Search

Introduction: Use of albumin is suggested for some patients with shock, but preferences for its use may vary among intensive care unit (ICU) physicians., Methods: We conducted an international online survey of ICU physicians with 20 questions about their use of albumin and their opinion towards a randomised trial among adults with shock comparing the use versus no use of albumin., Results: A total of 1248 respondents participated, with a mean response rate of 37%, ranging from 18% to 75% across 21 countries. Respondents mainly worked in mixed ICUs and 92% were specialists in intensive care medicine. The reported use of albumin in general shock varied as 18% reported 'almost never', 22% 'rarely', 34% 'occasionally', 22% 'frequently' and 4% 'almost always' using albumin. In septic shock, 19% reported 'almost never', 22% 'rarely', 29% 'occasionally', 22% 'frequently' and 7% 'almost always' using albumin. Physicians' preferences were more consistent for haemorrhagic- and cardiogenic shock, with more than 45% reporting 'almost never' using albumin. While the reported use of albumin for other purposes than resuscitation was infrequent (40%-85% reported 'almost never' for five other indications), the most frequent other indications were low serum albumin levels and improvement of the efficacy of diuretics. Most respondents (93%) would randomise adult ICU patients with shock to a trial of albumin versus no albumin., Conclusions: In this international survey, the reported preferences for the use of albumin in adult ICU patients with shock varied considerably among surveyed ICU physicians. The support for a future randomised trial was high., (© 2024 The Author(s). Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Background: Awake prone positioning is studied extensively during Covid-19 pandemic, but there is very limited evidence on its utility in acute hypoxic respiratory failure caused by bacterial infections or other causes. The aim of our research is to evaluate the impact of awake prone positioning on outcomes in non-intubated adult patients with acute non-Covid19 hypoxemic respiratory failure., Methods: This is a multi-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a parallel-group design and a 1:1 allocation ratio. Adult patients, admitted to ICU and diagnosed with hypoxemic respiratory failure will be randomly allocated into intervention (awake prone position (APP)) or control group. Our hypothesis is that addition of awake prone positioning to standard oxygen, high flow oxygen therapy and non-invasive ventilation may reduce the need for mechanical ventilation in adult patients diagnosed with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Primary outcome is rate of endotracheal intubation; secondary outcomes include intensive care and hospital mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of intensive care and hospital stay and health related quality of life post hospital discharge. Primary and secondary outcomes will be assessed at hospital discharge, 30, 90 days and 1 year following randomisation., Conclusion: The Hyper-AP study will assess the superiority of awake prone positioning versus standard treatment in spontaneously breathing ICU patients diagnosed with hypoxaemic respiratory failure., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)