Thabane, Lehana

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS)-guided resuscitation on clinical outcomes in adult patients with shock. DATA SOURCE: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and unpublished sources from inception to December 2023. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the use of POCUS to guide resuscitation in patients with shock. DATA EXTRACTION: We collected data regarding study and patient characteristics, POCUS protocol, control group interventions, and outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 18 eligible RCTs. POCUS slightly influences physicians’ plans for IV fluid (IVF) and vasoactive medication prescription (moderate certainty), but results in little to no changes in the administration of IVF (low to high certainty) or inotropes (high certainty). POCUS may result in no change in the number of CT scans performed (low certainty) but probably reduces the number of diagnostic echocardiograms performed (moderate certainty). POCUS-guided resuscitation probably reduces 28-day mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78–0.99), the duration of vasoactive medication (mean difference –0.73 d; 95% CI, –1.16 to –0.30), and the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) (RR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63–1.02) (low to moderate certainty evidence), and lactate clearance (high certainty evidence). POCUS-guided resuscitation may results in little to no difference in ICU or hospital admissions, ICU and hospital length of stay, and the need for mechanical ventilation (MV) (low to moderate certainty evidence). There is an uncertain effect on the risk of acute kidney injury and the duration of MV or RRT (very low certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS: POCUS-guided resuscitation in shock may yield important patient and health system benefits. Due to lack of sufficient evidence, we were unable to explore how the thresholds of operator competency, frequency, and timing of POCUS scans impact patient outcomes.

Objective We investigated prolonged COVID-19 symptom duration, defined as lasting 28 days or longer, among people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). Methods We analysed data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Vaccine Survey (2 April 2021–15 October 2021) to identify people with SARDs reporting test-confirmed COVID-19. Participants reported COVID-19 severity and symptom duration, sociodemographics and clinical characteristics. We reported the proportion experiencing prolonged symptom duration and investigated associations with baseline characteristics using logistic regression. Results We identified 441 respondents with SARDs and COVID-19 (mean age 48.2 years, 83.7% female, 39.5% rheumatoid arthritis). The median COVID-19 symptom duration was 15 days (IQR 7, 25). Overall, 107 (24.2%) respondents had prolonged symptom duration (≥28 days); 42/429 (9.8%) reported symptoms lasting ≥90 days. Factors associated with higher odds of prolonged symptom duration included: hospitalisation for COVID-19 vs not hospitalised and mild acute symptoms (age-adjusted OR (aOR) 6.49, 95% CI 3.03 to 14.1), comorbidity count (aOR 1.11 per comorbidity, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.21) and osteoarthritis (aOR 2.11, 95% CI 1.01 to 4.27). COVID-19 onset in 2021 vs June 2020 or earlier was associated with lower odds of prolonged symptom duration (aOR 0.42, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81). Conclusion Most people with SARDs had complete symptom resolution by day 15 after COVID-19 onset. However, about 1 in 4 experienced COVID-19 symptom duration 28 days or longer; 1 in 10 experienced symptoms 90 days or longer. Future studies are needed to investigate the possible relationships between immunomodulating medications, SARD type/flare, vaccine doses and novel viral variants with prolonged COVID-19 symptoms and other postacute sequelae of COVID-19 among people with SARDs.

