Cooper University Health Care

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012." DESIGN: A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

INTRODUCTION Sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection (1). Sepsis and septic shock are major healthcare problems, impacting millions of people around the world each year and killing between one in three and one in six of those it affects (2–4). Early identification and appropriate management in the initial hours after the development of sepsis improve outcomes. The recommendations in this document are intended to provide guidance for the clinician caring for adult patients with sepsis or septic shock in the hospital setting. Recommendations from these guidelines cannot replace the clinician's decision-making capability when presented with a unique patient's clinical variables. These guidelines are intended to reflect best practice (Table 1). TABLE 1. - Table of Current Recommendations and Changes From Previous 2016 Recommendations Recommendations 2021 Recommendation Strength and Quality of Evidence Changes From 2016 Recommendations 1. For hospitals and health systems, we recommend using a performance improvement program for sepsis, including sepsis screening for acutely ill, high-risk patients and standard operating procedures for treatment. Strong , moderate-quality evidence (for screening) Changed from Best practice statement "We recommend that hospitals and hospital systems have a performance improvement program for sepsis including sepsis screening for acutely ill, high-risk patients." Strong , very low-quality evidence (for standard operating procedures) 2. We recommend against using qSOFA compared with SIRS, NEWS, or MEWS as a single-screening tool for sepsis or septic shock. Strong , moderate-quality evidence NEW 3. For adults suspected of having sepsis, we suggest measuring blood lactate. Weak , low quality of evidence INITIAL RESUSCITATION 4. Sepsis and septic shock are medical emergencies, and we recommend that treatment and resuscitation begin immediately. Best practice statement 5. For patients with sepsis induced hypoperfusion or septic shock we suggest that at least 30 mL/kg of IV crystalloid fluid should be given within the first 3 hr of resuscitation. Weak, low quality of evidence DOWNGRADE from Strong , low quality of evidence "We recommend that in the initial resuscitation from sepsis-induced hypoperfusion, at least 30 mL/kg of IV crystalloid fluid be given within the first 3 hr" 6. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using dynamic measures to guide fluid resuscitation, over physical examination, or static parameters alone. Weak , very low quality of evidence 7. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest guiding resuscitation to decrease serum lactate in patients with elevated lactate level, over not using serum lactate. Weak , low quality of evidence 8. For adults with septic shock, we suggest using capillary refill time to guide resuscitation as an adjunct to other measures of perfusion. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW MEAN ARTERIAL PRESSURE 9. For adults with septic shock on vasopressors, we recommend an initial target mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 mm Hg over higher MAP targets. Strong , moderate-quality evidence ADMISSION TO INTENSIVE CARE 10. For adults with sepsis or septic shock who require ICU admission, we suggest admitting the patients to the ICU within 6 hr. Weak , low quality of evidence INFECTION 11. For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock but unconfirmed infection, we recommend continuously re-evaluating and searching for alternative diagnoses and discontinuing empiric antimicrobials if an alternative cause of illness is demonstrated or strongly suspected. Best practice statement 12. For adults with possible septic shock or a high likelihood for sepsis, we recommend administering antimicrobials immediately, ideally within 1 hr of recognition. Strong , low quality of evidence (Septic shock) CHANGED from previous: "We recommend that administration of intravenous antimicrobials should be initiated as soon as possible after recognition and within one hour for both a) septic shock and b) sepsis without shock" Strong , very low quality of evidence (Sepsis without shock) strong recommendation , moderate quality of evidence 13. For adults with possible sepsis without shock, we recommend rapid assessment of the likelihood of infectious versus noninfectious causes of acute illness. Best practice statement 14. For adults with possible sepsis without shock, we suggest a time-limited course of rapid investigation and if concern for infection persists, the administration of antimicrobials within 3 hr from the time when sepsis was first recognized. Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW from previous: "We recommend that administration of IV antimicrobials should be initiated as soon as possible after recognition and within 1 hr for both a) septic shock and b) sepsis without shock" strong recommendation , moderate quality of evidence 15. For adults with a low likelihood of infection and without shock, we suggest deferring antimicrobials while continuing to closely monitor the patient. Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW from previous: "We recommend that administration of IV antimicrobials should be initiated as soon as possible after recognition and within 1 hr for both a) septic shock and b) sepsis without shock" strong recommendation , moderate quality of evidence 16. For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using procalcitonin plus clinical evaluation to decide when to start antimicrobials, as compared to clinical evaluation alone. Weak , very low quality of evidence 17. For adults with sepsis or septic shock at high risk of MRSA, we recommend using empiric antimicrobials with MRSA coverage over using antimicrobials without MRSA coverage. Best practice statement NEW from previous: "We recommend empiric broad-spectrum therapy with one or more antimicrobials for patients presenting with sepsis or septic shock to cover all likely pathogens (including bacterial and potentially fungal or viral coverage." Strong recommendation , moderate quality of evidence 18. For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low risk of MRSA, we suggest against using empiric antimicrobials with MRSA coverage, as compared with using antimicrobials without MRSA coverage. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from previous: "We recommend empiric broad-spectrum therapy with one or more antimicrobials for patients presenting with sepsis or septic shock to cover all likely pathogens (including bacterial and potentially fungal or viral coverage." Strong recommendation , moderate quality of evidence 19. For adults with sepsis or septic shock and high risk for multidrug resistant (MDR) organisms, we suggest using two antimicrobials with gram-negative coverage for empiric treatment over one gram-negative agent. Weak , very low quality of evidence 20. For adults with sepsis or septic shock and low risk for multidrug resistant (MDR) organisms, we suggest against using two gram-negative agents for empiric treatment, as compared to one gram-negative agent. Weak , very low quality of evidence 21. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using double gram-negative coverage once the causative pathogen and the susceptibilities are known. Weak , very low quality of evidence 22. For adults with sepsis or septic shock at high risk of fungal infection, we suggest using empiric antifungal therapy over no antifungal therapy. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from previous: "We recommend empiric broad-spectrum therapy with one or more antimicrobials for patients presenting with sepsis or septic shock to cover all likely pathogens (including bacterial and potentially fungal or viral coverage." Strong recommendation , moderate quality of evidence 23. For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low risk of fungal infection, we suggest against empiric use of antifungal therapy Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from previous: "We recommend empiric broad-spectrum therapy with one or more antimicrobials for patients presenting with sepsis or septic shock to cover all likely pathogens (including bacterial and potentially fungal or viral coverage. " Strong recommendation , moderate quality of evidence 24. We make no recommendation on the use of antiviral agents. No recommendation 25. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using prolonged infusion of beta-lactams for maintenance (after an initial bolus) over conventional bolus infusion. Weak , moderate-quality evidence 26. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend optimising dosing strategies of antimicrobials based on accepted pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) principles and specific drug properties. Best practice statement 27. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend rapidly identifying or excluding a specific anatomical diagnosis of infection that requires emergent source control and implementing any required source control intervention as soon as medically and logistically practical. Best practice statement 28. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend prompt removal of intravascular access devices that are a possible source of sepsis or septic shock after other vascular access has been established. Best practice statement 29. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest daily assessment for de-escalation of antimicrobials over using fixed durations of therapy without daily reassessment for de-escalation. Weak , very low quality of evidence 30. For adults with an initial diagnosis of sepsis or septic shock and adequate source control, we suggest using shorter over longer duration of antimicrobial therapy. Weak , very low quality of evidence 31. For adults with an initial diagnosis of sepsis or septic shock and adequate source control where optimal duration of therapy is unclear, we suggest using procalcitonin AND clinical evaluation to decide when to discontinue antimicrobials over clinical evaluation alone. Weak , low quality of evidence HEMODYNAMIC MANAGEMENT 32. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using crystalloids as first-line fluid for resuscitation. Strong , moderate-quality evidence 33. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using balanced crystalloids instead of normal saline for resuscitation. Weak , low quality of evidence CHANGED from weak recommendation , low quality of evidence. "We suggest using either balanced crystalloids or saline for fluid resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock" 34. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using albumin in patients who received large volumes of crystalloids. Weak , moderate-quality evidence 35. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend against using starches for resuscitation. Strong , high-quality evidence 36. For adults with sepsis and septic shock, we suggest against using gelatin for resuscitation. Weak , moderate-quality evidence UPGRADE from weak recommendation , low quality of evidence "We suggest using crystalloids over gelatins when resuscitating patients with sepsis or septic shock." 37. For adults with septic shock, we recommend using norepinephrine as the first-line agent over other vasopressors. Strong Dopamine. High-quality evidence Vasopressin. Moderate-quality evidence Epinephrine. Low quality of evidence Selepressin. Low quality of evidence Angiotensin II. Very low-quality evidence 38. For adults with septic shock on norepinephrine with inadequate mean arterial pressure levels, we suggest adding vasopressin instead of escalating the dose of norepinephrine. Weak , moderate quality evidence 39. For adults with septic shock and inadequate mean arterial pressure levels despite norepinephrine and vasopressin, we suggest adding epinephrine. Weak , low quality of evidence 40. For adults with septic shock, we suggest against using terlipressin. Weak , low quality of evidence 41. For adults with septic shock and cardiac dysfunction with persistent hypoperfusion despite adequate volume status and arterial blood pressure, we suggest either adding dobutamine to norepinephrine or using epinephrine alone. Weak , low quality of evidence 42. For adults with septic shock and cardiac dysfunction with persistent hypoperfusion despite adequate volume status and arterial blood pressure, we suggest against using levosimendan. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW 43. For adults with septic shock, we suggest invasive monitoring of arterial blood pressure over noninvasive monitoring, as soon as practical and if resources are available. Weak , very low quality of evidence 44. For adults with septic shock, we suggest starting vasopressors peripherally to restore mean arterial pressure rather than delaying initiation until a central venous access is secured. Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW 45. There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on the use of restrictive versus liberal fluid strategies in the first 24 hr of resuscitation in patients with sepsis and septic shock who still have signs of hypoperfusion and volume depletion after the initial resuscitation. No recommendation NEW "We suggest using either balanced crystalloids or saline for fluid resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock" Weak recommendation , low quality of evidence "We suggest using crystalloids over gelatins when resuscitating patients with sepsis or septic shock." Weak recommendation , low quality of evidence VENTILATION 46.There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on the use of conservative oxygen targets in adults with sepsis-induced hypoxemic respiratory failure. No recommendation 47. For adults with sepsis-induced hypoxemic respiratory failure, we suggest the use of high flow nasal oxygen over noninvasive ventilation. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW 48. There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on the use of noninvasive ventilation in comparison to invasive ventilation for adults with sepsis-induced hypoxemic respiratory failure. No recommendation 49. For adults with sepsis-induced ARDS, we recommend using a low tidal volume ventilation strategy (6 mL/kg), over a high tidal volume strategy (> 10 mL/kg). Strong , high-quality evidence 50. For adults with sepsis-induced severe ARDS, we recommend using an upper limit goal for plateau pressures of 30 cm H2O, over higher plateau pressures. Strong , moderate-quality evidence 51. For adults with moderate to severe sepsis-induced ARDS, we suggest using higher PEEP over lower PEEP. Weak , moderate-quality evidence 52. For adults with sepsis-induced respiratory failure (without ARDS), we suggest using low tidal volume as compared with high tidal volume ventilation. Weak , low quality of evidence 53. For adults with sepsis-induced moderate-severe ARDS, we suggest using traditional recruitment maneuvers. Weak , moderate-quality evidence 54. When using recruitment maneuvers, we recommend against using incremental PEEP titration/strategy. Strong , moderate-quality evidence 55. For adults with sepsis-induced moderate-severe ARDS, we recommend using prone ventilation for greater than 12 hr daily. Strong , moderate-quality evidence 56. For adults with sepsis induced moderate-severe ARDS, we suggest using intermittent NMBA boluses, over NMBA continuous infusion. Weak , moderate-quality evidence 57. For adults with sepsis-induced severe ARDS, we suggest using Veno-venous (VV) ECMO when conventional mechanical ventilation fails in experienced centers with the infrastructure in place to support its use. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW ADDITIONAL THERAPIES 58. For adults with septic shock and an ongoing requirement for vasopressor therapy we suggest using IV corticosteroids. Weak , moderate-quality evidence UPGRADE from Weak recommendation , low quality of evidence "We suggest against using IV hydrocortisone to treat septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (see goals for Initial Resuscitation). If this is not achievable, we suggest IV hydrocortisone at a dose of 200 mg/day." 59. For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using polymyxin B hemoperfusion. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from previous: "We make no recommendation regarding the use of blood purification techniques" 60. There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on the use of other blood purification techniques. No recommendation 61. For adults with sepsis or septic shock we recommend using a restrictive (over liberal) transfusion strategy. Strong , moderate-quality evidence 62. For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using IV immunoglobulins. Weak , low quality of evidence 63. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, and who have risk factors for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, we suggest using stress ulcer prophylaxis. Weak , moderate-quality evidence 64. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using pharmacologic venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis unless a contraindication to such therapy exists. Strong , moderate-quality evidence 65. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using low molecular weight heparin over unfractionated heparin for VTE prophylaxis Strong , moderate-quality evidence 66. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using mechanical VTE prophylaxis, in addition to pharmacological prophylaxis, over pharmacologic prophylaxis alone. Weak , low quality of evidence 67. In adults with sepsis or septic shock and AKI, we suggest using either continuous or intermittent renal replacement therapy. Weak , low quality of evidence 68. In adults with sepsis or septic shock and AKI, with no definitive indications for renal replacement therapy, we suggest against using renal replacement therapy. Weak , moderate-quality evidence 69. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend initiating insulin therapy at a glucose level of ≥ 180mg/dL (10 mmol/L). Strong , moderate-quality evidence 70. For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using IV vitamin C. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW 71. For adults with septic shock and hypoperfusion-induced lactic acidemia, we suggest against using sodium bicarbonate therapy to improve hemodynamics or to reduce vasopressor requirements. Weak , low quality of evidence 72. For adults with septic shock and severe metabolic acidemia (pH ≤ 7.2) and acute kidney injury (AKIN score 2 or 3), we suggest using sodium bicarbonate therapy Weak , low quality of evidence 73. For adult patients with sepsis or septic shock who can be fed enterally, we suggest early (within 72 hr) initiation of enteral nutrition. Weak , very low quality of evidence LONG-TERM OUTCOMES AND GOALS OF CARE 74. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend discussing goals of care and prognosis with patients and families over no such discussion. Best practice statement 75. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest addressing goals of care early (within 72 hr) over late (72 hr or later). Weak , low quality of evidence 76. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, there is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on any specific standardized criterion to trigger goals of care discussion. No recommendation 77. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend that the principles of palliative care (which may include palliative care consultation based on clinician judgement) be integrated into the treatment plan, when appropriate, to address patient and family symptoms and suffering. Best practice statement 78. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against routine formal palliative care consultation for all patients over palliative care consultation based on clinician judgement. Weak , low quality of evidence 79. For adult survivors of sepsis or septic shock and their families, we suggest referral to peer support groups over no such referral. Weak , very low quality of evidence 80. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using a handoff process of critically important information at transitions of care over no such handoff process. Weak , very low quality of evidence 81. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, there is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on the use of any specific structured handoff tool over usual handoff processes. No recommendation 82. For adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families, we recommend screening for economic and social support (including housing, nutritional, financial, and spiritual support), and make referrals where available to meet these needs. Best practice statement 83. For adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families, we suggest offering written and verbal sepsis education (diagnosis, treatment, and post-ICU/post-sepsis syndrome) prior to hospital discharge and in the follow-up setting. Weak , very low quality of evidence 84. For adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families, we recommend the clinical team provide the opportunity to participate in shared decision making in post-ICU and hospital discharge planning to ensure discharge plans are acceptable and feasible. Best practice statement 85. For adults with sepsis and septic shock and their families, we suggest using a critical care transition program, compared with usual care, upon transfer to the floor. Weak , very low quality of evidence 86. For adults with sepsis and septic shock, we recommend reconciling medications at both ICU and hospital discharge. Best practice statement 87. For adult survivors of sepsis and septic shock and their families, we recommend including information about the ICU stay, sepsis and related diagnoses, treatments, and common impairments after sepsis in the written and verbal hospital discharge summary. Best practice statement 88. For adults with sepsis or septic shock who developed new impairments, we recommend hospital discharge plans include follow-up with clinicians able to support and manage new and long-term sequelae. Best practice statement 89. For adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families, there is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on early post-hospital discharge follow-up compared with routine post-hospital discharge follow-up. No recommendation 90. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, there is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for or against early cognitive therapy. No recommendation 91. For adult survivors of sepsis or septic shock, we recommend assessment and follow-up for physical, cognitive, and emotional problems after hospital discharge. Best practice statement 92. For adult survivors of sepsis or septic shock, we suggest referral to a post-critical illness follow-up program if available. Weak , very low quality of evidence 93. For adult survivors of sepsis or septic shock receiving mechanical ventilation for > 48hr or an ICU stay of > 72 hr, we suggest referral to a post-hospital rehabilitation program. Weak , very low quality of evidence (References 5–24 are referred to in the Methodology section which can be accessed at Supplemental Digital Content: Methodology.) SCREENING AND EARLY TREATMENT Screening for Patients With Sepsis and Septic Shock - Recommendation 1. For hospitals and health systems, we recommend using a performance improvement program for sepsis, including sepsis screening for acutely ill, high-risk patients and standard operating procedures for treatment. Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence for screening. Strong recommendation, very low-quality evidence for standard operating procedures. Rationale Sepsis performance improvement programs generally consist of sepsis screening, education, measurement of sepsis bundle performance, patient outcomes, and actions for identified opportunities (25,26). Despite some inconsistency, a meta-analysis of 50 observational studies on the effect of performance improvement programs showed that these programs were associated with better adherence to sepsis bundles along with a reduction in mortality (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.61–0.72) in patients with sepsis and septic shock (27). The specific components of performance improvement did not appear to be as important as the presence of a program that included sepsis screening and metrics. Sepsis screening tools are designed to promote early identification of sepsis and consist of manual methods or automated use of the electronic health record (EHR). There is wide variation in diagnostic accuracy of these tools with most having poor predictive values, although the use of some was associated with improvements in care processes (28–31). A variety of clinical variables and tools are used for sepsis screening, such as systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, vital signs, signs of infection, quick Sequential Organ Failure Score (qSOFA) or Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) criteria, National Early Warning Score (NEWS), or Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) (26,32). Machine learning may improve performance of screening tools, and in a meta-analysis of 42,623 patients from seven studies for predicting hospital acquired sepsis the pooled area under the receiving operating curve (SAUROC) (0.89; 95% CI, 0.86−0.92); sensitivity (81%; 95% CI, 80−81), and specificity (72%; 95% CI, 72−72) was higher for machine learning than the SAUROC for traditional screening tools such as SIRS (0.70), MEWS (0.50), and SOFA (0.78) (32). Screening tools may target patients in various locations, such as in-patient wards, emergency departments, or ICUs (28–30,32). A pooled analysis of three RCTs did not demonstrate a mortality benefit of active screening (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.51−1.58) (33–35). However, while there is wide variation in sensitivity and specificity of sepsis screening tools, they are an important component of identifying sepsis early for timely intervention. Standard operating procedures are a set of practices that specify a preferred response to specific clinical circumstances Sepsis standard operating as Early have to which a standard with components of the sepsis early and A large the between of sepsis and A of sepsis to hospitals in the in a mortality and after of sepsis with a control from other In this time mortality was lower in hospitals with higher with the sepsis bundles may a A meta-analysis of two RCTs in higher mortality (RR, 95% CI, with standard operating procedures compared with usual care, while it was in one observational 95% CI, - Recommendation 2. We recommend against using qSOFA compared with SIRS, NEWS, or MEWS as a screening tool for sepsis or septic shock. Strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence. Rationale The qSOFA three variables to and prolonged ICU stay in patients with or suspected a Score a respiratory ≥ and a blood pressure ≤ mm When any two of these variables are the patient is qSOFA analysis used to support the recommendations of the on the of Sepsis identified qSOFA as a of poor in patients with or suspected infection, but no analysis was to support its use as a screening tool that time studies have the use of the qSOFA as a screening tool for sepsis The have been as to its have that qSOFA is more specific but than having two of SIRS for early identification of infection induced organ dysfunction SIRS qSOFA are screening tools for sepsis and the clinician to the of In the that of patients a qSOFA score 2 or but these patients for of poor have been when against the National Early Score and the Modified Early Score (MEWS) the presence of a qSOFA should the clinician to the of sepsis in all given the poor sensitivity of the the a strong recommendation against its use as a screening -

