Search

Background Infections with SARS-CoV-2 continue to cause significant morbidity and mortality. Interleukin (IL)-1 and IL-6 blockade have been proposed as therapeutic strategies in COVID-19, but study outcomes have been conflicting. We sought to study whether blockade of the IL-6 or IL-1 pathway shortened the time to clinical improvement in patients with COVID-19, hypoxic respiratory failure, and signs of systemic cytokine release syndrome. Methods We did a prospective, multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial, in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, hypoxia, and signs of a cytokine release syndrome across 16 hospitals in Belgium. Eligible patients had a proven diagnosis of COVID-19 with symptoms between 6 and 16 days, a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2:FiO(2)) of less than 350 mm Hg on room air or less than 280 mm Hg on supplemental oxygen, and signs of a cytokine release syndrome in their serum (either a single ferritin measurement of more than 2000 mu g/L and immediately requiring high flow oxygen or mechanical ventilation, or a ferritin concentration of more than 1000 mu g/L, which had been increasing over the previous 24 h, or lyrnphopenia below 800/mL with two of the following criteria: an increasing ferritin concentration of more than 700 mu g/L, an increasing lactate dehydrogenase concentration of more than 300 international units per L, an increasing C-reactive protein concentration of more than 70 mg/L, or an increasing D-dimers concentration of more than 1000 ng/mL). The COV-AID trial has a 2 x 2 factorial design to evaluate IL-1 blockade versus no IL-1 blockade and IL-6 blockade versus no IL-6 blockade. Patients were randomly assigned by means of permuted block randomisation with varying block size and stratification by centre. In a first randomisation, patients were assigned to receive subcutaneous anakinra once daily (100 mg) for 28 days or until discharge, or to receive no IL-1 blockade (1:2). In a second randomisation step, patients were allocated to receive a single dose of siltuximab (11 mg/kg) intravenously, or a single dose of tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) intravenously, or to receive no IL-6 blockade (1:1:1). The primary outcome was the time to clinical improvement, defined as time from randomisation to an increase of at least two points on a 6-category ordinal scale or to discharge from hospital alive. The primary and supportive efficacy endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the safety population. This study is registered online with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04330638) and EudraCT (2020-001500-41) and is complete. Findings Between April 4, and Dec 6,2020,342 patients were randomly assigned to IL-1 blockade n=112) or no IL-1 blockade (n=230) and simultaneously randomly assigned to IL-6 blockade (n=227; 114 for tocilizumab and 113 for siltuximab) or no IL-6 blockade (n=115). Most patients were male (265 [77%] of 342), median age was 65 years (IQR 54-73), and median Systematic Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at randomisation was 3 (2-4). All 342 patients were included in the primary intention-to-treat analysis. The estimated median time to clinical improvement was 12 days (95% CI 10-16) in the IL-1 blockade group versus 12 days (10-15) in the no IL-1 blockade group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.94 [95% CI 0.73-1.21]). For the IL-6 blockade group, the estimated median time to clinical improvement was 11 days (95% CI 10-16) versus 12 days (11-16) in the no IL-6 blockade group (HR 1.00[0-78-1-29]). 55 patients died during the study, but no evidence for differences in mortality between treatment groups was found. The incidence of serious adverse events and serious infections was similar across study groups. Interpretation Drugs targeting IL-1 or IL-6 did not shorten the time to clinical improvement in this sample of patients with COVID-19, hypoxic respiratory failure, low SOFA score, and low baseline mortality risk. Copyright (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Belgian Health Care Knowledge Center; VIB Grand Challenges program The authors acknowledge professional support and committed efforts from various organisations and individuals involved in this trial and thank all trial participants and clinicians involved in patient recruitment at the different participating sites. This study was funded by KCE, and KCE was involved in various aspects of the study design, management, and execution (Nelle Stocquart, Jillian Harrison). The VIB Grand Challenges Program (Sofie Bekaert) funded measurements of cytokines and the Ghent University Special Research Fund (BOF) supported the clinical follow-up of patients at Ghent University Hospital (UZ Ghent). The clinical trial team of the Department of Respiratory Medicine at UZ Ghent (Stefanie Vermeersch, Benedicte Demeyere, Anja Delporte) were involved in protocol development, amendment filing, and eCRF construction. The Health Innovation and Research Institute of UZ Ghent was involved in eCRF design, protocol design, ethical committee reporting, drug dispensing, trial monitoring, data cleaning, and sponsor site management (Charlotte Clauwaert, Dries Loncke, Hanife Kokur, Lieselot Van Landuyt, Joke Tommelein, Hélène De Naeyer). The hospital pharmacy of UZ Ghent dispensed drugs to all study sites (Els Kestens). Team members of the Primary Immune Deficiency laboratory (Karlien Claes, Veronique Debacker, Lisa Roels, Zara Declercq) handled samples from all study sites. The authors acknowledge the insights of the data safety monitoring board (Drs Renaat Peleman, Geert Leroux-Roels, Steven Callens, Frank Vermassen, Piet Hoebeke, Karim Vermaelen, A Dupont, Tomasz Burzykowski, and Marnik Vuylsteke under the chairmanship of SR).

OBJECTIVES: The Hepatology Committee of the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) aims to educate pediatric gastroenterologists, members of ESPGHAN and professionals from other specialties promoting an exchange of clinical expertise in the field of pediatric hepatology.METHODS: The 2020 single topic ESPGHAN monothematic 3-day conference on pediatric liver disease, was organized in Athens, Greece and was entitled " Acute Liver Failure" (ALF). ALF is a devastating disease with high mortality and in a considerable fraction of patients, the cause remains unresolved. As knowledge in diagnosis and treatment of ALF in infants and children has increased in the past decades, the objective was to update physicians in the field with developments in medical therapy and indications for liver transplantation (LT) and to identify areas for future research in clinical and neurocognitive outcomes in ALF.RESULTS: We recently reported the epidemiology, diagnosis, and initial intensive care management issues in separate manuscript. Herewith we report on the medical treatment, clinical lessons arising from pediatric studies, nutritional and renal replacement therapy (RRT), indications and contraindications for LT, neurocognitive outcomes, new techniques used as bridging to LT, and areas for future research. Oral presentations by experts in various fields are summarized highlighting key learning points.CONCLUSIONS: The current report summarizes the current insights in medical treatment of pediatric ALF and the directions for future research.

Purpose Investigate safety and tolerability of adrecizumab, a humanized monoclonal adrenomedullin antibody, in septic shock patients with high adrenomedullin. Methods Phase-2a, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled biomarker-guided trial with a single infusion of adrecizumab (2 or 4 mg/kg b.w.) compared to placebo. Patients with adrenomedullin above 70 pg/mL

Background: Since the beginning of the pandemic, Covid-19 has been regarded as an exceptional disease. Control measures have exclusively focused on "the virus", failing to account for other biological and social factors that determine severe forms of the disease.Aim: We argue that if it is understandable that Covid-19 was initially considered a form of exceptionalism, justifying extraordinary response measures, this situation has changed – and so should our response.Main arguments: We now know that Covid-19 shares many features of common infectious respiratory diseases, and better understand that SARS-CoV-2 has not invented new problems out of the blue. Instead, it has unveiled and exacerbated existing problems in health systems and underlying population health. Of course, Covid-19 is not an extra-terrestrial disease. It is a complex zoonotic disease, and it needs to be managed as such, following long proven principles of medicine and public health.Conclusion: A complex disease cannot be solved through a simple, magic bullet cure or vaccine. The heterogeneity of population profiles susceptible to develop a severe form of Covid-19 suggests adopting varying, targeted measures, enabled to reach risk profiles in an appropriate way. The critical role of comorbidities in disease severity calls for complementing short-term virus-targeted interventions with medium-term policies aimed at reducing the burden of comorbidities, as well as mitigating the risk of "transition" from infection to disease. Complementary strategies are needed including upstream prevention, early treatment, and the consolidation of the health system., info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Purpose of review Although the so-called cytokine storm has been early described and related to a dramatic evolution in severe COVID-19 patients, it soon became clear that those patients display clinical and biological evidence of an immunosuppressive state characterized, among other, by a profound lymphopenia. The negative role of this immune suppression on the outcome raises the question on immune therapies that might improve patient's condition. Recent findings Important positive effects of active immune therapies, such as IL-7 or thymosin-α are already described and warrant confirmation in larger prospective trials. For other therapies, such as interferons, firm conclusions for critically ill COVID-19 patients are lacking as those patients were often excluded from the published trials. Treatment with immunoglobulins or convalescent plasma is a passive strategy to provide specific immunity. Unfortunately, results from large RCTs do not support their use presently. Summary In this article, we provide a review on active and passive immune boosting strategies that might help treating the most severe COVID-19 patients. We mainly focus on active strategies that include IL-7, thymosin-α, interferons, and vitamin D. Although some positive effects are described, they certainly warrant confirmation in large randomized controlled trials.

The kinetics of IgG antibodies after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) remain poorly understood. We investigated factors influencing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) IgG antibody levels and time to seronegativation during the follow‐up of severe and critically ill patients. We retrospectively reviewed serological evaluations drawn during the follow‐up of severe or critical laboratory‐proven COVID‐19 patients hospitalized at a large academic hospital. Specific IgG titers were measured using a chemiluminescent assay targeting anti‐spike and anti‐nucleocapsid protein IgG. The influence of time, demographic factors, clinical and paraclinical characteristics, and COVID‐19 therapeutics on IgG levels were assessed through linear regression using a mixed‐effect model, and delay until IgG negativation through a Weibull regression model. The cohort included 116 patients with a total of 154 IgG measurements drawn at a median of 79 days after diagnosis. IgG antibodies were increased with age (p = 0.005) and decreased significantly over time (p = 0.0002). Using elapsed time and age as covariates, we demonstrated higher IgG levels in patients with a higher body mass index (BMI) (p = 0.0026) and lower IgG levels in immunocompromised patients (p = 0.032). A high BMI was further found to delay and immunodeficiency to hasten significantly seronegativation, whereas no significant effect was observed with corticosteroids. These data highlight the waning over time of IgG antibodies after severe or critical COVID‐19. Age, BMI, and immunosuppression also appear to influence the IgG kinetics, while short‐term corticotherapy does not. Those data improve the understanding of SARS‐CoV‐2 serology while further research should determine the determinants of long‐term seroprotection., Highlights Anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG antibody levels measured during follow‐up of severe and critical COVID‐19 were studied. We analyzed the influence of time, demographics, clinical and paraclinical characteristics and COVID‐19 treatments on specific IgG levels and time to seronegativation. Time and immunodepression were associated to reduced IgG levels at follow‐up, while age and BMI were associated to increased levels. Corticosteroids given as short‐term treatment for COVID‐19 did not show influence. BMI and immunodepression were respectively associated with decreased and increased rates of seronegativation.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill cirrhotic patients are increasingly transplanted, but there is no consensus about futile liver transplantation (LT). Therefore, the decision to delay or deny LT is often extensively debated. These debates arise from different opinions of futility among transplant team members. This study aims to achieve a multinational and multidisciplinary consensus on the definition of futility in LT and to develop well-articulated criteria for not proceeding with LT due to futility. METHODS: Thirty-five international experts from anesthesiology/intensive care, hepatology, and transplant surgery were surveyed using the Delphi method. More than 70% of similar answers to a question were necessary to define agreement. RESULTS: The panel recommended patient and graft survival at 1 year after LT to define futility. Severe frailty and persistent fever or 1 μg/kg per minute and a serum lactate level >9 mmol/L. CONCLUSIONS: Our expert panel provides a consensus on the definition of futile LT and on specific criteria for postponing or denying LT. A framework that may facilitate the decision if a patient is too sick for transplant is presented., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Critical care 25(1), 61 (2021). doi:10.1186/s13054-021-03471-2, Published by BioMed Centra, London

Background and aims We describe the characteristics and short-term prognosis of in-patients with diabetes and COVID-19 admitted to a Belgian academic care center. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the data on admission from patients with known or newly-diagnosed diabetes and confirmed COVID-19. First, survivors were compared to non-survivors to study the predictive factors of in-hospital death in patients with diabetes. Secondly, diabetic patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia were matched for age and sex with non-diabetic patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, to study the prognosis and predictive factors of in-hospital death related to diabetes. Results Seventy-three diabetic patients were included. Mean age was 69 (±14) years. Women accounted for 52%. Most patients had type 2 diabetes (89.0%), long-term complications of hyperglycemia (59.1%), and hypertension (80.8%). The case-fatality rate (CFR) was 15%. Non-survivors had more severe pneumonia based on imaging (p 0.029) and were less often treated with metformin (p 0.036). In patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, CFR was 15.6% in diabetic (n = 64) and 25.0% in non-diabetic patients (n = 128), the difference being non-significant (p 0.194). Predictive factors of in-hospital death were elevated white blood cells count (HR 9.4, CI 1.50–58.8, p 0.016) and severe pneumonia on imaging (HR 25.0, CI 1.34–466, p 0.031) in diabetic patients, and cognitive impairment (HR 5.80, CI 1.61–20.9, p 0.007) and cardiovascular disease (HR 5.63, CI 1.54–20.6, p 0.009) in non-diabetic patients. Conclusion In this monocentric cohort from Belgium, diabetic in-patients with COVID-19 had mostly type 2 diabetes, prevalent hyperglycemia-related vascular complications and comorbidities including hypertension. In this cohort, the CFR was not statistically different between patients with and without diabetes., Highlights • Obesity concerns half of the patients with diabetes and COVID-19. • Body mass index and HbA1c do not influence mortality. • Severe pneumonia on imaging predicts death in patients with diabetes and COVID-19. • Case fatality rate was similar in patients with and without diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: The Hepatology Committee of the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) aims to educate pediatric gastroenterologists, members of ESPGHAN and professionals from other specialties promoting an exchange of clinical expertise in the field of pediatric hepatology. Herewith we have concentrated on detailing the recent advances in acute liver failure in infants and children.METHODS: The 2020 ESPGHAN monothematic three-day conference on pediatric hepatology disease, entitled "acute liver failure" (ALF), was organized in Athens, Greece. ALF is a devastating disease with high mortality and most cases remain undiagnosed. As knowledge in diagnosis and treatment of ALF in infants and children has increased in the past decades, the objective was to update physicians in the field with the latest research and developments in early recognition, curative therapies and intensive care management, imaging techniques and treatment paradigms in these age groups.RESULTS: In the first session, the definition, epidemiology, various causes of ALF, in neonates and older children and recurrent ALF (RALF) were discussed. The second session was dedicated to new aspects of ALF management including hepatic encephalopathy (HE), coagulopathy, intensive care interventions, acute on chronic liver failure, and the role of imaging in treatment and prognosis. Oral presentations by experts in various fields are summarized highlighting key learning points.CONCLUSIONS: The current report summarizes the major learning points from this meeting. It also identifies areas where there is gap of knowledge, thereby identifying the research agenda for the near future.

