Population Health Research Institute

BACKGROUND: Although more than 80% of the global burden of cardiovascular disease occurs in low-income and middle-income countries, knowledge of the importance of risk factors is largely derived from developed countries. Therefore, the effect of such factors on risk of coronary heart disease in most regions of the world is unknown. METHODS: We established a standardised case-control study of acute myocardial infarction in 52 countries, representing every inhabited continent. 15152 cases and 14820 controls were enrolled. The relation of smoking, history of hypertension or diabetes, waist/hip ratio, dietary patterns, physical activity, consumption of alcohol, blood apolipoproteins (Apo), and psychosocial factors to myocardial infarction are reported here. Odds ratios and their 99% CIs for the association of risk factors to myocardial infarction and their population attributable risks (PAR) were calculated. FINDINGS: Smoking (odds ratio 2.87 for current vs never, PAR 35.7% for current and former vs never), raised ApoB/ApoA1 ratio (3.25 for top vs lowest quintile, PAR 49.2% for top four quintiles vs lowest quintile), history of hypertension (1.91, PAR 17.9%), diabetes (2.37, PAR 9.9%), abdominal obesity (1.12 for top vs lowest tertile and 1.62 for middle vs lowest tertile, PAR 20.1% for top two tertiles vs lowest tertile), psychosocial factors (2.67, PAR 32.5%), daily consumption of fruits and vegetables (0.70, PAR 13.7% for lack of daily consumption), regular alcohol consumption (0.91, PAR 6.7%), and regular physical activity (0.86, PAR 12.2%), were all significantly related to acute myocardial infarction (p<0.0001 for all risk factors and p=0.03 for alcohol). These associations were noted in men and women, old and young, and in all regions of the world. Collectively, these nine risk factors accounted for 90% of the PAR in men and 94% in women. INTERPRETATION: Abnormal lipids, smoking, hypertension, diabetes, abdominal obesity, psychosocial factors, consumption of fruits, vegetables, and alcohol, and regular physical activity account for most of the risk of myocardial infarction worldwide in both sexes and at all ages in all regions. This finding suggests that approaches to prevention can be based on similar principles worldwide and have the potential to prevent most premature cases of myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Warfarin reduces the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation but increases the risk of hemorrhage and is difficult to use. Dabigatran is a new oral direct thrombin inhibitor. METHODS: In this noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned 18,113 patients who had atrial fibrillation and a risk of stroke to receive, in a blinded fashion, fixed doses of dabigatran--110 mg or 150 mg twice daily--or, in an unblinded fashion, adjusted-dose warfarin. The median duration of the follow-up period was 2.0 years. The primary outcome was stroke or systemic embolism. RESULTS: Rates of the primary outcome were 1.69% per year in the warfarin group, as compared with 1.53% per year in the group that received 110 mg of dabigatran (relative risk with dabigatran, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.11; P<0.001 for noninferiority) and 1.11% per year in the group that received 150 mg of dabigatran (relative risk, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.82; P<0.001 for superiority). The rate of major bleeding was 3.36% per year in the warfarin group, as compared with 2.71% per year in the group receiving 110 mg of dabigatran (P=0.003) and 3.11% per year in the group receiving 150 mg of dabigatran (P=0.31). The rate of hemorrhagic stroke was 0.38% per year in the warfarin group, as compared with 0.12% per year with 110 mg of dabigatran (P<0.001) and 0.10% per year with 150 mg of dabigatran (P<0.001). The mortality rate was 4.13% per year in the warfarin group, as compared with 3.75% per year with 110 mg of dabigatran (P=0.13) and 3.64% per year with 150 mg of dabigatran (P=0.051). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with atrial fibrillation, dabigatran given at a dose of 110 mg was associated with rates of stroke and systemic embolism that were similar to those associated with warfarin, as well as lower rates of major hemorrhage. Dabigatran administered at a dose of 150 mg, as compared with warfarin, was associated with lower rates of stroke and systemic embolism but similar rates of major hemorrhage. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00262600.)