Importance: The US is currently an epicenter of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, yet few national data are available on patient characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of critical illness from COVID-19. Objectives: To assess factors associated with death and to examine interhospital variation in treatment and outcomes for patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter cohort study assessed 2215 adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who were admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) at 65 hospitals across the US from March 4 to April 4, 2020. Exposures: Patient-level data, including demographics, comorbidities, and organ dysfunction, and hospital characteristics, including number of ICU beds. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 28-day in-hospital mortality. Multilevel logistic regression was used to evaluate factors associated with death and to examine interhospital variation in treatment and outcomes. Results: A total of 2215 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.5 [14.5] years; 1436 [64.8%] male; 1738 [78.5%] with at least 1 chronic comorbidity) were included in the study. At 28 days after ICU admission, 784 patients (35.4%) had died, 824 (37.2%) were discharged, and 607 (27.4%) remained hospitalized. At the end of study follow-up (median, 16 days; interquartile range, 8-28 days), 875 patients (39.5%) had died, 1203 (54.3%) were discharged, and 137 (6.2%) remained hospitalized. Factors independently associated with death included older age (≥80 vs <40 years of age: odds ratio [OR], 11.15; 95% CI, 6.19-20.06), male sex (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.19-1.90), higher body mass index (≥40 vs <25: OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.01-2.25), coronary artery disease (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.07-2.02), active cancer (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.35-3.43), and the presence of hypoxemia (Pao2:Fio2<100 vs ≥300 mm Hg: OR, 2.94; 95% CI, 2.11-4.08), liver dysfunction (liver Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 2-4 vs 0: OR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.30-5.25), and kidney dysfunction (renal Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 4 vs 0: OR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.46-4.05) at ICU admission. Patients admitted to hospitals with fewer ICU beds had a higher risk of death (<50 vs ≥100 ICU beds: OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 2.16-4.99). Hospitals varied considerably in the risk-adjusted proportion of patients who died (range, 6.6%-80.8%) and in the percentage of patients who received hydroxychloroquine, tocilizumab, and other treatments and supportive therapies. Conclusions and Relevance: This study identified demographic, clinical, and hospital-level risk factors that may be associated with death in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and can facilitate the identification of medications and supportive therapies to improve outcomes.

PURPOSE: To develop guideline recommendations concerning optimal neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer. METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of the literature on neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer and provide recommended care options. RESULTS: A total of 41 articles met eligibility criteria and form the evidentiary basis for the guideline recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS: Patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy should be managed by a multidisciplinary care team. Appropriate candidates for neoadjuvant therapy include patients with inflammatory breast cancer and those in whom residual disease may prompt a change in therapy. Neoadjuvant therapy can also be used to reduce the extent of local therapy or reduce delays in initiating therapy. Although tumor histology, grade, stage, and estrogen, progesterone, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression should routinely be used to guide clinical decisions, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of other markers or genomic profiles. Patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who have clinically node-positive and/or at least T1c disease should be offered an anthracycline- and taxane-containing regimen; those with cT1a or cT1bN0 TNBC should not routinely be offered neoadjuvant therapy. Carboplatin may be offered to patients with TNBC to increase pathologic complete response. There is currently insufficient evidence to support adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to standard chemotherapy. In patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive (HR-positive), HER2-negative tumors, neoadjuvant chemotherapy can be used when a treatment decision can be made without surgical information. Among postmenopausal patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative disease, hormone therapy can be used to downstage disease. Patients with node-positive or high-risk node-negative, HER2-positive disease should be offered neoadjuvant therapy in combination with anti-HER2-positive therapy. Patients with T1aN0 and T1bN0, HER2-positive disease should not be routinely offered neoadjuvant therapy.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

Numerous reports have questioned the ability of United States emergency departments to handle the increasing demand for emergency services. Emergency department (ED) overcrowding is widespread in US cities and has reportedly reached crisis proportions. The purpose of this review is to describe how ED overcrowding threatens patient safety and public health, and to explore the complex causes and potential solutions for the overcrowding crisis. A review of the literature from 1990 to 2002 identified by a search of the Medline database was performed. Additional sources were selected from the references of the articles identified. There were four key findings. (1) The ED is a vital component of America's health care "safety net". (2) Overcrowding in ED treatment areas threatens public health by compromising patient safety and jeopardising the reliability of the entire US emergency care system. (3) Although the causes of ED overcrowding are complex, the main cause is inadequate inpatient capacity for a patient population with an increasing severity of illness. (4) Potential solutions for ED overcrowding will require multidisciplinary system-wide support.

Importance: Therapies that improve survival in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed. Tocilizumab, a monoclonal antibody against the interleukin 6 receptor, may counteract the inflammatory cytokine release syndrome in patients with severe COVID-19 illness. Objective: To test whether tocilizumab decreases mortality in this population. Design, Setting, and Participants: The data for this study were derived from a multicenter cohort study of 4485 adults with COVID-19 admitted to participating intensive care units (ICUs) at 68 hospitals across the US from March 4 to May 10, 2020. Critically ill adults with COVID-19 were categorized according to whether they received or did not receive tocilizumab in the first 2 days of admission to the ICU. Data were collected retrospectively until June 12, 2020. A Cox regression model with inverse probability weighting was used to adjust for confounding. Exposures: Treatment with tocilizumab in the first 2 days of ICU admission. Main Outcomes and Measures: Time to death, compared via hazard ratios (HRs), and 30-day mortality, compared via risk differences. Results: Among the 3924 patients included in the analysis (2464 male [62.8%]; median age, 62 [interquartile range {IQR}, 52-71] years), 433 (11.0%) received tocilizumab in the first 2 days of ICU admission. Patients treated with tocilizumab were younger (median age, 58 [IQR, 48-65] vs 63 [IQR, 52-72] years) and had a higher prevalence of hypoxemia on ICU admission (205 of 433 [47.3%] vs 1322 of 3491 [37.9%] with mechanical ventilation and a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen of <200 mm Hg) than patients not treated with tocilizumab. After applying inverse probability weighting, baseline and severity-of-illness characteristics were well balanced between groups. A total of 1544 patients (39.3%) died, including 125 (28.9%) treated with tocilizumab and 1419 (40.6%) not treated with tocilizumab. In the primary analysis, during a median follow-up of 27 (IQR, 14-37) days, patients treated with tocilizumab had a lower risk of death compared with those not treated with tocilizumab (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92). The estimated 30-day mortality was 27.5% (95% CI, 21.2%-33.8%) in the tocilizumab-treated patients and 37.1% (95% CI, 35.5%-38.7%) in the non-tocilizumab-treated patients (risk difference, 9.6%; 95% CI, 3.1%-16.0%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 in this cohort study, the risk of in-hospital mortality in this study was lower in patients treated with tocilizumab in the first 2 days of ICU admission compared with patients whose treatment did not include early use of tocilizumab. However, the findings may be susceptible to unmeasured confounding, and further research from randomized clinical trials is needed.

OBJECTIVE: Bell's palsy, named after the Scottish anatomist, Sir Charles Bell, is the most common acute mono-neuropathy, or disorder affecting a single nerve, and is the most common diagnosis associated with facial nerve weakness/paralysis. Bell's palsy is a rapid unilateral facial nerve paresis (weakness) or paralysis (complete loss of movement) of unknown cause. The condition leads to the partial or complete inability to voluntarily move facial muscles on the affected side of the face. Although typically self-limited, the facial paresis/paralysis that occurs in Bell's palsy may cause significant temporary oral incompetence and an inability to close the eyelid, leading to potential eye injury. Additional long-term poor outcomes do occur and can be devastating to the patient. Treatments are generally designed to improve facial function and facilitate recovery. There are myriad treatment options for Bell's palsy, and some controversy exists regarding the effectiveness of several of these options, and there are consequent variations in care. In addition, numerous diagnostic tests available are used in the evaluation of patients with Bell's palsy. Many of these tests are of questionable benefit in Bell's palsy. Furthermore, while patients with Bell's palsy enter the health care system with facial paresis/paralysis as a primary complaint, not all patients with facial paresis/paralysis have Bell's palsy. It is a concern that patients with alternative underlying etiologies may be misdiagnosed or have unnecessary delay in diagnosis. All of these quality concerns provide an important opportunity for improvement in the diagnosis and management of patients with Bell's palsy. PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this guideline is to improve the accuracy of diagnosis for Bell's palsy, to improve the quality of care and outcomes for patients with Bell's palsy, and to decrease harmful variations in the evaluation and management of Bell's palsy. This guideline addresses these needs by encouraging accurate and efficient diagnosis and treatment and, when applicable, facilitating patient follow-up to address the management of long-term sequelae or evaluation of new or worsening symptoms not indicative of Bell's palsy. The guideline is intended for all clinicians in any setting who are likely to diagnose and manage patients with Bell's palsy. The target population is inclusive of both adults and children presenting with Bell's palsy. ACTION STATEMENTS: The development group made a strong recommendation that (a) clinicians should assess the patient using history and physical examination to exclude identifiable causes of facial paresis or paralysis in patients presenting with acute-onset unilateral facial paresis or paralysis, (b) clinicians should prescribe oral steroids within 72 hours of symptom onset for Bell's palsy patients 16 years and older, (c) clinicians should not prescribe oral antiviral therapy alone for patients with new-onset Bell's palsy, and (d) clinicians should implement eye protection for Bell's palsy patients with impaired eye closure. The panel made recommendations that (a) clinicians should not obtain routine laboratory testing in patients with new-onset Bell's palsy, (b) clinicians should not routinely perform diagnostic imaging for patients with new-onset Bell's palsy, (c) clinicians should not perform electrodiagnostic testing in Bell's palsy patients with incomplete facial paralysis, and (d) clinicians should reassess or refer to a facial nerve specialist those Bell's palsy patients with (1) new or worsening neurologic findings at any point, (2) ocular symptoms developing at any point, or (3) incomplete facial recovery 3 months after initial symptom onset. The development group provided the following options: (a) clinicians may offer oral antiviral therapy in addition to oral steroids within 72 hours of symptom onset for patients with Bell's palsy, and (b) clinicians may offer electrodiagnostic testing to Bell's palsy patients with complete facial paralysis. The development group offered the following no recommendations: (a) no recommendation can be made regarding surgical decompression for patients with Bell's palsy, (b) no recommendation can be made regarding the effect of acupuncture in patients with Bell's palsy, and (c) no recommendation can be made regarding the effect of physical therapy in patients with Bell's palsy.