Introduction Diarrhoea is a frequent concern in the intensive care unit (ICU) and is associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation, increased length of ICU stay, skin breakdown and renal dysfunction. However, its prevalence, aetiology and prognosis in the critically ill have been poorly studied. The primary objectives of this study are to determine the incidence, risk factors and consequences of diarrhoea in critically ill adults. The secondary objectives are to estimate the incidence of Clostridium difficile- associated diarrhoea (CDAD) in ICU patients and to validate the Bristol Stool Chart and Bliss Stool Classification System characterising bowel movements in the ICU. Our primary outcome is the incidence of diarrhoea . Our secondary outcomes include: CDAD, ICU and hospital mortality and ICU and hospital length of stay. Methods and analysis This international prospective cohort study will enrol patients over 10 weeks in 12 ICUs in Canada, the USA, Poland and Saudi Arabia. We will include all patients 18 years of age and older who are admitted to the ICU for at least 24 hours and follow them daily until ICU discharge. Our primary outcome is the incidence of diarrhoea based on the WHO definition, during the ICU stay. Our secondary outcomes include: CDAD, ICU and hospital mortality and ICU and hospital length of stay. We will use logistic regression to identify factors associated with diarrhoea (as defined using WHO criteria) and the kappa statistic to measure agreement on diarrhoea rates between the WHO definition and the Bristol Stool Chart and Bliss Stool Classification System. Ethics and dissemination The protocol has been approved by the research ethics board of all participating centres. The diarrhoea interventions, consequences and epidemiology in the intensive care unit (DICE-ICU) study will generate evidence about diarrhoea and its frequency, predisposing factors and consequences, to inform critical care practice and future research. Lay summary Diarrhoea is a frequent clinical problem for hospitalised patients including those who are critically ill in the ICU. Diarrhoea can cause complications such as skin damage, dehydration and kidney problems. It is not clear how common diarrhoea is in the ICU, the factors that cause it or the best way for clinicians to assess it. The DICE-ICU study is an international prospective observational study to examine the frequency, risk factors and outcomes of diarrhoea during critical illness.

Introduction Chronic neuropathic pain is associated with reduced health-related quality of life and substantial socioeconomic costs. Current research addressing management of chronic neuropathic pain is limited. No review has evaluated all interventional studies for chronic neuropathic pain, which limits attempts to make inferences regarding the relative effectiveness of treatments. Methods and analysis We will conduct a systematic review of all randomised controlled trials evaluating therapies for chronic neuropathic pain. We will identify eligible trials, in any language, by a systematic search of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, AMED, HealthSTAR, DARE, PsychINFO and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials. Eligible trials will be: (1) enrol patients presenting with chronic neuropathic pain, and (2) randomise patients to alternative interventions (pharmacological or non-pharmacological) or an intervention and a control arm. Pairs of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, screen titles and abstracts of identified citations, review the full texts of potentially eligible trials and extract information from eligible trials. We will use a modified Cochrane instrument to evaluate risk of bias of eligible studies, recommendations from the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) to inform the outcomes we will collect, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to evaluate our confidence in treatment effects. When possible, we will conduct: (1) in direct comparisons, a random-effects meta-analysis to establish the effect of reported therapies on patient-important outcomes; and (2) a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework to assess the relative effects of treatments. We will define a priori hypotheses to explain heterogeneity between studies, and conduct meta-regression and subgroup analyses consistent with the current best practices. Ethics and Dissemination We do not require ethics approval for our proposed review. We will disseminate our findings through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Trial registration number PROSPERO (CRD42014009212).

Abstract Pheochromocytoma is a rare, life-threatening condition. Using a modeling technique, we studied the economic implications of detection strategies for pheochromocytoma (third-party payer perspective). The diagnostic efficacy of biochemical tests was based on Mayo Clinic Rochester data. In all hypothetical algorithms, positive biochemical tests were followed by abdominal computerized tomography and, if negative, metaiodobenzylguanidine scintigraphy. In each hypothetical algorithm, imaging would be indicated after positive biochemical testing as follows: algorithm A, fractionated plasma metanephrine measurements above the laboratory reference range; or algorithm B, abnormal measurements of 24-h urinary total metanephrines or catecholamines. In algorithm C, subjects with fractions of plasma metanephrine at or above 0.5 nmol/liter or normetanephrine at or above 1.80 nmol/liter would undergo imaging, whereas those with values between the reference range and these cutoffs would undergo 24-h urinary measurements (total metanephrines and fractionated catecholamines) and be imaged if positive. We determined that, if 100,000 hypertensive patients (including 500 patients with pheochromocytoma) were tested, algorithm A (measurement of fractionated plasma metanephrines alone) would detect 489 pheochromocytoma patients at a cost of 56.6 million dollars, whereas B (24-h urinary measurements) would detect 457 pheochromocytoma patients for 39.5 million dollars, and C (combination of measurements of fractionated plasma metanephrines and urines) would detect 478 patients for 28.6 million dollars. None of the screening strategies for pheochromocytoma described are affordable if implemented on a routine basis in extremely low-risk patients. However, algorithm C may be the least costly, and at a reasonable level of sensitivity, for subjects in whom the suspicion of disease is moderate.