BACKGROUND: Despite current treatments, patients who have acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation have high rates of major vascular events. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of the antiplatelet agent clopidogrel when given with aspirin in such patients. METHODS: We randomly assigned 12,562 patients who had presented within 24 hours after the onset of symptoms to receive clopidogrel (300 mg immediately, followed by 75 mg once daily) (6259 patients) or placebo (6303 patients) in addition to aspirin for 3 to 12 months. RESULTS: The first primary outcome--a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke--occurred in 9.3 percent of the patients in the clopidogrel group and 11.4 percent of the patients in the placebo group (relative risk with clopidogrel as compared with placebo, 0.80; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.72 to 0.90; P<0.001). The second primary outcome--the first primary outcome or refractory ischemia--occurred in 16.5 percent of the patients in the clopidogrel group and 18.8 percent of the patients in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.86; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.79 to 0.94; P<0.001). The percentages of patients with in-hospital refractory or severe ischemia, heart failure, and revascularization procedures were also significantly lower with clopidogrel. There were significantly more patients with major bleeding in the clopidogrel group than in the placebo group (3.7 percent vs. 2.7 percent; relative risk, 1.38; P=0.001), but there were not significantly more patients with episodes of life-threatening bleeding (2.2 percent [corrected] vs. 1.8 percent; P=0.13) or hemorrhagic strokes (0.1 percent vs. 0.1 percent). CONCLUSIONS: The antiplatelet agent clopidogrel has beneficial effects in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. However, the risk of major bleeding is increased among patients treated with clopidogrel.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care (eg, community) settings. METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-to-person virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects meta-regressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047. FINDINGS: =0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD -10·6%, 95% CI -12·5 to -7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings. INTERPRETATION: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance. FUNDING: World Health Organization.

BACKGROUND: In patients who have vascular disease or high-risk diabetes without heart failure, angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduce mortality and morbidity from cardiovascular causes, but the role of angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in such patients is unknown. We compared the ACE inhibitor ramipril, the ARB telmisartan, and the combination of the two drugs in patients with vascular disease or high-risk diabetes. METHODS: After a 3-week, single-blind run-in period, patients underwent double-blind randomization, with 8576 assigned to receive 10 mg of ramipril per day, 8542 assigned to receive 80 mg of telmisartan per day, and 8502 assigned to receive both drugs (combination therapy). The primary composite outcome was death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure. RESULTS: Mean blood pressure was lower in both the telmisartan group (a 0.9/0.6 mm Hg greater reduction) and the combination-therapy group (a 2.4/1.4 mm Hg greater reduction) than in the ramipril group. At a median follow-up of 56 months, the primary outcome had occurred in 1412 patients in the ramipril group (16.5%), as compared with 1423 patients in the telmisartan group (16.7%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94 to 1.09). As compared with the ramipril group, the telmisartan group had lower rates of cough (1.1% vs. 4.2%, P<0.001) and angioedema (0.1% vs. 0.3%, P=0.01) and a higher rate of hypotensive symptoms (2.6% vs. 1.7%, P<0.001); the rate of syncope was the same in the two groups (0.2%). In the combination-therapy group, the primary outcome occurred in 1386 patients (16.3%; relative risk, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.07); as compared with the ramipril group, there was an increased risk of hypotensive symptoms (4.8% vs. 1.7%, P<0.001), syncope (0.3% vs. 0.2%, P=0.03), and renal dysfunction (13.5% vs. 10.2%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Telmisartan was equivalent to ramipril in patients with vascular disease or high-risk diabetes and was associated with less angioedema. The combination of the two drugs was associated with more adverse events without an increase in benefit. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00153101 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

This two-part article provides an overview of the global burden of atherothrombotic cardiovascular disease. Part I initially discusses the epidemiologic transition which has resulted in a decrease in deaths in childhood due to infections, with a concomitant increase in cardiovascular and other chronic diseases; and then provides estimates of the burden of cardiovascular (CV) diseases with specific focus on the developing countries. Next, we summarize key information on risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and indicate that their importance may have been underestimated. Then, we describe overarching factors influencing variations in CVD by ethnicity and region and the influence of urbanization. Part II of this article describes the burden of CV disease by specific region or ethnic group, the risk factors of importance, and possible strategies for prevention.

