Citations

Abstract Background Acute hypoxemic and hypercapnic respiratory failure are among the most common reasons for ICU admission and need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS) strategies—including high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), noninvasive ventilation (NIV), and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)—may prevent intubation, improve outcomes, and reduce ICU utilization. However, there is uncertainty regarding optimal patient and modality selection, resulting in variable implementation. There are no clinical practice guidelines comprehensively addressing the use of the different noninvasive respiratory support strategies across the spectrum of acute respiratory failure. Objective To update and develop new evidence-based clinical practice recommendations informing noninvasive respiratory support use, including HFNC, NIV and CPAP, in adults with acute respiratory failure. Methods A multidisciplinary panel used the GRADE approach to address four PICO questions related to the use of NIRS for hypoxemic and hypercapnic respiratory failure, preoxygenation for intubation, and post-extubation respiratory support. Recommendations were informed by several systematic reviews and network meta-analyses. Results The panel made a strong recommendation for HFNC and a conditional recommendation for NIV or CPAP for adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure with close monitoring for the need for escalation of respiratory support, based primarily on effects on need for intubation. For acute hypercapnic respiratory failure, the panel made a strong recommendation for NIV to reduce mortality and need for invasive mechanical ventilation, and a conditional recommendation for HFNC only in patients with less severe hypercapnia and with mild acidemia (eg, pH > 7.25), provided that close monitoring and prompt escalation to NIV are available. The panel made a strong recommendation for HFNC or NIV for preoxygenation prior to endotracheal intubation to prevent peri-intubation hypoxemia. The panel also issued a risk-based recommendation, suggesting HFNC for low-risk patients and NIV for high-risk patients to reduce the need for re-intubation following extubation after critical illness. Conclusions Noninvasive respiratory support strategies are effective in improving outcomes in a range of clinical scenarios. We provide evidence-based recommendations, which can be further informed by patient risk, institutional capacity, and interface tolerance.

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.

Objectives: To identify factors associated with short-term mortality among patients receiving microaxial flow pump (mAFP) therapy for acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS). Data Sources: We searched four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and Scopus) from January 1, 2004, to January 1, 2025. Study Selection: We selected English-language studies that included adults with AMI-CS receiving mAFP and evaluated factors associated with short-term mortality. We excluded patients receiving concurrent venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, as well as studies that solely included patients presenting with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Data Extraction: Two authors performed citation screening and data extraction. For each factor evaluated in at least two studies, we performed meta-analyses of adjusted odds ratios (aORs) using a random-effects model. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology. Data Synthesis: Our primary analysis included 18 studies, encompassing 20,617 patients. Median short-term mortality across studies was 50.7% (interquartile range 38.4–55.3%). Factors associated with short-term mortality based on high-certainty evidence included: increased age (aOR, 1.04 per year [95% CI, 1.03–1.05 per year] or ≥ 65 yr (aOR, 2.42 yr [95% CI, 0.77–7.64 yr]), female sex (aOR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.09–1.45]), higher body mass index (aOR, 1.05 per point [95% CI, 1.04–1.07 per point]), higher heart rate (aOR, 1.02 per beats/min [95% CI, 1.01–1.02 per beats/min]), higher serum creatinine (aOR, 1.35 per mg/dL [95% CI, 1.08–1.70 per mg/dL]), mechanical ventilation (aOR, 2.53 [95% CI, 1.82–3.53]), vasopressors (aOR, 1.52 [95% CI, 1.11–2.08] for any vasopressors and aOR, 1.37 [95% CI, 1.18–1.58] per each vasopressor), presentation with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (aOR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.11–2.26]), cardiac arrest (aOR, 2.85 [95% CI, 2.22–3.64]), and hypoxic-ischemic brain injury (aOR, 5.36 [95% CI, 3.03–9.47]). Conclusions: We identified several prognostic factors associated with short-term mortality in AMI-CS patients receiving mAFP support. This work may help inform clinicians, patients, and families regarding utilization of mAFP in AMI-CS.