Hypereosinophilia (HE) is rare but often secondary to a nonhematologic disease such as allergic disorders and parasitic infections. HE can also be associated with hematologic malignancies and be the result of a clonal proliferation or reactive to another hematologic condition. Association of HE with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is rare in children. We reported a case of a teenager presented with HE secondary to B-ALL who experienced severe cardiac complications with severe absolute eosinophil count. We compared his clinical evolution with other published cases and we reported 2 mutations linked to B-ALL never described before in this context.

Telomeres are non-coding DNA sequences that protect chromosome ends and shorten with age. Short telomere length (TL) is associated with chronic diseases and immunosenescence. The main risk factor for mortality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is older age, but outcome is very heterogeneous among individuals of the same age group. Therefore, we hypothesized that TL influences COVID-19-related outcomes. In a prospective study, we measured TL by Flow-FISH in 70 hospitalized COVID-19 patients and compared TL distribution with our reference cohort of 491 healthy volunteers. We also correlated TL with baseline clinical and biological parameters. We stained autopsy lung tissue from six non-survivor COVID-19 patients to detect senescence-associated β-galactosidase activity, a marker of cellular aging. We found a significantly higher proportion of patients with short telomeres (

BACKGROUND: Early mobilization during critical illness is safe and has beneficial effects on functional outcomes. However, its impact on pulmonary function has not been thoroughly explored. We hypothesized that a sitting position out of bed coupled with exercise could result in an improvement in oxygenation and lung aeration. METHODS: The study was conducted on a cohort of adult subjects within a week of their admission to an ICU. Subjects were transferred to a chair and undertook a 15-min session of exercise, either active or passive. Subjects in the control group were only transferred to a chair. Electrical impedance tomography, a reliable bedside technique monitoring regional lung aeration and the distribution of ventilation, was continuously performed, and blood gases were assessed at baseline and 20 min post-exercise. RESULTS: The cohort included 40 subjects, 17 of whom were mechanically ventilated and 23 spontaneously breathing. The control group for each modality consisted of 5 mechanically ventilated or 5 spontaneously breathing subjects. Mild hypoxemia was present in 45% of the spontaneously breathing cohort, whereas the mechanically ventilated subjects demonstrated moderate (50%) or severe (12%) hypoxemia. Compared with the control group, early mobilization induced a significant increase in lung aeration. In mechanically ventilated subjects, lung aeration increased, especially in the anterior lung regions (mean impedance [95% CI]: T1 (baseline in bed) = 1,265 [691–1,839]; T2 (chair sitting) = 2,003 [1,042–2,963]; T3 (exercise) = 1,619 [810 2,427]; T4 (post exercise in chair) = 2,320 [1,186–3,455]). In spontaneously breathing subjects, lung aeration increased mainly in the posterior lung regions (mean impedance [95% CI]: T1 = 380 [124–637]; T2 = 655 [226–1,084]; T3 = 621 [335–906]; T4 = 600 [340–860]). [Formula: see text] increased, especially in subjects with lower [Formula: see text] at baseline (< 200) (133 ± 31 to 158 ± 48, P = .041). CONCLUSIONS: For critically ill subjects, a sitting position and exercise increased lung aeration and were associated with an improvement in [Formula: see text] in the more severely hypoxemic subjects.

Background and Objective: In the absence of characterization on pharmacokinetics and reference concentrations for hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients, the dose and treatment duration for hydrochloroquine are currently empirical, mainly based on in vitro data, and may vary across national guidelines and clinical study protocols. The aim of this paper is to describe the pharmacokinetics of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients, considered to be a key step toward its dosing optimization. Methods: We have developed a population pharmacokinetic model for hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients using prospectively collected pharmacokinetic data from patients either enrolled in a clinical trial or treated with hydroxychloroquine as part of standard of care in two tertiary Belgian hospitals. Results: The final population pharmacokinetic model was a one-compartment model with first-order absorption and elimination. The estimated parameter values were 9.3/h, 860.8 L, and 15.7 L/h for the absorption rate constant, the central compartment volume, and the clearance, respectively. The bioavailability factor was fixed to 0.74 based on previously published models. Model validations by bootstraps, prediction corrected visual predictive checks, and normalized prediction distribution errors gave satisfactory results. Simulations were performed to compare the exposure obtained with alternative dosing regimens. Conclusion: The developed models provide useful insight for the dosing optimization of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients. The present results should be used in conjunction with exposure-efficacy and exposure-safety data to inform optimal dosing of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

AIMS: The current study assessed the impact of COVID-19-related public containment measures (i.e. lockdown) on the ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) epidemic in Belgium. METHODS AND RESULTS: Clinical characteristics, reperfusion therapy modalities, COVID-19 status and in-hospital mortality of consecutive STEMI patients who were admitted to Belgian hospitals for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were recorded during a three-week period starting at the beginning of the lockdown period on 13 March 2020. Similar data were collected for the same time period for 2017-2019. An evaluation of air quality revealed a 32% decrease in ambient NO2 concentrations during lockdown (19.5 µg/m³ versus 13.2 µg/m³, p 12 h after onset of pain) (14% versus 7.6%, p = .04) and with longer door-to-balloon times (median of 45 versus 39 min, p = .02). Although the in-hospital mortality between the two periods was comparable (5.9% versus 6.7%), 5 of the 7 (71%) COVID-19-positive STEMI patients died. CONCLUSION: The present study revealed a 26% reduction in STEMI admissions and a delay in treatment of STEMI patients. Less exposure to external STEMI triggers (such as ambient air pollution) and/or reluctance to seek medical care are possible explanations of this observation. ispartof: ACTA CARDIOLOGICA vol:76 issue:8 pages:863-869 ispartof: location:England status: published

Susac syndrome (SS) is a central nervous system vasculitis characterized by the clinical triad of encephalopathy, sensorineural hearing loss, and visual disturbance caused by branch retinal artery occlusion. It is considered as an inflammatory disorder, and an autoimmune etiology is suggested. A 29-year-old man with a history of recent cocaine abuse developed the clinical features of SS. Toxicological analysis including hair testing revealed that cocaine had been adulterated with levamisole. After an initial clinical improvement following corticosteroid therapy, the introduction of mycophenolate mofetil was justified a few weeks later by the progression (or relapse) of the retinal injury, followed by complete recovery. The presence of levamisole has been documented in patients with multifocal inflammatory leukoencephalopathy (MIL). Further investigations are needed to determine if levamisole as an adulterant of cocaine could also play a role in the development of rapidly progressive leukoencephalopathy in young men, with Susac or Susac-like syndromes as possible variants of MIL.

vWFpp/ADAMTS13 ratio should be further studied as a useful marker for diagnosis of thrombotic microangiopathy postliver transplantation. Immunosuppressive regimen modification and plasma supplementation can lead to recovery.

The evaluation of nursing workload is a common practice in intensive care units (ICUs). It allows the calculation of an optimal nurse/patient ratio (N/P) which is a major challenge to ensuring the quality of care while controlling the costs of health care. The objectives of this study were, therefore, to evaluate the N/P ratio and to study nursing activities in intensive care in French-speaking Belgium., info:eu-repo/semantics/published

BackgroundControversies exist on the nature of COVID-19 related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in particular on the static compliance of the respiratory system (Crs). We aimed to analyze the association of Crs with outcome in COVID-19-associated ARDS, to ascertain its determinants and to describe its evolution at day-14.MethodsIn this observational multicenter cohort of patients with moderate to severe Covid-19 ARDS, Crs was measured at day-1 and day-14. Association between Crs or Crs/ideal body weight (IBW) and breathing without assistance at day-28 was analyzed with multivariable logistic regression. Determinants were ascertained by multivariable linear regression. Day-14 Crs was compared to day-1 Crs with paired t-test in patients still under controlled mechanical ventilation.ResultsThe mean Crs in 372 patients was 37.6 ± 13 mL/cmH2O, similar to as in ARDS of other causes. Multivariate linear regression identified chronic hypertension, low PaO2/FiO2ratio, low PEEP, and low tidal volume as associated with lower Crs/IBW. After adjustment on confounders, nor Crs [OR 1.0 (CI 95% 0.98–1.02)] neither Crs/IBW [OR 0.63 (CI 95% 0.13–3.1)] were associated with the chance of breathing without assistance at day-28 whereas plateau pressure was [OR 0.93 (CI 95% 0.88–0.99)]. In a subset of 108 patients, day-14 Crs decreased compared to day-1 Crs (31.2 ± 14.4 mL/cmH2O vs 37.8 ± 11.4 mL/cmH2O,p ConclusionIn a large multicenter cohort of moderate to severe COVID-19 ARDS, mean Crs was decreased below 40 mL/cmH2O and was not associated with day-28 outcome. Crs decreased between day-1 and day-14 but the decrease was not associated with day-28 outcome.

This collaborative meta-analysis was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation (grant supporting the post-doctoral fellowship at the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University). The funders had no role in the design of this collaborative meta-analysis; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; or in the report writing., We would like to express our warm gratitude to all participating patients and convalescent plasma donors. We thank Katja Suter and Sina Ullrich, University of Basel, for their administrative assistance. For their helpful contribution to individual trials, we thank Erica Wood, Iain Gosbell, Richard Charlewood, Thomas Hills, Veronica Hoad, Kristina Kairaitis, Aikaj Jindal, John Gerrard, Hong Foo, Adam Stewart, and Nanette Trask (ASCOT trial); Amalia Bravo-Lindoro, Ral Carrillo-Esper, Karla Maldonado-Silva, Catalina Casillas-Suárez, Orlando Carrillo-Torres, Sandra Murrieta, Elizabeth Diaz-Padilla, Eli Omar Zavaleta, Yadira Bejar-Ramirez, and Evelyn Cortina-de la Rosa (CPC-SARS trial); Sheri Renaud, Roel Rolando-Almario, and Jacqueline Day (NCT04385199 trial); Sandra Tingsgrd, MD, Karen Brorup Heje Pedersen, MD, Michaela Tinggaard, MD, Louise Thorlacius-Ussing, MD, Clara Lundetoft Clausen, MD, Nichlas Hovmand, MD, Simone Bastrup Israelsen, MD, Cecilie Leding, MD, Katrine Iversen, MD, Maria Engel Miller, MD, Hkon Sandholdt, MSc biostatistician (CCAP-2 trial). On behalf of the IRCT20200310046736N1 trial, we thank the Khuzestan Blood Transfusion Organization for specialized assistance in the preparation and maintenance of plasma samples. On behalf of the NCT04332835 trial, we thank all the members of the "PC-COVID-19 Group" at the Clinica del Occidente and Hospital Universitario Mayor Mederi in Bogota, and Clinica CES in Medellin. On behalf of the NCT04403477 trial, we thank Miles Carroll for his support regarding the antibody testing in Bangladesh. The Co-CLARITY team would like to extend their gratitude to the Department of Science and Technology Philippine Council for Health Research and Development and the UP-Philippine General Hospital for all their support in the setting up and conduct of the trial. For helpfully communicating details of their trial, we thank members of the PlasmAr trial, NCT04359810 trial (Max O´Donnell), NCT04468009 trial, and CTRI/2020/05/025299 trial. Support for title page creation and format was provided by AuthorArranger, a tool developed at the National Cancer Institute (https://www.cancer.gov/)., During the conduct of the study, the following is reported: Dr. Berry reports being employee with ownership role at Berry Consultants (receives payments for statistical modeling and design of REMAP-CAP). Dr. Castillo reports grants from DOST PCHRD. Dr. Daly reports grants from Medical Research Future Fund (Australian Govt) and RBWH. Dr. Denkinger reports grants from German Ministry for Education and Research. Dr. Dumagay reports grants from Philippine Council for Health Research and Development. Dr. Dunachie reports grants from UK Department of Health and Social Care, grants from UK National Institute of Health Research. Dr. Gauiran reports grants from Department of Science and Technology—Philippine Council for Health Research and Development. Dr. Gordon reports grants from NIHR, grants from NIHR Research Professorship (RP-2015-06-18), and non-financial support from NIHR Clinical Research Network. Dr. Higgins reports grants from NHMRC and from the Minderoo Foundation. Dr. Hills reports grants from Health Research Council of New Zealand. Dr. Holm reports grants from Swedish Government Funds for Clinical Research (ALF). Dr. Janssen and Dr. Müller-Tidow report grants from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research in Germany (BMBF) to the RECOVER clinical trial. Dr. Krapp reports grants from Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development of Canada, grants from Fundación Telefónica del Perú. Dr. J. Lim reports grants from the Department of Science and Technology, Philippine Council for Health Research and Development. Dr. Lucero reports grants from Philippine Council for Health Research and Development. Dr Manrique reports economic support from Grupo ISA Intercolombia for the project development of trial NCT04332835. Drs. McQuilten and Wood report grants from Medical Research Future Fund. Dr. McVerry reports grants from The Pittsburgh Foundation, Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium, and from UPMC Learning While Doing Program. Mr. Mouncey reports grants from National Institute for Health Research and from the European Union FP7: PREPARE. Dr. Najdovski reports payment from KUL Leuven to Belgian Red Cross for supply of convalescent plasma. Dr. Nichol reports grants from Health Research Board of Ireland. Dr. D. Roberts reports grants from the National Institute for Health (UKRIDHSC COVID-19 Rapid Response Rolling Call—Grant Reference Number COV19-RECPLAS) and the European Commission (SUPPORT-E #101015756). Dr. Rowan reports grants from the European Commission and from the UK National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Shankar-Hari reports grants from National Institute for Health Research UK, grants from UKRI-National Institute for Health Research UK. Dr. Turgeon reports grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Venkatesh reports grants from Baxter. Dr. Webb reports grants from National Health and Medical Research Council, grants from Minderoo Foundation. Dr. Zacharowski reports grants from EU Horizon 2020. The ASCOT trial team (Drs Bowen, Daly, Davis, Denholm, Hammond, Jha, L. Lim, McQuilten, Molton, Morpeth, O’Sullivan, Paterson, Perry, Price, Rees, Roberts, Rogers, Sasadeusz, Snelling, Tong, Venkatesh, Wood) is funded by grants from from Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital Foundation, Pratt Foundation, Minderoo Foundation, BHP Foundation, Hospital Research Foundation, Macquarie Group Foundation, Health Research Council of New Zealand, Australian Partnership for Preparedness Research on Infectious Disease Emergencies (APPRISE), and the collection and supply of convalescent plasma was conducted within Lifeblood’s funding arrangements. The CONFIDENT trial is funded by the Belgian KCE (blood establishments received payment for the convalescent plasma supplied in the clinical trial). REMAP-CAP was supported in part by funding from UKRIDHSC COVID-19 Rapid Response Rolling Call (Grant Reference Number COV19-RECPLAS). Collection of convalescent plasma for REMAP-CAP was funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, UK. The IRCT20200310046736N1 trial was supported by the Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences (Grant No. R.AJUMS.REC.1399.003, Dr. Pouladzadeh). The PC-COVID-19 Group is supported by the Universidad del Rosario, IDCBIS, ISA Group and Suramericana (Colombia). Outside the submitted work, the following is reported: Dr. Axfors reports postdoctoral grants from the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, Uppsala University, the Swedish Society of Medicine, the Blanceflor Foundation, and the Sweden-America Foundation. Dr. Aomar reports personal fees from SOBI, GEDEON RICHTER, and GSK. Dr. Benfield reports grants from Novo Nordisk Foundation, Simonsen Foundation, Lundbeck Foundation, Kai Hansen Foundation, Erik and Susanna Olesen’s Charitable Fund; grants and personal fees from GSK, Pfizer, Gilead; and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, and Pentabase ApS. Dr. Estcourt reports being an investigator on the RECOVERY trial. Dr. Gordon reports personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol Myers Squibb, and 30 Respiratory. Dr. Jha reports grants and personal fees from Baxter Healthcare, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, grants from NephroPlus. Dr. Laterre reports personal fees from Adrenomed. Dr. McVerry reports grants from NIH/NHLBI and Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr. Mondragon reports financial activities outside the submitted work (employment at Johnson & Johnson). Dr. Perry reports partner being employed at CSL and owning shares in CSL. Dr. Paterson reports involvement with ALLIANCE trial of COVID-19 treatments. Dr. J. Roberts reports other COVID-19 related trials (in different patient groups): tocilizumab in ICU patients; hydroxychloroquine dosing in ICU patients; planned study of remdesivir pharmacokinetics in patients during expanded access program; and in silico evaluation of ivermectin dosing. Dr Sasadeusz reports grants from various Pharma companies including Gilead Sciences, Abvvie, Merck, and Takeda. Dr. Zacharowski reports personal fees from Biotest AG, CSL Behring, GE Heathcare, and is President of the ESAIC., Background: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX). Methods: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care., Amalia Bravo-Lindoro, BHP Foundation, Blanceflor Foundation, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development of Canada, Eli Omar Zavaleta, Erik and Susanna Olesen’s Charitable Fund, Federal Ministry of Education and Research in Germany, Fundación Telefónica del Perú, IDCBIS, ISA Group and Suramericana, Kai Hansen Foundation, Katja Suter and Sina Ullrich, Khuzestan Blood Transfusion Organization, Macquarie Group Foundation, Medical Research Future Fund, NephroPlus, RBWH, Roel Rolando-Almario NCT04385199, Royal Brisbane, Sheri Renaud, Simonsen Foundation, UKRI-National Institute for Health Research UK, UKRIDHSC COV19-RECPLAS, UP-Philippine General Hospital CTRI/2020/05/025299, NCT04359810, NCT04468009, Women’s Hospital Foundation, National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Pittsburgh Foundation, Pfizer, Baxter International, Stanford University, Gilead Sciences, National Institute on Handicapped Research RP-2015-06-18, Meso Scale Diagnostics, Universität Basel, Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Health Research Board, Pratt Foundation, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, National Institute for Health Research, Department of Health and Social Care, European Commission 101015756, National Health and Medical Research Council, Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India, Health Research Council of New Zealand, Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung, Sweden-America Foundation, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Lundbeckfonden, Knut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse, Seventh Framework Programme, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Uppsala Universitet, Horizon 2020, Svenska Läkaresällskapet, Universidad del Rosario, Pharmaceuticals Bayer, Novo Nordisk Fonden, Department of Science and Technology, Philippines, Philippine Council for Health Research and Development, Minderoo Foundation