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 -

BACKGROUND: Vitamin K antagonists have been shown to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. However, many patients are not suitable candidates for or are unwilling to receive vitamin K antagonist therapy, and these patients have a high risk of stroke. Apixaban, a novel factor Xa inhibitor, may be an alternative treatment for such patients. METHODS: In a double-blind study, we randomly assigned 5599 patients with atrial fibrillation who were at increased risk for stroke and for whom vitamin K antagonist therapy was unsuitable to receive apixaban (at a dose of 5 mg twice daily) or aspirin (81 to 324 mg per day), to determine whether apixaban was superior. The mean follow up period was 1.1 years. The primary outcome was the occurrence of stroke or systemic embolism. RESULTS: Before enrollment, 40% of the patients had used a vitamin K antagonist. The data and safety monitoring board recommended early termination of the study because of a clear benefit in favor of apixaban. There were 51 primary outcome events (1.6% per year) among patients assigned to apixaban and 113 (3.7% per year) among those assigned to aspirin (hazard ratio with apixaban, 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.62; P<0.001). The rates of death were 3.5% per year in the apixaban group and 4.4% per year in the aspirin group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.02; P=0.07). There were 44 cases of major bleeding (1.4% per year) in the apixaban group and 39 (1.2% per year) in the aspirin group (hazard ratio with apixaban, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.75; P=0.57); there were 11 cases of intracranial bleeding with apixaban and 13 with aspirin. The risk of a first hospitalization for cardiovascular causes was reduced with apixaban as compared with aspirin (12.6% per year vs. 15.9% per year, P<0.001). The treatment effects were consistent among important subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with atrial fibrillation for whom vitamin K antagonist therapy was unsuitable, apixaban reduced the risk of stroke or systemic embolism without significantly increasing the risk of major bleeding or intracranial hemorrhage. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00496769.).

BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary cardiovascular prevention. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=-4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events. (Funded by Bayer; COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01776424 .).

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend at least 24 hours of electrocardiographic (ECG) monitoring after an ischemic stroke to rule out atrial fibrillation. However, the most effective duration and type of monitoring have not been established, and the cause of ischemic stroke remains uncertain despite a complete diagnostic evaluation in 20 to 40% of cases (cryptogenic stroke). Detection of atrial fibrillation after cryptogenic stroke has therapeutic implications. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, controlled study of 441 patients to assess whether long-term monitoring with an insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) is more effective than conventional follow-up (control) for detecting atrial fibrillation in patients with cryptogenic stroke. Patients 40 years of age or older with no evidence of atrial fibrillation during at least 24 hours of ECG monitoring underwent randomization within 90 days after the index event. The primary end point was the time to first detection of atrial fibrillation (lasting >30 seconds) within 6 months. Among the secondary end points was the time to first detection of atrial fibrillation within 12 months. Data were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: By 6 months, atrial fibrillation had been detected in 8.9% of patients in the ICM group (19 patients) versus 1.4% of patients in the control group (3 patients) (hazard ratio, 6.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9 to 21.7; P<0.001). By 12 months, atrial fibrillation had been detected in 12.4% of patients in the ICM group (29 patients) versus 2.0% of patients in the control group (4 patients) (hazard ratio, 7.3; 95% CI, 2.6 to 20.8; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ECG monitoring with an ICM was superior to conventional follow-up for detecting atrial fibrillation after cryptogenic stroke. (Funded by Medtronic; CRYSTAL AF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00924638.).

BACKGROUND: Vitamin K antagonists reduce the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation but are considered unsuitable in many patients, who usually receive aspirin instead. We investigated the hypothesis that the addition of clopidogrel to aspirin would reduce the risk of vascular events in patients with atrial fibrillation. METHODS: A total of 7554 patients with atrial fibrillation who had an increased risk of stroke and for whom vitamin K-antagonist therapy was unsuitable were randomly assigned to receive clopidogrel (75 mg) or placebo, once daily, in addition to aspirin. The primary outcome was the composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, non-central nervous system systemic embolism, or death from vascular causes. RESULTS: At a median of 3.6 years of follow-up, major vascular events had occurred in 832 patients receiving clopidogrel (6.8% per year) and in 924 patients receiving placebo (7.6% per year) (relative risk with clopidogrel, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 0.98; P=0.01). The difference was primarily due to a reduction in the rate of stroke with clopidogrel. Stroke occurred in 296 patients receiving clopidogrel (2.4% per year) and 408 patients receiving placebo (3.3% per year) (relative risk, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.83; P<0.001). Myocardial infarction occurred in 90 patients receiving clopidogrel (0.7% per year) and in 115 receiving placebo (0.9% per year) (relative risk, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.03; P=0.08). Major bleeding occurred in 251 patients receiving clopidogrel (2.0% per year) and in 162 patients receiving placebo (1.3% per year) (relative risk, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.29 to 1.92; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with atrial fibrillation for whom vitamin K-antagonist therapy was unsuitable, the addition of clopidogrel to aspirin reduced the risk of major vascular events, especially stroke, and increased the risk of major hemorrhage. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00249873.)

