Domecq Garces, Juan Pablo

Introduction Sepsis is a global health priority with nearly 50 million cases annually. Cardiovascular dysfunction is common, frequently manifesting as hypotension that persists despite fluid resuscitation. Most affected patients require the use of intravenous (IV) vasoactive agents, typically necessitating intensive care unit (ICU)-level monitoring, invasive interventions and contributing substantially to healthcare costs. Midodrine, an oral alpha-1 agonist approved for orthostatic hypotension, has increasingly been used off-label as a vasopressor-sparing (reducing IV vasopressor use) strategy in sepsis, despite limited and inconsistent evidence. This pragmatic, randomised, open-label trial evaluates the efficacy and safety of midodrine in patients with sepsis-associated hypotension. We hypothesise that, compared with standard care, midodrine administration will reduce the duration of IV vasopressor use. Methods and analysis A total of 308 adult patients with sepsis-associated hypotension will be enrolled (154 per arm). The intervention group will, in addition to standard of care, receive enteral midodrine 10 mg three times daily. Outcomes will be ascertained pragmatically via electronic health record-based data retrieval and adjudicated by research coordinators blinded to treatment assignment. The primary outcome is time alive and off IV vasopressors in the first 28 days (in hours) after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include cumulative vasopressor exposure; use and duration of central venous access; cumulative fluid balance over the first 48 hours and up to 7 days of ICU stay; ICU and hospital length of stay; and ICU-, hospital-, and organ support-free days through day 28. Safety outcomes include adverse events potentially attributable to midodrine during hospitalisation including acute kidney injury. Primary analyses will follow an intention-to-treat framework, including all randomised participants according to their assigned treatment groups. Primary and secondary outcomes will be compared using a van Elteren test stratified by randomisation factors. A predefined secondary Bayesian analysis of the primary outcome will provide complementary estimates of treatment effect. Safety outcomes will be summarised descriptively without formal between-arm hypothesis testing. Ethics and dissemination The Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board approved this protocol and required written informed consent from all participants (IRB# 24–0 00 121). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and international conference presentations. Trial registration number NCT06319248 .

OBJECTIVES: Conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess prevalence and timing of acute kidney injury (AKI) development after acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and its association with mortality. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Ovid PsycINFO database, Scopus, and Web of Science thought April 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Titles and abstracts were screened independently and in duplicate to identify eligible studies. Randomized controlled trials and prospective or retrospective cohort studies reporting the development of AKI following ARDS were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data using a pre piloted abstraction form. We used Review Manager 5.4 software (Cochrane Library, Oxford, United Kingdom) and Open Meta software (Brown University, Providence, RI) for statistical analyses. DATA SYNTHESIS: Among the 3646 studies identified and screened, 17 studies comprising 9359 ARDS patients met the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. AKI developed in 3287 patients (40%) after the diagnosis of ARDS. The incidence of AKI at least 48 hours after ARDS diagnosis was 20% (95% CI, 0.18–0.21%). The pooled risk ratio (RR) for the hospital (or 30-d) mortality among ARDS patients who developed AKI was 1.93 (95% CI, 1.71–2.18). AKI development after ARDS was identified as an independent risk factor for mortality in ARDS patients, with a pooled odds ratio from multivariable analysis of 3.69 (95% CI, 2.24–6.09). Furthermore, two studies comparing mortality between patients with late vs. early AKI initiation after ARDS revealed higher mortality in late AKI patients with RR of 1.46 (95% CI, 1.19–1.8). However, the certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low to very low. CONCLUSIONS: While our findings highlight a significant association between ARDS and subsequent development of AKI, the low to very low certainty of evidence underscores the need for cautious interpretation. This systematic review identified a significant knowledge gap, necessitating further research to establish a more definitive understanding of this relationship and its clinical implications.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the prevalence, associated risk factors, and outcomes of serious neurologic manifestations (encephalopathy, stroke, seizure, and meningitis/encephalitis) among patients hospitalized with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: One hundred seventy-nine hospitals in 24 countries within the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study COVID-19 Registry. PATIENTS: Hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. INTERVENTIONS: None. RESULTS: Of 16,225 patients enrolled in the registry with hospital discharge status available, 2,092 (12.9%) developed serious neurologic manifestations including 1,656 (10.2%) with encephalopathy at admission, 331 (2.0%) with stroke, 243 (1.5%) with seizure, and 73 (0.5%) with meningitis/encephalitis at admission or during hospitalization. Patients with serious neurologic manifestations of COVID-19 were older with median (interquartile range) age 72 years (61.0–81.0 yr) versus 61 years (48.0–72.0 yr) and had higher prevalence of chronic medical conditions, including vascular risk factors. Adjusting for age, sex, and time since the onset of the pandemic, serious neurologic manifestations were associated with more severe disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.49; p < 0.001) as defined by the World Health Organization ordinal disease severity scale for COVID-19 infection. Patients with neurologic manifestations were more likely to be admitted to the ICU (OR, 1.45; p < 0.001) and require critical care interventions (extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: OR, 1.78; p = 0.009 and renal replacement therapy: OR, 1.99; p < 0.001). Hospital, ICU, and 28-day mortality for patients with neurologic manifestations was higher (OR, 1.51, 1.37, and 1.58; p < 0.001), and patients had fewer ICU-free, hospital-free, and ventilator-free days (estimated difference in days, –0.84, –1.34, and –0.84; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Encephalopathy at admission is common in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and is associated with worse outcomes. While serious neurologic manifestations including stroke, seizure, and meningitis/encephalitis were less common, all were associated with increased ICU support utilization, more severe disease, and worse outcomes.

Abstract Background There is growing attention towards increasing patient and service user engagement ( PSUE ) in biomedical and health services research. Existing variations in language and design inhibit reporting and indexing, which are crucial to comparative effectiveness in determining best practices. Objective This paper utilizes a systematic review and environmental scan to derive an evidence‐based framework for PSUE . Design A metanarrative systematic review and environmental scan/manual search using scientific databases and other search engines, along with feedback from a patient advisory group ( PAG ). Eligible sources English‐language studies, commentaries, grey literature and other sources (including systematic and non‐systematic reviews) pertaining to patient and public involvement in biomedical and health services research. Data extracted Study description (e.g. participant demographics, research setting) and design, if applicable; frameworks, conceptualizations or planning schemes for PSUE ‐related endeavours; and methods for PSUE initiation and gathering patients'/service users' input or contributions. Results Overall, 202 sources were included and met eligibility criteria; 41 of these presented some framework or conceptualization of PSUE . Sources were synthesized into a two‐part framework for PSUE: (i) integral PSUE components include patient and service user initiation, reciprocal relationships, colearning and re‐assessment and feedback, (ii) sources describe PSUE at several research stages, within three larger phases: preparatory, execution and translational. Discussion and Conclusions Efforts at developing a solid evidence base on PSUE are limited by the non‐standard and non‐empirical nature of much of the literature. Our proposed two‐part framework provides a standard structure and language for reporting and indexing to support comparative effectiveness and optimize PSUE .