Search

Severe cases of COVID-19 pneumonia can lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Release of interleukin (IL)-33, an epithelial-derived alarmin, and IL-33/ST2 pathway activation are linked with ARDS development in other viral infections. IL-22, a cytokine that modulates innate immunity through multiple regenerative and protective mechanisms in lung epithelial cells, is reduced in patients with ARDS. This study aimed to evaluate safety and efficacy of astegolimab, a human immunoglobulin G2 monoclonal antibody that selectively inhibits the IL-33 receptor, ST2, or efmarodocokin alfa, a human IL-22 fusion protein that activates IL-22 signaling, for treatment of severe COVID-19 pneumonia.Phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (COVID-astegolimab-IL).Hospitals.Hospitalized adults with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.Patients were randomized to receive IV astegolimab, efmarodocokin alfa, or placebo, plus standard of care. The primary endpoint was time to recovery, defined as time to a score of 1 or 2 on a 7-category ordinal scale by day 28.The study randomized 396 patients. Median time to recovery was 11 days (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01 d; p = 0.93) and 10 days (HR, 1.15 d; p = 0.38) for astegolimab and efmarodocokin alfa, respectively, versus 10 days for placebo. Key secondary endpoints (improved recovery, mortality, or prevention of worsening) showed no treatment benefits. No new safety signals were observed and adverse events were similar across treatment arms. Biomarkers demonstrated that both drugs were pharmacologically active.Treatment with astegolimab or efmarodocokin alfa did not improve time to recovery in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was developed more than 25 years ago to provide a simple method of assessing and monitoring organ dysfunction in critically ill patients. Changes in clinical practice over the last few decades, with new interventions and a greater focus on non-invasive monitoring systems, mean it is time to update the SOFA score. As a first step in this process, we propose some possible new variables that could be included in a SOFA 2.0. By so doing, we hope to stimulate debate and discussion to move toward a new, properly validated score that will be fit for modern practice.

Since the advent of critical care in the twentieth century, the core elements that are the foundation for critical care systems, namely to care for critically ill and injured patients and to save lives, have evolved enormously. The past half-century has seen dramatic advancements in diagnostic, organ support, and treatment modalities in critical care, with further improvements now needed to achieve personalized critical care of the highest quality. For critical care to be even higher quality in the future, advancements in the following areas are key: the physical ICU space; the people that care for critically ill patients; the equipment and technologies; the information systems and data; and the research systems that impact critically ill patients and families. With acutely and critically ill patients and their families as the absolute focal point, advancements across these areas will hopefully transform care and outcomes over the coming years.

Background Although specific interventions previously demonstrated benefit in patients with ARDS, use of these interventions is inconsistent, and patient mortality remains high. The impact of variability in center management practices on ARDS mortality rates remains unknown. Research Question What is the impact of treatment variability on mortality in patients with moderate to severe ARDS in the United States? Study Design and Methods We conducted a multicenter, observational cohort study of mechanically ventilated adults with ARDS and Pa o 2 to F io 2 ratio of ≤ 150 with positive end-expiratory pressure of ≥ 5 cm H2O, who were admitted to 29 US centers between October 1, 2016, and April 30, 2017. The primary outcome was 28-day in-hospital mortality. Center variation in ventilator management, adjunctive therapy use, and mortality also were assessed. Results A total of 2,466 patients were enrolled. Median baseline Pa o 2 to F io 2 ratio was 105 (interquartile range, 78.0-129.0). In-hospital 28-day mortality was 40.7%. Initial adherence to lung protective ventilation (LPV; tidal volume, ≤ 6.5 mL/kg predicted body weight; plateau pressure, or when unavailable, peak inspiratory pressure, ≤ 30 mm H2O) was 31.4% and varied between centers (0%-65%), as did rates of adjunctive therapy use (27.1%-96.4%), methods used (neuromuscular blockade, prone positioning, systemic steroids, pulmonary vasodilators, and extracorporeal support), and mortality (16.7%-73.3%). Center standardized mortality ratios (SMRs), calculated using baseline patient-level characteristics to derive expected mortality rate, ranged from 0.33 to 1.98. Of the treatment-level factors explored, only center adherence to early LPV was correlated with SMR. Interpretation Substantial center-to-center variability exists in ARDS management, suggesting that further opportunities for improving ARDS outcomes exist. Early adherence to LPV was associated with lower center mortality and may be a surrogate for overall quality of care processes. Future collaboration is needed to identify additional treatment-level factors influencing center-level outcomes. Trial Registry ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03021824; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov

The current coronavirus pandemic has impacted heavily on ICUs worldwide. Although many hospitals and healthcare systems had plans in place to manage multiple casualties as a result of major natural disasters or accidents, there was insufficient preparation for the sudden, massive influx of severely ill patients with COVID-19. As a result, systems and staff were placed under immense pressure as everyone tried to optimize patient management. As the pandemic continues, we must apply what we have learned about our response, both good and bad, to improve organization and thus patient care in the future., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Objectives To review published clinical evidence on management of Clostridioides difficile infection in critically ill patients. Data sources We obtained relevant studies from a PubMed literature review and bibliographies of reviewed articles. Study selection We selected English-language studies addressing aspects of C. difficile infection relevant to critical care clinicians including epidemiology, risk factors, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention, with a focus on high-quality clinical evidence. Data extraction We reviewed potentially relevant studies and abstracted information on study design, methods, patient selection, and results of relevant studies. This is a synthetic (i.e., not systematic) review. Data synthesis C. difficile infection is the most common healthcare-associated infection in the United States. Antibiotics are the most significant C. difficile infection risk factor, and among antibiotics, cephalosporins, clindamycin, carbapenems, fluoroquinolones, and piperacillin-tazobactam confer the highest risk. Age, diabetes mellitus, inflammatory bowel disease, and end-stage renal disease are risk factors for C. difficile infection development and mortality. C. difficile infection diagnosis is based on testing appropriately selected patients with diarrhea or on clinical suspicion for patients with ileus. Patients with fulminant disease (C. difficile infection with hypotension, shock, ileus, or megacolon) should be treated with oral vancomycin and IV metronidazole, as well as rectal vancomycin in case of ileus. Patients who do not respond to initial therapy should be considered for fecal microbiota transplant or surgery. Proper infection prevention practices decrease C. difficile infection risk. Conclusions Strong clinical evidence supports limiting antibiotics when possible to decrease C. difficile infection risk. For patients with fulminant C. difficile infection, oral vancomycin reduces mortality, and adjunctive therapies (including IV metronidazole) and interventions (including fecal microbiota transplant) may benefit select patients. Several important questions remain regarding fulminant C. difficile infection management, including which patients benefit from fecal microbiota transplant or surgery.

