Sharif, Sameer

OBJECTIVE: A definition of refractory septic shock is necessary to guide diagnosis, management, prognostication, research, and future guidelines for this most severe form of the disease. We sought to achieve consensus on clinical criteria that would be used to define refractory septic shock. DESIGN: Review of literature, expert panel position statements, and Delphi rounds with an international expert group. SETTING: Consensus was defined as having at least 75% of panellists in agreement or disagreement on the three highest or lowest levels of a 7-point Likert scale or based on responses to single- or multiple-choice questions, respectively. SUBJECTS: A panel of multinational, multiprofessional and multidisciplinary critical care experts assembled by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (57 invitations and 56 participants). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A five-round Delphi process was conducted for consensus and stability. The steering committee proposed 34 statements, and five of them were rejected by panel experts after round 2. Among 29 statements selected from eight domains, consensus was reached for 13. The panel agreed on the need for a comprehensive consensus set of clinical criteria for refractory septic shock. Markers of organ dysfunction (75%, 2 rounds), tissue perfusion (91.1%, 2 rounds) including lactate (94.6%, 2 rounds) and capillary refill time (76.8%, 2 rounds), assessment of fluid-responsiveness after initial resuscitation (92.9%, 5 rounds), and use of vasoactive drugs at norepinephrine equivalents greater than 0.5 µg/kg/min (75.0%, 3 rounds), were selected as clinical criteria of refractory septic shock. The use of critical care ultrasound (CCUS) (92.9%, 3 rounds) was the single diagnostic modality that reached a consensus-based agreement. CONCLUSIONS: A consensus for 13 criteria to frame the definition of refractory septic shock was reached. Refractory septic shock is characterised by persistently elevated lactate concentrations and or prolonged capillary refill time in patients with septic shock who are fluid unresponsive, require a norepinephrine base equivalent dose greater than 0.5 micrograms per kilogram per minute, and undergo CCUS assessment when mixed shock is suspected.

Rationale: Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) show potential benefits on mortality and other complications of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in adult patients. Evidence-based decisions and processes ensure appropriate use of neuromuscular blockade in adult patients with ARDS. Objectives: The objective of these guidelines was to develop evidence-based recommendations for the administration of NMBAs in critically ill adult patients with ARDS. Design: The American College of Critical Care Medicine Board convened a 21-member multidisciplinary panel of experts in critical care medicine, nursing, respiratory therapy, pharmacology, surgery, neurology, and anesthesiology. The panel included two expert methodologists specialized in developing evidence-based recommendations in alignment with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Conflict-of-interest policies were strictly followed during all phases of guidelines development including task force selection and voting. Methods: The panel members identified and formulated five Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome questions. We conducted a systematic review for each question to identify the best available evidence, statistically analyzed the evidence, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology. We used the GRADE evidence-to-decision framework to formulate the recommendations. Results: The panel generated two conditional recommendations. One recommendation is to use NMBAs in adults with ARDS with Pa o 2 /F io 2 less than 150. For the other recommendations, there was equipoise in the recommendation for and against using titratable vs. fixed-dose NMBA dosing, a monitoring-based strategy for assessing depth of sedation and analgesia in adults with ARDS before initiating or while receiving neuromuscular blockade, and administration of NMBAs for patients who are proned, due to overall lack of evidence in critically ill patients and due to considerations of patient safety and experience concerns. Conclusions: These guidelines provide additional perspectives on the use of NMBA in patients with ARDS, recognizing that institutional and patient-specific considerations must help to guide the decision-making process.

Background: In the emergency setting, many diagnostic pathways incorporate change in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) concentrations (i.e., the delta) to classify patients as low-risk (rule-out) or high-risk (rule-in) for possible myocardial infarction (MI). However, the impact of analytical variation on the delta for correct classification is unknown, especially at concentrations below and around the 99th percentile. Our objective was to assess the impact of delta variation for correct risk classification across the European Society of Cardiology (ESC 0/1 h and 0/2 h), the High-STEACS, and the common change criteria (3C) pathways. Methods: A yearlong accuracy study for hs-cTnT was performed where laboratories across Canada tested three patient-based samples (level 1 target value = 6 ng/L, level 2 target value = 9 ng/L, level 3 target value = 12 ng/L) monthly across 41 different analyzers. The assigned low-delta between levels 1 and 2 was 3 ng/L (i.e., 9 − 6 = 3 ng/L) and the assigned high-delta between levels 1 and 3 was 6 ng/L (i.e., 12 − 6 = 6 ng/L). The low- and high-deltas for each analyzer were determined monthly from the measured values, with the difference calculated from the assigned deltas. The obtained deltas were then assessed via the different pathways on correct classification (i.e., percent correct with 95% confidence intervals, CI) and using non-parametric analyses. Results: The median (interquartile range) difference between the measured versus assigned low-delta (n = 436) and high-delta (n = 439) was −1 ng/L (−1 to 0). The correct classification differed among the pathways. The ESC 0/1 h pathway yielded the lowest percentage of correct classification at 35.3% (95% CI: 30.8 to 40.0) for the low-delta and 90.0% (95% CI: 86.8 to 92.6) for the high-delta. The 3C and ESC 0/2 h pathways yielded higher and equivalent estimates on correct classification: 95.2% (95% CI: 92.7 to 97.0) for the low-delta and 98.2% (95% CI: 96.4 to 99.2) for the high-delta. The High-STEACS pathway yielded 99.5% (95% CI: 98.4 to 99.9) of correct classifications for the high-delta but only 36.2% (95% CI: 31.7 to 40.9) for the low-delta. Conclusions: Analytical variation will impact risk classification for MI when using hs-cTn deltas alone per the pathways. The 3C and ESC 0/2 h pathways have <5% misclassification when using deltas for hs-cTnT in this dataset. Additional studies with different hs-cTnI assays at concentrations below and near the 99th percentile are warranted to confirm these findings.

