Literature DB >> 34045363

RAND appropriateness panel to determine the applicability of UK guidelines on the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and other strategies in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mark Griffiths1,2,3, Susanna Meade4, Charlotte Summers5, Daniel Francis McAuley6,7, Alastair Proudfoot2, Marta Montero Baladia8, Paul M Dark9, Kate Diomede10, Simon J Finney11, Lui G Forni12,13, Chris Meadows14, Ian A Naldrett15,16, Brijesh Patel17,18, Gavin D Perkins19, Mark A Samaan4, Laurence Sharifi8, Ganesh Suntharalingam20, Nicholas T Tarmey21, Harriet F Young2, Matt P Wise22, Peter M Irving4,23.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has become the most common cause of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) worldwide. Features of the pathophysiology and clinical presentation partially distinguish it from 'classical' ARDS. A Research and Development (RAND) analysis gauged the opinion of an expert panel about the management of ARDS with and without COVID-19 as the precipitating cause, using recent UK guidelines as a template.
METHODS: An 11-person panel comprising intensive care practitioners rated the appropriateness of ARDS management options at different times during hospital admission, in the presence or absence of, or varying severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection on a scale of 1-9 (where 1-3 is inappropriate, 4-6 is uncertain and 7-9 is appropriate). A summary of the anonymised results was discussed at an online meeting moderated by an expert in RAND methodology. The modified online survey comprising 76 questions, subdivided into investigations (16), non-invasive respiratory support (18), basic intensive care unit management of ARDS (20), management of refractory hypoxaemia (8), pharmacotherapy (7) and anticoagulation (7), was completed again.
RESULTS: Disagreement between experts was significant only when addressing the appropriateness of diagnostic bronchoscopy in patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Adherence to existing published guidelines for the management of ARDS for relevant evidence-based interventions was recommended. Responses of the experts to the final survey suggested that the supportive management of ARDS should be the same, regardless of a COVID-19 diagnosis. For patients with ARDS with COVID-19, the panel recommended routine treatment with corticosteroids and a lower threshold for full anticoagulation based on a high index of suspicion for venous thromboembolic disease.
CONCLUSION: The expert panel found no reason to deviate from the evidence-based supportive strategies for managing ARDS outlined in recent guidelines. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ARDS; COVID-19; assisted ventilation; critical care; non invasive ventilation; viral infection

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34045363     DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2021-216904

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Thorax        ISSN: 0040-6376            Impact factor:   9.139


  4 in total

Review 1.  COVID-19 and Acute Kidney Injury.

Authors:  James Hilton; Naomi Boyer; Mitra K Nadim; Lui G Forni; John A Kellum
Journal:  Crit Care Clin       Date:  2022-01-10       Impact factor: 3.879

2.  Oral Chinese Herbal Medicine on Immune Responses During Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Shihua Shi; Fei Wang; Huan Yao; Shuo Kou; Weihao Li; Bonan Chen; Yongcan Wu; Xiaomin Wang; Caixia Pei; Demei Huang; Yilan Wang; Pan Zhang; Yacong He; Zhenxing Wang
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-01-21

Review 3.  Invasive aspergillosis in coronavirus disease 2019: a practical approach for clinicians.

Authors:  Frederic Lamoth
Journal:  Curr Opin Infect Dis       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 4.915

Review 4.  Non-invasive Respiratory Support in COVID-19: A Narrative Review.

Authors:  Manel Luján; Javier Sayas; Olga Mediano; Carlos Egea
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-01-04
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.