Summary: The disease course of COVID‐19 varies from asymptomatic infection to critical condition leading to mortality. Identification of prognostic factors is important for prevention and early treatment. We aimed to examine whether obesity is a risk factor for the critical condition in COVID‐19 patients by performing a meta‐analysis. The review protocol was registered onto PROSPERO (CRD42020185980). A systematic search was performed in five scientific databases between 1 January and 11 May 2020. After selection, 24 retrospective cohort studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses. We calculated pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in meta‐analysis. Obesity was a significant risk factor for intensive care unit (ICU) admission in a homogenous dataset (OR = 1.21, CI: 1.002‐1.46; I2 = 0.0%) as well as for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (OR = 2.05, CI: 1.16‐3.64; I2 = 34.86%) in COVID‐19. Comparing body mass index (BMI) classes with each other, we found that a higher BMI always carries a higher risk. Obesity may serve as a clinical predictor for adverse outcomes; therefore, the inclusion of BMI in prognostic scores and improvement of guidelines for the intensive care of patients with elevated BMI are highly recommended.

Although improving, the mortality from septic shock still remains high despite increased international awareness. As a consequence, much effort has focused on alternative treatment strategies in an effort to improve outcomes. The application of blood purification therapies to improve immune homeostasis has been suggested as one such method, but these approaches, such as high-volume continuous haemofiltration or cytokine and/or endotoxin removal, have enjoyed little success to date. More recently, the use of sorbent technologies has attracted much attention. These adsorbers are highly effective at removing inflammatory mediators, in particular, cytokines, from the bloodstream. This narrative review is the executive summary of meetings held throughout the 6th International Fluid Academy Days in Antwerp, Belgium (Nov 23–25, 2017), focusing on the current understanding regarding the use of such adsorbers in humans with septic shock. We followed a modified Delphi approach involving a combination of evidence appraisal together with expert opinion in order to achieve recommendations for practice and, importantly, future research.

The early, appropriate management of acute onset dyspnea is important but often challenging. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of the use of Point-of-Care Ultrasound (PoCUS) versus conventional management on clinical outcomes in patients with acute onset dyspnea. The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and reference lists were searched to identify eligible trials (inception to October 14, 2021). There were no language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and prospective and retrospective cohort studies that compared PoCUS with conventional diagnostic modalities (controls) in patients with acute onset dyspnea were included. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. The primary study outcomes were time to diagnosis, time to treatment, and length of stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes included rate of appropriate treatment, 30-day re-admission rate, and mortality. We included eight RCTs and six observational studies with a total of 5393 participants. Heterogeneity across studies was variable (from low to considerable), with overall low or moderate study quality and low or moderate risk of bias (except one article with serious risk of bias). Time to diagnosis (mean difference [MD], − 63 min; 95% CI, − 115 to − 11 min] and time to treatment (MD, − 27 min; 95% CI − 43 to − 11 min) were significantly shorter in the PoCUS group. In-hospital LOS showed no differences between the two groups, but LOS in the Intensive Care Unit (MD, − 1.27 days; − 1.94 to − 0.61 days) was significantly shorter in the PoCUS group. Patients in the PoCUS group showed significantly higher odds of receiving appropriate therapy compared to controls (odds ratio [OR], 2.31; 95% CI, 1.61–3.32), but there was no significant effect on 30-day re-admission rate and in-hospital or 30-day mortality. Our results indicate that PoCUS use contributes to early diagnosis and better outcomes compared to conventional methods in patients admitted with acute onset dyspnea. Graphical abstract