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) International Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock provide guidance on the care of hospitalized adult patients with (or at risk for) sepsis, based on systematic summary and assessment of relevant literature. This executive summary reviews the history, scope, methodology, and major recommendations of the guidelines, focusing on aspects that are new or different compared with the 2016 guidelines that were published in 2017. Full description of the guidelines process and recommendations are provided in the complete guidelines document. HISTORY AND SCOPE OF THE GUIDELINES The SSC first published guidelines for the management of severe sepsis and septic shock in 2004. Updates were published in 2008, 2012, and 2017. The guidelines are sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), with methodological support by the Guidelines in Intensive Care Development and Evaluation (GUIDE) group, and endorsement by 24 additional societies. There is no funding from any industry partner. Panel membership, patient involvement, and conflict of interest management are discussed in the complete guidelines document. The guidelines provide recommendations on the management of sepsis, focusing on aspects of care specific to sepsis and limiting duplication with other guidelines wherever possible. It is not intended to replace clinical judgement, which must account for the unique circumstances of an individual patient. Following the recommendation of SCCM and ESICM, there are now separate guidelines for sepsis in children (1). The SSC also published separate guidelines specific to the management of COVID (2,3). The 2021 guidelines largely apply to high-resource settings but discuss applicability of the recommendations to lower-resource settings as data allow. The SSC also creates sepsis bundles (4) (a selected set of interventions or processes of care distilled from evidence-based practice guidelines) to facilitate quality improvement and implementation of guidelines recommendations. However, the bundles are developed via a separate process and published separately from the guidelines. Definitions The guidelines recognize sepsis as life-threatening organ dysfunction secondary to a dysregulated host response to infection consistent with the Sepsis-3 consensus definition (5). However, studies were not required to use a particular sepsis definition to be considered as relevant evidence for the guidelines. Question Development and Outcome Prioritization Guidelines questions were selected based on panel rating, clinical practice variability, and inclusion in prior SSC guidelines, and then assigned to one of six SSC adult guidelines working groups: screening and initial resuscitation; infection; hemodynamics; ventilation; additional therapies; and goals of care and long-term outcomes. Clinical practice variation was identified through a global survey of SCCM and ESICM members regarding their current practice and how it related to previous recommendations. All questions were structured in the Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes (PICO) format. For each question, relevant outcomes were enumerated and ranked prior to the literature search. Search Strategy and Evidence Summation Professional librarians drafted and executed the search strategy for each PICO question (or group of similar questions), with input from subgroup members. Only English language studies published before May 2019 were included (the lag was the result of the guideline review and approval process coupled with the COVID-19 pandemic). For PICO questions addressed in the 2016 guidelines, the search strategy was revised and updated. Reviewers in the systematic review team, with input from methodologists and experts, screened article titles and abstracts to identify the highest quality evidence, particularly recent randomized controlled trials and high-quality systematic reviews. When new or updated meta-analyses were required, relevant data were abstracted with emphasis on intention-to-treat data where possible and conventional meta-analytic techniques were used to produce pooled estimates. Quality of Evidence and Formulation of Recommendations Using the GRADE approach, methodologists and panelists assessed the quality of evidence for each PICO question as high, moderate, low, or very low. Using the Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) framework (6), each subgroup drafted preliminary recommendations for their assigned PICO questions. The EtD framework took into account not only the magnitude of effect and quality of evidence, but also patient values, resources and cost, equity, acceptability, and feasibility (6). The strength of each recommendation was informed by the quality of the evidence and other components of the EtD framework. Strong recommendations (signified by “we recommend”) reflect high confidence that the desirable effects of adhering to a recommendation clearly outweigh undesirable effects. Weak recommendations (signified by “we suggest”) indicate that desirable effects likely outweigh undesirable effects. Best practice statements (BPSs) reflect ungraded strong recommendations and are used sparingly when benefit or harm is unequivocal, but evidence is difficult to summarize or assess according to GRADE methodology (7). Voting Progress Preliminary recommendations were discussed during face-to-face meetings and revised based on panel feedback prior to electronic voting by panel members who had no conflicts of interest. The a priori threshold for acceptance was having votes cast by at least 75% of the panel and 80% agreement among those who cast a vote. Up to three rounds of voting were allowed per PICO question. RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations of the SSC 2021 guidelines update are summarized in Table 1 of the full guidelines document. There are 93 total statements, which address screening and initial resuscitation (n = 10 statements), infection (n = 21), hemodynamics (n = 14), ventilation (n = 12), additional therapies (n = 16), and goals of care and long-term outcomes (n = 20). Of the 93 statements, 15 are strong (16%) and 54 are weak (58%) recommendations, 15 are best practice statements (16%), and 9 are statements declaring ‘no recommendation’ (10%). Of the 15 strong recommendations, all but one are based on moderate or high-quality evidence. Selected recommendations that are new or revised from the 2016 guidelines are shown in Table 1. TABLE 1. - Selected New and/or Revised Recommendations in the 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign International Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 Recommendation 2021 Recommendation Rationale for Change We recommend that in the resuscitation from sepsis-induced hypoperfusion, at least 30 mL/kg of IV crystalloid fluid be given within the first 3 hours. For patients with sepsis-induced hypoperfusion or septic shock we suggest that at least 30 mL/kg of IV crystalloid fluid should be given within the first 3 hours of resuscitation. This panel downgraded this recommendation from a strong recommendation to a weak recommendation based on the low quality of the evidence. There are no prospective intervention studies comparing different volumes for initial resuscitation in sepsis or septic shock. However, a retrospective analysis of adults presenting to an emergency department with sepsis or septic shock showed that failure to receive 30mL/kg of crystalloid fluid therapy within 3 hours of sepsis onset was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (10). Furthermore, the average volume of fluid received pre-randomization the PROCESS (11), PROMISE (12), and ARISE (13) trials was in the range of 30 mL/kg, suggesting this fluid volume has been adopted in routine clinical practice (14). We suggest using either balanced crystalloids or saline for fluid resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using balanced crystalloid instead of normal saline for resuscitation. There are many, increasingly recognized potential adverse effects of normal saline including hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis. A network meta-analysis showed in an indirect comparison that balanced fluids were associated with decreased mortality compared with saline (15). In the 2018 SMART single-center cluster-randomized RCT comparing saline to balance fluid, the pre-specified subgroup of patients admitted with sepsis experienced lower 30-day mortality when randomized to balanced fluids versus saline (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.67, 0.94) (16). Not addressed For adults with septic shock, we suggest starting vasopressors peripherally to restore mean arterial pressure rather than delaying initiation until a central venous access is secured. Prompt initiation of vasopressors is an integral component of septic shock management. Vasopressors have been traditionally administered via central venous access due to concerns of extravasation and local tissue injury and ischemia. However, placement of central venous access requires specialized expertise and is time consuming, potentially leading to delays in administration. A recent systematic review showed that peripheral administration of vasopressors is generally safe, particularly if infused distally to the antecubital fossa and for short periods of time (< 6 hr) (17, 18). Peripheral administration of vasopressors is associated with shorter time to administration and faster time to achieving a MAP > 65 mm Hg (19). Not addressed For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using IV vitamin C. A 2017 single center before and after study reported reduced mortality with administration of high-dose Vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine among patients with sepsis and sepsis shock (20). However, an updated meta-analysis by the guideline panel found no association between vitamin C and reduced mortality. We suggest against using IV hydrocortisone to treat patients with septic shock if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy can restore hemodynamic stability. If this is not achievable, we suggest IV hydrocortisone at a dose of 200 mg/day. For adults with septic shock and an ongoing requirement for vasopressor therapy we suggest using IVcorticosteroids. Since the 2016 guideline, three large RCTs have been published (21–23). An updated meta-analysis found systemic corticosteroid to accelerate resolution of shock (MD, 1.52 days; 95% CI, 1.71 to 1.32) and increase vasopressor-free days (MD, 1.5 days; 95% CI, 0.8 to 3.11 days) (24). However, corticosteroid use increased neuromuscular weakness (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.45), without a clear effect on short- or long-term mortality (24). The overall quality of evidence was moderate. The panel judged the desirable effects (shock resolution, vasopressor-free days) to outweigh the undesirable effects. This observation, combined with consideration of the resources required, cost of the intervention, and feasibility supported a weak recommendation in favor of using low-dose corticosteroid therapy in septic shock. Not addressed For adult survivors of sepsis or septic shock, we recommend assessment and follow-up for physical, cognitive, and emotional problems after hospital discharge. Given the prevalence of new and worsening physical, cognitive, and emotional problems experienced by sepsis survivors, we recommend assessment and follow-up of these problems after discharge. Screening and Initial Resuscitation The guidelines recommend that hospitals use a performance improvement program for sepsis, including screening of high-risk patients and standard operating procedures for management. The guidelines recognize sepsis as a medical emergency and recommend that treatment and resuscitation begin immediately. For initial resuscitation in patients with sepsis-induced hypoperfusion or septic shock, the guidelines suggest 30 mL/kg IV crystalloid. This recommendation was downgraded from a strong recommendation to a weak recommendation based on the low quality of evidence. Additionally, the guidelines suggest resuscitation be guided by dynamic over static measures, target a decrease in serum lactate, and use capillary refill as an adjunct measure of perfusion. New to this update, the guidelines recommend against qSOFA as a sole screening tool and suggest that patients who are determined to need intensive care be admitted to an ICU within 6 hours. Infection As in the 2016 guidelines, the 2021 guidelines again recommend delivering antimicrobials as soon as possible, ideally within 1 hour of sepsis recognition. The 2021 guidelines provide additional guidance on initiation of antimicrobials, recognizing the challenge of diagnostic uncertainty early in a patient’s presentation. The guidelines now stratify antimicrobial timing recommendations based on the likelihood of sepsis and presence of shock (Figure 1). For patients with probable sepsis or with shock resulting from possible or probable sepsis, the guidelines recommend administering antimicrobials immediately, ideally within 1 hour of recognition. For patients with possible sepsis but without shock, the guidelines recommend rapid assessment of the likelihood of infection versus non-infectious illness. If concern for infection persists after a time-limited course of rapid investigation, then antimicrobials should be administered within 3 hours from when sepsis was first recognized. Finally, for patients with a low likelihood of infection and without shock, the guidelines suggest deferring antimicrobials while continuing to closely monitor the patient.Figure 1.: 2021 Recommendations of the initiation of antimicrobials.The guidelines include several additional recommendations regarding antimicrobial therapy for sepsis. Given the heterogeneity of infectious pathogens, sites of infection, severity of illness, local resistance patterns, and other patient and contextual factors, specific treatment recommendations are beyond the scope of the guidelines. However, the guidelines provide a framework for approaching antimicrobial therapy. They suggest that use of empiric coverage for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), empiric double-coverage for gram-negative pathogens, and empiric coverage for fungal pathogens be determined based on patient and contextual risk factors. The guidelines provide several recommendations for optimizing antibiotic dosing, addressing source control, and determining duration of antimicrobial therapy. Hemodynamics The guidelines recommend crystalloid fluids as a first line for resuscitation, and new in this update, suggest balanced crystalloids over normal saline. For patients with septic shock, the guidelines recommend norepinephrine as the first-line vasopressor and suggest that vasopressors be started peripherally to avoid delays in administration in the absence of central venous access. There was insufficient evidence to make a recommendation regarding the use of a restrictive versus liberal fluid strategy after the initial fluid resuscitation, and this remains an important area for future research. As in the 2016 guidelines, albumin is suggested in patients who have received large volumes of crystalloid. Ventilation The guidelines recommend a low tidal volume ventilation strategy with limitation of plateau pressure for patients with sepsis-associated ARDS and the use of prone positioning in moderate-to-severe ARDS, and suggest a low tidal volume approach for all patients with sepsis-induced respiratory failure. The guidelines suggest using traditional recruitment maneuvers but recommend against an incremental PEEP strategy. There was insufficient evidence to make a recommendation regarding use of liberal versus conservative oxygen targets; this remains an important area for future research. Additional Therapies To limit overlap with other guidelines and create space for a new section focused on long-term outcomes, PICOs on additional therapies were reduced from prior SSC guidelines. However, there are some noteworthy new recommendations regarding adjunctive therapies. In contrast to the 2016 guidelines, the 2021 guidelines suggest the use of IV corticosteroids for patients with an ongoing need for vasopressor therapy based on newer clinical trial data. Additionally, the guidelines suggest against using IV vitamin C for sepsis or septic shock based on recent randomized controlled trials and an updated meta-analysis showing no impact on mortality. Goals of Care and Long-Term Outcomes As acute survival from sepsis has improved, a growing number of sepsis survivors leave the hospital alive—many of whom experience long-term morbidity and a heightened risk for adverse health outcomes including mortality in the months and years following sepsis (8). Indeed, the 2017 World Health Organization resolution on sepsis called for improving outcomes of sepsis survivors and addressing survivors’ access to rehabilitation (9). Given the burden of long-term morbidity and mortality stemming from sepsis, the SSC guidelines now include a section dedicated to the longer-term recovery from sepsis. To enhance recovery, the guidelines recommend screening for economic and social support for patient and families, involving patients and families in shared decision-making regarding discharge planning, reconciling medications at both ICU and hospital discharge, including information about sepsis and common impairment after sepsis in the discharge summary, and assessing for physical, cognitive, and emotional problems after hospital discharge. The guidelines suggest having a critical care transitional program during ICU stay to floor transitions, using a handoff process during transitions of care, offering verbal and written sepsis education, and referring patients to peer support programs, post-critical illness follow-up programs (if available), and post-hospital rehabilitation programs (for selected survivors). There was insufficient evidence to make a recommendation regarding early cognitive rehabilitation or timing of post-hospital follow up. While many of these recommendations are generally applicable to critically ill and hospitalized patients, the panel deemed them necessary to include in the sepsis guidelines given the burden of long-term morbidity and mortality due to sepsis. CONCLUSIONS This executive summary highlights the most novel aspects of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign International Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021 that clinicians and stakeholders should consider when caring for adult patients with (or at risk for) sepsis. The recommendation rationales, informed by rigorous data evaluation, discussion by panelists, and input from patients, provide deeper insight into each recommendation. We believe that the 2021 SSC guidelines will foster the delivery of best practices for sepsis evaluation and management, as well as highlight aspects of management where additional evidence is needed most urgently.