Modalities of fluid management in patients sustaining the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are challenging and controversial. Optimal fluid management should provide adequate oxygen delivery to the body, while avoiding inadvertent increase in lung edema which further impairs gas exchange. In ARDS patients, positive fluid balance has been associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation, longer ICU and hospital stay, and higher mortality. Accordingly, a restrictive strategy has been compared to a more liberal approach in randomized controlled trials conducted in various clinical settings. Restrictive strategies included fluid restriction guided by the monitoring of extravascular lung water, pulmonary capillary wedge or central venous pressure, and furosemide targeted to diuresis and/or albumin replacement in hypoproteinemic patients. Overall, restrictive strategies improved oxygenation significantly and reduced duration of mechanical ventilation, but had no significant effect on mortality. Fluid management may require different approaches depending on the time course of ARDS (i.e., early vs. late period). The effects of fluid strategy management according to ARDS phenotypes remain to be evaluated. Since ARDS is frequently associated with sepsis-induced acute circulatory failure, the prediction of fluid responsiveness is crucial in these patients to avoid hemodynamically inefficient-hence respiratory detrimental-fluid administration. Specific hemodynamic indices of fluid responsiveness or mini-fluid challenges should be preferably used. Since the positive airway pressure contributes to positive fluid balance in ventilated ARDS patients, it should be kept as low as possible. As soon as the hemodynamic status is stabilized, correction of cumulated fluid retention may rely on diuretics administration or renal replacement therapy.

Background The initial presentation of sepsis in the emergency department (ED) is difficult to distinguish from other acute illnesses based upon similar clinical presentations. A new blood parameter, a measurement of increased monocyte volume distribution width (MDW), may be used in combination with other clinical parameters to improve early sepsis detection. We sought to determine if MDW, when combined with other available clinical parameters at the time of ED presentation, improves the early detection of sepsis. Methods A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected clinical data available during the initial ED encounter of 2158 adult patients who were enrolled from emergency departments of three major academic centers, of which 385 fulfilled Sepsis-2 criteria, and 243 fulfilled Sepsis-3 criteria within 12 h of admission. Sepsis probabilities were determined based on MDW values, alone or in combination with components of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) or quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score obtained during the initial patient presentation (i.e., within 2 h of ED admission). Results Abnormal MDW (> 20.0) consistently increased sepsis probability, and normal MDW consistently reduced sepsis probability when used in combination with SIRS criteria (tachycardia, tachypnea, abnormal white blood count, or body temperature) or qSOFA criteria (tachypnea, altered mental status, but not hypotension). Overall, and regardless of other SIRS or qSOFA variables, MDW > 20.0 (vs. MDW ≤ 20.0) at the time of the initial ED encounter was associated with an approximately 6-fold increase in the odds of Sepsis-2, and an approximately 4-fold increase in the odds of Sepsis-3. Conclusions MDW improves the early detection of sepsis during the initial ED encounter and is complementary to SIRS and qSOFA parameters that are currently used for this purpose. This study supports the incorporation of MDW with other readily available clinical parameters during the initial ED encounter for the early detection of sepsis. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03145428. First posted May 9, 2017. The first subjects were enrolled June 19, 2017, and the study completion date was January 26, 2018.

The role of early, serial measurements of protein biomarkers in sepsis-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is not clear.To determine the differences in soluble receptor for advanced glycation end-products (sRAGEs), angiopoietin-2, and surfactant protein-D (SP-D) levels and their changes over time between sepsis patients with and without ARDS.Prospective observational cohort study of adult patients admitted to the medical ICU at Grady Memorial Hospital within 72 hours of sepsis diagnosis.Plasma sRAGE, angiopoietin-2, and SP-D levels were measured for 3 consecutive days after enrollment. The primary outcome was ARDS development, and the secondary outcome of 28-day mortality. The biomarker levels and their changes over time were compared between ARDS and non-ARDS patients and between nonsurvivors and survivors.We enrolled 111 patients, and 21 patients (18.9%) developed ARDS. The three biomarker levels were not significantly different between ARDS and non-ARDS patients on all 3 days of measurement. Nonsurvivors had higher levels of all three biomarkers than did survivors on multiple days. The changes of the biomarker levels over time were not different between the outcome groups. Logistic regression analyses showed association between day 1 SP-D level and mortality (odds ratio, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.03-2.24;Among critically ill patients with sepsis, sRAGE, angiopoietin-2, and SP-D levels were not significantly different between ARDS and non-ARDS patients but were higher in nonsurvivors compared with survivors. The trend toward higher levels of sRAGE and SP-D, but not of angiopoietin-2, in ARDS patients may indicate the importance of epithelial injury in sepsis-induced ARDS. Changes of the biomarker levels over time were not different between the outcome groups.

