Citations

Background The most common cause of preventable death after injury is haemorrhage. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is intended to provide earlier, temporary haemorrhage control, to facilitate transfer to an operating theatre or interventional radiology suite for definitive haemostasis. Objective To compare standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta versus standard care in patients with exsanguinating haemorrhage in the emergency department. Design Pragmatic, multicentre, Bayesian, group-sequential, registry-enabled, open-label, parallel-group randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta, compared to standard care alone. Setting United Kingdom Major Trauma Centres. Participants Trauma patients aged 16 years or older with confirmed or suspected life-threatening torso haemorrhage deemed amenable to adjunctive treatment with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta. Interventions Participants were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to: standard care, as expected in a major trauma centre standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta. Main outcome measures Primary: Mortality at 90 days. Secondary: Mortality at 6 months, while in hospital, and within 24, 6 and 3 hours; need for haemorrhage control procedures, time to commencement of haemorrhage procedure, complications, length of stay (hospital and intensive care unit-free days), blood product use. Health economic: Expected United Kingdom National Health Service perspective costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years, modelled over a lifetime horizon. Data sources Case report forms, Trauma Audit and Research Network registry, NHS Digital (Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics data). Results Ninety patients were enrolled: 46 were randomised to standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta and 44 to standard care. Mortality at 90 days was higher in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group (54%) compared to the standard care group (42%). The odds ratio was 1.58 (95% credible interval 0.72 to 3.52). The posterior probability of an odds ratio > 1 (indicating increased odds of death with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta) was 86.9%. The overall effect did not change when an enthusiastic prior was used or when the estimate was adjusted for baseline characteristics. For the secondary outcomes (3, 6 and 24 hours mortality), the posterior probability that standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta was harmful was higher than for the primary outcome. Additional analyses to account for intercurrent events did not change the direction of the estimate for mortality at any time point. Death due to haemorrhage was more common in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group than in the standard care group. There were no serious adverse device effects. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is less costly (probability 99%), due to the competing mortality risk but also substantially less effective in terms of lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (probability 91%). Limitations The size of the study reflects the relative infrequency of exsanguinating traumatic haemorrhage in the United Kingdom. There were some baseline imbalances between groups, but adjusted analyses had little effect on the estimates. Conclusions This is the first randomised trial of the addition of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta to standard care in the management of exsanguinating haemorrhage. All the analyses suggest that a strategy of standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is potentially harmful. Future work The role (if any) of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in the pre-hospital setting remains unclear. Further research to clarify its potential (or not) may be required. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN16184981. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/199/09) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 54. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of our systematic review and meta-analyses were to determine the diagnostic accuracy of central venous oxygen saturation (Scvo 2) in estimating mixed venous oxygen saturation (Svo 2) and cardiac index in critically ill patients. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search using MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase was completed on May 6, 2024. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of patients in the ICU for whom Scvo 2 and at least one reference standard test was performed (thermodilution and/or Svo 2) were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Individual patient data were used to calculate the pooled intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for Svo 2 and Spearman correlation for cardiac index. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 and Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tools were used for the risk of bias and certainty of evidence assessments. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 3427 studies, a total of 18 studies with 1971 patients were identified. We meta-analyzed 16 studies (1335 patients) that used Svo 2 as a reference and three studies (166 patients) that used thermodilution as reference. The ICC for reference Svo 2 was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.75–0.89) with a mean difference of 2.98% toward Scvo 2. The Spearman rank correlation for reference cardiac index is 0.47 (95% CI, 0.46–0.48; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate reliability for Scvo 2 in predicting Svo 2 in critical care patients with variability based on sampling site and presence of sepsis. There is limited evidence on the independent use of Scvo 2 in predicting cardiac index.

Aggregated α-synuclein (α-SYN) proteins, encoded by the SNCA gene, are hallmarks of Lewy body disease (LBD), affecting multiple brain regions. However, the specific mechanisms underlying α-SYN pathology in cortical neurons, crucial for LBD-associated dementia, remain unclear. Here, we recapitulated α-SYN pathologies in human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs)–derived cortical organoids generated from patients with LBD with SNCA gene triplication. Single-cell RNA sequencing, combined with functional and molecular validation, identified synaptic and mitochondrial dysfunction in excitatory neurons exhibiting high expression of the SNCA gene, aligning with observations in the cortex of autopsy-confirmed LBD human brains. Furthermore, we screened 1280 Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs and identified four candidates (entacapone, tolcapone, phenazopyridine hydrochloride, and zalcitabine) that inhibited α-SYN seeding activity in real-time quaking-induced conversion assays with human brains, reduced α-SYN aggregation, and alleviated mitochondrial dysfunction in SNCA triplication organoids and excitatory neurons. Our findings establish human cortical LBD models and suggest potential therapeutic drugs targeting α-SYN aggregation for LBD.