Summary Background Staphylococcus aureus remains a common cause of ventilator-associated pneumonia, with little change in incidence over the past 15 years. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of suvratoxumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the α toxin, in reducing the incidence of S aureus pneumonia in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) who are on mechanical ventilation. Methods We did a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 2 pilot trial at 31 hospitals in Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Portugal, Spain, and Switzerland. Eligible patients were in the ICU, aged ≥18 years, were intubated and on mechanical ventilation, were positive for S aureus colonisation of the lower respiratory tract, as assessed by quantitative PCR (qPCR) analysis of endotracheal aspirate, and had not been diagnosed with new-onset pneumonia. Patients were excluded if they had confirmed or suspected acute ongoing staphylococcal disease; had received antibiotics for S aureus infection for more than 48 h within 72 h of randomisation; had a Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score of 6 or higher; had an acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score of 25 or higher with a Glasgow coma scale (GCS) score of more than 5, or an acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score of at least 30 with a GCS score of 5 or less; had a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 9 or higher; or had active pulmonary disease that would impair the ability to diagnose pneumonia. Colonised patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), by use of an interactive voice or web response system, to receive either a single intravenous infusion of suvratoxumab 2000 mg, suvratoxumab 5000 mg, or placebo. Randomisation was done in blocks of size four, stratified by country and by whether patients had received systemic antibiotics for S aureus infection. Patients, investigators, and study staff involved in the treatment or clinical evaluation of patients were masked to patient assignment. The primary efficacy endpoint was the incidence of S aureus pneumonia at 30 days, as determined by a masked independent endpoint adjudication committee, in all patients who received their assigned treatment (modified intention-to-treat [ITT] population). Primary safety endpoints were the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events at 30 days, 90 days, and 190 days after treatment, and the incidence of treatment-emergent serious adverse events, adverse events of special interest, and new-onset chronic disease at 190 days after treatment. All primary safety endpoints were assessed in the modified ITT population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02296320 ) and the EudraCT database (2014-001097-34). Findings Between Oct 10, 2014, and April 1, 2018, 767 patients were screened, of whom 213 patients with confirmed S aureus colonisation of the lower respiratory tract were randomly assigned to the suvratoxumab 2000 mg group (n=15), the suvratoxumab 5000 mg group (n=96), or the placebo group (n=102). Two patients in the placebo group did not receive treatment after randomisation because their clinical conditions changed and they no longer met the eligibility criteria for dosing. As adjudicated by the data monitoring committee at an interim analysis, the suvratoxumab 2000 mg group was discontinued on the basis of predefined pharmacokinetic criteria. At 30 days after treatment, 17 (18%) of 96 patients in the suvratoxumab 5000 mg group and 26 (26%) of 100 patients in the placebo group had developed S aureus pneumonia (relative risk reduction 31·9% [90% CI −7·5 to 56·8], p=0·17). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events at 30 days were similar between the suvratoxumab 5000 mg group (87 [91%]) and the placebo group (90 [90%]). The incidence of treatment-emergent serious adverse events at 30 days were also similar between the suvratoxumab 5000 mg group (36 [38%]) and the placebo group (32 [32%]). No significant difference in the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events between the two groups at 90 days (89 [93%] in the suvratoxumab 5000 mg group vs 92 [92%] in the placebo group) and at 190 days (93 [94%] vs 93 [93%]) was observed. 40 (40%) patients in the placebo group and 50 (52%) in the suvratoxumab 5000 mg group had a serious adverse event at 190 days. In the suvratoxumab 5000 mg group, one (1%) patient reported at least one treatment-emergent serious adverse event related to treatment, two (2%) patients reported an adverse event of special interest, and two (2%) reported a new-onset chronic disease. Interpretation In patients in the ICU receiving mechanical ventilation with qPCR-confirmed S aureus colonisation of the lower respiratory tract, the incidence of S aureus pneumonia at 30 days was not significantly lower following treatment with 5000 mg suvratoxumab than with placebo. Despite these negative results, monoclonal antibodies still represent one promising therapeutic option to reduce antibiotic consumption that require further exploration and studies. Funding AstraZeneca, with support from the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking.

Background: Electrolyte disorders have been exceptionally associated with the development of takotsubo syndrome (TTS). Case Presentation: A 73-year-old healthy and active woman was admitted to the Emergency Department for acute dyspnea and chest pain. She had no medical history, except for arterial hypertension successfully controlled by lisinopril. Laboratory investigations revealed marked and isolated hyponatremia, consistent with a syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone (SIADH) secretion. The diagnosis of takotsubo syndrome (TTS) was based on the echocardiogram and coronary angiography findings. Conclusion: Lisinopril appeared to be the most likely triggering factor of SIADH and hyponatremia, possibly deepened by a recent and transient increase of water intake. The mechanism linking hyponatremia and TTS is not fully understood.

Background & Aims: Human allogeneic liver-derived progenitor cells (HALPC, HepaStem®; Promethera Biosciences, Mont-Saint-Guibert, Belgium) are an advanced therapy medicinal product that could potentially alleviate systemic inflammation and ameliorate liver function in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) or acute decompensation of cirrhosis (AD). Methods: This open-label phase II study was conducted in 9 centres in Belgium, Spain, and Bulgaria between 2016 and 2019. The primary objective was to assess the safety of HALPC therapy up to Day 28 and the secondary objectives were to assess its safety and preliminary efficacy up to Month 3. Results: The 24 treated patients (mean age: 51 years) were mostly male with an alcoholic cirrhosis. On pre-infusion Day 1, 15 patients had ACLF and 9 patients had AD. Two of the 3 initial patients treated with high HALPC doses (∼5×106 cells/kg body weight [BW]) had severe adverse bleeding events attributed to treatment. In 21 patients subsequently treated with lower HALPC doses (0.6 or 1.2×106 cells/kg BW, 1 or 2 times 7 days apart), no serious adverse events were related to treatment, and the other adverse events were in line with those expected in patients with ACLF and AD. Overall, markers of systemic inflammation and altered liver function decreased gradually for the surviving patients. The Day-28 and Month-3 survival rates were 83% (20/24) and 71% (17/24), and at Month 3, no patient had ACLF. Conclusions: The treatment of patients with ACLF or AD with up to 2 doses of 1.2×106 HALPC/kg BW appeared safe. The results of this study support the initiation of a proof-of-concept study in a larger cohort of patients with ACLF to further confirm the safety and evaluate the efficacy of HALPC therapy. Clinical Trials Registration: EudraCT 2016-001177-32. Lay summary: Patients with liver cirrhosis may suffer from the rapid onset of organ failure or multiple organ failure associated with a high risk of death in the short term. This clinical study of 24 patients suggests that an advanced therapy based on the intravenous infusion of low doses of human allogeneic liver-derived progenitor cells is safe and supports the next phase of clinical development of this type of therapy., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

TREM-1 (triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1) is a transmembrane receptor expressed by innate immune cells, including endothelial cells and platelets. TREM-1 is a crucial mediator of septic shock that acts by synergizing with Toll-like receptors (TLRs) to amplify the inflammatory responses to pathogens, thus promoting sepsis-induced immune dysregulation and organ dysfunction. [...]

Background: Voriconazole is one of the first-line therapies for invasive pulmonary aspergillosis. Drug concentrations might be significantly influenced by the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). We aimed to assess the effect of ECMO on voriconazole exposure in a large patient population. Methods: Critically ill patients from eight centers in four countries treated with voriconazole during ECMO support were included in this retrospective study. Voriconazole concentrations were collected in a period on ECMO and before/after ECMO treatment. Multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of ECMO on voriconazole exposure and to assess the impact of possible saturation of the circuit’s binding sites over time. Results: Sixty-nine patients and 337 samples (190 during and 147 before/after ECMO) were analyzed. Subtherapeutic concentrations (&lt, 2 mg/L) were observed in 56% of the samples during ECMO and 39% without ECMO (p = 0.80). The median trough concentration, for a similar daily dose, was 2.4 (1.2–4.7) mg/L under ECMO and 2.5 (1.4–3.9) mg/L without ECMO (p = 0.58). Extensive inter-and intrasubject variability were observed. Neither ECMO nor squared day of ECMO (saturation) were retained as significant covariates on voriconazole exposure. Conclusions: No significant ECMO-effect was observed on voriconazole exposure. A large proportion of patients had voriconazole subtherapeutic concentrations.

IntroductionSeptic shock is the subgroup of patients with sepsis, which presents as vasopressor dependence, an elevated blood lactate concentration and is associated with a mortality of at least 30%. Expression of the triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 1 (TREM-1) pathway, measured using a serum biomarker of pathway activation (soluble TREM-1, sTREM-1) has been associated with outcome in septic shock. Preclinical and early phase patient data suggest that therapeutic modulation of this pathway may improve survival.Methods and analysisEfficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Nangibotide in Patients with Septic Shock is a phase IIb randomised controlled trial that will take place in up to 50 centres in seven countries and recruit 450 patients with septic shock to receive either placebo or one of two doses of nangibotide, a novel regulator of the TREM-1 pathway. The primary outcome will be the impact of nangibotide therapy on the change in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score from a baseline determined before initiation of study drug therapy. This will be assessed first in the patients with an elevated sTREM-1 level and then in the study population as a whole. In addition to safety, secondary outcomes of the study will include efficacy of nangibotide in relation to sTREM-1 levels in terms of organ function, mortality and long-term morbidity. This study will also facilitate the development of a novel platform for the measurement of sTREM-1 at the point of care.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the responsible ethics committees/institutional review boards in all study countries: Belgium: Universitair Ziekenhuis Antwerpen, France: CPP Ile de France II, Denmark: Region Hovedstaden, Spain: ethics committee from Valld’Hebron Hospital, Barcelona, Finland: Tukija, Ireland: St. James’ Hospital (SJH) / Tallaght University Hospital (TUH) Joint Research Ethics Committee, USA: Lifespan, ProvidenceTrial registration numbersEudraCT Number: 2018-004827-36 and NCT04055909.

A 54-year-old man with a long history of severe haemophilia A treated prophylactically with efmoroctocog alpha (3,000 IU twice weekly) was diagnosed with COVID-19 infection. He had multiple risk factors for COVID-19 severity including obesity, diabetes mellitus and hypertension. He required prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) stay due to the severity of respiratory failure until his death on day 24. During his ICU stay, he received a continuous infusion of efmoroctocog alpha in order to maintain factor VIII activity between 80 and 100%, together with therapeutic doses of low-molecular-weight heparin targeting anti-Xa activity above 0.5 IU/mol. He tolerated numerous invasive procedures without bleeding. At post-mortem examination, there was no evidence for thrombosis or haemorrhage in the different organs.

A 20-year-old man underwent an outpatient general anesthetic procedure with sevoflurane for the correction of a bilateral gynecomastia. The patient had been first exposed to sevoflurane two years before, without any complication. He presented an overweight with a body mass index (BMI) of 31.4 kg/m2 and had an episode of “binge” drinking a few days before anesthesia. He became icteric from postoperative day 9, and after the worsening of liver function tests, the liver biopsy revealed centrilobular necrosis. The patient became encephalopathic and required urgent liver transplantation on postoperative day 30. The possibility of a sevoflurane-related fulminant hepatic failure is discussed.