Abstract The fourth Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) Guidelines for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE‐4) is on the topic of the emergency department (ED) management of nonopioid use disorders and focuses on alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS), alcohol use disorder (AUD), and cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS). The SAEM GRACE‐4 Writing Team, composed of emergency physicians and experts in addiction medicine and patients with lived experience, applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations regarding six priority questions for adult ED patients with AWS, AUD, and CHS. The SAEM GRACE‐4 Writing Team reached the following recommendations: (1) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) with moderate to severe AWS who are being admitted to hospital, we suggest using phenobarbital in addition to benzodiazepines compared to using benzodiazepines alone [ low to very low certainty of evidence ]; (2) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) with AUD who desire alcohol cessation, we suggest a prescription for one anticraving medication [ very low certainty of evidence ]; (2a) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) with AUD, we suggest naltrexone (compared to no prescription) to prevent return to heavy drinking [ low certainty of evidence ]; (2b) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) with AUD and contraindications to naltrexone, we suggest acamprosate (compared to no prescription) to prevent return to heavy drinking and/or to reduce heavy drinking [ low certainty of evidence ]; (2c) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) with AUD, we suggest gabapentin (compared to no prescription) for the management of AUD to reduce heavy drinking days and improve alcohol withdrawal symptoms [ very low certainty of evidence ]; (3a) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) presenting to the ED with CHS we suggest the use of haloperidol or droperidol (in addition to usual care/serotonin antagonists, e.g., ondansetron) to help with symptom management [ very low certainty of evidence ]; and (3b) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) presenting to the ED with CHS, we also suggest offering the use of topical capsaicin (in addition to usual care/serotonin antagonists, e.g., ondansetron) to help with symptom management [ very low certainty of evidence ].

Abstract This third Guideline for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE‐3) from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine is on the topic adult patients with acute dizziness and vertigo in the emergency department (ED). A multidisciplinary guideline panel applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations regarding five questions for adult ED patients with acute dizziness of less than 2 weeks' duration. The intended population is adults presenting to the ED with acute dizziness or vertigo. The panel derived 15 evidence‐based recommendations based on the timing and triggers of the dizziness but recognizes that alternative diagnostic approaches exist, such as the STANDING protocol and nystagmus examination in combination with gait unsteadiness or the presence of vascular risk factors. As an overarching recommendation, (1) emergency clinicians should receive training in bedside physical examination techniques for patients with the acute vestibular syndrome (AVS; HINTS) and the diagnostic and therapeutic maneuvers for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV; Dix–Hallpike test and Epley maneuver). To help distinguish central from peripheral causes in patients with the AVS, we recommend: (2) use HINTS (for clinicians trained in its use) in patients with nystagmus, (3) use finger rub to further aid in excluding stroke in patients with nystagmus, (4) use severity of gait unsteadiness in patients without nystagmus, (5) do not use brain computed tomography (CT), (6) do not use routine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as a first‐line test if a clinician trained in HINTS is available, and (7) use MRI as a confirmatory test in patients with central or equivocal HINTS examinations. In patients with the spontaneous episodic vestibular syndrome: (8) search for symptoms or signs of cerebral ischemia, (9) do not use CT, and (10) use CT angiography or MRI angiography if there is concern for transient ischemic attack. In patients with the triggered (positional) episodic vestibular syndrome, (11) use the Dix–Hallpike test to diagnose posterior canal BPPV (pc‐BPPV), (12) do not use CT, and (13) do not use MRI routinely, unless atypical clinical features are present. In patients diagnosed with vestibular neuritis, (14) consider short‐term steroids as a treatment option. In patients diagnosed with pc‐BPPV, (15) treat with the Epley maneuver. It is clear that as of 2023, when applied in routine practice by emergency clinicians without special training, HINTS testing is inaccurate, partly due to use in the wrong patients and partly due to issues with its interpretation. Most emergency physicians have not received training in use of HINTS. As such, it is not standard of care, either in the legal sense of that term (“what the average physician would do in similar circumstances”) or in the common parlance sense (“the standard action typically used by physicians in routine practice”).