Search

BACKGROUND: Despite numerous publications on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in the last decade it remains to be seen whether mtDNA can be used clinically. We conducted a systematic review to assess circulating cell-free mtDNA as a biomarker of mortality in critically ill patients. METHODS: This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42016046670). PubMed, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science, and reference lists of retrieved articles were searched. Studies measuring circulating cell-free mtDNA and reporting on all-cause mortality in critically ill adult and pediatric patients were included. The primary and secondary outcomes were mortality and morbidity, respectively. RESULTS: Of the 1,566 initially retrieved publications, 40 studies were included, accounting for 3,450 critically ill patients. Substantial differences between studies were noted in how mtDNA was isolated and measured. Sixteen of the 40 included studies (40%) explored the association between mtDNA levels and mortality; of those 16 studies, 11 (68.8%) reported a statistically significant association. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve for mtDNA and mortality was calculated for 10 studies and ranged from 0.61 to 0.95. CONCLUSIONS: There is growing interest in mtDNA as a predictor of mortality in critically ill patients. Most studies are small, lack validation cohorts, and utilize different protocols to measure mtDNA. When reported, AUROC analysis usually suggests a statistically significant association between mtDNA and mortality. Standardization of mtDNA protocols and the completion of a large, prospective, multicenter trial may be warranted to firmly establish the clinical usefulness of mtDNA.

Background Observational studies suggest that some patients meeting criteria for ARDS no longer fulfill the oxygenation criterion early in the course of their illness. This subphenotype of rapidly improving ARDS has not been well characterized. We attempted to assess the prevalence, characteristics, and outcomes of rapidly improving ARDS and to identify which variables are useful to predict it. Methods A secondary analysis was performed of patient level data from six ARDS Network randomized controlled trials. We defined rapidly improving ARDS, contrasted with ARDS > 1 day, as extubation or a Pao2 to Fio2 ratio (Pao2:Fio2) > 300 on the first study day following enrollment. Results The prevalence of rapidly improving ARDS was 10.5% (458 of 4,361 patients) and increased over time. Of the 1,909 patients enrolled in the three most recently published trials, 197 (10.3%) were extubated on the first study day, and 265 (13.9%) in total had rapidly improving ARDS. Patients with rapidly improving ARDS had lower baseline severity of illness and lower 60-day mortality (10.2% vs 26.3%; P 1 day. Pao2:Fio2 at screening, change in Pao2:Fio2 from screening to enrollment, use of vasopressor agents, Fio2 at enrollment, and serum bilirubin levels were useful predictive variables. Conclusions Rapidly improving ARDS, mostly defined by early extubation, is an increasingly prevalent and distinct subphenotype, associated with better outcomes than ARDS > 1 day. Enrollment of patients with rapidly improving ARDS may negatively affect the prognostic enrichment and contribute to the failure of therapeutic trials.

Although acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (AECBs) are common, there has been no metaanalysis that focused on the optimum regimen.To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of first-line antimicrobial agents (ie, amoxicillin, ampicillin, pivampicillin, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, and doxycycline) and second-line antimicrobial agents (ie, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, macrolides, second-generation or third-generation cephalosporins, and quinolones) for the treatment of patients with AECB, in an era of increasing antimicrobial resistance among the microbes responsible for AECB, we performed a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) retrieved through searches of the PubMed and the Cochrane databases.Twelve RCTs were included in the metaanalysis. First-line antibiotics were associated with lower treatment success compared to second-line antibiotics in the clinically evaluable patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34 to 0.75). There were no differences among the compared regimens regarding mortality (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.25 to 1.66) or treatment success (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.22 to 1.43) in microbiologically evaluable patients, or adverse effects in general (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.45) or diarrhea in particular (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 0.74 to 3.35).Compared to first-line antibiotics, second-line antibiotics are more effective, but not less safe, when administered to patients with AECB. The available data did not allow for stratified analyses according to the presence of risk factors for poor outcome, such as increased age, impaired lung function, airway obstruction, and frequency of exacerbations; this fact should be taken into consideration when interpreting the findings of this metaanalysis.