BACKGROUND: One quarter of strokes are of unknown cause, and subclinical atrial fibrillation may be a common etiologic factor. Pacemakers can detect subclinical episodes of rapid atrial rate, which correlate with electrocardiographically documented atrial fibrillation. We evaluated whether subclinical episodes of rapid atrial rate detected by implanted devices were associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke in patients who did not have other evidence of atrial fibrillation. METHODS: We enrolled 2580 patients, 65 years of age or older, with hypertension and no history of atrial fibrillation, in whom a pacemaker or defibrillator had recently been implanted. We monitored the patients for 3 months to detect subclinical atrial tachyarrhythmias (episodes of atrial rate >190 beats per minute for more than 6 minutes) and followed them for a mean of 2.5 years for the primary outcome of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism. Patients with pacemakers were randomly assigned to receive or not to receive continuous atrial overdrive pacing. RESULTS: By 3 months, subclinical atrial tachyarrhythmias detected by implanted devices had occurred in 261 patients (10.1%). Subclinical atrial tachyarrhythmias were associated with an increased risk of clinical atrial fibrillation (hazard ratio, 5.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.78 to 8.17; P<0.001) and of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism (hazard ratio, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.28 to 4.85; P=0.007). Of 51 patients who had a primary outcome event, 11 had had subclinical atrial tachyarrhythmias detected by 3 months, and none had had clinical atrial fibrillation by 3 months. The population attributable risk of stroke or systemic embolism associated with subclinical atrial tachyarrhythmias was 13%. Subclinical atrial tachyarrhythmias remained predictive of the primary outcome after adjustment for predictors of stroke (hazard ratio, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.28 to 4.89; P=0.008). Continuous atrial overdrive pacing did not prevent atrial fibrillation. CONCLUSIONS: Subclinical atrial tachyarrhythmias, without clinical atrial fibrillation, occurred frequently in patients with pacemakers and were associated with a significantly increased risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism. (Funded by St. Jude Medical; ASSERT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00256152.).

IMPORTANCE: Hypertension is the most important preventable cause of morbidity and mortality globally, yet there are relatively few data collected using standardized methods. OBJECTIVE: To examine hypertension prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control in participants at baseline in the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cross-sectional study of 153,996 adults (complete data for this analysis on 142,042) aged 35 to 70 years, recruited between January 2003 and December 2009. Participants were from 628 communities in 3 high-income countries (HIC), 10 upper-middle-income and low-middle-income countries (UMIC and LMIC), and 4 low-income countries (LIC). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Hypertension was defined as individuals with self-reported treated hypertension or with an average of 2 blood pressure measurements of at least 140/90 mm Hg using an automated digital device. Awareness was based on self-reports, treatment was based on the regular use of blood pressure-lowering medications, and control was defined as individuals with blood pressure lower than 140/90 mm Hg. RESULTS: Among the 142,042 participants, 57,840 (40.8%; 95% CI, 40.5%-41.0%) had hypertension and 26,877 (46.5%; 95% CI, 46.1%-46.9%) were aware of the diagnosis. Of those who were aware of the diagnosis, the majority (23,510 [87.5%; 95% CI, 87.1%-87.9%] of those who were aware) were receiving pharmacological treatments, but only a minority of those receiving treatment were controlled (7634 [32.5%; 95% CI, 31.9%-33.1%]). Overall, 30.8%, 95% CI, 30.2%-31.4% of treated patients were taking 2 or more types of blood pressure-lowering medications. The percentages aware (49.0% [95% CI, 47.8%-50.3%] in HICs, 52.5% [95% CI, 51.8%-53.2%] in UMICs, 43.6% [95% CI, 42.9%-44.2%] in LMICs, and 40.8% [95% CI, 39.9%-41.8%] in LICs) and treated (46.7% [95% CI, 45.5%-47.9%] in HICs, 48.3%, [95% CI, 47.6%-49.1%] in UMICs, 36.9%, [95% CI, 36.3%-37.6%] in LMICs, and 31.7% [95% CI, 30.8%-32.6%] in LICs) were lower in LICs compared with all other countries for awareness (P <.001) and treatment (P <.001). Awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension were higher in urban communities compared with rural ones in LICs (urban vs rural, P <.001) and LMICs (urban vs rural, P <.001), but similar for other countries. Low education was associated with lower rates of awareness, treatment, and control in LICs, but not in other countries. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among a multinational study population, 46.5% of participants with hypertension were aware of the diagnosis, with blood pressure control among 32.5% of those being treated. These findings suggest substantial room for improvement in hypertension diagnosis and treatment.

