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.5-2.4). There were no differences in any of the other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Liposome bupivacaine added to standard bupivacaine may lower pain and enhance patient's satisfaction in the first postoperative week even in the setting of multimodal analgesia for major shoulder surgery.This study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02554357) on July 11, 2015, by Principal Investigator Catherine Vandepitte, MD.

Background: The state-of-the-art nutrition used for critically ill children is based essentially on expert opinion and extrapolations from adult studies or on studies in non-critically ill children. In critically ill adults, withholding parenteral nutrition (PN) during the first week in ICU improved outcome, as compared with early supplementation of insufficient enteral nutrition (EN) with PN. We hypothesized that withholding PN in children early during critical illness reduces the incidence of new infections and accelerates recovery. Methods/Design: The Pediatric Early versus Late Parenteral Nutrition in Intensive Care Unit (PEPaNIC) study is an investigator-initiated, international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial (RCT) in three tertiary referral pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) in three countries on two continents. This study compares early versus late initiation of PN when EN fails to reach preset caloric targets in critically ill children. In the early-PN (control, standard of care) group, PN comprising glucose, lipids and amino acids is administered within the first days to reach the caloric target. In the late-PN (intervention) group, PN completing EN is only initiated beyond PICU-day 7, when EN fails. For both study groups, an early EN protocol is applied and micronutrients are administered intravenously. The primary assessor-blinded outcome measures are the incidence of new infections during PICU-stay and the duration of intensive care dependency. The sample size (n = 1,440, 720 per arm) was determined in order to detect a 5% absolute reduction in PICU infections, with at least 80% 1-tailed power (70% 2-tailed) and an alpha error rate of 5%. Based on the actual incidence of new PICU infections in the control group, the required sample size was confirmed at the time of an a priori- planned interim-analysis focusing on the incidence of new infections in the control group only. Discussion: Clinical evidence in favor of early administration of PN