Background: The role of artificial and bioartificial liver support systems in acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is still controversial. We aimed to perform the first network meta-analysis comparing and ranking different liver support systems and standard medical therapy (SMT) in patients with ACLF. Methods: The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020155850). A systematic search was conducted in five databases. We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of artificial or bioartificial liver support systems on survival in patients with ACLF. Ranking was performed by calculating the surface under cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve values. The RoB2 tool and a modified GRADE approach were used for the assessment of the risk of bias and quality of evidence (QE). Results: In the quantitative synthesis 16 trials were included, using MARS®, Prometheus®, ELAD®, plasma exchange (PE) and BioLogic-DT®. Overall (OS) and transplant-free (TFS) survival were assessed at 1 and 3 months. PE significantly improved 3-month OS compared to SMT (RR 0.74, CrI: 0.6–0.94) and ranked first on the cumulative ranking curves for both OS outcomes (SUCRA: 86% at 3 months; 77% at 1 month) and 3-month TFS (SUCRA: 87%) and second after ELAD for 1-month TFS (SUCRA: 76%). Other comparisons did not reach statistical significance. QE was moderate for PE concerning 1-month OS and both TFS outcomes. Other results were of very low certainty. Conclusion: PE seems to be the best currently available liver support therapy in ACLF regarding 3-month OS. Based on the low QE, randomized trials are needed to confirm our findings for already existing options and to introduce new devices.

Background: Appropriate antibiotic (AB) therapy remains a challenge in the intensive care unit (ICU). Procalcitonin (PCT)-guided AB stewardship could help optimize AB treatment and decrease AB-related adverse effects, but firm evidence is still lacking. Our aim was to compare the effects of PCT-guided AB therapy with standard of care (SOC) in critically ill patients. Methods: We searched databases CENTRAL, Embase and Medline. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PCT-guided AB therapy (PCT group) with SOC reporting on length of AB therapy, mortality, recurrent and secondary infection, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS or healthcare costs. Due to recent changes in sepsis definitions, subgroup analyses were performed in studies applying the Sepsis-3 definition. In the statistical analysis, a random-effects model was used to pool effect sizes. Results: We included 26 RCTs (n = 9048 patients) in the quantitative analysis. In comparison with SOC, length of AB therapy was significantly shorter in the PCT group (MD − 1.79 days, 95% CI: -2.65, − 0.92) and was associated with a significantly lower 28-day mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.74, 0.95). In Sepsis-3 patients, mortality benefit was more pronounced (OR 0.46 95% CI: 0.27, 0.79). Odds of recurrent infection were significantly higher in the PCT group (OR 1.36, 95% CI: 1.10, 1.68), but there was no significant difference in the odds of secondary infection (OR 0.81, 95% CI: 0.54, 1.21), ICU and hospital length of stay (MD − 0.67 days 95% CI: − 1.76, 0.41 and MD − 1.23 days, 95% CI: − 3.13, 0.67, respectively). Conclusions: PCT-guided AB therapy may be associated with reduced AB use, lower 28-day mortality but higher infection recurrence, with similar ICU and hospital length of stay. Our results render the need for better designed studies investigating the role of PCT-guided AB stewardship in critically ill patients. Graphical

A dysregulated host response is a common feature in critically ill patients due to both infectious and non-infectious origins that can lead to life-threatening organ dysfunction, which is still the primary cause of death in intensive care units worldwide. In its course, pathologic, unregulated levels of inflammatory mediators are often released into the circulation, a phenomenon also referred to as a “cytokine storm”. To date, there are no approved therapies to modulate the excessive immune response and limit hyperinflammation with the goal of preventing related organ failure and death. In this context, extracorporeal blood purification therapies aiming at the alteration of the host inflammatory response through broad-spectrum, non-selective removal of inflammatory mediators have come into focus. A novel hemoadsorption device (CytoSorb^®, CytoSorbents Inc., Princeton, NJ, USA) has shown promising results in patients with hyperinflammation from various origins. Although a significant body of literature exists, there is ongoing research to address many important remaining questions, including the optimal selection of patient groups who might benefit the most, optimal timing for therapy initiation, optimal schedule for adsorber exchanges and therapy duration, as well as an investigation into the potential removal of concomitant antibiotics and other medications. In this review, we discuss the existing evidence and provide a consensus-based best practice guidance for CytoSorb^® hemoadsorption therapy in patients with vasoplegic shock.