Composite tissue allotransplantation (CTA) is a recently introduced option for limb replacement and reconstruction of tissue defects. As with other allografts, CTA can undergo immune-mediated rejection; therefore standardized criteria are required for characterizing and reporting severity and types of rejection. This article documents the conclusions of a symposium on CTA rejection held at the Ninth Banff Conference on Allograft Pathology in La-Coruňa, Spain, on 26 June 2007, and proposes a working classification, the Banff CTA-07, for the categorization of CTA rejection. This classification was derived from a consensus discussion session attended by the first authors of three published classification systems, pathologists and researchers from international centers where clinical CTA has been performed. It was open to all attendees to the Banff conference. To the extent possible, the format followed the established National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines on Consensus Development Programs. By consensus, the defining features to diagnose acute skin rejection include inflammatory cell infiltration with involvement of epidermis and/or adnexal structures, epithelial apoptosis, dyskeratosis and necrosis. Five grades of severity of rejection are defined. This classification refines proposed schemas, represents international consensus on this topic, and establishes a working collective classification system for CTA reporting of rejection in skin-containing CTAs. Composite tissue allotransplantation (CTA) is a recently introduced option for limb replacement and reconstruction of tissue defects. As with other allografts, CTA can undergo immune-mediated rejection; therefore standardized criteria are required for characterizing and reporting severity and types of rejection. This article documents the conclusions of a symposium on CTA rejection held at the Ninth Banff Conference on Allograft Pathology in La-Coruňa, Spain, on 26 June 2007, and proposes a working classification, the Banff CTA-07, for the categorization of CTA rejection. This classification was derived from a consensus discussion session attended by the first authors of three published classification systems, pathologists and researchers from international centers where clinical CTA has been performed. It was open to all attendees to the Banff conference. To the extent possible, the format followed the established National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines on Consensus Development Programs. By consensus, the defining features to diagnose acute skin rejection include inflammatory cell infiltration with involvement of epidermis and/or adnexal structures, epithelial apoptosis, dyskeratosis and necrosis. Five grades of severity of rejection are defined. This classification refines proposed schemas, represents international consensus on this topic, and establishes a working collective classification system for CTA reporting of rejection in skin-containing CTAs. Composite tissue allotransplantation (CTA) is an emerging discipline for the treatment of functionally significant tissue or limb defects. In contrast to solid organ transplants, CTAs often include skin as well as tissues of diverse embryological origin. Most CTA recipients have experienced reversible episodes of acute rejection (1Lanzetta M Petruzzo P Dubernard JM et al.Second report (1998–2006) of the International Registry of Hand and Composite Tissue Transplantation.Transpl Immunol. 2007; 18: 1-6Crossref PubMed Scopus (119) Google Scholar) but to date, no universally accepted criteria for CTA rejection reporting has been established. Histopathology plays a key role in diagnosis of rejection, in understanding the physiopathology of rejection and in facilitating management. Currently, four classification systems have been published and as such, a universally accepted grading scheme for ranking pathological severity of rejection is needed. Standardization is necessary for reporting clinical results and to establish objective end points for clinical trials. Recognizing that a dispersed and unstandardized development of CTA would present a major barrier for progress and reporting, a collaborative relationship was established with investigators with experience in clinical CTA worldwide to initiate the groundwork for a universally accepted histological classification. In addition, as immunomodulatory regimens are minimized, CTA will experience a growth period in the near future. This article describes a consensus schema for the stardardization of clinical reporting for the advancement of the study of the histopathology in CTA-containing skin for dissemination to the health care practice and medical community. As a working classification, the schema will continue to be refined in subsequent meetings as more clinical and experimental data become available for skin and other tissues used in CTAs. Investigators in the field of CTA including representatives from multiple sites reporting a clinical CTA in the past decade were invited to a consensus discussion on CTA histopathology at the Ninth Banff Conference on Allograft Pathology. In keeping with established National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines on Consensus Development Programs (2NIH Consensus Development Program. http://consensus.nih.gov/ABOUTCDP.htm (accessed on March 15, 2007).Google Scholar), this conference included: (1Lanzetta M Petruzzo P Dubernard JM et al.Second report (1998–2006) of the International Registry of Hand and Composite Tissue Transplantation.Transpl Immunol. 2007; 18: 1-6Crossref PubMed Scopus (119) Google Scholar) a broad-based nonadvocacy, independent panel gathered to give balanced, objective and knowledgeable focus to the topic, (2NIH Consensus Development Program. http://consensus.nih.gov/ABOUTCDP.htm (accessed on March 15, 2007).Google Scholar) freedom from scientific or financial conflict of interest from the speakers, (3Bejarano PA Levi D Nassiri M et al.The pathology of full-thickness cadaver skin transplant for large abdominal defects.Am J Surg Pathol. 2004; 28: 670-675Crossref PubMed Scopus (41) Google Scholar) predetermined questions defining the scope and the direction of the conference, and (4Kanitakis J Petruzzo P Jullien D et al.Pathological score for the evaluation of allograft rejection in human hand (composite tissue) allotransplantation.Eur J Dermatol. 2005; 15: 235-238PubMed Google Scholar) a systematic literature review of the topic. The presenters included the three first authors of the four classification systems published and investigators who have actively followed CTA patients from a clinicopathological view and/or published reports on CTA rejection. A pathologist from the center where the fourth classification system was published was also invited, provided a presentation and participated in the discussions. Six out of six western international centers with reported experience in hand transplantation at the time of the call were invited and five centers were represented. Furthermore, two out of two centers with experience in other CTA’s-containing skin were represented (i.e. face and abdominal wall). All published scoring systems for CTA were reviewed (3Bejarano PA Levi D Nassiri M et al.The pathology of full-thickness cadaver skin transplant for large abdominal defects.Am J Surg Pathol. 2004; 28: 670-675Crossref PubMed Scopus (41) Google Scholar, 4Kanitakis J Petruzzo P Jullien D et al.Pathological score for the evaluation of allograft rejection in human hand (composite tissue) allotransplantation.Eur J Dermatol. 2005; 15: 235-238PubMed Google Scholar, 5Schneeberger S Kreczy A Brandacher G et al.Steroid and ATG-resistant rejection after double forearm transplantation responds to Campath 1-H.Am J Transplant. 2004; 4: 1372-1374Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (75) Google Scholar, 6Cendales L Kleiner D Proposed classification of human composite tissue allograft acute rejection.Am J Transplant. 2003; 3: S154Google Scholar, 7Cendales L Kirk A Moresi M Ruiz P Kleiner D Composite tissue allotransplantation: Classification of clinical acute skin rejection.Transplantation. 2006; 81: 418-422Crossref PubMed Scopus (53) Google Scholar). In addition, a senior investigator in CTA was invited to provide a historic perspective. Each presenter provided data followed by a discussion. Of the presenters, five were clinical pathologists, three were surgeons and one was a basic investigator. The session was open to the public and all attendees of the Banff Conference. A total of 20 attendees provided oral and/or written comments to the questions posed. To date, 41 patients receiving skin-containing CTA’s have been reported; 28 have received hands, three faces, one knee with a skin island and nine abdominal walls. Essentially, all patients have experienced episodes of rejection (1Lanzetta M Petruzzo P Dubernard JM et al.Second report (1998–2006) of the International Registry of Hand and Composite Tissue Transplantation.Transpl Immunol. 2007; 18: 1-6Crossref PubMed Scopus (119) Google Scholar,8The challenge of dermatopathological diagnosis of rejection of composite tissue allografts: A review J Cutan Pathol (submitted).Google Scholar,10Diefenbeck M Wagner F Kirschner M Nerlich A Muckley T Hofmann G Outcome of allogeneic vascularized knee transplants.Transpl Int. 2007; 20: 410-418Crossref PubMed Scopus (32) Google Scholar). Clinical manifestations of rejection have been characterized by cutaneous changes including mild pink discoloration, gradual erythema, macules progressing to red infiltrated lichenoid papules with or without limb edema and onychomadesis in advanced rejection (1Lanzetta M Petruzzo P Dubernard JM et al.Second report (1998–2006) of the International Registry of Hand and Composite Tissue Transplantation.Transpl Immunol. 2007; 18: 1-6Crossref PubMed Scopus (119) Google Scholar,11Kanitakis J Jullien De Petruzzo P et al.Clinicopathologic features of graft rejection of the first human hand allograft.Transplantation. 2003; 76: 688-693Crossref PubMed Scopus (169) Google Scholar). Histological findings disclose predominantly lymphocytic inflammatory-cell infiltrate of variable density, epithelial intracellular edema (spongiosis), lymphocyte exocytosis and keratinocyte apoptosis (1Lanzetta M Petruzzo P Dubernard JM et al.Second report (1998–2006) of the International Registry of Hand and Composite Tissue Transplantation.Transpl Immunol. 2007; 18: 1-6Crossref PubMed Scopus (119) Google Scholar,12Dubernard J Lengele B Morelon E et al.Outcomes 18 months after the first human partial face transplantation.New Engl J Med. 2007; 357: 2451-2460Crossref PubMed Scopus (309) Google Scholar). Macroscopic skin changes in a case reported after steroid resistant rejection showed blisters in the superficial layers with epidermal desquamation. Histology revealed dermal and epidermal lymphocytic infiltration with apoptotic and necrotic keratinocytes (13Schneeberger S Kreczy A Brandacher G et al.Steroid- and ATG-resistant rejection after double forearm transplantation responds to Campath-1H.Am J Transplant. 2004; 4: 1372-1384Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (0) Google Scholar). The four published systems on grading CTA skin rejection ranked the degree of rejection based on evaluation of morphologic features (3Bejarano PA Levi D Nassiri M et al.The pathology of full-thickness cadaver skin transplant for large abdominal defects.Am J Surg Pathol. 2004; 28: 670-675Crossref PubMed Scopus (41) Google Scholar, 4Kanitakis J Petruzzo P Jullien D et al.Pathological score for the evaluation of allograft rejection in human hand (composite tissue) allotransplantation.Eur J Dermatol. 2005; 15: 235-238PubMed Google Scholar, 5Schneeberger S Kreczy A Brandacher G et al.Steroid and ATG-resistant rejection after double forearm transplantation responds to Campath 1-H.Am J Transplant. 2004; 4: 1372-1374Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (75) Google Scholar, 6Cendales L Kleiner D Proposed classification of human composite tissue allograft acute rejection.Am J Transplant. 2003; 3: S154Google Scholar, 7Cendales L Kirk A Moresi M Ruiz P Kleiner D Composite tissue allotransplantation: Classification of clinical acute skin rejection.Transplantation. 2006; 81: 418-422Crossref PubMed Scopus (53) Google Scholar). All systems illustrated substantial agreement on the basic grade stratification for acute rejection. All agreed that perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates become progressively denser and involve more vessels as the severity of rejection increases. The inflammation then extends to involve dermal stroma, epidermis (including the basal cell layer) and adnexa at moderate to marked grades of rejection. Epidermal apoptosis/necrosis is a marker of severe rejection in all of the published systems where it was observed. The classification based on full thickness, vascularized, myocutaneous-free flaps for closure of abdominal defects (3Bejarano PA Levi D Nassiri M et al.The pathology of full-thickness cadaver skin transplant for large abdominal defects.Am J Surg Pathol. 2004; 28: 670-675Crossref PubMed Scopus (41) Google Scholar) stratified rejection based on the extent of vessels infiltrated, from <10%, to 11–50% in mild, and to more than 50% in moderate and severe rejection. Severe rejection of abdominal wall grafts showed dyskeratosis and spongiosis. The discussion initiated with the following predetermined questions chosen by the CTA session committee chair in conjunction with investigators in the field: (1) Specimen and Slide Preparation: which structures are required to constitute an adequate sample? How will the biopsy be taken to appropriately reflect the clinical involvement? How many samples are required? What are the stains besides hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) that should be applied? (2) Scope of disease-acute: What are the basic features to diagnose rejection? What other features should be recorded and how? What should be excluded from acute rejection? (3) Lesion scoring-acute: How will severity be graded? (4) Scope of disease-chronic: What are the defining features of chronic injury? (5) Scope of disease-humoral: What information should be collected to define this effector mechanism in CTA? The questions were provided to the participants in both oral and written formats. Oral and written comments were collected throughout the consensus discussion session. This article represents the recompilation of the discussions including all oral and written comments. Allografts that include skin are distinctive in that rejection can be recognized by visual inspection. To include this unique feature of CTA, the clinical involvement as assessed visually at the time of biopsy or rejection should be reported as no visible changes, <10%, 10–50% and >50% of the CTA. Features include but are not limited to rash, edema, erythema, vesiculation, desquamation, necrosis and/or ulceration. To diagnose and classify skin rejection, specimen adequacy is defined as at least one 4-mm punch biopsy taken from the most reddened and/or indurated but apparently viable area of involved skin. Only one biopsy is required for diagnosis, to avoid unnecessary scarring, especially with multiple episodes of rejection. The structures required to constitute an adequate sample are the epidermis and its adnexa, dermis, subcutaneous tissue and vessels. The recommendations for slide preparation are hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and periodic acid Schiff (PAS) stains. Immunohistochemical stains are also recognized as potentially important and are thus recommended “as needed” based on H&E findings and/or for research purposes. These included but are not limited to CD3, CD4, CD8, CD19, CD20 and CD68, as well as HLA-DR, CMV and C4d. The use of trichrome stain is not considered mandatory at this time but could be performed if desired. The basic features to diagnose and classify rejection requiring specific comment in diagnostic reports are immune cell infiltration, and epidermal and/or adnexal involvement namely spongiosis, apoptosis, dyskeratosis and necrosis. The cellular infiltrate can be mixed (e.g. including neutrophils) and not limited to lymphocytes. The pattern of the infiltrate should be characterized as perivascular or interstitial, focal or diffuse and dermal and/or hypodermal. Early signs of rejection may include the presence of scattered dermal infiltrates. Interface inflammation/dermatitis is an important feature to identify, as this may relate to the severity of the rejection or may signal a nonrejection etiology. Infiltration of eosinophils should be recorded descriptively but is not included in the current classification. This will allow the study of its significance in the future. As in other pathologies in which ulceration or necrosis develops, vasculitis may be either primary or secondary to the ulceration. Indications of rejection-related vasculitis include: absence of a history of trauma; involvement of vessels distant from the ulcer; multi-focality of the necrotizing process within the affected vessel; and involvement of several vessels within the biopsy, particularly vessels of various sizes and depths within the dermis. The pathologic and clinical features of immune and nonimmune processes are potentially overlapping and will require further study. Because there is insufficient data to absolutely exclude nonimmune conditions from a particular CTA biopsy, a descriptive observation is currently the appropriate format for reporting findings. As with solid organ transplants, other inflammatory, infectious or neoplastic processes may coincide with acute rejection. The acute/active skin rejection scoring system was divided in five grades, based on intensity and localization of infiltrates. The rejection classification is shown in Table 1.Table 1The Banff 2007 working classification of skin-containing composite tissue allograft pathologyGrade 0. No or rare inflammatory infiltrates.Grade I. Mild. Mild perivascular infiltration. No involvement of the overlying epidermis.Grade II. Moderate. Moderate-to-severe perivascular inflammation with or without mild epidermal and/or adnexal involvement (limited to spongiosis and exocytosis). No epidermal dyskeratosis or apoptosis.Grade III. Severe. Dense inflammation and epidermal involvement with epithelial apoptosis, dyskeratosis and/or keratinolysis.Grade IV. Necrotizing acute rejection. Frank necrosis of epidermis or other skin structures. Open table in a new tab Currently, insufficient data are available to define specific changes of chronic rejection in a CTA. Chronic changes and injury to an allograft evolve time with immune and are to be in and by changes can also be by nonimmune and in both can and clinical features as of chronic injury in a CTA include of adnexa, skin and of and As with other solid it is that injury a histological a of A and was is not information to conclusions several of and clinical information should be gathered in to define in CTA. These include the presence of and its relationship with as well as the presence of and necrosis. A history including (e.g. and as well as the presence or absence of and and is to be performed The graft and rejection in CTAs has not been established. clinical of graft is not included at this It was recognized that skin changes in a CTA are not limited to injury challenge of dermatopathological diagnosis of rejection of composite tissue allografts: A review J Cutan Pathol (submitted).Google Scholar). to (e.g. or other or and Table of processes are the scope of this but should be in reporting CTA diagnosis in skin allograft or Open table in a new tab this international have initiated an international consensus that will progress reporting of results should research to CTA. of data clinical and pathologists and data for As a working classification, the schema will continue to evolve and as more scientific information available for skin and other tissues included in CTA. This new international classification the published systems, which a to grading rejection. systems to of severity by the of a new at In this classification, the first to is perivascular which is mild and In grade there is of the infiltrate by involvement of epidermis or adnexa but without dyskeratosis or epidermal features of cell grade necrosis. dermal edema and spongiosis are in a of including with and of injury in the is to be the with dermal to the epidermis spongiosis. the field of and processes have been in the with other of wall and epidermal is to be of many in the allograft and is the severity and extent of edema may in the of the further are in this was to the histopathology of cutaneous as a to injury in skin-containing CTA. In the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Pathology for the diagnosis of chronic Kleiner D S et diagnosis of chronic National Institutes of Health consensus development on criteria for clinical in chronic II. Pathology working Transplant. 2006; Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus Google Scholar). The report the of changes from cutaneous including four chronic skin and The is characterized by a of which the and dermis. there is with of changes of the basal cell and lymphocytic infiltration and epidermal The report the changes in chronic to and the for the significance of perivascular lymphocytic inflammation or after It is that chronic skin changes in CTA of chronic cutaneous and in other types of from data will in the of chronic changes in CTA not for skin but for all tissues involved in a CTA. The of several pathological changes unique to limb transplantation to be These include changes with the which have been to be of chronic immune injury but could also be by more acute inflammatory of the the Banff CTA 2007 scoring system on the rejection-related changes, there are a of other immune and nonimmune processes that be recognized and in the diagnosis challenge of dermatopathological diagnosis of rejection of composite tissue allografts: A review J Cutan Pathol (submitted).Google Scholar). The Banff CTA 2007 grading scheme for acute rejection is to have clinical It is to solid organ CTAs will undergo chronic changes and a grading of severity of chronic rejection will evolve in this working classification. CTAs that skin are unique in that rejection-related changes can be observed. it has been shown that significant perivascular infiltration with a skin (13Schneeberger S Kreczy A Brandacher G et al.Steroid- and ATG-resistant rejection after double forearm transplantation responds to Campath-1H.Am J Transplant. 2004; 4: 1372-1384Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (0) Google L Hand Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar, JM E G et hand report on first Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus Google Scholar). of from chronic infiltration and injury have been at in the absence of significant infiltrates Spain, June the of and the that inflammation could as chronic it is important to the of CTA rejection in objective The of skin changes can be used as a clinical of rejection; the and of and/or other as of rejection to be as the of histological to To this the clinical of graft involvement has been as a for clinical presentation and severity of rejection. The CTA is to that of other solid that of rejection will as the clinical experience including chronic and rejection. These will be at subsequent and characterized based on experience in the As an emerging many questions and there is for clinical and basic include the of the and the study of chronic injury and the of and the inflammatory in this This Banff classification is an international to the groundwork to the understanding of CTA It will the investigators and will to clinical The authors are to the of attendees of the CTA Consensus Conference at the Ninth Banff Conference on Allograft This study was in by the Programs of the National and the National of and and The participants of the Ninth Banff Conference the financial provided by the following of A and