Importance Eligibility criteria for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are designed to select clinically relevant patient populations. However, not all eligibility criteria are strongly justified, potentially excluding marginalized groups, and limiting the generalizability of trial findings. Objective To summarize and evaluate the justification of exclusion criteria in published RCTs in critical care medicine. Evidence Review A systematic sampling review of parallel-group RCTs published in the top 5 general internal medicine journals by impact factor ( The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, British Medical Journal, and Annals of Internal Medicine ) between January 1, 2018, and February 23, 2023, was conducted. RCTs enrolling adults in intensive care units (ICUs) and RCTs enrolling critically ill patients who required life-sustaining interventions typically initiated in the ICU were included. All study exclusion criteria were categorized as either poorly justified, potentially justified, or strongly justified, adapting previously established criteria, independently and in duplicate. Findings In total, 225 studies were identified, 75 of which were included. The median (IQR) number of exclusion criteria per trial was 19 (14-24), with 1455 total exclusion criteria. Common exclusion criteria were related to the risk of adverse reaction to interventions (302 criteria [20.8%]), followed by inability to obtain consent (120 criteria [8.2%]), and treatment limitation decisions (97 criteria [6.7%]). Most exclusion criteria were either strongly justified (1080 criteria [74.2%]) or potentially justified (297 criteria [20.4%]), whereas 5.4% (78 criteria) were poorly justified. Of the 78 poorly justified exclusion criteria, the most common were pregnancy (19 criteria [24.4%]), communication barriers (11 criteria [14.1%]), lactation (10 criteria [12.8%]), and lack of health insurance (10 criteria [12.8%]). Overall, 45 of 75 studies (60.0%) had at least 1 poorly justified exclusion criteria. Conclusions and Relevance Most exclusion criteria in critical care medicine RCTs were strongly justifiable. Across poorly justified criteria, the most common exclusions were pregnant or lactating persons, those with communication barriers, and individuals without health insurance. This highlights the need to carefully consider exclusion criteria when designing trials to minimize the inappropriate exclusion of participants and enhance generalizability.

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.

OBJECTIVES: We postulate that corticosteroid-related side effects in critically ill patients are similar across sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). By pooling data across all trials that have examined corticosteroids in these three acute conditions, we aim to examine the side effects of corticosteroid use in critical illness. DATA SOURCES: We performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention library of COVID research, CINAHL, and Cochrane center for trials. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared corticosteroids to no corticosteroids or placebo in patients with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP. DATA EXTRACTION: We summarized data addressing the most described side effects of corticosteroid use in critical care: gastrointestinal bleeding, hyperglycemia, hypernatremia, superinfections/secondary infections, neuropsychiatric effects, and neuromuscular weakness. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 47 RCTs ( n = 13,893 patients). Corticosteroids probably have no effect on gastrointestinal bleeding (relative risk [RR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.87–1.34; absolute risk increase [ARI], 0.3%; moderate certainty) or secondary infections (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89–1.05; absolute risk reduction, 0.5%; moderate certainty) and may have no effect on neuromuscular weakness (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.03–1.45; ARI, 1.4%; low certainty) or neuropsychiatric events (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.82–1.74; ARI, 0.5%; low certainty). Conversely, they increase the risk of hyperglycemia (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11–1.31; ARI, 5.4%; high certainty) and probably increase the risk of hypernatremia (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.29–1.96; ARI, 2.3%; moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: In ARDS, sepsis, and CAP, corticosteroids are associated with hyperglycemia and probably with hypernatremia but likely have no effect on gastrointestinal bleeding or secondary infections. More data examining effects of corticosteroids, particularly on neuropsychiatric outcomes and neuromuscular weakness, would clarify the safety of this class of drugs in critical illness.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, up to January 10, 2023. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing corticosteroids with placebo or standard care with sepsis. DATA EXTRACTION: The critical outcomes of interest included mortality, shock reversal, length of stay in the ICU, and adverse events. DATA ANALYSIS: We performed both a pairwise and dose-response meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of different corticosteroid doses on outcomes. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to assess certainty in pooled estimates. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 45 RCTs involving 9563 patients. Corticosteroids probably reduce short-term mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88–0.99; moderate certainty) and increase shock reversal at 7 days (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.11–1.38; high certainty). Corticosteroids may have no important effect on duration of ICU stay (mean difference, –0.6 fewer days; 95% CI, 1.48 fewer to 0.27 more; low certainty); however, probably increase the risk of hyperglycemia (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08–1.18; moderate certainty) and hypernatremia (RR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.32–2.03; moderate certainty) and may increase the risk of neuromuscular weakness (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01–1.45; low certainty). The dose-response analysis showed a reduction in mortality with corticosteroids with optimal dosing of approximately 260 mg/d of hydrocortisone (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83–0.98) or equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: We found that corticosteroids may reduce mortality and increase shock reversal but they may also increase the risk of hyperglycemia, hypernatremia, and neuromuscular weakness. The dose-response analysis indicates optimal dosing is around 260 mg/d of hydrocortisone or equivalent.