Search

BACKGROUND:Prediction of neurological outcome is a crucial part of post cardiac arrest care and prediction in patients remaining unconscious and/or sedated after rewarming from targeted temperature management (TTM) remains difficult. Current guidelines suggest the use of serial measurements of the biomarker neuron-specific enolase (NSE) in combination with other predictors of outcome in patients admitted after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). This study sought to investigate the ability of NSE to predict poor outcome in patients remaining unconscious at day three after OHCA. In addition, this study sought to investigate if serial NSE measurements add incremental prognostic information compared to a single NSE measurement at 48 hours in this population. METHODS:This study is a post-hoc sub-study of the TTM trial, randomizing OHCA patients to a course of TTM at either 33°C or 36°C. Patients were included from sites participating in the TTM-trial biobank sub study. NSE was measured at 24, 48 and 72 hours after ROSC and follow-up was concluded after 180 days. The primary end point was poor neurological function or death defined by a cerebral performance category score (CPC-score) of 3 to 5. RESULTS:A total of 685 (73%) patients participated in the study. At day three after OHCA 63 (9%) patients had died and 473 (69%) patients were not awake. In these patients, a single NSE measurement at 48 hours predicted poor outcome with an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of 0.83. A combination of all three NSE measurements yielded the highest discovered AUC (0.88, p = .0002). Easily applicable combinations of serial NSE measurements did not significantly improve prediction over a single measurement at 48 hours (AUC 0.58-0.84 versus 0.83). CONCLUSION:NSE is a strong predictor of poor outcome after OHCA in persistently unconscious patients undergoing TTM, and NSE is a promising surrogate marker of outcome in clinical trials. While combinations of serial NSE measurements may provide an increase in overall prognostic information, it is unclear whether actual clinical prognostication with low false-positive rates is improved by application of serial measurements in persistently unconscious patients. The findings of this study should be confirmed in another prospective cohort. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT01020916.

Background Respiratory functional sequelae in COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit for invasive ventilation are sparsely reported. The aim of this study was to investigate the radiological lung appearance, lung function and their association at 6 months after hospital discharge. It was hypothesized that the degree of pathological morphology on CT scans would correlate with lung function at the time of follow-up. Methods and findings In this single-centre prospective observational study, 86 from 154 patients admitted to ICU due to COVID-19 between March 2020 and May 2021 were followed up at 6 months post discharge with computed tomography (CT) of the chest and pulmonary function tests (PFTs). The PFT results were expressed as z-scores calculated as the difference between the measured and predicted values divided by the standard deviation obtained from a reference population. Correlations were evaluated by Spearman’s rho including the 95% confidence interval. Pathological changes on CT were found in 78/85 participants with fibrous parenchymal bands being the most prevalent finding (91%) followed by traction bronchiectasis (64%) and ground glass opacities (41%). Sixty-five participants performed PFTs, and a restrictive pattern was the most prevalent abnormality (34%). Diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) was reduced in 66% of participants. The CT severity score weakly correlated with forced vital capacity (FVC) z-score (0.295, p = 0.006), DLCO z-score (-0.231, p = 0.032) and alveolar volume (VA) z-score (0.253, p = 0.019). Conclusions Most patients showed persistent radiological abnormalities on CT and reduced lung volumes, impaired diffusion capacity and patterns of restrictive lung function at 6 months post discharge from the ICU. The correlations between abnormalities on CT and lung function tests were weak. Further, studies with a long-term follow-up of lung function in this group of patients are needed.

Introduction It is standard of care to provide sedation to critically ill patients to reduce anxiety, discomfort and promote tolerance of mechanical ventilation. Given that sedatives can have differing effects based on a variety of patient and pharmacological characteristics, treatment approaches are largely based on targeting the level of sedation. The benefits of differing levels of sedation must be balanced against potential adverse effects including haemodynamic instability, causing delirium, delaying awakening and prolonging the time of mechanical ventilation and intensive care stay. This systematic review with meta-analysis aims to investigate the current evidence and compare the effects of differing sedation levels in adult critically ill patients.Methods and analyses We will conduct a systematic review based on searches of preidentified major medical databases (eg, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify trials meeting inclusion criteria. We will include randomised clinical trials comparing any degree of sedation with no sedation and lighter sedation with deeper sedation for critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit. We will include aggregate data meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses. Risk of bias will be assessed with domains based on the Cochrane risk of bias tool. An eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed using Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation.Ethics and dissemination No formal approval or review of ethics is required as individual patient data will not be included. This systematic review has the potential to highlight (1) whether one should believe sedation to be beneficial, harmful or neither in critically ill adults; (2) the existing knowledge gaps and (3) whether the recommendations from guidelines and daily clinical practice are supported by current evidence. These results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal.