Experimental animal models of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have shown that the updated airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) methodologies may significantly improve oxygenation, maximize lung recruitment, and attenuate lung injury, without circulatory depression. This led us to hypothesize that early application of APRV in patients with ARDS would allow pulmonary function to recover faster and would reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation as compared with low tidal volume lung protective ventilation (LTV).

The lung ultrasound score has been regarded as a decent semiquantitative score to measure the lung aeration loss. The score has been proven to be valuable in diagnosing and monitoring lung pathology, but no studies have demonstrated its relationship to the outcome. We aimed to investigate the relationship between the lung ultrasound score and outcome in shock patients in the Intensive Care Unit. The data were extracted from the SHOCK-ICU study, a 14-month prospective study of shock patients in the Medical Intensive Care Unit in West China Hospital. A bivariate logistic regression model was established to identify the correlation between the lung ultrasound score on admission and the 28-day mortality. For subsequent analyses, we divided patients into lung ultrasound score quartiles, and survival analysis was performed using Cox stratified survival analysis and regression analysis with the Breslow method of ties. A total of 175 cases with a completed lung ultrasound exam were included. The mean APACHE II score was 23.7 ± 8.8, and the 28-day mortality was 46.3% (81/175). The multivariate analysis demonstrated that the lung ultrasound score was an independent risk factor for 28-day mortality, as well as the APACHE II score and lactate level. When divided into lung ultrasound score quartiles, after correcting for the APACHE II score, vasoactive use, PaO2/FiO2, and lactate level, the COX analysis reveals that a higher lung ultrasound score was related to a lower survival rate. Quartile 1 and quartile 2 had a significantly lower hazard ratio versus quartile 4 (OR 0.442[0.215–0.911]; 0.484[0.251–0.934], respectively). The lung ultrasound score is independently related to the 28-day mortality, as well as the APACHE II score and lactate level, in Intensive Care Unit shock patients. A higher elevated lung ultrasound score on admission is associated with a worse outcome. The study is registered on Clinical Trials. Trial registration: NCT03082326 ; retrospectively registered on 3 March 2017.

Trial registration: ChiCTR, ChiCTR2000029758. Registered 12 February 2020 - Retrospectively registered

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been a pandemic worldwide. Old age and underlying illnesses are associated with poor prognosis among COVID-19 patients. However, whether frailty, a common geriatric syndrome of reduced reserve to stressors, is associated with poor prognosis among older COVID-19 patients is unknown. The aim of our study is to investigate the association between frailty and severe disease among COVID-19 patients aged ≥ 60 years. Methods: A prospective cohort study of 114 hospitalized older patients (≥ 60 years) with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia was conducted between 7 February 2020 and 6 April 2020. Epidemiological, demographic, clinical, laboratory, and outcome data on admission were extracted from electronic medical records. All patients were assessed for frailty on admission using the FRAIL scale, in which five components are included: fatigue, resistance, ambulation, illnesses, and loss of weight. The outcome was the development of the severe disease within 60 days. We used the Cox proportional hazards models to identify the unadjusted and adjusted associations between frailty and severe illness. The significant variables in univariable analysis were included in the adjusted model. Results: Of 114 patients, (median age, 67 years; interquartile range = 64–75 years; 57 [50%] men), 39 (34.2%), 39 (34.2%), and 36 (31.6%) were non-frail, pre-frail, and frail, respectively. During the 60 days of follow-up, 43 severe diseases occurred including eight deaths. Four of 39 (10.3%) non-frail patients, 15 of 39 (38.5%) pre-frail patients, and 24 of 36 (66.7%) frail patients progressed to severe disease. After adjustment of age, sex, body mass index, haemoglobin, white blood count, lymphocyte count, albumin, CD8+ count, D-dimer, and C-reactive protein, frailty (HR = 7.47, 95% CI 1.73–32.34, P = 0.007) and pre-frailty (HR = 5.01, 95% CI 1.16–21.61, P = 0.03) were associated with a higher hazard of severe disease than the non-frail. Conclusions: Frailty, assessed by the FRAIL scale, was associated with a higher risk of developing severe disease among older COVID-19 patients. Our findings suggested that the use of a clinician friendly assessment of frailty could help in early warning of older patients at high-risk with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

Emerged evidence has indicated that immunosuppression is involved in the occurrence and development of sepsis. To provide clinical practice recommendations on the immune function in sepsis, an expert consensus focusing on the monitoring and treatment of sepsis-induced immunosuppression was developed. Literature related to the immune monitoring and treatment of sepsis were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure to design items and expert opinions were collected through an online questionnaire. Then, the Delphi method was used to form consensus opinions, and RAND appropriateness method was developed to provide consistency evaluation and recommendation levels for consensus opinions. This consensus achieved satisfactory results through two rounds of questionnaire survey, with 2 statements rated as perfect consistency, 13 as very good consistency, and 9 as good consistency. After summarizing the results, a total of 14 strong recommended opinions, 8 weak recommended opinions and 2 non-recommended opinions were produced. Finally, a face-to-face discussion of the consensus opinions was performed through an online meeting, and all judges unanimously agreed on the content of this consensus. In summary, this expert consensus provides a preliminary guidance for the monitoring and treatment of immunosuppression in patients with sepsis.