BACKGROUND: In observational studies, lower homocysteine levels are associated with lower rates of coronary heart disease and stroke. Folic acid and vitamins B6 and B12 lower homocysteine levels. We assessed whether supplementation reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events in patients with vascular disease. METHODS: We randomly assigned 5522 patients 55 years of age or older who had vascular disease or diabetes to daily treatment either with the combination of 2.5 mg of folic acid, 50 mg of vitamin B6, and 1 mg of vitamin B12 or with placebo for an average of five years. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, and stroke. RESULTS: Mean plasma homocysteine levels decreased by 2.4 micromol per liter (0.3 mg per liter) in the active-treatment group and increased by 0.8 micromol per liter (0.1 mg per liter) in the placebo group. Primary outcome events occurred in 519 patients (18.8 percent) assigned to active therapy and 547 (19.8 percent) assigned to placebo (relative risk, 0.95; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.84 to 1.07; P=0.41). As compared with placebo, active treatment did not significantly decrease the risk of death from cardiovascular causes (relative risk, 0.96; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.13), myocardial infarction (relative risk, 0.98; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.85 to 1.14), or any of the secondary outcomes. Fewer patients assigned to active treatment than to placebo had a stroke (relative risk, 0.75; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.59 to 0.97). More patients in the active-treatment group were hospitalized for unstable angina (relative risk, 1.24; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.04 to 1.49). CONCLUSIONS: Supplements combining folic acid and vitamins B6 and B12 did not reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events in patients with vascular disease. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00106886; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN14017017.).

BACKGROUND: The provision of sufficient basal insulin to normalize fasting plasma glucose levels may reduce cardiovascular events, but such a possibility has not been formally tested. METHODS: We randomly assigned 12,537 people (mean age, 63.5 years) with cardiovascular risk factors plus impaired fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance, or type 2 diabetes to receive insulin glargine (with a target fasting blood glucose level of ≤95 mg per deciliter [5.3 mmol per liter]) or standard care and to receive n-3 fatty acids or placebo with the use of a 2-by-2 factorial design. The results of the comparison between insulin glargine and standard care are reported here. The coprimary outcomes were nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes and these events plus revascularization or hospitalization for heart failure. Microvascular outcomes, incident diabetes, hypoglycemia, weight, and cancers were also compared between groups. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 6.2 years (interquartile range, 5.8 to 6.7). Rates of incident cardiovascular outcomes were similar in the insulin-glargine and standard-care groups: 2.94 and 2.85 per 100 person-years, respectively, for the first coprimary outcome (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94 to 1.11; P=0.63) and 5.52 and 5.28 per 100 person-years, respectively, for the second coprimary outcome (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.11; P=0.27). New diabetes was diagnosed approximately 3 months after therapy was stopped among 30% versus 35% of 1456 participants without baseline diabetes (odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.00; P=0.05). Rates of severe hypoglycemia were 1.00 versus 0.31 per 100 person-years. Median weight increased by 1.6 kg in the insulin-glargine group and fell by 0.5 kg in the standard-care group. There was no significant difference in cancers (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.13; P=0.97). CONCLUSIONS: When used to target normal fasting plasma glucose levels for more than 6 years, insulin glargine had a neutral effect on cardiovascular outcomes and cancers. Although it reduced new-onset diabetes, insulin glargine also increased hypoglycemia and modestly increased weight. (Funded by Sanofi; ORIGIN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00069784.).

BACKGROUND: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. METHODS: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.

BACKGROUND: It is common practice to restore and maintain sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure. This approach is based in part on data indicating that atrial fibrillation is a predictor of death in patients with heart failure and suggesting that the suppression of atrial fibrillation may favorably affect the outcome. However, the benefits and risks of this approach have not been adequately studied. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial comparing the maintenance of sinus rhythm (rhythm control) with control of the ventricular rate (rate control) in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, symptoms of congestive heart failure, and a history of atrial fibrillation. The primary outcome was the time to death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS: A total of 1376 patients were enrolled (682 in the rhythm-control group and 694 in the rate-control group) and were followed for a mean of 37 months. Of these patients, 182 (27%) in the rhythm-control group died from cardiovascular causes, as compared with 175 (25%) in the rate-control group (hazard ratio in the rhythm-control group, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.30; P=0.59 by the log-rank test). Secondary outcomes were similar in the two groups, including death from any cause (32% in the rhythm-control group and 33% in the rate-control group), stroke (3% and 4%, respectively), worsening heart failure (28% and 31%), and the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, stroke, or worsening heart failure (43% and 46%). There were also no significant differences favoring either strategy in any predefined subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure, a routine strategy of rhythm control does not reduce the rate of death from cardiovascular causes, as compared with a rate-control strategy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00597077.)