ObjectiveTo identify priorities for administrative, epidemiologic and diagnostic research in sepsis.DesignAs a follow-up to a previous consensus statement about sepsis research, members of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Committee, representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine addressed six questions regarding care delivery, epidemiology, organ dysfunction, screening, identification of septic shock, and information that can predict outcomes in sepsis.MethodsSix questions from the Scoring/Identification and Administration sections of the original Research Priorities publication were explored in greater detail to better examine the knowledge gaps and rationales for questions that were previously identified through a consensus process.ResultsThe document provides a framework for priorities in research to address the following questions: (1) What is the optimal model of delivering sepsis care?; (2) What is the epidemiology of sepsis susceptibility and response to treatment?; (3) What information identifies organ dysfunction?; (4) How can we screen for sepsis in various settings?; (5) How do we identify septic shock?; and (6) What in-hospital clinical information is associated with important outcomes in patients with sepsis?ConclusionsThere is substantial knowledge of sepsis epidemiology and ways to identify and treat sepsis patients, but many gaps remain. Areas of uncertainty identified in this manuscript can help prioritize initiatives to improve an understanding of individual patient and demographic heterogeneity with sepsis and septic shock, biomarkers and accurate patient identification, organ dysfunction, and ways to improve sepsis care.

Sepsis-associated immunosuppression increases hospital-acquired infection and viral reactivation risk. A key underlying mechanism is programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1)-mediated T-cell function impairment. This is one of the first clinical safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) assessments of the anti-PD-1 antibody nivolumab and its effect on immune biomarkers in sepsis. Randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, Phase 1b study in 31 adults at 10 US hospital ICUs with sepsis diagnosed ≥ 24 h before study treatment, ≥ 1 organ dysfunction, and absolute lymphocyte count ≤ 1.1 × 103 cells/μL. Participants received one nivolumab dose [480 mg (n = 15) or 960 mg (n = 16)]; follow-up was 90 days. Primary endpoints were safety and PK parameters. Twelve deaths occurred [n = 6 per study arm; 40% (480 mg) and 37.5% (960 mg)]. Serious AEs occurred in eight participants [n = 1, 6.7% (480 mg); n = 7, 43.8% (960 mg)]. AEs considered by the investigator to be possibly drug-related and immune-mediated occurred in five participants [n = 2, 13.3% (480 mg); n = 3, 18.8% (960 mg)]. Mean ± SD terminal half-life was 14.7 ± 5.3 (480 mg) and 15.8 ± 7.9 (960 mg) days. All participants maintained > 90% receptor occupancy (RO) 28 days post-infusion. Median (Q1, Q3) mHLA-DR levels increased to 11,531 (6528, 19,495) and 11,449 (6225, 16,698) mAbs/cell in the 480- and 960-mg arms by day 14, respectively. Pro-inflammatory cytokine levels did not increase. In this sepsis population, nivolumab administration did not result in unexpected safety findings or indicate any ‘cytokine storm’. The PK profile maintained RO > 90% for ≥ 28 days. Further efficacy and safety studies are warranted. NCT02960854.

Objectives:To assess for the first time the safety and pharmacokinetics of an antiprogrammed cell death-ligand 1 immune checkpoint inhibitor (BMS-936559; Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ) and its effect on immune biomarkers in participants with sepsis-associated immunosuppression.Design:Randomize

Guidelines recommend crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in sepsis/shock and switching to albumin in cases where crystalloids are insufficient. We evaluated hemodynamic response to crystalloids/colloids in critically ill adults.The primary research question was: "Are crystalloids sufficient for volume replacement in severe indications (intensive care unit [ICU]/critical illness)?" Randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) were identified using PubMed and EMBASE, and screened against predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Meta-analyses were performed on extracted data.Fifty-five RCTs (N = 27,036 patients) were eligible. Central venous pressure was significantly lower with crystalloids than with albumin, hydroxyethyl starch (HES), or gelatin (all p .001). Mean arterial pressure was significantly lower with crystalloids vs. albumin (mean difference [MD]: -3.5 mm Hg; p = .03) or gelatin (MD: -9.2 mm Hg; p = .02). Significantly higher volumes of crystalloids were administered vs. HES (MD: +1775 mL); volume administered was numerically higher vs. albumin (MD: +1985 mL). Compared with the albumin group, cardiac index was significantly lower in the crystalloid group (MD: -0.6 L/min/mCrystalloids were less efficient than colloids at stabilizing resuscitation endpoints; guidance on when to switch is urgently required.

To address the need for critically ill patients around the world to receive high quality critical care from trained professionals, SCCM created the Fundamentals of Critical Care Support, or FCCS, course THRIVE was instrumental in characterizing the post-intensive care syndrome, and SCCM has made PICS a common expression in the critical care lexicon and helped to develop strategies that may one day eliminate PICS as a consequence of critical illness These, and other remarkable women leaders at SCCM, laid the groundwork for our Women in Critical Care KEG-one of the first and most active groups of its kind in critical care medicine I am a better intensivist and a better person for having met all of the incredibly talented critical care colleagues who volunteer their time to serve on the SCCM Council, and so many of our leaders on SCCM committees and within our regional SCCM chapters as well as our international collaborators and colleagues [Extracted from the article] Copyright of Critical Care Medicine is the property of Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use This abstract may be abridged No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract (Copyright applies to all Abstracts )

Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) has posed unprecedented healthcare system challenges, some of which will lead to transformative change. It is obvious to healthcare workers and policymakers alike that an effective critical care surge response must be nested within the overall care delivery model. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted key elements of emergency preparedness. These include having national or regional strategic reserves of personal protective equipment, intensive care unit (ICU) devices, consumables and pharmaceuticals, as well as effective supply chains and efficient utilization protocols. ICUs must also be prepared to accommodate surges of patients and ICU staffing models should allow for fluctuations in demand. Pre-existing ICU triage and end-of-life care principles should be established, implemented and updated. Daily workflow processes should be restructured to include remote connection with multidisciplinary healthcare workers and frequent communication with relatives. The pandemic has also demonstrated the benefits of digital transformation and the value of remote monitoring technologies, such as wireless monitoring. Finally, the pandemic has highlighted the value of pre-existing epidemiological registries and agile randomized controlled platform trials in generating fast, reliable data. The COVID-19 pandemic is a reminder that besides our duty to care, we are committed to improve. By meeting these challenges today, we will be able to provide better care to future patients. ispartof: INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE vol:47 issue:3 pages:282-291 ispartof: location:United States status: published

