Search

The set of guidelines for good clinical research practice in pharmacodynamic studies of neuromuscular blocking agents was developed following an international consensus conference in Copenhagen in 1996 (Viby‐Mogensen et al., Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1996, 40, 59–74); the guidelines were later revised and updated following the second consensus conference in Stockholm in 2005 (Fuchs‐Buder et al., Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2007, 51, 789–808). In view of new devices and further development of monitoring technologies that emerged since then, (e.g., electromyography, three‐dimensional acceleromyography, kinemyography) as well as novel compounds (e.g., sugammadex) a review and update of these recommendations became necessary. The intent of these revised guidelines is to continue to help clinical researchers to conduct high‐quality work and advance the field by enhancing the standards, consistency, and comparability of clinical studies. There is growing awareness of the importance of consensus‐based reporting standards in clinical trials and observational studies. Such global initiatives are necessary in order to minimize heterogeneous and inadequate data reporting and to improve clarity and comparability between different studies and study cohorts. Variations in definitions of endpoints or outcome variables can introduce confusion and difficulties in interpretation of data, but more importantly, it may preclude building of an adequate body of evidence to achieve reliable conclusions and recommendations. Clinical research in neuromuscular pharmacology and physiology is no exception. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Information on characteristics and outcomes of intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID‐19 remains limited. We examined characteristics, clinical course and early outcomes of patients with COVID‐19 admitted to ICU. Methods: We included all 260 patients with COVID‐19 admitted to nine ICUs at the Karolinska University Hospital (Stockholm, Sweden) between 9 March and 20 April 2020. Primary outcome was in‐hospital mortality among patients with definite outcomes (discharged from ICU or death), as of 30 April 2020 (study end point). Secondary outcomes included ICU length of stay, the proportion of patients receiving mechanical ventilation and renal replacement therapy, and hospital discharge destination. Results: Of 260 ICU patients with COVID‐19, 208 (80.0%) were men, the median age was 59 (IQR 51‐65) years, 154 (59.2%) had at least one comorbidity, and the median duration of symptoms preceding ICU admission was 11 (IQR 8‐14) days. Sixty‐two (23.8%) patients remained in ICU at study end point. Among the 198 patients with definite outcomes, ICU length of stay was 12 (IQR, 6‐18) days, 163 (82.3%) received mechanical ventilation, 28 (14.1%) received renal replacement therapy, 60 (30.3%) died, 62 (31.3%) were discharged home, 47 (23.7%) were discharged to ward, and 29 (14.6%) were discharged to another health care facility. On multivariable logistic regression analysis, older age and admission from the emergency department was associated with higher mortality. Conclusion: This study presents detailed data on clinical characteristics and early outcomes of consecutive patients with COVID‐19 admitted to ICU in a large tertiary hospital in Sweden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]