A 77-year-old woman developed a deep coma (Glasgow Coma Scale score at 3/15) after a trazodone overdose (maximal ingested dose, 4500 mg), and orotracheal intubation was required for mechanical ventilation. In addition, she presented sinus bradycardia (

The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment or SOFA score was developed to assess the acute morbidity of critical illness at a population level and has been widely validated as a tool for this purpose across a range of healthcare settings and environments.In recent years, the SOFA score has become extensively used in a range of other applications. A change in the SOFA score of 2 or more is now a defining characteristic of the sepsis syndrome, and the European Medicines Agency has accepted that a change in the SOFA score is an acceptable surrogate marker of efficacy in exploratory trials of novel therapeutic agents in sepsis. The requirement to detect modest serial changes in a patients’ SOFA score therefore means that increased clarity on how the score should be assessed in different circumstances is required.This review explores the development of the SOFA score, its applications and the challenges associated with measurement. In addition, it proposes guidance designed to facilitate the consistent and valid assessment of the score in multicentre sepsis trials involving novel therapeutic agents or interventions.ConclusionThe SOFA score is an increasingly important tool in defining both the clinical condition of the individual patient and the response to therapies in the context of clinical trials. Standardisation between different assessors in widespread centres is key to detecting response to treatment if the SOFA score is to be used as an outcome in sepsis clinical trials.

Rationale: Current practices regarding mechanical ventilation in patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for acute respiratory distress syndrome are unknown.Objectives: To report current practices regarding mechanical ventilation in patients treated with ECMO for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and their association with 6-month outcomes.Methods: This was an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients undergoing ECMO for ARDS during a 1-year period in 23 international ICUs.Measurements and Main Results: We collected demographics, daily pre- and per-ECMO mechanical ventilation settings and use of adjunctive therapies, ICU, and 6-month outcome data for 350 patients (mean ± SD pre-ECMO PaO2/FiO2 71 ± 34 mm Hg). Pre-ECMO use of prone positioning and neuromuscular blockers were 26% and 62%, respectively. Vt (6.4 ± 2.0 vs. 3.7 ± 2.0 ml/kg), plateau pressure (32 ± 7 vs. 24 ± 7 cm H2O), driving pressure (20 ± 7 vs. 14 ± 4 cm H2O), respiratory rate (26 ± 8 vs. 14 ± 6 breaths/min), and mechanical power (26.1 ± 12.7 vs. 6.6 ± 4.8 J/min) were markedly reduced after ECMO initiation. Six-month survival was 61%. No association was found between ventilator settings during the first 2 days of ECMO and survival in multivariable analysis. A time-varying Cox model retained older age, higher fluid balance, higher lactate, and more need for renal-replacement therapy along the ECMO course as being independently associated with 6-month mortality. A higher Vt and lower driving pressure (likely markers of static compliance improvement) across the ECMO course were also associated with better outcomes.Conclusions: Ultraprotective lung ventilation on ECMO was largely adopted across medium- to high-case volume ECMO centers. In contrast with previous observations, mechanical ventilation settings during ECMO did not impact patients' prognosis in this context.

Contains fulltext : 218566pub.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) Contains fulltext : 218566pos.pdf (Author’s version postprint ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: Neurocritical care is devoted to the care of critically ill patients with acute neurological or neurosurgical emergencies. There is limited information regarding epidemiological data, disease characteristics, variability of clinical care, and in-hospital mortality of neurocritically ill patients worldwide. We addressed these issues in the Point PRevalence In Neurocritical CarE (PRINCE) study, a prospective, cross-sectional, observational study. METHODS: We recruited patients from various intensive care units (ICUs) admitted on a pre-specified date, and the investigators recorded specific clinical care activities they performed on the subjects during their first 7 days of admission or discharge (whichever came first) from their ICUs and at hospital discharge. In this manuscript, we analyzed the final data set of the study that included patient admission characteristics, disease type and severity, ICU resources, ICU and hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality. We present descriptive statistics to summarize data from the case report form. We tested differences between geographically grouped data using parametric and nonparametric testing as appropriate. We used a multivariable logistic regression model to evaluate factors associated with in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 1545 patients admitted to 147 participating sites from 31 countries of which most were from North America (69%, N = 1063). Globally, there was variability in patient characteristics, admission diagnosis, ICU treatment team and resource allocation, and in-hospital mortality. Seventy-three percent of the participating centers were academic, and the most common admitting diagnosis was subarachnoid hemorrhage (13%). The majority of patients were male (59%), a half of whom had at least two comorbidities, and median Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of 13. Factors associated with in-hospital mortality included age (OR 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.04); lower GCS (OR 1.20; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.16 for every point reduction in GCS); pupillary reactivity (OR 1.8; 95% CI, 1.09 to 3.23 for bilateral unreactive pupils); admission source (emergency room versus direct admission [OR 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.75]; admission from a general ward versus direct admission [OR 5.85; 95% CI, 2.75 to 12.45; and admission from another ICU versus direct admission [OR 3.34; 95% CI, 1.27 to 8.8]); and the absence of a dedicated neurocritical care unit (NCCU) (OR 1.7; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.47). CONCLUSION: PRINCE is the first study to evaluate care patterns of neurocritical patients worldwide. The data suggest that there is a wide variability in clinical care resources and patient characteristics. Neurological severity of illness and the absence of a dedicated NCCU are independent predictors of in-patient mortality.

Aims Low haemoglobin (Hb) at admission has been identified as a risk factor for mortality for elderly patients with hip fractures in some studies. However, this remains controversial. This study aims to analyze the association between Hb level at admission and mortality in elderly patients with hip fracture undergoing surgery. Patients and Methods All consecutive patients (prospective database) admitted with hip fracture operated in a tertiary hospital between 2012 and 2016 were analyzed. We collected patient characteristics, time to surgery, duration and type of surgery, comorbidities, Hb at admission, nadir of Hb after surgery, the use and amount of red blood cells (RBCs) transfusion products, postoperative complications, and death. The main outcome measures were mortality at 30 days, 90 days, 180 days, and one year after surgery. Results We included 829 patients; the mean age was 81 years (sd 11). Mortality at 30 days, 90 days, 180 days, and one year was 5.7%, 12.3%, 18.1%, and 23.5%, respectively. The highest mortality was observed in patients aged over 80 years (162/557, 29%) and in male patients (85/267, 32%). Survival at 90 days, 180 days, and one year after surgery was significantly lower in patients with a Hb level below 120 g/l at admission. In multivariate analysis, Hb level below 120 g/l at admission was found to be an independent factor associated with mortality (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.68 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 2.31); p = 0.001), along with age (aHR 1.06 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.06); p < 0.001), male sex (aHR 2.19 (95% CI 1.61 to 2.96); p < 0.001), and need for RBC transfusions (aHR 1.10 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.19); p = 0.01). Conclusion Our results suggest that low Hb at admission along with age and RBC transfusions is significantly associated with short- and long-term mortality after hip fracture surgery, independently of comorbidity confounders. Further studies should be performed to understand how preoperative Hb could be taken into account in perioperative management. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1122–1128.

Aims The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) EURObservational Research Programme (EORP) European Endocarditis (EURO-ENDO) registry aims to study the care and outcomes of patients diagnosed with infective endocarditis (IE) and compare findings with recommendations from the 2015 ESC Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of IE and data from the 2001 Euro Heart Survey. Methods and results Patients (n = 3116) aged over 18 years with a diagnosis of IE based on the ESC 2015 IE diagnostic criteria were prospectively identified between 1 January 2016 and 31 March 2018. Individual patient data were collected across 156 centres and 40 countries. The primary endpoint is all-cause mortality in hospital and at 1 year. Secondary endpoints are 1-year morbidity (all-cause hospitalization, any cardiac surgery, and IE relapse), the clinical, epidemiological, microbiological, and therapeutic characteristics of patients, the number and timing of non-invasive imaging techniques, and adherence to recommendations as stated in the 2015 ESC Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of IE. Conclusion EURO-ENDO is an international registry of care and outcomes of patients hospitalized with IE which will provide insights into the contemporary profile and management of patients with this challenging disease.