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues to affect millions worldwide. Given the rapidly growing evidence base, we implemented a living guideline model to provide guidance on the management of patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. METHODS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Disease 2019 panel has expanded to include 43 experts from 14 countries; all panel members completed an electronic conflict-of-interest disclosure form. In this update, the panel addressed nine questions relevant to managing severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. We used the World Health Organization's definition of severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019. The systematic reviews team searched the literature for relevant evidence, aiming to identify systematic reviews and clinical trials. When appropriate, we performed a random-effects meta-analysis to summarize treatment effects. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, then used the evidence-to-decision framework to generate recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued nine statements (three new and six updated) related to ICU patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019. For severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019, the panel strongly recommends using systemic corticosteroids and venous thromboprophylaxis but strongly recommends against using hydroxychloroquine. In addition, the panel suggests using dexamethasone (compared with other corticosteroids) and suggests against using convalescent plasma and therapeutic anticoagulation outside clinical trials. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel suggests using remdesivir in nonventilated patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 and suggests against starting remdesivir in patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019 outside clinical trials. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue a recommendation on the use of awake prone positioning. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued several recommendations to guide healthcare professionals caring for adults with critical or severe coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. Based on a living guideline model the recommendations will be updated as new evidence becomes available.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Objectives: Coronavirus disease 2019 is associated with high mortality rates and multiple organ damage. There is increasing evidence that these patients are at risk for various cardiovascular insults; however, there are currently no guidelines for the diagnosis and management of such cardiovascular complications in patients with coronavirus disease 2019. We share data and recommendations from a multidisciplinary team to highlight our institution’s clinical experiences and guidelines for managing cardiovascular complications of coronavirus disease 2019. Design, Setting, and Patients: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to one of six ICUs dedicated to the care of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 located in three hospitals within one academic medical center in Atlanta, Georgia. Measurements/Interventions: Chart review was conducted for sociodemographic, laboratory, and clinical data. Rates of specific cardiovascular complications were assessed, and data were analyzed using a chi-square or Wilcoxon rank-sum test for categorical and continuous variables. Additionally, certain cases are presented to demonstrate the sub committee’s recommendations. Main Results: Two-hundred eighty-eight patients were admitted to the ICU with coronavirus disease 2019. Of these, 86 died (29.9%), 242 (84.03%) had troponin elevation, 70 (24.31%) had dysrhythmias, four (1.39%) had ST-elevation myocardial infarction, eight (2.78%) developed cor pulmonale, and 190 (65.97%) with shock. There was increased mortality risk in patients with greater degrees of troponin elevation (p < 0.001) and with the development of arrhythmias (p < 0.001), cor pulmonale (p < 0.001), and shock (p < 0.001). Conclusions: While there are guidelines for the diagnosis and management of pulmonary complications of coronavirus disease 2019, there needs to be more information regarding the management of cardiovascular complications as well. These recommendations garnered from the coronavirus disease 2019 cardiology subcommittee from our institution will add to the existing knowledge of these potential cardiovascular insults as well as highlight suggestions for the diagnosis and management of the range of cardiovascular complications of coronavirus disease 2019. Additionally, with the spread of coronavirus disease 2019, our case-based recommendations provide a bedside resource for providers newly caring for patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

Objectives Describe the epidemiology of sepsis across the transition from the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Edition, and International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition, coding systems, evaluating estimates of two previously published International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition, coding strategies. Design Serial cross-sectional analysis. Setting Healthcare Utilization Project's annual Nationwide Inpatient Sample of U.S. hospital discharges, 2012-2017. Patients Discharges greater than or equal to 18 years old, which met one of the three case definitions for sepsis. For the records using International Classification of Diseases, 9th Edition, we used previously published modified Angus criteria, and for records using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition, we deployed a case definition used by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and a case definition developed by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. Interventions None. Measurements and main results During the study period, there were discontinuities in the sepsis incidence estimates using the modified Angus International Classification of Diseases, 9th Edition, criteria in 2014 and either Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services or Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition, criteria in 2016. In 2014, there were an estimated 1,009 cases (95% CI, 989-1,030) of modified Angus sepsis per 100,000 persons, whereas in 2016, there were 709 cases (95% CI, 694-724) of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sepsis and 1,498 cases (95% CI, 1,471-1,092) of Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation sepsis per 100,000 persons. Furthermore, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation definition identified a sepsis cohort with similar hospital characteristics but a younger age distribution, higher proportion of women, lower severity of illness, and lower hospital mortality. Conclusions The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition, coding strategy for identifying sepsis may capture a larger patient population within administrative datasets that are different from those identified with previously deployed International Classification of Diseases-based methods. Further work is required to determine the optimal International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition, coding strategy for use in hospital discharge data.