BACKGROUND: The supraglottic airway device (SGD) was introduced as a breakthrough in airway management. The Fastrach emerged as the first commercially available intubating SGD, drawing extensive investigation. I-gel is a more recent device that has gained popularity, can be used as an intubating SGD, and replaced Fastrach in many institutions. However, there is uncertainty regarding the comparison between these devices in terms of efficacy for intubation and ventilation, and safety in an airway rescue situation. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing I-gel and Fastrach SGD in adult patients undergoing intubation. The primary outcome was the first-pass success rate for tracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes were tracheal intubation time, SGD insertion time and success, and complications. We computed risk ratios (RRs) to assess binary end points and weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous outcomes, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the primary outcome and its subgroup analysis ( P < .05 was considered statistically significant) and 99% CI after Bonferroni correction for the secondary outcomes ( P < .01 was considered statistically significant). RESULTS: This study included a total of 14 RCTs encompassing 1340 patients. The results indicated a significant difference in the first-pass success rate favoring Fastrach (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67–0.98; P = .03; I² = 91%). In the subgroup analysis, when a flexible scope was utilized through I-gel, providers achieved a better tracheal intubation first-pass success rate (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01–1.11; P = .03; I² = 0%), compared with the Fastrach. Overall intubation success rates (RR, 0.92; 99% CI, 0.82–1.04; P = .08, I² = 92%) and time (WMD - 1.03 seconds; 99% CI, -4.75 to 2.69; P = .48; I² = 84%) showed no significant difference irrespective of the device used. There was no significant difference regarding device insertion time by the providers (WMD -6.48 seconds; 99% CI, -13.23 to 0.27; P = .01; I 2 = 98%). Success rates of the providers’ initial SGD insertion and complications such as sore throat (RR, 1.01; 99% CI, 0.65–1.57; P = .95, I² = 33%) and blood presence post-SGD removal (RR, 0.89; 99% CI, 0.42–1.86; P = .68, I² = 0%) showed no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our findings, a higher first-pass success rate was observed with the use of Fastrach when compared to I-gel. However, the use of I-gel might result in a better intubation success rate with the flexible scope-guided intubation. There are no significant differences in performance in terms of the success rate for intubation overall, time for device insertion, or time to intubation or complications regardless of the device used.

Abstract: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a mechanical support treatment modality used in patients with refractory cardiac and/or pulmonary failure. Bleeding and thrombotic complications associated with ECMO are inherent concerns that require careful management. Anticoagulation optimization may help mitigate these risks by providing more adequate therapeutic anticoagulation and lessen the bleed risk. Heparin, the most used anticoagulant, carries concerns for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and possible resistance given its dependence on cofactors and circulating proteins to exert its pharmacologic effect. In contrast, bivalirudin, a direct thrombin inhibitor, exerts its effect independent of cofactors or plasma proteins, and possesses thrombin-binding and metabolism features that may confer advantages in ECMO management. This review of the evidence for bivalirudin utilization in ECMO suggests favorable outcomes in circuit-related thrombosis, bleeding, and dosing reliability. In addition, blood product utilization, circuit interventions, and success in ECMO decannulation and survival were positive findings associated with bivalirudin that merit consideration. Common questions and concerns relative to bivalirudin utilization, including laboratory monitoring, utilization in low-flow states, dosing considerations in renal replacement therapy, reversibility, and cost are also discussed in this review. Moreover, this review suggests that bivalirudin utilization presents the opportunity for ECMO management simplification.

Importance Numerous studies show that early palliative care improves quality of life and other key outcomes in patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers, although most lack access to this evidence-based model of care. Objective To evaluate whether delivering early palliative care via secure video vs in-person visits has an equivalent effect on quality of life in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized, multisite, comparative effectiveness trial from June 14, 2018, to May 4, 2023, at 22 US cancer centers among 1250 patients within 12 weeks of diagnosis of advanced NSCLC and 548 caregivers. Intervention Participants were randomized to meet with a specialty-trained palliative care clinician every 4 weeks either via video visit or in person in the outpatient clinic from the time of enrollment and throughout the course of disease. The video visit group had an initial in-person visit to establish rapport, followed by subsequent virtual visits. Main Outcomes and Measures Equivalence of the effect of video visit vs in-person early palliative care on quality of life at week 24 per the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung questionnaire (equivalence margin of ±4 points; score range: 0-136, with higher scores indicating better quality of life). Participants completed study questionnaires at enrollment and at weeks 12, 24, 36, and 48. Results By 24 weeks, participants (mean age, 65.5 years; 54.0% women; 82.7% White) had a mean of 4.7 (video) and 4.9 (in-person) early palliative care encounters. Patient-reported quality-of-life scores were equivalent between groups (video mean, 99.7 vs in-person mean, 97.7; difference, 2.0 [90% CI, 0.1-3.9]; P = .04 for equivalence). Rate of caregiver participation in visits was lower for video vs in-person early palliative care (36.6% vs 49.7%; P &amp;lt; .001). Study groups did not differ in caregiver quality of life, patient coping, or patient and caregiver satisfaction with care, mood symptoms, or prognostic perceptions. Conclusions and Relevance The delivery of early palliative care virtually vs in person demonstrated equivalent effects on quality of life in patients with advanced NSCLC, underscoring the considerable potential for improving access to this evidence-based care model through telehealth delivery. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03375489