Purpose: To investigate age-related differences in outcomes of critically ill patients with sepsis around the world., Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of data from the prospective ICON audit, in which all adult ( >16 years ) patients admitted to participating ICUs between May 8 and 18, 2012, were included, except admissions for routine postoperative observation. For this sub-analysis, the 10,012 patients with completed age data were included. They were divided into five age groups - 80 years. Sepsis was defined as infection plus at least one organ failure., Results: A total of 2963 patients had sepsis, with similar proportions across the age groups (80 = 30.9%). Hospital mortality increased with age and in patients >80 years was almost twice that of patients 70 years was independently associated with increased risk of dying., Conclusions: The odds for death in ICU patients with sepsis increased with age with the maximal rate of increase occurring between the ages of 71 and 77 years. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved., C1 [Kotfis, Katarzyna] Pomeranian Med Univ, Dept Anaesthesiol Intens Therapy & Acute Intoxica, Szczecin, Poland., [Wittebole, Xavier] UCL, Clin Univ St Luc, Dept Crit Care, Brussels, Belgium., [Jaschinski, Ulrich] Klinikum Augsburg, Klin Anasthesiol & Operat Intens Med, Augsburg, Germany., [Sole-Violan, Jordi] Hosp Univ Gran Canaria Dr Negrin, Dept Intens Care, Las Palmas Gran Canaria, Spain., [Kashyap, Rahul] Mayo Clin, Dept Anesthesia Ei Perioperat Med, Rochester, MN USA., [Leone, Marc] Aix Marseille Univ, Hop Nord, AP HM, Serv Anesthesie & Reanimat, Marseille, France., [Nanchal, Rahul] Med Coll Wisconsin, Dept Med, Milwaukee, WI 53226 USA., [Fontes, Luis E.] Hosp Alcides Carneiro, Petropolis Med Sch, Dept Intens Care & Evidence Based Med, Petropolis, Brazil., [Sakr, Yasser] Uniklinikum Jena, Dept Anesthesiol & Intens Care, Jena, Germany., [Vincent, Jean-Louis] Univ Libre Bruxelles, Erasme Univ Hosp, Dept Intens Care, Route Lenn 808, B-1070 Brussels, Belgium., [Tomas, E.] Clin Sagrada Esperanca, Luanda, Angola., [Bibonge, E. Amisi] Clin Univ Kinshasa, Kinshasa, DEM REP CONGO., [Charra, B.] Chu Ibn Rochd Casablanca, Casablanca, Morocco., [Faroudy, M.] Ibn Sina Hosp, Rabat, Morocco., [Doedens, L.] Chris Hani Baragwanath Acad Hosp, Soweto, South Africa., [Farina, Z.] Grays Hosp, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa., [Adler, D.] Sandton Medi Clin, Sandton, South Africa., [Balkema, C.] Tygerberg Hosp, Cape Town, South Africa., [Kok, A.] Union Hosp Alberton, Alberton, South Africa., [Alaya, S.] Bizerte Hosp, Bizerte, Tunisia., [Gharsallah, H.] Mil Hosp Tunis, Tunis, Tunisia., [Muzha, D.] Natl Trauma Ctr & Mil Hosp, Tirana, Albania., [Temelkov, A.] Alexandrovska Univ Hosp, Sofia, Bulgaria., [Georgiev, G.] Emergency Univ Hosp Pirogov, Sofia, Bulgaria., [Simeonov, G.] Tokuda Hosp Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria., [Tsaryanski, G.] Uh St Ekaterina Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria., [Georgiev, S.] Univ Hosp Obstet & Gynaecol, Sofia, Bulgaria., [Seliman, A.] Univ Hosp Sveta Marina Varna, Varna, Bulgaria., [Vrankovic, S.] Gen Hosp Siben, Shibenik, Croatia., [Vucicevic, Z.] Univ Hosp Ctr Sestre Milosrdnice, Zagreb, Croatia., [Gornik, I] Univ Hosp Ctr Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia., [Barsic, B.] Univ Hosp Infect Dis, Zagreb, Croatia., [Husedzinovic, I] Univ Hosp Dubrava, Zagreb, Croatia., [Pavlik, P.] Ctr Cardiovasc & Transplant Surg, Prague, Czech Republic., [Manak, J.] Charles Univ Hosp, Prague, Czech Republic., [Kieslichova, E.] IKEM, Prague, Czech Republic., [Turek, R.] KNTB Zlin AS, Prague, Czech Republic., [Fischer, M.] Krajska Nemocnice Liberec, Prague, Czech Republic., [Valkova, R.] Masarykova Nemocnice V Usti Labem, Labem, Czech Republic., [Dadak, L.] St Annes Univ Hosp Brno, Brno, Czech Republic., [Dostal, P.] Univ Hosp Haradec Kralove, Haradec Kralove, Czech Republic., [Malaska, J.] Univ Hosp Brno, Brno, Czech Republic., [Hajek, R.] Univ Hosp Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic., [Zidkova, A.] Univ Hosp Plzen, Plzen, Czech Republic., [Lavicka, P.] Charles Univ Hosp Plzen, Plzen, Czech Republic., [Starkopf, J.] Tartu Univ Hosp, Tartu, Estonia., [Kheladze, Z.] Crit Care Med Inst, Gainesville, Georgia., [Chkhaidze, M.] Jo Ann Med Ctr, Tbilisi, Georgia., [Kaloiani, V] Kipshidze Cent Univ Hosp, Tbilisi, Georgia., [Medve, L.] Dr Kenessey Albert Hosp, Balassagyarmat, Hungary., [Sarkany, A.] Fejer Cty St George Teaching Hosp, Szekesfehervar, Hungary., [Kremer, I] Flor Ferenc Cty Hosp, Budapest, Hungary., [Marjanek, Z.] Javorszky Odon Hosp, Vac, Hungary., [Tamasi, P.] Peterfy Hosp Budapest, Budapest, Hungary., [Krupnova, I] Infectol Ctr Latvia, Riga, Latvia., [Vanags, I] Paul Stradins Clin Univ Hosp, Riga, Latvia., [Liguts, V] Riga East Clin Univ Hosp, Riga, Latvia., [Pilvinis, V] Hosp Lithuanian Univ Hlth Sci Kauno Klinikos, Kaunas, Lithuania., [Vosylius, S.] Vilnius Univ Hosp, Vilnius, Lithuania., [Kekstas, G.] HSICU, Vilnius Univ Hosp Santariskiu Clin, Vilnius, Lithuania., [Balciunas, M.] CICU, Vilnius Univ Hosp Santariskiu Clin, Vilnius, Lithuania., [Kolbusz, A.] Csk Mswia, Warsaw, Poland., [Kubler, A.] Med Univ, Wroclaw, Poland., [Mielczarek, B.] Med Univ Wroclaw, Wroclaw, Poland., [Mikaszewska-Sokolewicz, M.] Med Univ Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland., [Kotfis, K.] Pomeranian Med Univ, Szczecin, Poland., [Tamowicz, B.] Reg Hosp Poznan, Poznan, Poland., [Sulkowski, W.] Szpital Powiatowy W Ostrowi Mazowieckiej, Ostrow Mazowiecka, Poland., [Smuszkiewicz, P.] Univ Hosp, Poznan, Poland., [Pihowicz, A.] Wojewodzki Szpital Zakazny, Torun, Poland., [Trejnowska, E.] Wojewodzkie Ctr Med, Warsaw, Poland., [Hagau, N.] Emergency Cty Hosp Cluj, Cluj Napoca, Romania., [Filipescu, D.] Emergency Inst Cardiovasc Dis, Bucharest, Romania., [Droc, G.] Fundeni Clin Inst, Bucharest, Romania., [Lupu, M.] Galati Hosp, Bucharest, Romania., [Nica, A.] Lnbi Prof Dr Matei Bals, Bucharest, Romania., [Stoica, R.] Inst Pulmonol Marius Nasta, Bucharest, Romania., [Tomescu, D.] Inst Clin Fundeni, Bucharest, Romania., [Constantinescu, D.] Sfantul Pantelimon Hosp, Bucharest, Romania., [Zbaganu, G. Valcoreanu] Spitalul Cf 2 Bucuresti, Bucharest, Romania., [Slavcovici, A.] Iuliu Hatieganu Univ Med & Pharm, Teaching Hosp Infect Dis, Cluj Napoca, Romania., [Bagin, V] City Clin Hosp 40, St Petersburg, Russia., [Belsky, D.] City Hosp 40, St Petersburg, Russia., [Palyutin, S.] Clin Hosp NVNV Solovyev, Yaroslavl, Russia., [Shlyapnikov, S.] Emergency Res Inst NA Djanelidze, St Petersburg, Russia., [Bikkulova, D.] Fed Res Ctr Paediat Haematol Oncol & Immunol, Moscow, Russia., [Gritsan, A.] Krasnoyarsk State Med Univ, Krasnoyarsk Reg Hosp, Krasnoyarsk, Russia., [Natalia, G.] Med Assoc Novaya Bolnitsa, Ekaterinburg, Russia., [Makarenko, E.] Mil Med Acad, Ekaterinburg, Russia., [Kokhno, V] Novosibirsk Med Univ, Novosibirsk, Russia., [Tolkach, A.] Omsk Reg Clin Hosp, Omsk, Russia., [Kokarev, E.] Railway Hosp Khabarovsk, Khabarovsk, Russia., [Belotserkovskiy, B.] St Alexy Hosp, St Louis, France., [Zolotukhin, K.] State Dist Hosp, Moscow, Russia., [Kulabukhov, V] Vishnevsky Inst Surg, Moscow, Russia., [Soskic, L.] Clin Ctr Serbia, Clin Cardiac Surg, Belgrade, Serbia., [Palibrk, I] Clin Ctr Serbia, Clin Digest Surg, Belgrade, Serbia., [Jankovic, R.; Jovanovic, B.] Clin Ctr Nis, Clin Vasc Surg, Nish, Serbia., [Pandurovic, M.] Clin Ctr Serbia, Emergency Ctr, Belgrade, Serbia., [Bumbasirevic, V] Clin Ctr Belgrade, Emergency Ctr, Belgrade, Serbia., [Uljarevic, B.] Gen Univ Hosp, Belgrade, Serbia., [Surbatovic, M.] Mil Med Acad, Belgrade, Serbia., [Ladjevic, N.] Urol Hosp, Belgrade, Serbia., [Slobodianiuk, G.] Dist Hosp, Bratislava, Slovakia., [Sobona, V] Fac Hosp, Bratislava, Slovakia., [Cikova, A.] Univ Hosp Bratislava, Hosp Ruzinov ICU, Bratislava, Slovakia., [Gebhardtova, A.] Univ Hosp Ruzinov Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovakia., [Jun, C.] Qingdao Univ, Tertiary Hosp, Qingdao, Shandong, Peoples R China., [Yunbo, S.] Qingdao Univ, Affiliated Hosp, Med Coll, Qingdao, Shandong, Peoples R China., [Dong, U.] Beijing Canc Hosp, Beijing Inst Canc Res, Beijing, Peoples R China., [Feng, S.] Beijing Chaoyang Hosp, Beijing, Peoples R China., [Duan, M.] Beijing Friendship Hosp, Beijing, Peoples R China., [Xu, Y.] Capital Med Univ, Beijing Tongren Hosp, Beijing, Peoples R China., [Xue, X.] Beijing Univ Peoples Hosp, Beijing, Peoples R China., [Gao, T.] Beijing Luhe Hosp, Beijing, Peoples R China., [Xing, X.] Chinese Acad Med Sci, Canc Hosp, Beijing, Peoples R China., [Zhao, X.] China Acad Chinese Med Sci, Guang An Men Hosp, Beijing, Peoples R China., [Li, C.] Peoples Hosp, Chuxiong, Yunnan, Peoples R China., [Gengxihua, G.] Donge Cty Peoples Hosp Shandong Prov, Liaocheng, Shandong, Peoples R China., [Tan, H.] Chinese Acad Med Sci, Fu Wai Hosp, Beijing, Peoples R China., [Xu, J.] Fujian Prov Hosp, Fuzhou, Fujian, Peoples R China., [Jiang, L.] Capital Med Univ, Fuxing Hosp, Beijing, Peoples R China., [Tiehe, Q.] Guangdong Gen Hosp, Guangzhou, Guangdong, Peoples R China., [Bingyu, Q.] Henan Prov Peoples Hosp, Zhengzhou, Henan, Peoples R China., [Shi, Q.] Xi An Jiao Tong Univ, Coll Med, Xian, Shaanxi, Peoples R China., [Lv, Z.] Kunming Third Peoples Hosp, Kunming, Yunnan, Peoples R China., [Zhang, L.] Lanzhou Univ, Hosp 2, Lanzhou, Gansu, Peoples R China., [Jingtao, L.] 309th Hosp, Beijing, Peoples R China., [Zhen, Z.] China Med Univ, Hosp 1, Beijing, Peoples R China., [Wang, Z.] Peking Univ, Shougang Hosp, Beijing, Peoples R China., [Wang, T.] Peking Univ, Hosp 3, Beijing, Peoples R China., [Yuhong, L.] Pla Navy Gen Hosp, Beijing, Peoples R China., [Zhai, Q.] Shandong Univ, Qilu Hosp, Jinan, Shandong, Peoples R China., [Chen, Y.] Jiaotong Univ, Affiliated Med Sch, Ruijin Hosp, Shanghai, Peoples R China., [Wang, C.] Shandong Prov Hosp, Jinan, Shandong, Peoples R China., [Jiang, W.] Shanghai 10th Peoples Hosp, Shanghai, Peoples R China., [Ruilan, W.] Shanghai First Peoples Hosp, Shanghai, Peoples R China., [Chen, Y.; Xiaobo, H.] Sichuan Prov Peoples Hosp, Chengdu, Sichuan, Peoples R China., [Ge, H.] Sir Run Run Shaw Hosp, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, Peoples R China., [Yan, T.] Affiliated Guiyang Med Coll, Guiyang, Guizhou, Peoples R China., [Yuhui, C.] Fudan Univ, Peoples Hosp Shanghai 5, Shanghai, Peoples R China., [Zhang, J.] Dalian Med Univ, Affiliated Hosp 1, Dalian, Peoples R China., [Jian-Hong, F.] Suzhou Univ, Affiliated Hosp 1, Suzhou, Peoples R China., [Zhu, H.] Xinjiang Med Univ, Affiliated Hosp 1, Urumqi, Peoples R China., [Huo, F.; Wang, Y.] Jilin Univ, Hosp 1, Changchun, Jilin, Peoples R China., [Li, C.] First Peoples Hosp Kunming, Kunming, Yunnan, Peoples R China., [Zhuang, M.] Gen Hosp Shenyang Mil Reg, Shenyang, Liaoning, Peoples R China., [Ma, Z.] Peoples Hosp Cangzhou, Cangzhou, Peoples R China., [Sun, J.] Jilin Univ, Hosp 2, Changchun, Jilin, Peoples R China., [Liuqingyue, L.] Second Peoples Hosp Liaocheng City Shandong Prov, Liaocheng, Shandong, Peoples R China., [Yang, M.] Third Xiangya Hosp, Changsha, Hunan, Peoples R China., [Meng, J.] Tongde Hosp Zhejiang Prov, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, Peoples R China., [Ma, S.] Tongji Univ, Shanghai East Hosp, Shanghai, Peoples R China., [Kang, Y.] West China Hosp, Scu, Peoples R China., [Yu, L.] Wuhan Ctr Hosp, Wuhan, Hubei, Peoples R China., [Peng, Q.] Xiangya Hosp, Changsha, Hunan, Peoples R China., [Wei, Y.] Yantai Yuhuangding Hosp, Yantai, Peoples R China., [Zhang, W.] Yantaishan Hosp, Yantai, Shandong, Peoples R China., [Sun, R.] Zhejiang Prov Peoples Hosp, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, Peoples R China., [Yeung, A.] Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hosp, Hong Kong, Peoples R China., [Wan, W.] Princess Margaret Hosp, Hong Kong, Peoples R China., [Sin, K.] Queen Elizabeth Hosp, Hong Kong, Peoples R China., [Lee, K.] United Christian Hosp Hong Kong SAR, Hong Kong, Peoples R China., [Wijanti, M.] Anestesi, Yogyakarta, Indonesia., [Widodo, U.] Pku Muhammadiyah Bantu, Yogyakarta, Indonesia., [Samsirun, H.] Rd Mattaher Hosp Jambi, Jambi City, Indonesia., [Sugiman, T.] Rumah Sakit Pantai Lndah Kapuk, North Jakarta, Indonesia., [Wisudarti, C.] Sardjito Hosp, Yogyakarta, Indonesia., [Maskoen, T.] Sch Med Unpad, Hasan Sadikin Hosp, Bandung, Indonesia., [Hata, N.] Nippon Med Sch, Chiba Hokusoh Hosp, Inzai, Japan., [Kobe, Y.] Chiba Univ Hosp, Chiba, Japan., [Nishida, O.] Fujita Hlth Univ, Sch Med, Toyoake, Aichi, Japan., [Miyazaki, D.] Japanese Red Cross Maebashi Hosp, Maebashi, Gumma, Japan., [Nunomiya, S.] Jichi Med Univ Hosp, Shimotsuke, Japan., [Uchino, S.] Jikei Univ, Sch Med, Tokyo, Japan., [Kitamura, N.] Kimitsu Chuo Hosp, Kisarazu, Japan., [Yamashita, K.] Kochi Med Sch, Nankoku, Kochi, Japan., [Hashimoto, S.] Kyoto Prefectural Univ Med, Kyoto, Japan., [Fukushima, H.] Nara Med Univ Hosp, Kashihara, Nara, Japan., [Adib, N. Nik] Hosp Sultanah Nur Zahirah, Kuala Terengganu, Terengganu, Malaysia., [Tai, L.] Kuala Lumpur Hosp, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia., [Tony, B.] Queen Elizabeth Hosp 2, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia., [Bigornia, R.] Cebu Velez Gen Hosp, Cebu, Philippines., [Bigornia, R.] Perpetual Succour Hosp, Cebu, Philippines., [Palo, J.] Med City, Pasig, Philippines., [Chatterjee, S.] Alexandra Hosp, Singapore, Singapore., [Tan, B.] Natl Univ Hlth Syst, Singapore, Singapore., [Kong, A.] Singapore Gen Hosp, Singapore, Singapore., [Goh, S.] Tan Tock Seng Hosp, Singapore, Singapore., [Lee, C.] Natl Taiwan Univ Hosp, Taipei, Taiwan., [Pothirat, C.] Chiaingmai Univ, Maharaj Nakorn Chiangmai Hosp, Chiang Mai, Thailand., [Khwannimit, B.] Prince Songkla Univ, Hat Yai, Thailand., [Theerawit, P.] Ramathibodi Hosp, Bangkok, Thailand., [Pornsuriyasak, P.] Ramathibodi Hosp, Somdech Phra Debaratana Med Ctr, Bangkok, Thailand., [Piriyapatsom, A.] Mahidol Univ, Siriraj Hosp, Bangkok, Thailand., [Mukhtar, A.] Cairo Univ, Giza, Egypt., [Dsicu] Demerdash Surg Intens Care Unit, Cairo, Egypt., [Hamdy, A. Nabil] Ain Shams Fac Med, Cairo, Egypt., [Hosny, H.] Zaitoun Specialized Hosp, Cairo, Egypt., [Ashraf, A.] Gums, Tehran, Iran., [Mokhtari, M.] Sbums, Imam Hossein Hosp, Tehran, Iran., [Nowruzinia, S.] Imamreza Hosp, Mashhad, Razavi Khorasan, Iran., [Lotfi, A.] Laleh Hosp, Tehran, Iran., [Zand, F.] Shiraz Anesthesiol & Crit Care Res Ctr, Shiraz, Iran., [Nikandish, R.] Shiraz Univ Med Sci, Shiraz, Iran., [Moghaddam, O. Moradi] Tehran Med Sci Univ, Tehran, Iran., [Cohen, J.] Rabin Med Ctr, Petah Tiqwa, Israel., [Sold, O.] Sourasky Tel Aviv Med Ctr, Tel Aviv, Israel., [Sfeir, T.] Ctr Hosp Nord, Ettelbruck, Luxembourg., [Hasan, A.] Sohar Hosp, Sohar, Oman., [Abugaber, D.] Specialized Arab Hosp, Nablus, Palestine., [Ahmad, H.] Almana Gen Hosp, Khobar, Saudi Arabia., [Tantawy, T.] KFSHRC, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia., [Baharoom, S.] King Abdulaziz Med City Riyadh, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia., [Algethamy, H.] King Abdulaziz Univ, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia., [Amr, A.] King Saud Med City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia., [Almekhlafi, G.] Riyadh Mil Hosp, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia., [Coskun, R.] Erciyes Univ, Med Fac, Kayseri, Turkey., [Sungur, M.] Erciyes Univ, Med Sch, Kayseri, Turkey., [Cosar, A.] Gulhane Mil Med Acad, Ankara, Turkey., [Gucyetmez, B.] Int Hosp, Istanbul, Turkey., [Demirkiran, O.] Istanbul Univ, Cerrahpasa Med Sch Hosp, Istanbul, Turkey., [Senturk, E.] Istanbul Univ, Istanbul Med Fac, Istanbul, Turkey., [Ulusoy, H.] Karadeniz Tech Univ, Med Fac, Trabzon, Turkey., [Atalan, H.] Mem Atasehir Hosp, Istanbul, Turkey., [Serin, S.] Pamukkale Univ, Denizli, Turkey., [Kati, I] Yuzuncu Yil Univ, Med Fac, Van, Turkey., [Alnassrawi, Z.] Dubai Hosp, Dubai, U Arab Emirates., [Almemari, A.] Mafraq Hosp, Abu Dhabi, U Arab Emirates., [Krishnareddy, K.] Sheikh Khalifa Med City, Abu Dhabi, U Arab Emirates., [Kashef, S.] Tawam Hosp, Al Ain, U Arab Emirates., [Alsabbah, A.] City Hosp, Dubai, U Arab Emirates., [Poirier, G.] Hop Charles Lemoyne, Longueuil, PQ, Canada., [Marshall, J.] St Michaels Hosp, Toronto, ON, Canada., [Herridge, M.] Toronto Gen Hosp, Toronto, ON, Canada., [Herridge, M.] Toronto Western Hosp, Toronto, ON, Canada., [Fernandez-Medero, R.] San Juan Hosp, San Juan, PR USA., [Fulda, G.] Christiana Care Hlth Syst, Newark, DE USA., [Banschbach, S.] Cincinnati Childrens Hosp Med Ctr, Cincinnati, OH 45229 USA., [Quintero, J.] El Camino Hosp, Mountain View, CA USA., [Schroeder, E.] George Washington Hosp, Washington, DC USA., [Sicoutris, C.] Hosp Univ Penn, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA., [Gueret, R.] John H Stroger Hosp Cook Cty, Chicago, IL USA., [Kashyap, R.] Mayo