Abstract Importance Passive antibody transfer is a longstanding treatment strategy for infectious diseases that involve the respiratory system. In this context, human convalescent plasma has been used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the efficacy remains uncertain. Objective To explore potential signals of efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma. Design Open-label, Expanded Access Program (EAP) for the treatment of COVID-19 patients with human convalescent plasma. Setting Multicenter, including 2,807 acute care facilities in the US and territories. Participants Adult participants enrolled and transfused under the purview of the US Convalescent Plasma EAP program between April 4 and July 4, 2020 who were hospitalized with (or at risk of) severe or life threatening acute COVID-19 respiratory syndrome. Intervention Transfusion of at least one unit of human COVID-19 convalescent plasma using standard transfusion guidelines at any time during hospitalization. Convalescent plasma was donated by recently-recovered COVID-19 survivors, and the antibody levels in the units collected were unknown at the time of transfusion. Main Outcomes and Measures Seven and thirty-day mortality. Results The 35,322 transfused patients had heterogeneous demographic and clinical characteristics. This cohort included a high proportion of critically-ill patients, with 52.3% in the intensive care unit (ICU) and 27.5% receiving mechanical ventilation at the time of plasma transfusion. The seven-day mortality rate was 8.7% [95% CI 8.3%-9.2%] in patients transfused within 3 days of COVID-19 diagnosis but 11.9% [11.4%-12.2%] in patients transfused 4 or more days after diagnosis (p&lt;0.001). Similar findings were observed in 30-day mortality (21.6% vs. 26.7%, p&lt;0.0001). Importantly, a gradient of mortality was seen in relation to IgG antibody levels in the transfused plasma. For patients who received high IgG plasma (&gt;18.45 S/Co), seven-day mortality was 8.9% (6.8%, 11.7%); for recipients of medium IgG plasma (4.62 to 18.45 S/Co) mortality was 11.6% (10.3%, 13.1%); and for recipients of low IgG plasma (&lt;4.62 S/Co) mortality was 13.7% (11.1%, 16.8%) (p=0.048). This unadjusted dose-response relationship with IgG was also observed in thirty-day mortality (p=0.021). The pooled relative risk of mortality among patients transfused with high antibody level plasma units was 0.65 [0.47-0.92] for 7 days and 0.77 [0.63-0.94] for 30 days compared to low antibody level plasma units. Conclusions and Relevance The relationships between reduced mortality and both earlier time to transfusion and higher antibody levels provide signatures of efficacy for convalescent plasma in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. This information may be informative for the treatment of COVID-19 and design of randomized clinical trials involving convalescent plasma. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04338360 Key Points Question Does transfusion of human convalescent plasma reduce mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients? Findings Transfusion of convalescent plasma with higher antibody levels to hospitalized COVID-19 patients significantly reduced mortality compared to transfusions with low antibody levels. Transfusions within three days of COVID-19 diagnosis yielded greater reductions in mortality. Meaning Embedded in an Expanded Access Program providing access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma and designed to assess its safety, several signals consistent with efficacy of convalescent plasma in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients emerged.