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative hypotension may contribute to postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) and myocardial injury, but what blood pressures are unsafe is unclear. The authors evaluated the association between the intraoperative mean arterial pressure (MAP) and the risk of AKI and myocardial injury. METHODS: The authors obtained perioperative data for 33,330 noncardiac surgeries at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio. The authors evaluated the association between intraoperative MAP from less than 55 to 75 mmHg and postoperative AKI and myocardial injury to determine the threshold of MAP where risk is increased. The authors then evaluated the association between the duration below this threshold and their outcomes adjusting for potential confounding variables. RESULTS: AKI and myocardial injury developed in 2,478 (7.4%) and 770 (2.3%) surgeries, respectively. The MAP threshold where the risk for both outcomes increased was less than 55 mmHg. Compared with never developing a MAP less than 55 mmHg, those with a MAP less than 55 mmHg for 1-5, 6-10, 11-20, and more than 20 min had graded increases in their risk of the two outcomes (AKI: 1.18 [95% CI, 1.06-1.31], 1.19 [1.03-1.39], 1.32 [1.11-1.56], and 1.51 [1.24-1.84], respectively; myocardial injury 1.30 [1.06-1.5], 1.47 [1.13-1.93], 1.79 [1.33-2.39], and 1.82 [1.31-2.55], respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: Even short durations of an intraoperative MAP less than 55 mmHg are associated with AKI and myocardial injury. Randomized trials are required to determine whether outcomes improve with interventions that maintain an intraoperative MAP of at least 55 mmHg.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review associations between intake of saturated fat and trans unsaturated fat and all cause mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD) and associated mortality, coronary heart disease (CHD) and associated mortality, ischemic stroke, and type 2 diabetes. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, and CINAHL from inception to 1 May 2015, supplemented by bibliographies of retrieved articles and previous reviews. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Observational studies reporting associations of saturated fat and/or trans unsaturated fat (total, industrially manufactured, or from ruminant animals) with all cause mortality, CHD/CVD mortality, total CHD, ischemic stroke, or type 2 diabetes. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study risks of bias. Multivariable relative risks were pooled. Heterogeneity was assessed and quantified. Potential publication bias was assessed and subgroup analyses were undertaken. The GRADE approach was used to evaluate quality of evidence and certainty of conclusions. RESULTS: For saturated fat, three to 12 prospective cohort studies for each association were pooled (five to 17 comparisons with 90,501-339,090 participants). Saturated fat intake was not associated with all cause mortality (relative risk 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.09), CVD mortality (0.97, 0.84 to 1.12), total CHD (1.06, 0.95 to 1.17), ischemic stroke (1.02, 0.90 to 1.15), or type 2 diabetes (0.95, 0.88 to 1.03). There was no convincing lack of association between saturated fat and CHD mortality (1.15, 0.97 to 1.36; P=0.10). For trans fats, one to six prospective cohort studies for each association were pooled (two to seven comparisons with 12,942-230,135 participants). Total trans fat intake was associated with all cause mortality (1.34, 1.16 to 1.56), CHD mortality (1.28, 1.09 to 1.50), and total CHD (1.21, 1.10 to 1.33) but not ischemic stroke (1.07, 0.88 to 1.28) or type 2 diabetes (1.10, 0.95 to 1.27). Industrial, but not ruminant, trans fats were associated with CHD mortality (1.18 (1.04 to 1.33) v 1.01 (0.71 to 1.43)) and CHD (1.42 (1.05 to 1.92) v 0.93 (0.73 to 1.18)). Ruminant trans-palmitoleic acid was inversely associated with type 2 diabetes (0.58, 0.46 to 0.74). The certainty of associations between saturated fat and all outcomes was "very low." The certainty of associations of trans fat with CHD outcomes was "moderate" and "very low" to "low" for other associations. CONCLUSIONS: Saturated fats are not associated with all cause mortality, CVD, CHD, ischemic stroke, or type 2 diabetes, but the evidence is heterogeneous with methodological limitations. Trans fats are associated with all cause mortality, total CHD, and CHD mortality, probably because of higher levels of intake of industrial trans fats than ruminant trans fats. Dietary guidelines must carefully consider the health effects of recommendations for alternative macronutrients to replace trans fats and saturated fats.