Purpose To survey haemodynamic monitoring and management practices in ICU patients with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods A questionnaire was shared on social networks or via email by the authors and by Anaesthesia and/or Critical Care societies from France, Switzerland, Belgium, Brazil, and Portugal. Intensivists and anaesthetists involved in COVID-19 ICU care were invited to answer 14 questions about haemodynamic monitoring and management. Results Globally, 1000 questionnaires were available for analysis. Responses came mainly from Europe (n = 460) and America (n = 434). According to respondents, a majority of COVID-19 ICU patients frequently or very frequently received continuous vasopressor support (56%) and had an echocardiography performed (54%). Echocardiography revealed a normal cardiac function, a hyperdynamic state (43%), hypovolaemia (22%), a left ventricular dysfunction (21%) and a right ventricular dilation (20%). Fluid responsiveness was frequently assessed (84%), mainly using echo (62%), and cardiac output was measured in 69%, mostly with echo as well (53%). Venous oxygen saturation was frequently measured (79%), mostly from a CVC blood sample (94%). Tissue perfusion was assessed biologically (93%) and clinically (63%). Pulmonary oedema was detected and quantified mainly using echo (67%) and chest X-ray (61%). Conclusion Our survey confirms that vasopressor support is not uncommon in COVID-19 ICU patients and suggests that different cardiac function phenotypes may be observed. Ultrasounds were used by many respondents, to assess cardiac function but also to predict fluid responsiveness and quantify pulmonary oedema. Although we observed regional differences, current international guidelines were apparently followed by most respondents.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Objectives: Increasing time to mechanical ventilation and high-flow nasal cannula use may be associated with mortality in coronavirus disease 2019. We examined the impact of time to intubation and use of high-flow nasal cannula on clinical outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Six coronavirus disease 2019-specific ICUs across four university-affiliated hospitals in Atlanta, Georgia. Patients: Adults with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection who received high-flow nasal cannula or mechanical ventilation. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Among 231 patients admitted to the ICU, 109 (47.2%) were treated with high-flow nasal cannula and 97 (42.0%) were intubated without preceding high-flow nasal cannula use. Of those managed with high-flow nasal cannula, 78 (71.6%) ultimately received mechanical ventilation. In total, 175 patients received mechanical ventilation; 44.6% were female, 66.3% were Black, and the median age was 66 years (interquartile range, 56–75 yr). Seventy-six patients (43.4%) were intubated within 8 hours of ICU admission, 57 (32.6%) between 8 and 24 hours of admission, and 42 (24.0%) greater than or equal to 24 hours after admission. Patients intubated within 8 hours were more likely to have diabetes, chronic comorbidities, and higher admission Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores. Mortality did not differ by time to intubation (≤ 8 hr: 38.2%; 8–24 hr: 31.6%; ≥ 24 hr: 38.1%; p = 0.7), and there was no association between time to intubation and mortality in adjusted analysis. Similarly, there was no difference in initial static compliance, duration of mechanical ventilation, or ICU length of stay by timing of intubation. High-flow nasal cannula use prior to intubation was not associated with mortality. Conclusions: In this cohort of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019, neither time from ICU admission to intubation nor high-flow nasal cannula use were associated with increased mortality. This study provides evidence that coronavirus disease 2019 respiratory failure can be managed similarly to hypoxic respiratory failure of other etiologies.

Objectives To determine mortality rates among adults with critical illness from coronavirus disease 2019. Design Observational cohort study of patients admitted from March 6, 2020, to April 17, 2020. Setting Six coronavirus disease 2019 designated ICUs at three hospitals within an academic health center network in Atlanta, Georgia, United States. Patients Adults greater than or equal to 18 years old with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome-CoV-2 disease who were admitted to an ICU during the study period. Interventions None. Measurements and main results Among 217 critically ill patients, mortality for those who required mechanical ventilation was 35.7% (59/165), with 4.8% of patients (8/165) still on the ventilator at the time of this report. Overall mortality to date in this critically ill cohort is 30.9% (67/217) and 60.4% (131/217) patients have survived to hospital discharge. Mortality was significantly associated with older age, lower body mass index, chronic renal disease, higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, lower PaO2/FIO2 ratio, higher D-dimer, higher C-reactive protein, and receipt of mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, renal replacement therapy, or vasodilator therapy. Conclusions Despite multiple reports of mortality rates exceeding 50% among critically ill adults with coronavirus disease 2019, particularly among those requiring mechanical ventilation, our early experience indicates that many patients survive their critical illness.

Background Higher inspiratory airway pressures are associated with worse outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). This relationship, however, has not been well investigated in patients without ARDS. We hypothesized that higher driving pressures (ΔP) and plateau pressures (Pplat) are associated with worse patient-centered outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients without ARDS as well as those with ARDS. Methods Using data collected during a prospective, observational cohort study of 6179 critically ill participants enrolled in 59 ICUs across the USA, we used multivariable logistic regression to determine whether ΔP and Pplat at enrollment were associated with hospital mortality among 1132 mechanically ventilated participants. We stratified analyses by ARDS status. Results Participants without ARDS (n = 822) had lower average severity of illness scores and lower hospital mortality (27.3% vs. 38.7%; p n = 310). Average Pplat (20.6 vs. 23.9 cm H2O; p 2O; p 2O; p p 2O, 95% CI 1.14–1.62) and Pplat (adjusted OR = 1.42 per 8 cm H2O, 95% CI 1.17–1.73) were associated with higher mortality. We found similar relationships with mortality among those participants with ARDS. Conclusions Higher ΔP and Pplat are associated with increased mortality for participants without ARDS. ΔP may be a viable target for lung-protective ventilation in all mechanically ventilated patients.

Objective To identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome and underlying causes of sepsis and septic shock. Design A consensus committee of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine was convened at the annual meetings of both societies. Subgroups had teleconference and electronic-based discussion. The entire committee iteratively developed the entire document and recommendations. Methods Each committee member independently gave their top five priorities for sepsis research. A total of 88 suggestions (ESM 1 - supplemental table 1) were grouped into categories by the committee co-chairs, leading to the formation of seven subgroups: infection, fluids and vasoactive agents, adjunctive therapy, administration/epidemiology, scoring/identification, post-intensive care unit, and basic/translational science. Each subgroup had teleconferences to go over each priority followed by formal voting within each subgroup. The entire committee also voted on top priorities across all subgroups except for basic/translational science. Results The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee provides 26 priorities for sepsis and septic shock. Of these, the top six clinical priorities were identified and include the following questions: (1) can targeted/personalized/precision medicine approaches determine which therapies will work for which patients at which times?; (2) what are ideal endpoints for volume resuscitation and how should volume resuscitation be titrated?; (3) should rapid diagnostic tests be implemented in clinical practice?; (4) should empiric antibiotic combination therapy be used in sepsis or septic shock?; (5) what are the predictors of sepsis long-term morbidity and mortality?; and (6) what information identifies organ dysfunction? Conclusions While the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines give multiple recommendations on the treatment of sepsis, significant knowledge gaps remain, both in bedside issues directly applicable to clinicians, as well as understanding the fundamental mechanisms underlying the development and progression of sepsis. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-018-5175-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

