Search

Julia Dormann,1 Sebastian Wendt,1 Michael Dreher,2 Kelly Ansems,1 Carole Rolland,3 Jan Spillner,4 Agnieszka Szafran,1 Thomas Breuer,1 Christophe Pison,5– 7,* Tom Verbelen,8,* Carina Benstoem1,* 1Department of Intensive Care Medicine and Intermediate Care, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany; 2Department of Pneumology and Intensive Care Medicine, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany; 3Techniques de l’Ingénierie Médicale et de la Complexité (TIMC), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), University Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France; 4Department of Thoracic Surgery, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany; 5Department of Pneumology and Physiology, CHU Grenoble Alpes; University Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France; 6Laboratory of Fundamental and Applied Bioenergetics, LBFA, Inserm1055, Grenoble, France; 7Département Universitaire des Patients Grenoble Alpes, University Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France; 8Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, KU Leuven and Department of Cardiac Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Carina Benstoem, Department of Intensive Care Medicine and Intermediate Care, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstr. 30, Aachen, D-52074, Tel +49 241 80 38038, Fax +49 241 80 33 82182, Email cbenstoem@ukaachen.deBackground: Terminal lung diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and pulmonary hypertension (PH) in progression cause a large reduction in quality of life and may lead to bilateral lung transplantation (bLTx). An artificial portable lung could provide a bridge to lung transplantation, allowing patients to remain at home and mobile for longer. To advance the development of such an artificial lung, patient feedback is essential. The aim of this study is to analyze patient acceptance about an extracorporeal artificial lung and to implement these findings

Background Remdesivir is an antiviral medicine with properties to inhibit viral replication of SARS-CoV-2. Positive results from early studies attracted media attention and led to emergency use authorisation of remdesivir in COVID-19. A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding the eMects of remdesivir as a treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is required. Objectives To assess the eMects of remdesivir compared to placebo or standard care alone-on clinical outcomes in hospitalised patients with SARSCoV-2 infection, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. Search methods We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv) as well as Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index) and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions. We conducted the searches on 16 April 2021. Selection criteria We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included RCTs evaluating remdesivir for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection in hospitalised adults compared to placebo or standard care alone irrespective of disease severity, gender, ethnicity, or setting. We excluded studies that evaluated remdesivir for the treatment of other coronavirus diseases. Data collection and analysis We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for outcomes that were reported according to our prioritised categories: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, duration to liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation, duration to liberation from supplemental oxygen, new need fo

Background The role of vitamin D supplementation as a treatment for COVID-19 has been a subject of considerable discussion. A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of vitamin D supplementation for COVID-19 based on randomised controlled trials is required. Objectives To assess whether vitamin D supplementation is effective and safe for the treatment of COVID-19 in comparison to an active comparator, placebo, or standard of care alone, and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. Search methods We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to 11 March 2021. Selection criteria We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies investigating preventive eLects, or studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)). Data collection and analysis We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following prioritised outcome categories: individuals with moderate or severe COVID-19: all-cause mortality, clinical status, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events, and for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease: all-cause mortality, development of severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events. Main results We identified three RCTs with 356 participants, of whom 183 received vitamin D. In accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) clinica

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal (GI) dysfunction is frequent in the critically ill but can be overlooked as a result of the lack of standardization of the diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. We aimed to develop a research agenda for GI dysfunction for future research. We systematically reviewed the current knowledge on a broad range of subtopics from a specific viewpoint of GI dysfunction, highlighting the remaining areas of uncertainty and suggesting future studies. METHODS: This systematic scoping review and research agenda was conducted following successive steps: (1) identify clinically important subtopics within the field of GI function which warrant further research; (2) systematically review the literature for each subtopic using PubMed, CENTRAL and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; (3) summarize evidence for each subtopic; (4) identify areas of uncertainty; (5) formulate and refine study proposals that address these subtopics; and (6) prioritize study proposals via sequential voting rounds. RESULTS: Five major themes were identified: (1) monitoring, (2) associations between GI function and outcome, (3) GI function and nutrition, (4) management of GI dysfunction and (5) pathophysiological mechanisms. Searches on 17 subtopics were performed and evidence summarized. Several areas of uncertainty were identified, six of them needing consensus process. Study proposals ranked among the first ten included: prevention and management of diarrhoea; management of upper and lower feeding intolerance, including indications for post-pyloric feeding and opioid antagonists; acute gastrointestinal injury grading as a bedside tool; the role of intra-abdominal hypertension in the development and monitoring of GI dysfunction and in the development of non-occlusive mesenteric ischaemia; and the effect of proton pump inhibitors on the microbiome in critical illness. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence on GI dysfunction is scarce, partially due to the lack of precise definitions., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published