Clin, CCM, Rochester, MN USA., [Bauer, P.] Mayo Clin, PCC, Rochester, MN USA., [Nanchal, R.] Med Coll Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53226 USA., [Wunderink, R.] Northwestern Mem Hosp, Chicago, IL 60611 USA., [Jimenez, E.] Orlando Reg Med Ctr Inc, Orlando, FL USA., [Ryan, A.] Washington Hosp Ctr, Washington, DC 20010 USA., [Ryan, A.] Washington Hosp Ctr, 2H, Washington, DC USA., [Ryan, A.] Washington Hosp Ctr, 2G, Washington, DC USA., [Ryan, A.] Washington Hosp Ctr, 3H, Washington, DC USA., [Ryan, A.] Washington Hosp Ctr, 3G, Washington, DC USA., [Ryan, A.] Washington Hosp Ctr, 4H, Washington, DC USA., [Ryan, A.] Washington Hosp Ctr, CVRR, Washington, DC USA., [Prince, D.] Armadale Hlth Serv, Mount Nasura, WA, Australia., [Edington, J.] Bendigo Hosp, Bendigo, Vic, Australia., [Van Haren, F.] Canberra Hosp, Canberra, ACT, Australia., [Bersten, A.] Flinders Med Ctr, Bedford Pk, SA, Australia., [Hawkins, D. J.] Joondalup Hlth Campus, Joondalup, WA, Australia., [Kilminster, M.] Lismore Base Hosp, Lismore, NSW, Australia., [Sturgess, D.] Mater Adult Hosp, South Brisbane, Qld, Australia., [Ziegenfuss, M.] Prince Charles Hosp, Brisbane, Qld, Australia., [O'Connor, S.] Royal Adelaide Hosp, Adelaide, SA, Australia., [Lipman, J.] Royal Brisbane & Womens Hosp, Brisbane, Qld, Australia., [Campbell, L.] Royal Darwin Hosp, Tiwi, NT, Australia., [Mcallister, R.] Royal Hobart Hosp, Hobart, Tas, Australia., [Roberts, B.] Sir Charles Gairdner Hosp, Nedlands, WA, Australia., [Williams, P.] Queen Elizabeth Hosp, Woodville, SA, Australia., [Parke, R.] Auckland Dist Hlth Board, Auckland, New Zealand., [Seigne, P.] Christchurch Hosp, Christchurch, New Zealand., [Freebairn, R.] Hawkes Bay Hosp, Hastings, New Zealand., [Nistor, D.] Palmerston North Hosp, Midcent Hlth, Palmerston North, New Zealand., [Oxley, C.] Middlemore Hosp, Auckland, New Zealand., [Young, P.] Wellington Hosp, Wellington, New Zealand., [Valentini, R.] Cemic, Buenos Aires, DF, Argentina., [Wainsztein, N.] Fleni, Buenos Aires, DF, Argentina., [Comignani, P.] Hosp Aleman, Buenos Aires, DF, Argentina., [Casaretto, M.] Hosp Cent San Isidro, Buenos Aires, DF, Argentina., [Sutton, G.] Hosp Fernandez, Buenos Aires, DF, Argentina., [Villegas, P.] Hosp Francisco Lopez Lima Area Programa Gen Roca, Gen Roca, Argentina., [Galletti, C.] Sanatorio Allende, Cordoba, Argentina., [Neira, J.] Sanatorio Trinidad Palermo, Buenos Aires, DF, Argentina., [Rovira, D.] Sanatorio Julio Corzo Rosario, Rosario, Santa Fe, Argentina., [Hidalgo, J.] Karl Heusner Mem Hosp, Belize City, Belize., [Hidalgo, J.] Belize Healthcare Partner, Belize City, Belize., [Sandi, F.] Hosp Obrero 1, La Paz, Bolivia., [Caser, E.] Cias Unimed Vitoria, Vitoria, ES, Brazil., [Thompson, M.] Evangelical Hosp Cachoeiro De Itapemirim, Cachoeiro De Itapemirim, Brazil., [D'agostino Dias, M.] Hosp 9 Julho, Sao Paulo, Brazil., [Fontes, L.] Hosp Alcides Carneiro, Petropolis, Brazil., [Lunardi, M.] Hosp Clin Luzia De Pinho Melo, Mogi Das Cruzes, Brazil., [Youssef, N.] Hosp Nacoes Curitiba, Curitiba, Parana, Brazil., [Lobo, S.] Hosp Base Famerp, Sao Jose Do Rio Preto, Brazil., [Silva, R.] Hosp Clin Niteroi, Niteroi, RJ, Brazil., [Sales Jr, J.] Hosp Clin Padre Miguel, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil., [Madeira Campos Melo, L.] Hosp Terapia Intens, Sao Paulo, Brazil., [Oliveira, M.] Hosp Trabalhador, Curitiba, Parana, Brazil., [Fonte, M.] Hosp Esperanza, Olinda, PE, Brazil., [Grion, C.] Hosp Evangel Londrina, Londrina, Brazil., [Feijo, C.] Hosp Geral Fortaleza, Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil., [Rezende, V] Hosp Geral Roraima, Boa Vista, Brazil., [Assuncao, M.] Hosp Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo, Brazil., [Neves, A.] Hosp Mater Dei, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil., [Gusman, P.; Dalcomune, D.] Hosp Meridional, Cariacica, ES, Brazil., [Teixeira, C.] Hosp Moinhos Vento, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil., [Kaefer, K.] Hosp Municipal Ruth Cardoso, Balneario, Brazil., [Maia, I] Hosp Nereu Ramos, Florianopolis, SC, Brazil., [Souza Dantas, V] Hosp Pasteur, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil., [Costa Filho, R.] Hosp Pro Cardiaco, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil., [Amorim, F.] Hosp Reg Samambaia, Brasilia, DF, Brazil., [Assef, M.] Hosp Reg Hans Dieter Schmidt, Joinville, Brazil., [Schiavetto, P.] Hosp Santa Casa Campo Mourao, Campo Mourao, PR, Brazil., [Houly, J.] Hosp Santa Paula, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil., [Houly, J.] Hosp Santapaula, Sao Paulo, Brazil., [Bianchi, F.] Hosp Sao Jose Avai, Itaperuna, RJ, Brazil., [Dias, F.] Hosp Sao Lucas Pucrs, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil., [Avila, C.] Hosp Sao Vicente Paula, Rio De Janeiro, RJ, Brazil., [Gomez, J.] Hosp Sao Vicente Paulo, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil., [Rego, L.] Hosp Saude Mulher, Belem, Para, Brazil., [Castro, P.] Hosp Tacchini, Bento Goncalves, RS, Brazil., [Passos, J.] Hosp Unimed Costa Do Sol Macae Rj, Macae, RJ, Brazil., [Mendes, C.] Hosp Univ Ufpb Joao Pessoa, Joao Pessoa, Paraiba, Brazil., [Grion, C.] Hosp Univ Londrina, Londrina, Brazil., [Colozza Mecatti, G.] Hosp Univ Sao Francisco, Braganca Paulista, SP, Brazil., [Ferrreira, M.] Santa Casa Caridade Diamantina, Diamantina, MG, Brazil., [Irineu, V] Santa Casa Misericordia Tatui, Tatui, Brazil., [Guerreiro, M.] Sao Francisco de Paula Hosp, Sao Francisco De Paula, RS, Brazil., [Ugarte, S.] Clin Indisa, Providencia, Chile., [Tomicic, V] Clin Las Lilas, Providencia, Chile., [Godoy, C.] Hosp Carlos Van Buren, Valparaiso, Chile., [Samaniego, W.] Hosp Trabajador Santiago, Santiago, Chile., [Escamilla, I] Hosp El Pino, San Bernardo, Chile., [Escamilla, I] Hosp Mutual De Seguridad, Santiago, Chile., [Castro Castro, L.] Ctr Med Imbanaco, Valle Del Cauca, Colombia., [Libreros Duque, G.] Clin Colombia Cali, Cali, Colombia., [Diaz-Guio, D.] Clin Del Cafe, Armenia, Colombia., [Benitez, F.] Clin La Estancia SA, Popayan, Colombia., [Guerra Urrego, A.] Clin Medellin, Medellin, Colombia., [Buitrago, R.] Fdn Clin Shaio, Bogota, Colombia., [Ortiz, G.] Hosp Santa Clara, Bogota, Colombia., [Villalba Gaviria, M.] Hosp Univ Fdn Santa Fe De Bogota, Bogota, Colombia., [Salas, D.] Calderon Guardia Hosp, San Jose, Costa Rica., [Ramirez-Arce, J.] Hosp Dr Rafael Angel Varlderon Guardia Ccss, San Jose, Costa Rica., [Salgado, E.] Clin La Merced, Quito, Ecuador., [Morocho, D.] Hosp Eugenio Espejo, Quito, Ecuador., [Vergara, J.] Hosp Luis Vernaza, Quito, Ecuador., [Chung Sang, M.] Shdug Sistema Hosp Docente De La Univ Guayaquil, Quito, Ecuador., [Orellana-Jimenez, C.] Gen Hosp, San Salvador, El Salvador., [Garrido, L.] Hosp Ctr Med, Guatemala City, Guatemala., [Diaz, O.] Inst Hondureno Seguro Social, La Ceiba, Honduras., [Resiere, D.] Ctr Hosp Univ Ft De France, Fort De France, Martinique, France., [Osorio, C.] Ctr Estatal Cuidados Crit, Salamanca, Mexico., [De La Vega, A.] Ctr Med Nacl 20 Noviembre Issste, Mexico City, DF, Mexico., [Carrillo, R.] Fdn Clin Med Sur, Mexico City, DF, Mexico., [Sanchez, V] Hosp San Jose TEC Monterrey, Monterrey, Mexico., [Villagomez, A.] Hosp 1 Octubre, Issste, Mexico., [Martinez Zubieta, R.] Hosp Espanol Mexico, Mexico City, DF, Mexico., [Sandia, M.] Hosp Gen Ajusco Medio, Mexico City, DF, Mexico., [Zalatiel, M.] Hosp Gen Guadalupe Victoria, Texcoco, Mexico., [Poblano, M.] Hosp Juarez Mexico, Mexico City, DF, Mexico., [Rodriguez Gonzalez, D.] Hosp Civil Guadalajara, Hspitaljuan I Menchaca, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico., [Arrazola, F.; Juan Francisco, L.] Inst Mexicano Seguro Social, Mexico City, DF, Mexico., [Liamendys-Silva, S. A.] Inst Nacl Cancerol, Mexico City, DF, Mexico., [Hernandez, M.] ISSSTE Guerra Moya, Mexico City, DF, Mexico., [Hernandez, M.] Med Ctr ISSEMYM Toluca, Mexico City, DF, Mexico., [Rodriguez Cadena, D.] Mixta, Mexico City, DF, Mexico., [Lopez Islas, I.] Secretaria Salud Dist Fed, Mexico City, DF, Mexico., [Ballesteros Zarzavilla, C.] Hosp Santo Comas, Panama City, Panama., [Matos, A.] Social Secur Hosp, La Chorrera, Panama., [Oyanguren, I] Clin Anglo Amer, Lima, Peru., [Cerna, J.] Essalud, Lima, Peru., [Quispe Sierra, R.] Hosp Nacl Dos De Mayo, Lima, Peru., [Jimenez, R.] Hosp Rebagliati, Lince Dist, Peru., [Castillo, L.] Inst Nacl Enfermedades Neoplas, Surquillo, Peru., [Ocal, R.] Gulhane Med Fac, Istanbul, Turkey., [Sencan, A.] Izmir Ataturk Educ & Res Hosp, Izmir, Turkey., [Gianoni, S. Mareque] CAMS, Montevideo, Uruguay., [Deicas, A.] CASMU, Montevideo, Uruguay., [Hurtado, J.] Hosp Espanol Asse, Montevideo, Uruguay., [Burghi, G.] Hosp Maciel, Montevideo, Uruguay., [Martinelli, A.] Ctr Med Caracas, Caracas, Venezuela., [Von der Osten, I] Hosp Miguel Perez Carreno, Caracas, Venezuela., [Du Maine, C.] MSF Trauma Hosp Kunduz, Kunduz, Afghanistan., [Bhattacharyya, M.] Amri Hosp, Kolkata, India., [Bandyopadhyay, S.] Amri Hosp Salt Lake, Kolkata, W Bengal, India., [Yanamala, S.] Apollo Hosp, Hyderabad, India., [Gopal, P.] Apollo Hosp, Bangalore, Karnataka, India., [Sahu, S.] Apollo Hosp, Bhubaneswar, India., [Ibrahim, M.] Apollo Special Hosp, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India., [Rathod, D.] Asian Heart Inst, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India., [Mukundan, N.] Baby Mem Hosp Ltd, Calicut, Kerala, India., [Dewan, A.] Batra Hosp & Mrc, New Delhi 110062, India., [Amin, P.] Bombay Hosp Inst Med Sci, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India., [Samavedam, S.] Care Hosp, Hyderabad, India., [Shah, B.] Cims Hosp, Ahmadabad, Gujarat, India., [Gurupal, D.] Columbiaasia Hosp, Mysore, Karnataka, India., [Lahkar, B.] Dispur Hosp, Gauhati, India., [Mandal, A.] Fortis Hosp, Bangalore, Karnataka, India., [Sircar, M.] Fortis Hosp, Noida, India., [Ghosh, S.] Fortis Escorts Hosp, Faridabad, India., [Balasubramani, V] Ganga Med Ctr & Hosp P Ltd, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India., [Kapadia, F.] Hinduja Hosp, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India., [Vadi, S.] KDAH, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India., [Nair, K.] Kerala Inst Med Sci, RMCC, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India., [Tripathy, S.] Kalinga Inst Med Sci, DTEM, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India., [Nandakumar, S.] Kovai Med Ctr & Hosp, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India., [Sharma, J.] Medanta Medic, Gurgaon, India., [Kar, A.] Med Superspecialty Hosp, Kolkata, W Bengal, India., [Jha, S.] Metro Heart Inst Multispecial, Faridabad, India., [Gurav, K. Zirpe] Ruby Hall Pune, Pune, Maharashtra, India., [Patel, M.] Saifee Hosp, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India., [Bhaysar, A.] Spandan Multispecial Hosp, Vadodara, India., [Samaddar, D.] Tata Main Hosp, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, India., [Kulkarni, A.] Tata Mem Hosp, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India., [Hashmi, M.] Aga Khan Univ, Karachi, Pakistan., [Ali, W.] Hearts Int Hosp, Rawalpindi, Pakistan., [Nadeem, S.] Liaquat Natl Hosp, Karachi, Pakistan., [Indraratna, K.] Sri Jayewardenepura Gen Hosp, Sri Jayawardenepura Kott, Sri Lanka., [Margarit, A.] Hosp Nostra Senyora Meritxell, Les Escaldes, Andorra., [Urbanek, P.] Akh Wien, Vienna, Austria., [Schlieber, J.] Allgemeines & Orthopad Landeskrankenhaus Stolzalp, Stolzalpe, Austria., [Reisinger, J.] Barmherzige Schwestern Linz, Linz, Austria., [Auer, U.] Gen Hosp Braunau, Braunau, Austria., [Hartjes, A.] Krankenhaus D Barmherzigen Schwestern Ried II, Ried Im Innkreis, Austria., [Lerche, A.] Krankenhaus Floridsdorf, Vienna, Austria., [Janous, T.] LK Gmund Waidhofen Thaya Zwettl, Standort Zwettl, Austria., [Kink, E.] LKH Horgas Enzenbach, Gratwein, Austria., [Krahulec, W.] LKH West, Graz, Austria., [Smolle, K.] Univ Hosp, Graz, Austria., [Van der Schueren, M.] AZ Groeninge Kortrijk, Kortrijk, Belgium., [Thibo, P.] AZ Jan Palfijn Gent, Ghent, Belgium., [Vanhoof, M.] AZ Turnhout, Turnhout, Belgium., [Ahmet, I] Bracops Anderlecht, Anderlecht, Belgium., [Gadisseux, P.] Ctr Hosp Mouscron, Mouscron, Belgium., [Dufaye, P.] CH Peltzer La Tourelle, Verviers, Belgium., [Jacobs, O.] Chirec Edith Cavell, Auderghem, Belgium., [Fraipont, V] CHR Citadelle, Liege, Belgium., [Biston, P.] CHU Charleroi, Charleroi, Belgium., [Dive, A.] CHU Mt Godinne, Yvoir, Belgium., [Bouckaert, Y.] CHU Tivoli, La Louviere, Belgium., [Gilbert, E.] CHwapi, Tournai, Belgium., [Gressens, B.] Clin St Pierre Ottignies, Ottignies, Belgium., [Pinck, E.] Clin Maternite St Elisabeth, Namur, Belgium., [Collin, V] Clin Europe St Michel, Etterbeek, Belgium., [Vincent, J. L.] Erasme Univ Hosp, Anderlecht, Belgium., [De Waele, J.] Ghent Univ Hosp, Ghent, Belgium., [Rimachi, R.] Moliere Hosp, Forest, Belgium., [Gusu, D.] Notre Dame, Brussels, Belgium., [De Decker, K.] Onze Lieve Vrouw Hosp, Aalst, Belgium., [Mandianga, K.] Ixelles Hosp, Ixelles, Belgium., [Heytens, L.] Sint Augustinus, Antwerp, Belgium., [Wittebole, X.] St Luc Univ Hosp UCL, Brussels, Belgium., [Spapen, H.] UZ Brussel, Brussels, Belgium., [Olivier, V] Vivalia Site Libramt, Libramont, Belgium., [Vandenheede, W.] VZW Gezondheidszorg Oostkust Knokke Heist, Knokke Heist, Belgium., [Rogiers, P.] ZNA Middelheim, Antwerp, Belgium., [Kolodzeike, P.] Herning Hosp, Herning, Denmark., [Kruse, M.] Hjoerring Hosp, Hjorring, Denmark., [Andersen, T.] Vejle Hosp, Vejle, Denmark., [Harjola, V] Helsinki Univ Cent Hosp, Helsinki, Finland., [Saarinen, K.] Seinajoki Cent Hosp, Seinajoki, Finland., [Leone, M.] Aix Marseille Univ, Hop Nord, Marseille, France., [Durocher, A.] Calmette Hosp, Lille, France., [Moulront, S.] Ctr Hosp Dunkerque, Dunkerque, France., [Lepape, A.] Ctr Hosp Lyon Sud, Lyon, France., [Losser, M.] CHU Nancy Brabois, Nancy, France., [Cabaret, P.] CH St Philibert, GHICL, Lille, France., [Kalaitzis, E.] CHR Dax, Dax, France., [Zogheib, E.] CHU Amiens, Amiens, France., [Charve, P.] CHU Dijon, Dijon, France., [Francois, B.] CHU Dupuytren, Limoges, France., [Lefrant, J. Y.] CHU Nimes, Nimes, France., [Beilouny, B.] Ctr Hosp Troyes, Troyes, France., [Forceville, X.] Ctr Hosp Meaux, Grp Hosp Est Francilien, Meaux, France., [Misset, B.] Grp Hosp Paris St Joseph, Paris, France., [Jacobs, F.] Hop Antoine Beclere, Clamart, France., [Floccard, B.] Hop Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France., [Payen, D.] Hop Lariboisere, AP HP, Paris, France., [Wynckel, A.] Hop Maison Blanche, Reims, France., [Castelain, V] Hop Univ Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France., [Faure, A.] Hosp Civils Lyon, Lyon, France., [Lavagne, P.] CHU Grenoble, Grenoble, France., [Thierry, I] CHU Nantes, Nantes, France., [Moussa, M.] CHRU Lille, Reanimat Chirurg Cardiovasc, Lille, France., [Vieillard-Baron, A.] Univ Hosp Ambroise Pare, Boulogne, France., [Durand, M.] Univ Hosp Grenoble, La Tronche, France., [Gainnier, M.] Univ Hosp Marseille, Marseille, France., [Ichai, C.] Univ Nice, Nice, France., [Arens, S.] Alexianer Krefeld Gmbh, Krefeld, Germany., [Hoffmann, C.] Charite Hochschulmed Berlin, Berlin, Germany., [Kaffarnik, M.] Charite, Berlin, Germany., [Scharnofske, C.] Diakoniekrankenhaus Henriettenstiftung Gmbh, Hannover, Germany., [Voigt, I] Elisabeth Krankenhaus Essen, Essen, Germany., [Peckelsen, C.] Munich Municipal Hosp Grp, Harlaching Hosp, Munich, Germany., [Weber, M.] Helios St Johannes Klin, Duisburg, Germany., [Gille, J.] Hosp St Georg Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany., [Lange, A.] Klin Hennigsdorf Oberhavel Kliniken Gmbh, Hennigsdorf, Germany., [Schoser, G.] Klin Tettnang, Tettnang, Germany., [Sablotzki, A.] Klinikum St Georg Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany., [Jaschinski, U.; Bluethgen, A.] Klinikum Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany., [Vogel, F.] Klinikum Bremen Mitte, Bremen, Germany., [Tscheu, A.] Klinikum Bremen Ost, Bremen, Germany., [Fuchs, T.] Klinikum Heidenheim, Heidenheim, Germany., [Wattenberg, M.] Klinikum Links Weser Gmbh, Bremen, Germany., [Helmes, T.] Klinikum Luedenscheid, Luedenscheid, Germany., [Scieszka, S.] Krankenhaus Neuwerk, Monchengladbach, Germany., [Heintz, M.] Marienkrankenhaus Schwerte, Schwerte, Germany., [Sakka, S.] Med Ctr Cologne Merheim, Cologne, Germany., [Kohler, J.] Schwarzwald Baar Klinikum Villingen Schwenningen, Villingen Schwenningen, Germany., [Fiedler, F.] St Elisabeth Krankenhaus Koln Hohenlind, Cologne, Germany., [Danz, M.] St Martinus Hosp Olpe, Olpe, Germany., [Sakr, Y.] Uniklinikum Jena, Jena, Germany., [Riessen, R.] Univ Klinikum Tubingen, Tubingen, Germany., [Kerz, T.] Univ Med Mainz, Mainz, Germany., [Kersten, A.] Univ Hosp Aachen, CPACC, Aachen, Germany., [Tacke, F.] Univ Hosp Aachen, DMIII, Aachen, Germany., [Marx, G.] Univ Hosp Aachen, OIC, Aachen, Germany., [Volkert, T.] Univ Hosp Muenster, Munster, Germany., [Schmutz, A.] Univ Med Ctr Freiburg, Fr

Volatile anesthetic agents, such as sevoflurane, are increasingly used for long-term sedation in intensive care units worldwide, with improved clinical outcomes reported in recent studies due to favorable pharmacological properties. Despite possible renal toxicity related to the production of plasma inorganic fluoride and concerns related to reversible impairment of renal concentrating abilities, renal injury associated with sevoflurane sedation has rarely been reported in the intensive care unit setting. We hereby report 3 cases of nephrogenic diabetes insipidus associated with prolonged sevoflurane sedation using the AnaConDa device and review the possible mechanisms of renal toxicity.

Background Restless legs syndrome (RLS) is not a rare condition in patients on long-term dialysis. Pramipexole is a small molecule used in the treatment of idiopathic and uremic RLS. Although some information concerning the efficacy and safety of pramipexole in uremic patients is available, data concerning the pharmacokinetics of pramipexole in hemodialysis (HD) are lacking. Following the occurrence of accidental pramipexole intoxication in a chronic HD patient, we were concerned about the efficacy of HD in removing pramipexole. Our aim was thus to assess plasma pramipexole concentrations and pramipexole clearance in a stable chronic HD patient without any residual kidney function. Materials and methods Our patient was a 63-year-old man on chronic HD for 5 years who had been treated uneventfully with oral pramipexole for uremic RLS since then. During a routine 4-hour high-flux HD session, blood, ultrafiltrate, and dialysate samples were collected every hour to determine pramipexole concentrations over time. Results Pramipexole blood concentrations ranged from 12.1 to 23.9 µg/L. Pramipexole reduction ratio was 32.5%. Mean dialytic clearance of pramipexole was 76.8 mL/min. Postdialysis rebound was 5.6%. Conclusion In the absence of any side effect, pramipexole blood concentrations at steady state were 2- to 4-fold higher than those observed in subjects with normal kidney function. Like other drugs with a high volume of distribution, pramipexole was poorly removed by HD. Therefore, HD is not recommended as a treatment option for pramipexole intoxication in patients with a glomerular filtration rate superior to 30 mL/min/1.73m².

Studies have associated electroencephalogram (EEG) suppression with postoperative delirium (POD) and postoperative cognitive decline (POCD). Otherwise, improving cerebral tissue oxygen saturation (rScO2) seems beneficial. No study has evaluated the impact of EEG suppression and decreased rScO2 on the incidence of POD and POCD when the intraoperative management of patients is performed with a depth-of-anesthesia (DOA) monitor and a cerebral oximetry. In this prospective study patients undergoing cardiac interventions were monitored with the NeuroSENSE® DOA monitor and bilateral cerebral oximetry. An algorithm was used to optimize cerebral oxygenation. EEG suppression was presented as total area under the curve (AUC) of suppression ratio (SR) > 0 s (AUCEEGSR>0s). Cerebral desaturation was defined as AUC of 25% drop of oximetry values as compared to baseline. POD was evaluated by the chart review method. POCD was defined as a Z-score ≤ 2 based on Mini Mental State Examination at baseline and day 5 or if the patient reported any cognitive decline at 3 and at 6 months postoperatively. Among the 1616 patients, 1513 underwent normothermic surgery and were further analyzed. POD and POCD were respectively evaluated in 1504 and 1350 patients of whom 303 (20%) and 270 (20%) were respectively diagnosed positive. Having experienced high magnitudes of EEG suppression (fourth quartile of AUCEEGSR>0s) was significantly associated with POD (OR = 2.247; 95% CI = 1.414-3.571; P = 0.001). Low rScO2 at the end of surgery was statistically associated with POCD (OR = 0.981; 95% CI = 0.965-0.997; P = 0.018). The results of our study show that the degree of intraoperative EEG suppression on one hand, and low rScO2 at the end of procedure on the other hand, are associated with respectively POD and POCD in patients undergoing cardiac interventions.

Colistin; Phramacokinetic; Technique of nebulization Colistina; Farmacocinètica; Tècnica de nebulització Colistina; Farmacocinético; Técnica de nebulización Clinical evidence suggests that nebulized colistimethate sodium (CMS) has benefits for treating lower respiratory tract infections caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (GNB). Colistin is positively charged, while CMS is negatively charged, and both have a high molecular mass and are hydrophilic. These physico-chemical characteristics impair crossing of the alveolo-capillary membrane but enable the disruption of the bacterial wall of GNB and the aggregation of the circulating lipopolysaccharide. Intravenous CMS is rapidly cleared by glomerular filtration and tubular excretion, and 20–25% is spontaneously hydrolyzed to colistin. Urine colistin is substantially reabsorbed by tubular cells and eliminated by biliary excretion. Colistin is a concentration-dependent antibiotic with post-antibiotic and inoculum effects. As CMS conversion to colistin is slower than its renal clearance, intravenous administration can lead to low plasma and lung colistin concentrations that risk treatment failure. Following nebulization of high doses, colistin (200,000 international units/24h) lung tissue concentrations are > five times minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of GNB in regions with multiple foci of bronchopneumonia and in the range of MIC breakpoints in regions with confluent pneumonia. Future research should include: (1) experimental studies using lung microdialysis to assess the PK/PD in the interstitial fluid of the lung following nebulization of high doses of colistin; (2) superiority multicenter randomized controlled trials comparing nebulized and intravenous CMS in patients with pandrug-resistant GNB ventilator-associated pneumonia and ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis; (3) non-inferiority multicenter randomized controlled trials comparing nebulized CMS to intravenous new cephalosporines/ß-lactamase inhibitors in patients with extensive drug-resistant GNB ventilator-associated pneumonia and ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis. This research received no external funding.