To identify circumstances in which repeated measures of organ failure would improve mortality prediction in ICU patients.Retrospective cohort study, with external validation in a deidentified ICU database.Eleven ICUs in three university hospitals within an academic healthcare system in 2014.Adults (18 yr old or older) who satisfied the following criteria: 1) two of four systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria plus an ordered blood culture, all within 24 hours of hospital admission; and 2) ICU admission for at least 2 calendar days, within 72 hours of emergency department presentation.NoneMEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:: Data were collected until death, ICU discharge, or the seventh ICU day, whichever came first. The highest Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score from the ICU admission day (ICU day 1) was included in a multivariable model controlling for other covariates. The worst Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores from the first 7 days after ICU admission were incrementally added and retained if they obtained statistical significance (p0.05). The cohort was divided into seven subcohorts to facilitate statistical comparison using the integrated discriminatory index. Of the 1,290 derivation cohort patients, 83 patients (6.4%) died in the ICU, compared with 949 of the 8,441 patients (11.2%) in the validation cohort. Incremental addition of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment data up to ICU day 5 improved the integrated discriminatory index in the validation cohort. Adding ICU day 6 or 7 Sequential Organ Failure Assessment data did not further improve model performance.Serial organ failure data improve prediction of ICU mortality, but a point exists after which further data no longer improve ICU mortality prediction of early sepsis.

To investigate the effects of the administration of 4% albumin on lactated Ringer's, when compared with lactated Ringer's alone, in the early phase of sepsis in cancer patients.Single-center, randomized, double-blind, controlled-parallel trial.A tertiary care university cancer hospital.Cancer patients with severe sepsis or septic shock.Between October 2014 and December 2016, patients were randomly assigned to receive either bolus of albumin in a lactated Ringer's solution or lactated Ringer's solution alone during the first 6 hours of fluid resuscitation after intensive care medicine (ICU) admission. Primary outcome was defined as death from any cause at 7 days. Secondary outcomes were defined as death from any cause within 28 days, change in Sequence Organ Failure Assessment scores from baseline to day 7, days alive and free of mechanical ventilation, days alive and free of vasopressor, renal replacement therapy during ICU stay, and length of ICU and hospital stay.A total of 360 patients were enrolled in the trial. At 7 days, 46 of 180 patients (26%) died in the albumin group and 40 of 180 (22%) died in the lactated Ringer's group (p = 0.5). At 28 days, 96 of 180 patients (53%) died in the albumin group and 83 of 180 (46%) died in the lactated Ringer's group (p = 0.2). No significant differences in secondary outcomes were observed.Adding albumin to early standard resuscitation with lactated Ringer's in cancer patients with sepsis did not improve 7-day survival.

OBJECTIVES: Administrative claims data are commonly used for sepsis surveillance, research, and quality improvement. However, variations in diagnosis, documentation, and coding practices for sepsis and organ dysfunction may confound efforts to estimate sepsis rates, compare outcomes, and perform risk-adjustment. We evaluated hospital variation in the sensitivity of claims data relative to clinical data from electronic health record (EHRs) and its impact on outcome comparisons. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Retrospective cohort study of 4.3 million adult encounters at 193 U.S. hospitals in 2013-2014. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sepsis was defined using EHR-derived clinical indicators of presumed infection (blood culture draws and antibiotic administrations) and concurrent organ dysfunction (vasopressors, mechanical ventilation, doubling in creatinine, doubling in bilirubin to ≥2.0 mg/dL, decrease in platelets to

Background Differentiating sepsis from the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) in critical care patients is challenging, especially before serious organ damage is evident, and with variable clinical presentations of patients and variable training and experience of attending physicians. Our objective was to describe and quantify physician agreement in diagnosing SIRS or sepsis in critical care patients as a function of available clinical information, infection site, and hospital setting. Methods We conducted a post hoc analysis of previously collected data from a prospective, observational trial (N = 249 subjects) in intensive care units at seven US hospitals, in which physicians at different stages of patient care were asked to make diagnostic calls of either SIRS, sepsis, or indeterminate, based on varying amounts of available clinical information (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02127502). The overall percent agreement and the free-marginal, inter-observer agreement statistic kappa (κfree) were used to quantify agreement between evaluators (attending physicians, site investigators, external expert panelists). Logistic regression and machine learning techniques were used to search for significant variables that could explain heterogeneity within the indeterminate and SIRS patient subgroups. Results Free-marginal kappa decreased between the initial impression of the attending physician and (1) the initial impression of the site investigator (κfree 0.68), (2) the consensus discharge diagnosis of the site investigators (κfree 0.62), and (3) the consensus diagnosis of the external expert panel (κfree 0.58). In contrast, agreement was greatest between the consensus discharge impression of site investigators and the consensus diagnosis of the external expert panel (κfree 0.79). When stratified by infection site, κfree for agreement between initial and later diagnoses had a mean value + 0.24 (range − 0.29 to + 0.39) for respiratory infections, compared to + 0.70 (range + 0.42 to + 0.88) for abdominal + urinary + other infections. Bioinformatics analysis failed to clearly resolve the indeterminate diagnoses and also failed to explain why 60% of SIRS patients were treated with antibiotics. Conclusions Considerable uncertainty surrounds the differential clinical diagnosis of sepsis vs. SIRS, especially before organ damage has become highly evident, and for patients presenting with respiratory clinical signs. Our findings underscore the need to provide physicians with accurate, timely diagnostic information in evaluating possible sepsis. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s40560-019-0368-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Sepsis-3 defines organ dysfunction as an increase in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score by greater than or equal to 2 points. However, some Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score components are not routinely recorded in all hospitals' electronic health record systems, limiting its utility for wide-scale sepsis surveillance. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released the Adult Sepsis Event surveillance definition that includes simplified organ dysfunction criteria optimized for electronic health records (eSOFA). We compared eSOFA versus Sequential Organ Failure Assessment with regard to sepsis prevalence, overlap, and outcomes.Retrospective cohort study.One hundred eleven U.S. hospitals in the Cerner HealthFacts dataset.Adults hospitalized in 2013-2015.None.We identified clinical indicators of presumed infection (blood cultures and antibiotics) concurrent with either: 1) an increase in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score by 2 or more points (Sepsis-3) or 2) 1 or more eSOFA criteria: vasopressor initiation, mechanical ventilation initiation, lactate greater than or equal to 2.0 mmol/L, doubling in creatinine, doubling in bilirubin to greater than or equal to 2.0 mg/dL, or greater than or equal to 50% decrease in platelet count to less than 100 cells/μL (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Adult Sepsis Event). We compared area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for discriminating in-hospital mortality, adjusting for baseline characteristics. Of 942,360 patients in the cohort, 57,242 (6.1%) had sepsis by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment versus 41,618 (4.4%) by eSOFA. Agreement between sepsis by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and eSOFA was good (Cronbach's alpha 0.81). Baseline characteristics and infectious diagnoses were similar, but mortality was higher with eSOFA (17.1%) versus Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (14.4%; p0.001) as was discrimination for mortality (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.774 vs 0.759; p0.001). Comparisons were consistent across subgroups of age, infectious diagnoses, and comorbidities.The Adult Sepsis Event's eSOFA organ dysfunction criteria identify a smaller, more severely ill sepsis cohort compared with the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, but with good overlap and similar clinical characteristics. Adult Sepsis Events may facilitate wide-scale automated sepsis surveillance that tracks closely with the more complex Sepsis-3 criteria.

