Search

Purpose: Children with moderate traumatic brain injury (modTBI) (Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) 9–13) may benefit from better stratification. We aimed to compare neurocritical care utilization and functional outcomes between children with high GCS modTBI (hmodTBI, GCS 11–13), low GCS modTBI (lmodTBI, GCS 9–10), and severe TBI (sTBI, GCS ≤ 8). We hypothesized that patients with lmodTBI have higher neurocritical care needs and worse outcomes than patients with hmodTBI and are similar to patients with sTBI. Methods: Prospective observational study from June 2018 to October 2022 in 28 pediatric intensive care units (PICU) in Asia, South America, and Europe. We included children (age < 18 years) with modTBI and sTBI admitted to PICU and measured functional outcomes at 3 months using the Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended Pediatric Revision (GOS-E Peds, scale 1–8, 1 = upper good recovery, 8 = death). Results: We analyzed 409 patients: 98 (24%) and 311 (76%) with modTBI and sTBI, respectively. Patients with lmodTBI (vs. hmodTBI) were more likely to have invasive ICP monitoring (32.3% vs. 4.5%, p < 0.001), longer PICU stay (days, median [IQR]; 5.00 [4.00, 9.75] vs 4.00 [2.00, 5.00], p = 0.007), and longer hospital stay (days, median [IQR]: 13.00 [8.00, 17.00] vs. 8.00 [5.00, 12, 25], p = 0.015). Median GOS-E Peds scores were significantly different (hmodTBI (1.00 [1.00, 3.00]), lmodTBI (3.00 [IQR 2.00, 5.75]), and sTBI (5.00 [IQR 1.00, 6.00]) (p < 0.001)). After adjusting for age, sex, presence of polytrauma and cerebral edema, lmodTBI, and sTBI remained significantly associated with higher GOS-E scores (adjusted coefficient (standard error): 1.24 (0.52), p = 0.018, and 1.27 (0.33), p < 0.001, respectively) compared with hmodTBI. Conclusions: Children with lmodTBI have higher rates of neurocritical care utilization and worse functional outcomes than those with hmodTBI but better than those with sTBI. Children with lmodTBI may benefit from guideline-based management similar to what is implemented in children with sTBI. This work was performed in hospitals within the PACCMAN and LARed networks. No reprints will be ordered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Prone position is known to improve mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The impact of prone position in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) remains to be determined. In this review, we describe the mechanisms of action of prone position, systematically appraise the current experience of prone position in COVID-19 patients, and highlight unique considerations for prone position practices during this pandemic. Methods: For our systematic review, we searched PubMed, Scopus and EMBASE from January 1, 2020, to April 16, 2020. After completion of our search, we became aware of four relevant publications during article preparation that were published in May and June 2020, and these studies were reviewed for eligibility and inclusion. We included all studies reporting clinical characteristics of patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 disease who received respiratory support with high-flow nasal cannula, or noninvasive or mechanical ventilation and reported the use of prone position. The full text of eligible articles was reviewed, and data regarding study design, patient characteristics, interventions and outcomes were extracted. Results: We found seven studies (total 1899 patients) describing prone position in COVID-19. Prone position has been increasingly used in non-intubated patients with COVID-19; studies show high tolerance and improvement in oxygenation and lung recruitment. Published studies lacked a description of important clinical outcomes (e.g., mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation). Conclusions: Based on the findings of our review, we recommend prone position in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 ARDS as per existing guidelines. A trial of prone position should be considered for non-intubated COVID-19 patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure, as long as this does not result in a delay in intubation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose of the Review: The purpose of this review is to analyze the evidence for use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) with a focus on women, namely, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), Impella, ventricular assist devices (VAD), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Recent Findings: There is paucity of data examining management options for cardiogenic shock (CS) in women specifically. In published data, although only a minority of MCS recipients (33%) were women, there is a trend toward even lower use in women relative to men over time. Women presenting with CS tend to have a higher risk profile including older age, greater comorbidities, higher Society of Cardiothoracic Surgery (STS) mortality scores, more hypotension and index vasopressor requirements, and longer duration of CS. Overall, women receiving mechanical support suffer increased bleeding and vascular complications and have higher 30-day readmission rates. Summary: The incidence of cardiogenic shock (CS) has been rising at a higher rate in women compared to men. Women in CS tend to present with an overall higher risk profile including older age, greater burden of medical comorbidities, more hypotension and index vasopressor requirements, higher STS mortality scores, and more out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. After adjusting for comorbidities and traditional cardiovascular risk factors, mortality remained higher in younger women compared to men of similar age. In spite of these facts, evidence points to the underutilization of support devices in eligible female patients. Higher complication rates, such as vascular complications requiring surgery and bleeding requiring transfusion, may be deterring factors that limit the use of MCS and hinderoperator confidence and experience with devices in women. This suggests that future research should address the sex disparities in outcomes of contemporary MCS practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]