BACKGROUND: Empathy and compassion are vital components of health care quality; however, physicians frequently miss opportunities for empathy and compassion in patient care. Despite evidence that empathy and compassion training can be effective, the specific behaviors that should be taught remain unclear. We synthesized the biomedical literature on empathy and compassion training in medical education to find the specific curricula components (skills and behaviors) demonstrated to be effective. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL using a previously published comprehensive search strategy. We screened reference lists of the articles meeting inclusion criteria to identify additional studies for potential inclusion. Study inclusion criteria were: (1) intervention arm in which subjects underwent an educational curriculum aimed at enhancing empathy and/or compassion; (2) clearly defined control arm in which subjects did not receive the curriculum; (3) curriculum was tested on physicians (or physicians-in-training); and (4) outcome measure assessing the effect of the curriculum on physician empathy and/or compassion. We performed a qualitative analysis to collate and tabulate effects of tested curricula according to recommended methodology from the Cochrane Handbook. We used the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. RESULTS: Fifty-two studies (total n = 5,316) met inclusion criteria. Most (75%) studies found that the tested curricula improved physician empathy and/or compassion on at least one outcome measure. We identified the following key behaviors to be effective: (1) sitting (versus standing) during the interview; (2) detecting patients' non-verbal cues of emotion; (3) recognizing and responding to opportunities for compassion; (4) non-verbal communication of caring (e.g. eye contact); and (5) verbal statements of acknowledgement, validation, and support. These behaviors were found to improve patient perception of physician empathy and/or compassion. CONCLUSION: Evidence suggests that training can enhance physician empathy and compassion. Training curricula should incorporate the specific behaviors identified in this report.

Canavan disease is a hereditary leukodystrophy caused by mutations in the aspartoacylase gene (ASPA), leading to loss of enzyme activity and increased concentrations of the substrate N-acetyl-aspartate (NAA) in the brain. Accumulation of NAA results in spongiform degeneration of white matter and severe impairment of psychomotor development. The goal of this prospective cohort study was to assess long-term safety and preliminary efficacy measures after gene therapy with an adeno-associated viral vector carrying the ASPA gene (AAV2-ASPA). Using noninvasive magnetic resonance imaging and standardized clinical rating scales, we observed Canavan disease in 28 patients, with a subset of 13 patients being treated with AAV2-ASPA. Each patient received 9 × 10(11) vector genomes via intraparenchymal delivery at six brain infusion sites. Safety data collected over a minimum 5-year follow-up period showed a lack of long-term adverse events related to the AAV2 vector. Posttreatment effects were analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model, which showed changes in predefined surrogate markers of disease progression and clinical assessment subscores. AAV2-ASPA gene therapy resulted in a decrease in elevated NAA in the brain and slowed progression of brain atrophy, with some improvement in seizure frequency and with stabilization of overall clinical status.

Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) is the most common chronic lung disease in infants and is associated with increased mortality, respiratory morbidity, neurodevelopmental impairment, and increased healthcare costs. In parallel with advances made in the field of neonatal intensive care, the phenotype of BPD has evolved from a fibrocystic disease affecting late preterm infants to one of impaired parenchymal development and dysregulated vascular growth predominantly affecting infants born before 29 weeks' gestational age. BPD has been shown to have significant lifelong consequences. Adults with BPD have been found to have abnormal lung function tests, reduced exercise tolerance, and may be at increased risk for developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Evidence shows that BPD occurs secondary to genetic-environmental interactions in an immature lung. In this review, we evaluate the various clinical definitions, imaging modalities, and biomarker data that are helpful in making an early diagnosis of BPD. In addition, we evaluate recent evidence about the prevention and treatment of BPD. We discuss the invasive and non-invasive ventilation strategies and pharmacological agents used in the early, evolving, and established phases of BPD.