There is a paradigm shift happening for sepsis. Sepsis is no longer solely conceptualized as problem of individual patients treated in emergency departments and intensive care units but also as one that is addressed as public health issue with population- and systems-based solutions. We offer a conceptual framework for sepsis as a public health problem by adapting the traditional model of primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention.

OBJECTIVES This study examines the relationships between hospitals' annual acute respiratory distress syndrome case volume with hospitals' acute respiratory distress syndrome case fatality rates and individuals' odds of acute respiratory distress syndrome hospital mortality. DESIGN Retrospective cohort study. SETTING The U.S. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's Nationwide Inpatient Sample, 2002-2011. PATIENTS Acute respiratory distress syndrome discharges defined by the presence of an acute respiratory distress syndrome International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis code (518.82 or 518.5) and a mechanical ventilation procedure code (96.70, 96.71 or 96.72) on the discharge diagnosis and procedure lists. If the procedure code 96.71 was on the discharge record (mechanical ventilation < 96 hr duration), the patient also needed to be classified as deceased. INTERVENTIONS None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS We analyzed 2,686 hospitals and 117,204 cases of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Average annual hospital acute respiratory distress syndrome in-hospital mortality was 47%. Acute respiratory distress syndrome case volume was categorized as low (1-9), medium (10-49), and high (50-423 cases per year). In a hospital-level Poisson regression adjusting for hospital characteristics, when compared with low-volume acute respiratory distress syndrome hospitals, high- and medium-volume acute respiratory distress syndrome hospitals had lower annual acute respiratory distress syndrome case fatality (rate ratio, 0.75; 99% CI, 0.71-0.79 and rate ratio, 0.86; 99% CI, 0.82-0.90, respectively; p ≤ 0.001 for both). In an individual-level, multivariable model adjusting for hospital and individual characteristics, high and medium acute respiratory distress syndrome volume hospitals were associated with lower odds of acute respiratory distress syndrome mortality compared with low-volume hospitals (odds ratio, 0.85 [99% CI, 0.74-0.99]; p = 0.006 and odds ratio, 0.89 [99% CI 0.79-1.00]; p = 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS In this cohort, at both an individual- and hospital-level, higher acute respiratory distress syndrome hospital case volume is associated with lower acute respiratory distress syndrome hospital mortality.

A molecular test to distinguish between sepsis and systemic inflammation of noninfectious etiology could potentially have clinical utility.This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of a molecular host response assay (SeptiCyte LAB) designed to distinguish between sepsis and noninfectious systemic inflammation in critically ill adults.The study employed a prospective, observational, noninterventional design and recruited a heterogeneous cohort of adult critical care patients from seven sites in the United States (n = 249). An additional group of 198 patients, recruited in the large MARS (Molecular Diagnosis and Risk Stratification of Sepsis) consortium trial in the Netherlands ( www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01905033), was also tested and analyzed, making a grand total of 447 patients in our study. The performance of SeptiCyte LAB was compared with retrospective physician diagnosis by a panel of three experts.In receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, SeptiCyte LAB had an estimated area under the curve of 0.82-0.89 for discriminating sepsis from noninfectious systemic inflammation. The relative likelihood of sepsis versus noninfectious systemic inflammation was found to increase with increasing test score (range, 0-10). In a forward logistic regression analysis, the diagnostic performance of the assay was improved only marginally when used in combination with other clinical and laboratory variables, including procalcitonin. The performance of the assay was not significantly affected by demographic variables, including age, sex, or race/ethnicity.SeptiCyte LAB appears to be a promising diagnostic tool to complement physician assessment of infection likelihood in critically ill adult patients with systemic inflammation. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01905033 and NCT02127502).

Objective: Clinical protocols may decrease unnecessary variation in care and improve compliance with desirable therapies. We evaluated whether highly protocolized ICUs have superior patient outcomes compared with less highly protocolized ICUs. Design: Observational study in which participating ICUs completed a general assessment and enrolled new patients 1 day each week. Patients: A total of 6,179 critically ill patients. Setting: Fifty-nine ICUs in the United States Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group Critical Illness Outcomes Study. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: The primary exposure was the number of ICU protocols; the primary outcome was hospital mortality. A total of 5,809 participants were followed prospectively, and 5,454 patients in 57 ICUs had complete outcome data. The median number of protocols per ICU was 19 (interquartile range, 15–21.5). In single-variable analyses, there were no differences in ICU and hospital mortality, length of stay, use of mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, or continuous sedation among individuals in ICUs with a high versus low number of protocols. The lack of association was confirmed in adjusted multivariable analysis (p = 0.70). Protocol compliance with two ventilator management protocols was moderate and did not differ between ICUs with high versus low numbers of protocols for lung protective ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome (47% vs 52%; p = 0.28) and for spontaneous breathing trials (55% vs 51%; p = 0.27). Conclusions: Clinical protocols are highly prevalent in U.S. ICUs. The presence of a greater number of protocols was not associated with protocol compliance or patient mortality.

