Quiz Ref ID Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a common clinical problem among critically ill patients and is associated with high mortality and limited long-term quality of life.^1,2 The functional lung size is decreased in ARDS, since many lung units become poorly or nonaerated due to collapse, flooding, or consolidation.³ This places patients at increased risk of ventilator-induced lung injury due both to overdistention of aerated lung units and cyclic opening and closing of small airways and alveoli (atelectrauma).^4- 6

Background: The optimal protein dose in critical illness is unknown. We aim to conduct a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the effect of higher versus lower protein delivery (with similar energy delivery between groups) on clinical and patient-centered outcomes in critically ill patients. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and CINAHL from database inception through April 1, 2021.We included RCTs of (1) adult (age ≥ 18) critically ill patients that (2) compared higher vs lower protein with (3) similar energy intake between groups, and (4) reported clinical and/or patient-centered outcomes. We excluded studies on immunonutrition. Two authors screened and conducted quality assessment independently and in duplicate. Random-effect meta-analyses were conducted to estimate the pooled risk ratio (dichotomized outcomes) or mean difference (continuous outcomes). Results: Nineteen RCTs were included (n = 1731). Sixteen studies used primarily the enteral route to deliver protein. Intervention was started within 72 h of ICU admission in sixteen studies. The intervention lasted between 3 and 28 days. In 11 studies that reported weight-based nutrition delivery, the pooled mean protein and energy received in higher and lower protein groups were 1.31 ± 0.48 vs 0.90 ± 0.30 g/kg and 19.9 ± 6.9 versus 20.1 ± 7.1 kcal/kg, respectively. Higher vs lower protein did not significantly affect overall mortality [risk ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75–1.10, p = 0.34] or other clinical or patient-centered outcomes. In 5 small studies, higher protein significantly attenuated muscle loss (MD −3.44% per week, 95% CI −4.99 to −1.90; p < 0.0001). Conclusion: In critically ill patients, a higher daily protein delivery was not associated with any improvement in clinical or patient-centered outcomes. Larger, and more definitive RCTs are needed to confirm the effect of muscle loss attenuation associated with higher protein delivery. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021237530

Summary: We compared sedation levels in children following administration of intranasal dexmedetomidine. One hundred and sixteen children aged between 1 and 8 years were enrolled in this prospective, randomised trial. Children were assigned to receive either intranasal dexmedetomidine 1 μg.kg ⁻¹ (Group 1) or 2 μg.kg ⁻¹ (Group 2). Thirty‐one (53%) patients from Group 1 and 38 (66%) patients from Group 2 were satisfactorily sedated at the time of anaesthetic induction. Logistic regression showed a significant interaction effect (p = 0.049), with the odds ratio between Group 2 over Group 1 estimated as 1.1 (95% CI 0.5–2.7) for the 1–4 year age group, and 10.5 (95% CI 1.4–80.2) for the 5–8 year age group. Both doses produced a similar level of satisfactory sedation in children aged 1–4 years, whereas 2 μg.kg ⁻¹ resulted in a higher proportion of satisfactory sedation in children aged 5–8 years. There were no adverse haemodynamic effects. We conclude that intranasal dexmedetomidine in a premedication dose of 2 μg.kg ⁻¹ resulted in excellent sedation in children.