Brain dysfunction is associated with poor outcome in critically ill patients. In a post hoc analysis of the Intensive Care over Nations (ICON) database, we investigated the effect of brain dysfunction on hospital mortality in critically ill patients. Brain failure was defined as a neurological sequential organ failure assessment (nSOFA) score of 3–4, based on the assumed Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score. Multivariable analyses were performed to assess the independent roles of nSOFA and change in nSOFA from admission to day 3 (∆nSOFA) for predicting hospital mortality. Data from 7192 (2096 septic and 5096 non-septic) patients were analyzed. Septic patients were more likely than non-septic patients to have brain failure on admission (434/2095 (21%) vs. 617/4665 (13%), p < 0.001) and during the ICU stay (625/2063 (30%) vs. 736/4665 (16%), p < 0.001). The presence of sepsis (RR 1.66 (1.31–2.09)), brain failure (RR 4.85 (3.33–7.07)), and both together (RR 5.61 (3.93–8.00)) were associated with an increased risk of in-hospital death, but nSOFA was not. In the 3280 (46%) patients in whom ∆nSOFA was available, sepsis (RR 2.42 (1.62–3.60)), brain function deterioration (RR 6.97 (3.71–13.08)), and the two together (RR 10.24 (5.93–17.67)) were associated with an increased risk of in-hospital death, whereas improvement in brain function was not., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

BACKGROUND: Several studies have investigated the predictors of in-hospital mortality for COVID-19 patients who need to be admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). However, no data on the role of organizational issues on patients' outcome are available in this setting. The aim of this study was therefore to assess the role of surge capacity organisation on the outcome of critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to ICUs in Belgium. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of in-hospital mortality in Belgian ICU COVID-19 patients via the national surveillance database. Non-survivors at hospital discharge were compared to survivors using multivariable mixed effects logistic regression analysis. Specific analyses including only patients with invasive ventilation were performed. To assess surge capacity, data were merged with administrative information on the type of hospital, the baseline number of recognized ICU beds, the number of supplementary beds specifically created for COVID-19 ICU care and the "ICU overflow" (i.e. a time-varying ratio between the number of occupied ICU beds by confirmed and suspected COVID-19 patients divided by the number of recognized ICU beds reserved for COVID-19 patients; ICU overflow was present when this ratio is ≥ 1.0). FINDINGS: Over a total of 13,612 hospitalised COVID-19 patients with admission and discharge forms registered in the surveillance period (March, 1 to August, 9 2020), 1903 (14.0%) required ICU admission, of whom 1747 had available outcome data. Non-survivors (n = 632, 36.1%) were older and had more frequently various comorbid diseases than survivors. In the multivariable analysis, ICU overflow, together with older age, presence of comorbidities, shorter delay between symptom onset and hospital admission, absence of hydroxychloroquine therapy and use of invasive mechanical ventilation and of ECMO, was independently associated with an increased in-hospital mortality. Similar results were found in in in the subgroup of invasively ventilated patients. In addition, the proportion of supplementary beds specifically created for COVID-19 ICU care to the previously existing total number of ICU beds was associated with increased in-hospital mortality among invasively ventilated patients. The model also indicated a significant between-hospital difference in in-hospital mortality, not explained by the available patients and hospital characteristics. INTERPRETATION: Surge capacity organisation as reflected by ICU overflow or the creation of COVID-19 specific supplementary ICU beds were found to negatively impact ICU patient outcomes. FUNDING: No funding source was available for this study. ispartof: LANCET REGIONAL HEALTH-EUROPE vol:2 ispartof: location:England status: published

OBJECTIVES: To describe the outcomes of hospitalized patients in a multicenter, international coronavirus disease 2019 registry. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study including coronavirus disease 2019 patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection between February 15, 2020, and November 30, 2020, according to age and type of organ support therapies. SETTING: About 168 hospitals in 16 countries within the Society of Critical Care Medicine's Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness University Study coronavirus disease 2019 registry. PATIENTS: Adult hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 patients who did and did not require various types and combinations of organ support (mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, vasopressors, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcome was hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were discharge home with or without assistance and hospital length of stay. Risk-adjusted variation in hospital mortality for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation was assessed by using multilevel models with hospitals as a random effect, adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, sex, and comorbidities. Among 20,608 patients with coronavirus disease 2019, the mean (± sd) age was 60.5 (±17), 11,1887 (54.3%) were men, 8,745 (42.4%) were admitted to the ICU, and 3,906 (19%) died in the hospital. Hospital mortality was 8.2% for patients receiving no organ support (n = 15,001). The most common organ support therapy was invasive mechanical ventilation (n = 5,005; 24.3%), with a hospital mortality of 49.8%. Mortality ranged from 40.8% among patients receiving only invasive mechanical ventilation (n =1,749) to 71.6% for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, vasoactive drugs, and new renal replacement therapy (n = 655). Mortality was 39% for patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (n = 389). Rates of discharge home ranged from 73.5% for patients who did not require organ support therapies to 29.8% for patients who only received invasive mechanical ventilation, and 8.8% for invasive mechanical ventilation, vasoactive drugs, and renal replacement; 10.8% of patients older than 74 years who received invasive mechanical ventilation were discharged home. Median hospital length of stay for patients on mechanical ventilation was 17.1 days (9.7-28 d). Adjusted interhospital variation in mortality among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation was large (median odds ratio 1.69). CONCLUSIONS: Coronavirus disease 2019 prognosis varies by age and level of organ support. Interhospital variation in mortality of mechanically ventilated patients was not explained by patient characteristics and requires further evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04323787.

Reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing is an important tool for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, performance concerns have emerged recently, notably regarding sensitivity. We hypothesized that the clinical, biological, and radiological characteristics of patients with a false-negative first RT-PCR test and a final diagnosis of COVID-19 might differ from those of patients with a positive first RT-PCR test. We conducted a multicenter matched case–control study in COVID-19 patients. Patients with a negative first RT-PCR test were matched to patients with a positive first RT-PCR test on age, sex, and initial admission unit (ward or intensive care). We included 80 cases and 80 controls between March 30, and June 22, 2020. Neither mortality at hospital discharge nor hospital stay length differed between the two groups (P = 0.80 and P = 0.54, respectively). By multivariate analysis, two factors were independently associated with a lower risk of a first false-negative test, namely, headache (adjusted OR [aOR], 0.07; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.01–0.49]; P = 0.007) and fatigue/malaise (aOR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.03–0.81; P = 0.027); two other factors were independently associated with a higher risk of a first false-negative test, namely, platelets > 207·103 mm−3 (aOR, 3.81; 95% CI, 1.10–13.16]; P = 0.034) and C-reactive protein > 79.8 mg·L−1 (aOR, 4.00; 95% CI, 1.21–13.19; P = 0.023). Patients with suspected COVID-19 whose laboratory tests indicating marked inflammation were at higher risk of a first false-negative RT-PCR test. Strategies involving serial RT-PCR testing must be rigorously evaluated.

Background The severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is highly variable between individuals, ranging from asymptomatic infection to critical disease with acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring mechanical ventilation. Such variability stresses the need for novel biomarkers associated with disease outcome. As SARS-CoV-2 infection causes a kidney proximal tubule dysfunction with urinary loss of uric acid, we hypothesized that low serum levels of uric acid (hypouricemia) may be associated with severity and outcome of COVID-19. Methods In a retrospective study using two independent cohorts, we investigated and validated the prevalence, kinetics and clinical correlates of hypouricemia among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 to a large academic hospital in Brussels, Belgium. Survival analyses using Cox regression and a competing risk approach assessed the time to mechanical ventilation and/or death. Confocal microscopy assessed the expression of urate transporter URAT1 in kidney proximal tubule cells from patients who died from COVID-19. Results The discovery and validation cohorts included 192 and 325 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, respectively. Out of the 517 patients, 274 (53%) had severe and 92 (18%) critical COVID-19. In both cohorts, the prevalence of hypouricemia increased from 6% upon admission to 20% within the first days of hospitalization for COVID-19, contrasting with a very rare occurrence (P P P Conclusions Among patients with COVID-19 requiring hospitalization, low serum levels of uric acid are common and associate with disease severity and with progression to respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation.

Background: Aortic coarctation is among the most common cardiovascular congenital abnormalities requiring repair after birth. Besides mortality, morbidity remains an important aspect. Accordingly, we reviewed our 20-year experience of aortic coarctation repair by thoracotomy, with emphasis on both short- and long-term outcomes. Methods: From 1995 through 2014, 214 patients underwent coarctation repair via left thoracotomy. Associated arch lesions were distal arch hypoplasia (n = 117) or type A interrupted aortic arch (n = 6). Eighty-four patients had isolated coarctation (group 1), 66 associated ventricular septal defect (group 2), and 64 associated complex cardiac lesions (group 3). Median follow-up was 8.4 years. Results: There was one (0.5%) procedure-related death. Nine (4.2%) patients died during index admission. In-hospital mortality was 0.7% in group 1 and 2 and 12.5% in group 3 ( P < .001). No patient had paraplegia. Actuarial five-year survival was 97.5% in group 1, 94% group 2 and 66% in group 3. Recurrent coarctation developed in 29 patients, all but four (1.8%) successfully treated by balloon dilatation. Freedom from reintervention (dilatation or surgery) at five years was 86%. At hospital discharge, 28 (13.5%) patients were hypertensive. At follow-up, hypertension was present in 11 (5.3%) patients. Conclusions: Long-term results of aortic coarctation repair by thoracotomy are excellent, with percutaneous angioplasty being the procedure of choice for recurrences. Patient prognosis is dependent on associated cardiac malformations. In this study, the prevalence of late arterial hypertension was lower than previously reported.

Background: The phase 3 multinational SCARLET study evaluated the efficacy and safety of a recombinant human soluble thrombomodulin (ART-123) for treatment of sepsis-associated coagulopathy (SAC), which correlates with increased mortality risk in patients with sepsis. Although no significant reduction in mortality was observed with ART-123 compared with placebo in the full analysis set (FAS), an efficacy signal of ART-123 was observed in subgroups of patients who sustained coagulopathy until the first treatment and those not administered concomitant heparin. Post hoc analysis was performed of patients treated in France, the country with the largest enrollment (19% of the FAS) and consistent patient enrollment throughout the study duration. Methods: Adult patients with SAC (international normalized ratio > 1.4; platelets > 30 × 109/L to < 150 × 109/L or platelet decrease > 30% within 24 h) and evidence of bacterial infection were included. The primary efficacy outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Safety outcomes included adverse, serious adverse, and major bleeding events. This analysis assessed patient characteristics and efficacy and safety outcomes in France compared with the rest of the world (ROW; excluding France). Mortality rates were assessed in patients in France or the ROW with characteristics previously associated with ART-123 efficacy. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between France and the ROW, but some measurements of disease severity were higher in patients in France. The 28-day all-cause mortality absolute risk reductions (ARRs) with ART-123 were 8.3% in France and 1.1% in the ROW. The greater ARR in France may be related to a higher rate of sustained coagulopathy and lower rate of heparin use. In France and the ROW, 84.6% and 78.0% of patients sustained coagulopathy from the time of initial SAC diagnosis to first treatment with the study drug, and 65.8% and 43.9% did not receive heparin, respectively. The ARRs for these subgroups of patients in France were 13.4% and 16.6%, respectively. Safety of ART-123 was comparable between France and the ROW. Conclusions: Results from this exploratory analysis suggest that patients with sustained SAC not receiving concomitant heparin may benefit from ART-123, a fact that should be confirmed in future studies with more restrictive inclusion criteria., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Background Native valves infective endocarditis due to Escherichia coli is still a rare disease and a particular virulence of some E.coli isolate may be suspected. Case presentation A 79-year-old woman presented during the post-operative period of an orthopedic surgery a urinary tract infection following obstructive ureteral lithiasis. E. coli was isolated from a pure culture of urine and blood sampled simultaneously. After evidence of sustained E.coli septicemia, further investigations revealed acute cholecystitis with the same micro-organism in biliary drainage and a native valve mitral endocarditis. E.coli was identified as O2:K7:H6, phylogenetic group B2, ST141, and presented several putative and proven virulence genes. The present isolate can be classified as both extra-intestinal pathogenic E.coli (ExPECJJ) and uropathogenic E. coli (UPECHM). Conclusions The relationship between the virulent factors present in ExPEC strains and some serotypes of E. coli that could facilitate the adherence to cardiac valves warrants further investigation.

Severe intra-abdominal infection commonly requires intensive care. Mortality is high and is mainly determined by disease-specific characteristics, i.e. setting of infection onset, anatomical barrier disruption, and severity of disease expression. Recent observations revealed that antimicrobial resistance appears equally common in community-acquired and late-onset hospital-acquired infection. This challenges basic principles in anti-infective therapy guidelines, including the paradigm that pathogens involved in community-acquired infection are covered by standard empiric antimicrobial regimens, and second, the concept of nosocomial acquisition as the main driver for resistance involvement. In this study, we report on resistance profiles of Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium in distinct European geographic regions based on an observational cohort study on intra-abdominal infections in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Resistance against aminopenicillins, fluoroquinolones, and third-generation cephalosporins in E. coli, K. pneumoniae and P. aeruginosa is problematic, as is carbapenem-resistance in the latter pathogen. For E. coli and K. pneumoniae, resistance is mainly an issue in Central Europe, Eastern and South-East Europe, and Southern Europe, while resistance in P. aeruginosa is additionally problematic in Western Europe. Vancomycin-resistance in E. faecalis is of lesser concern but requires vigilance in E. faecium in Central and Eastern and South-East Europe. In the subcohort of patients with secondary peritonitis presenting with either sepsis or septic shock, the appropriateness of empiric antimicrobial therapy was not associated with mortality. In contrast, failure of source control was strongly associated with mortality. The relevance of these new insights for future recommendations regarding empiric antimicrobial therapy in intra-abdominal infections is discussed.

We read with interest the article recently published by Catteau et al from the Belgian Collaborative group on COVID-19 Hospital surveillance reporting on a retrospective observational study of 8075 COVID-19 patients treated in 109 Belgian hospitals between March and May 2020. [...]

RATIONALE: ACE2 (angiotensin-converting enzyme 2), the entry receptor for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is expressed in type 2 alveolar epithelial cells (AT2) that may play key roles in postinjury repair. An imbalance between ACE2 and ACE has also been hypothesized to contribute to lung injury. OBJECTIVES: To characterize the expression and distribution of ACE2 and ACE and to compare AT2 with endothelial cell expression in coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-related or -unrelated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and controls. METHODS: Lung tissue stainings (using multiplex immunofluorescence) and serum concentrations of ACEs were determined retrospectively in two different cohorts of patients. AT2 and endothelial cells were stained in lung tissue for ProSPC (pro-surfactant protein C) and CD31, respectively. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Pulmonary ACE2 expression was increased in patients with COVID-19-related and -unrelated ARDS (0.06% of tissue area and 0.12% vs. 0.006% for control subjects; P = 0.013 and P < 0.0001, respectively). ACE2 was upregulated in endothelial cells (0.32% and 0.53% vs. 0.01%; P = 0.009 and P < 0.0001) but not in AT2 cells (0.13% and 0.08% vs. 0.03%; P = 0.94 and P = 0.44). Pulmonary expression of ACE was decreased in both COVID-19-related and -unrelated ARDS (P = 0.057 and P = 0.032). Similar increases in ACE2 and decreases in ACE were observed in sera of COVID-19 (P = 0.0054 and P < 0.0001) and non-COVID-19 ARDS (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.016). In addition, AT2 cells were decreased in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS compared with COVID-19-unrelated ARDS (1.395% vs. 2.94%, P = 0.0033). CONCLUSIONS: ACE2 is upregulated in lung tissue and serum of both COVID-19-related and -unrelated ARDS, whereas a loss of AT2 cells is selectively observed in COVID-19-related ARDS.