Search

The article discusses the use of biomarkers to guide the discontinuation of antibiotics in critically ill adults with sepsis. Sepsis is a life-threatening condition caused by a dysregulated immune response to infection and is a leading cause of death in critically ill patients. The article highlights the importance of early recognition and treatment of sepsis, including the administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics. However, indiscriminate use of antibiotics can lead to antimicrobial resistance. The study conducted a network meta-analysis comparing the benefits and harms of using procalcitonin and C-reactive protein as biomarkers to guide antibiotic discontinuation. The results showed that biomarker-guided approaches reduced the duration of antibiotic treatment, but there was limited evidence on the risk of recurrent infections. The article suggests that healthcare teams should consider adopting biomarker-guided algorithms to safely reduce the duration of antibiotics in sepsis patients. However, the limitations of biomarkers and the need for further research and validation are emphasized. Overall, the article provides valuable insights into personalized therapy for sepsis patients and the potential benefits and harms of biomarker-guided antibiotic discontinuation. [Extracted from the article]

Background: The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for high-risk pulmonary embolism (HRPE) with haemodynamic instability or profound cardiogenic shock has been reported. Guidelines currently support the use of ECMO only in patients with cardiac arrest or circulatory collapse and in conjunction with other curative therapies. We aimed to characterise the mortality of adults with HRPE treated with ECMO, identify factors associated with mortality, and compare different adjunct curative therapies. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching four international databases from their inception until 25 June 2023 for studies reporting on more than five patients receiving ECMO for HRPE. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. A subgroup analysis investigating the outcomes with curative treatment for HRPE was also performed. The intra-study risk of bias and the certainty of evidence were also assessed. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022297518). Results: A total of 39 observational studies involving 6409 patients receiving ECMO for HRPE were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled mortality was 42.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 37.2% to 48.7%, moderate certainty). Patients treated with ECMO and catheter-directed therapy (28.6%) had significantly lower mortality (p < 0.0001) compared to those treated with ECMO and systemic thrombolysis (57.0%). Cardiac arrest prior to ECMO initiation (regression coefficient [B]: 1.77, 95%-CI: 0.29 to 3.25, p = 0.018) and pre-ECMO heart rate (B: −0.076, 95%-CI: −0.12 to 0.035, p = 0.0003) were significantly associated with mortality. The pooled risk ratio when comparing mortality between patients on ECMO and those not on ECMO was 1.51 (95%-CI: 1.07 to 2.14, p < 0.01) in favour of ECMO. The pooled mortality was 55.2% (95%-CI: 47.7% to 62.6%), using trim-and-fill analysis to account for the significant publication bias. Conclusions: More than 50% of patients receiving ECMO for HRPE survive. While outcomes may vary based on the curative therapy used, early ECMO should be considered as a stabilising measure when treating patients with HRPE. Patients treated concurrently with systemic thrombolysis have higher mortality than those receiving ECMO alone or with other curative therapies, particularly catheter-directed therapies. Further studies are required to explore ECMO vs. non-ECMO therapies in view of currently heterogenous datasets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A strategy that limits tidal volumes and inspiratory pressures, improves outcomes in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) may facilitate ultra-protective ventilation. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of venovenous ECCO2R in supporting ultra-protective ventilation in moderate-to-severe ARDS. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were interrogated for studies (2000–2021) reporting venovenous ECCO2R use in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS. Studies reporting ≥10 adult patients in English language journals were included. Ventilatory parameters after 24 h of initiating ECCO2R, device characteristics, and safety outcomes were collected. The primary outcome measure was the change in driving pressure at 24 h of ECCO2R therapy in relation to baseline. Secondary outcomes included change in tidal volume, gas exchange, and safety data. Results: Ten studies reporting 421 patients (PaO2:FiO2 141.03 mmHg) were included. Extracorporeal blood flow rates ranged from 0.35-1.5 L/min. Random effects modelling indicated a 3.56 cmH2O reduction (95%-CI: 3.22–3.91) in driving pressure from baseline (p <.001) and a 1.89 mL/kg (95%-CI: 1.75–2.02, p <.001) reduction in tidal volume. Oxygenation, respiratory rate and PEEP remained unchanged. No significant interactions between driving pressure reduction and baseline driving pressure, partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide or PaO2:FiO2 ratio were identified in metaregression analysis. Bleeding and haemolysis were the commonest complications of therapy. Conclusions: Venovenous ECCO2R permitted significant reductions in ∆P in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS. Heterogeneity amongst studies and devices, a paucity of randomised controlled trials, and variable safety reporting calls for standardisation of outcome reporting. Prospective evaluation of optimal device operation and anticoagulation in high quality studies is required before further recommendations can be made. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]