Limited data are available on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients with severe hypoxemic respiratory failure from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We examined the clinical features and outcomes of 190 patients treated with ECMO within 14 days of ICU admission, using data from a multicenter cohort study of 5122 critically ill adults with COVID-19 admitted to 68 hospitals across the United States. To estimate the effect of ECMO on mortality, we emulated a target trial of ECMO receipt versus no ECMO receipt within 7 days of ICU admission among mechanically ventilated patients with severe hypoxemia (PaO2/FiO2 < 100). Patients were followed until hospital discharge, death, or a minimum of 60 days. We adjusted for confounding using a multivariable Cox model. Among the 190 patients treated with ECMO, the median age was 49 years (IQR 41–58), 137 (72.1%) were men, and the median PaO2/FiO2 prior to ECMO initiation was 72 (IQR 61–90). At 60 days, 63 patients (33.2%) had died, 94 (49.5%) were discharged, and 33 (17.4%) remained hospitalized. Among the 1297 patients eligible for the target trial emulation, 45 of the 130 (34.6%) who received ECMO died, and 553 of the 1167 (47.4%) who did not receive ECMO died. In the primary analysis, patients who received ECMO had lower mortality than those who did not (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.41–0.74). Results were similar in a secondary analysis limited to patients with PaO2/FiO2 < 80 (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.40–0.77). In select patients with severe respiratory failure from COVID-19, ECMO may reduce mortality.

<h3>Purpose of the Review</h3> This article reviews recent breakthroughs in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke, mainly focusing on the evolution of endovascular thrombectomy, its impact on guidelines, and the need for and implications of next-generation randomized controlled trials. <h3>Recent Findings</h3> Endovascular thrombectomy is a powerful tool to treat large vessel occlusion strokes and multiple trials over the past 5 years have established its safety and efficacy in the treatment of anterior circulation large vessel occlusion strokes up to 24 hours from stroke onset. <h3>Summary</h3> In 2015, multiple landmark trials (MR CLEAN, ESCAPE, SWIFT PRIME, REVASCAT, and EXTEND IA) established the superiority of endovascular thrombectomy over medical management for the treatment of anterior circulation large vessel occlusion strokes. Endovascular thrombectomy has a strong treatment effect with a number needed to treat ranging from 3 to 10. These trials selected patients based on occlusion location (proximal anterior occlusion: internal carotid or middle cerebral artery), time from stroke onset (early window: up to 6–12 hours), and acceptable infarct burden (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score [ASPECTS] ≥6 or infarct volume &lt;50 mL). In 2017, the DAWN and DEFUSE-3 trials successfully extended the time window up to 24 hours in appropriately selected patients. Societal and national thrombectomy guidelines have incorporated these findings and offer Class 1A recommendation to a subset of well-selected patients. Thrombectomy ineligible stroke subpopulations are being studied in ongoing randomized controlled trials. These trials, built on encouraging data from pooled analysis of early trials (HERMES collaboration) and emerging retrospective data, are studying large vessel occlusion strokes with mild deficits (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale &lt;6) and large infarct burden (core volume &gt;70 mL).

We present a simulation model of the operations in the emergency department (ED) at The Cooper Health System. Due to the large amount of variability that can take place within an ED, Cooper Health System sought the use of simulation to help evaluate their operations and possible solutions to their problems. The objective of the model was for Rockwell automation to create a model which depicts the current operations and evaluate possible alternatives to reduce the length of stay. For construction of the model, data was gathered 24 hours a day over a seven-day period. Every operation performed in the ED was evaluated. The model has yielded results that have saved the hospital considerable time as well as helped to avoid tremendous costs.

Importance: The benefits of surfactant administration via a thin catheter (minimally invasive surfactant therapy [MIST]) in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome are uncertain. Objective: To examine the effect of selective application of MIST at a low fraction of inspired oxygen threshold on survival without bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial including 485 preterm infants with a gestational age of 25 to 28 weeks who were supported with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and required a fraction of inspired oxygen of 0.30 or greater within 6 hours of birth. The trial was conducted at 33 tertiary-level neonatal intensive care units around the world, with blinding of the clinicians and outcome assessors. Enrollment took place between December 16, 2011, and March 26, 2020; follow-up was completed on December 2, 2020. Interventions: Infants were randomized to the MIST group (n = 241) and received exogenous surfactant (200 mg/kg of poractant alfa) via a thin catheter or to the control group (n = 244) and received a sham (control) treatment; CPAP was continued thereafter in both groups unless specified intubation criteria were met. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the composite of death or physiological BPD assessed at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age. The components of the primary outcome (death prior to 36 weeks' postmenstrual age and BPD at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age) also were considered separately. Results: Among the 485 infants randomized (median gestational age, 27.3 weeks; 241 [49.7%] female), all completed follow-up. Death or BPD occurred in 105 infants (43.6%) in the MIST group and 121 (49.6%) in the control group (risk difference [RD], -6.3% [95% CI, -14.2% to 1.6%]; relative risk [RR], 0.87 [95% CI, 0.74 to 1.03]; P = .10). Incidence of death before 36 weeks' postmenstrual age did not differ significantly between groups (24 [10.0%] in MIST vs 19 [7.8%] in control; RD, 2.1% [95% CI, -3.6% to 7.8%]; RR, 1.27 [95% CI, 0.63 to 2.57]; P = .51), but incidence of BPD in survivors to 36 weeks' postmenstrual age was lower in the MIST group (81/217 [37.3%] vs 102/225 [45.3%] in the control group; RD, -7.8% [95% CI, -14.9% to -0.7%]; RR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.70 to 0.98]; P = .03). Serious adverse events occurred in 10.3% of infants in the MIST group and 11.1% in the control group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome supported with CPAP, minimally invasive surfactant therapy compared with sham (control) treatment did not significantly reduce the incidence of the composite outcome of death or bronchopulmonary dysplasia at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age. However, given the statistical uncertainty reflected in the 95% CI, a clinically important effect cannot be excluded. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12611000916943.

Background: A small randomized controlled trial suggested that dabigatran may be as effective as warfarin in the treatment of cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT). We aimed to compare direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to warfarin in a real-world CVT cohort. Methods: This multicenter international retrospective study (United States, Europe, New Zealand) included consecutive patients with CVT treated with oral anticoagulation from January 2015 to December 2020. We abstracted demographics and CVT risk factors, hypercoagulable labs, baseline imaging data, and clinical and radiological outcomes from medical records. We used adjusted inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox-regression models to compare recurrent cerebral or systemic venous thrombosis, death, and major hemorrhage in patients treated with warfarin versus DOACs. We performed adjusted inverse probability of treatment weighted logistic regression to compare recanalization rates on follow-up imaging across the 2 treatments groups. Results: Among 1025 CVT patients across 27 centers, 845 patients met our inclusion criteria. Mean age was 44.8 years, 64.7% were women; 33.0% received DOAC only, 51.8% received warfarin only, and 15.1% received both treatments at different times. During a median follow-up of 345 (interquartile range, 140–720) days, there were 5.68 recurrent venous thrombosis, 3.77 major hemorrhages, and 1.84 deaths per 100 patient-years. Among 525 patients who met recanalization analysis inclusion criteria, 36.6% had complete, 48.2% had partial, and 15.2% had no recanalization. When compared with warfarin, DOAC treatment was associated with similar risk of recurrent venous thrombosis (aHR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.51–1.73]; P =0.84), death (aHR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.22–2.76]; P =0.70), and rate of partial/complete recanalization (aOR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.48–1.73]; P =0.79), but a lower risk of major hemorrhage (aHR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.15–0.82]; P =0.02). Conclusions: In patients with CVT, treatment with DOACs was associated with similar clinical and radiographic outcomes and favorable safety profile when compared with warfarin treatment. Our findings need confirmation by large prospective or randomized studies.

Abstract Immunotherapeutic manipulation of the antitumor immune response offers an attractive strategy to target genomic instability in cancer. A subset of tumor-specific somatic mutations can be translated into immunogenic and HLA-bound epitopes called neoantigens, which can induce the activation of helper and cytotoxic T lymphocytes. However, cancer immunoediting and immunosuppressive mechanisms often allow tumors to evade immune recognition. Recent evidence also suggests that the tumor neoantigen landscape extends beyond epitopes originating from nonsynonymous single-nucleotide variants in the coding exome. Here we review emerging approaches for identifying, prioritizing, and immunologically targeting personalized neoantigens using polyvalent cancer vaccines and T-cell receptor gene therapy. Significance: Several major challenges currently impede the clinical efficacy of neoantigen-directed immunotherapy, such as the relative infrequency of immunogenic neoantigens, suboptimal potency and priming of de novo tumor-specific T cells, and tumor cell–intrinsic and –extrinsic mechanisms of immune evasion. A deeper understanding of these biological barriers could help facilitate the development of effective and durable immunotherapy for any type of cancer, including immunologically “cold” tumors that are otherwise therapeutically resistant.

BACKGROUND: Oral anticoagulation is recommended after ablation for atrial fibrillation among patients at high risk for stroke. Left atrial appendage closure is a mechanical alternative to anticoagulation, but data regarding its use after atrial fibrillation ablation are lacking. METHODS: -VASc scale (range, 0 to 9, with higher scores indicating a greater risk of stroke) and who underwent catheter ablation. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo left atrial appendage closure or receive oral anticoagulation. The primary safety end point, tested for superiority, was non-procedure-related major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. The primary efficacy end point, tested for noninferiority, was a composite of death from any cause, stroke, or systemic embolism at 36 months. The secondary end point, tested for noninferiority, was major bleeding, including procedure-related bleeding, through 36 months. RESULTS: -VASc score was 3.5±1.3. At 36 months, a primary safety end-point event had occurred in 65 patients (8.5%) in the left atrial appendage closure group (device group) and in 137 patients (18.1%) in the anticoagulation group (P<0.001 for superiority); a primary efficacy end-point event had occurred in 41 patients (5.3%) and 44 patients (5.8%), respectively (P<0.001 for noninferiority); and a secondary end-point event had occurred in 3.9% and 5.0% (P<0.001 for noninferiority). Complications related to the appendage closure device or procedure occurred in 23 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who underwent catheter-based atrial fibrillation ablation, left atrial appendage closure was associated with a lower risk of non-procedure-related major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding than oral anticoagulation and was noninferior to oral anticoagulation with respect to a composite of death from any cause, stroke, or systemic embolism at 36 months. (Funded by Boston Scientific; OPTION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03795298.).