OBJECTIVES Although highly active antiretroviral therapy has led to improved survival in HIV-infected individuals, outcomes for HIV-infected patients with sepsis in the post-highly active antiretroviral therapy era are conflicting. Access to highly active antiretroviral therapy and healthcare disparities continue to affect outcomes. We hypothesized that HIV-infected patients with severe sepsis would have worse outcomes compared with their HIV-uninfected counterparts in a large safety-net hospital where access to healthcare is low and delivery of critical care is delayed. DESIGN Secondary analysis of an ongoing prospective observational study between 2006 and 2010. SETTING Three adult ICUs (medical ICU, surgical ICU, and neurologic ICU) at Grady Memorial Hospital, Atlanta, GA. PATIENTS Adult patients with severe sepsis in the ICU. INTERVENTIONS Baseline patient characteristics and clinical outcomes were collected. HIV-infected and HIV-uninfected patients with sepsis were compared using t tests, chi-square tests, and logistic regression; p values less than 0.05 indicated significance. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Of 1,095 patients with severe sepsis enrolled, 165 (15%) were positive for HIV, with a median CD4 count of 41 (8-167). Twenty-two percent of HIV-infected patients were on highly active antiretroviral therapy prior to admission, and 80% had a CD4 count less than 200. HIV-infected patients had a greater hospital mortality (50% vs 38%; p < 0.01). HIV infection (odds ratio = 1.78; p = 0.005) was an independent predictor of mortality by multivariate regression modeling after adjusting for age, history of pneumonia, history of hospital-acquired infection, and history of sepsis. CONCLUSIONS HIV-infected patients with severe sepsis continue to suffer worse outcomes compared with HIV-uninfected patients in a large urban safety-net hospital caring for patients with limited access to medical care. Further studies need to be done to investigate the effect of socioeconomic status and mitigate healthcare disparities among critically ill HIV-infected patients.

We determined the prevalence of risk factors for the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), outcomes of critical illness, and the impact of highly active antiretroviral therapy in HIV-1-infected patients. We hypothesized that in an urban county hospital, HIV-1-infected patients with ARDS would have a higher mortality than their HIV-1-uninfected counterparts.Subjects were enrolled between 2006 and 2012. Baseline patient demographics, comorbidities, illness severity, causes of ARDS, and clinical outcomes were obtained. The primary end point was hospital mortality.A total of 178 subjects with ARDS were enrolled in the study; 40 (22%) were infected with HIV-1. The median CD4 count was 75 (15.3-198.3), and 25% were on highly active antiretroviral therapy. HIV-1-infected subjects were significantly younger (44 vs 52 years; P.01) and had higher rates of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, history of hospital-acquired infections, and prior sepsis. HIV-1-infected subjects had greater illness severity by Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores (29 [24-31] vs 24 [22-25]; P.01). Hospital mortality was not higher among HIV-1-infected subjects compared with HIV-1-uninfected subjects (50.0% vs 38.4%; P = .19).In patients with ARDS, HIV-1 infection was associated with greater illness severity but was not associated with higher mortality in ARDS. Future studies need to be done to evaluate the factors that contribute to high morbidity and mortality in medically vulnerable populations who develop ARDS.

Objective Bronchoscopy and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) are common procedures in intensive care units; however, no contemporaneous safety and outcomes data have been reported, particularly for critically ill patients. Design This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from teaching hospital adult intensive care units. Interventions One hundred mechanically ventilated patients with severe sepsis, septic shock, acute lung injury (ALI), and/or acute respiratory distress syndrome underwent bronchoscopy with unilateral BAL. Data collected included demographics, presence of sepsis or ALI, Pa o 2 to F io 2 ratio, positive end-expiratory pressure, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and peri- or postprocedural complications. Results Men comprised 51% of the patients; 81% of the patients were black, and 15% were white. The mean age was 52 (SD, ± 16) years. The mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation score was 22 (± 7.5), whereas the median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 9 (interquartile range, 5-12). Ten patients (10%) had complications during or immediately after the procedure. Hypoxemia during or immediately after the BAL was the most common complication. Ninety percent of the complications were related to transient hypoxemia, whereas bradycardia and hypotension each occurred in 1 patient. Age, female sex, and higher positive end-expiratory pressure were associated with complications. Conclusions Bronchoscopy with BAL in critically ill patients with sepsis and ALI is well tolerated with low risk of complications, primarily related to manageable hypoxemia.

Neutrophil elastase (HNE) is a destructive enzyme and plays crucial roles in the pathophysiology of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Endogenous proteinase inhibitors elafin (PI3) is important to protect against lung tissue destruction. We proposed to examine whether HNE and PI3 serve as prognostic biomarkers for ARDS.This study is a survival and longitudinal analysis of plasma profiles of HNE and PI3 in ARDS patients from a multicenter prospective observational cohort in Beijing, China. Plasma samples were collected on day-1, day-3, and day-7 of study enrollment.HNE levels were higher in ARDS non-survivors than survivors, whereas PI3 showed opposite direction for all three measurements (P 0.01 for all). Patients with HNE level above median and PI3 level below median values had the lowest survival probability and died the fastest. There was a significant longitudinal effect of HNE levels and PI3 level on mortality. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis demonstrated combination of HNE and PI3 had the discrimination ability for 28-day mortality (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve [AUC]: 0.76), better than the combination of Berlin categories and APACHE II (AUC: 0.63). The addition of HNE and PI3 to Berlin categories and APACHE II has significantly improved the prognostic discrimination ability (AUC: 0.81, P 0.0001).Imbalance between HNE and PI3 levels in ARDS patients was associated with ARDS mortality. By combining these biomarkers with Berlin categories and APACHE II, prognostic power of ARDS was greatly improved. Circulation levels of HNE and PI3 may have the potential to predict ARDS mortality and better inform clinicians about ARDS mortality risk.