IMPORTANCE Awake prone positioning may improve hypoxemia among patients with COVID-19, but whether it is associated with improved clinical outcomes remains unknown.OBJECTIVE To determine whether the recommendation of awake prone positioning is associated with improved outcomes among patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemia who have not received mechanical ventilation.

To determine if smaller endotracheal tubes are noninferior to larger endotracheal tubes with respect to critical illness outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study included all adult patients who underwent endotracheal intubation in the emergency department or intensive care unit and received mechanical ventilation for at least 12 hours from June 2020 to November 2020 at a single tertiary referral academic medical center. EXPOSURES Endotracheal intubation.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Propensity score-matched analyses were performed with respect to the primary end point of 30-day all-cause in-hospital survival as well as the secondary end points of duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, length of hospital stay, mean peak inspiratory pressure, 30-day readmission, need for reintubation, and need for tracheostomy or gastrostomy tube placement.RESULTS Overall, 523 participants (64%) were men and 291 (36%) were women. Of these, 814 patients were categorized into 3 endotracheal tube groups: small for height (n = 182), appropriate for height (n = 408), and large for height (n = 224). There was not a significant difference in 30-day all-cause in-hospital survival between groups ([HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7-1.7] for small vs appropriate; [HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7-1.6] for large vs appropriate). Patients with small-for-height endotracheal tubes had longer intubation durations (mean difference, 32.5 hrs [95% CI, 6.4-58.6 hrs]) compared with patients with appropriate-for-height tubes.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Despite differences in intubation duration, the results of this cohort study suggest that smaller endotracheal tube sizes are not associated with impaired survival or recovery from critical illness. They support future prospective exploration of the association of smaller endotracheal tube sizes with recovery from critical illness.

Oesophageal pressure was measured, using a balloon and catheter system, at three or four positions in the oesophagus of eight supine subjects anaesthetized with 1-1.5% halothane in 67% nitrous oxide. Airway pressure and the difference between airway and oesophageal pressures were recorded during occlusion of inspiration, occlusion of expiration and occlusion of expiration followed by inspiratory occlusion. Lung volume could not change appreciably during these manoeuvres, so the difference between airway and oesophageal pressure should not have changed. The change in oesophageal pressure was less than the change in airway pressure in 86 of 90 measurements. The change in oesophageal pressure was expressed as a fraction of the change in airway pressure: the maximum fraction was obtained in each patient, and the mean of these maximum values was 82%. This suggests that changes in the difference between airway and oesophageal pressures will overestimate the change in transpulmonary pressure during artificial ventilation in supine subjects, and that lung compliance would be underestimated.

Cancer screening and timely follow-up of abnormal results can reduce mortality. One barrier to follow-up is the failure to identify abnormal results. While EHRs have coded results for certain tests, cancer screening results are often stored in free-text reports, which limit capabilities for automated decision support. As part of the multilevel Follow-up of Cancer Screening (mFOCUS) trial, we developed and implemented a natural language processing (NLP) tool to assist with real-time detection of abnormal cancer screening test results (including mammograms, low-dose chest CT scans, and Pap smears) and identification of gynecological follow-up for higher risk abnormalities (i.e. colposcopy) from free-text reports. We demonstrate the integration and implementation of NLP, within the mFOCUS system, to improve the follow-up of abnormal cancer screening results in a large integrated healthcare system. The NLP pipelines have detected scenarios when guideline-recommended care was not delivered, in part because the provider mis-identified the text-based result reports.

IntroductionAntibiotics are time-critical in the management of sepsis. When infectious organisms are unknown, patients are treated with empiric antibiotics to include coverage for gram-negative organisms, such as antipseudomonal cephalosporins and penicillins. However, in observational studies, some antipseudomonal cephalosporins (eg, cefepime) are associated with neurologic dysfunction while the most common antipseudomonal penicillin (piperacillin–tazobactam) is associated with acute kidney injury (AKI). No randomised control trials have compared these regimens. This manuscript describes the protocol and analysis plan for a trial designed to compare the effects of antipseudomonal cephalosporins and antipseudomonal penicillins among acutely ill patients receiving empiric antibiotics.Methods and analysisThe Antibiotic Choice On ReNal outcomes trial is a prospective, single-centre, non-blinded randomised trial being conducted at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. The trial will enrol 2500 acutely ill adults receiving gram-negative coverage for treatment of infection. Eligible patients are randomised 1:1 to receive cefepime or piperacillin–tazobactam on first order entry of a broad-spectrum antibiotic covering gram-negative organisms. The primary outcome is the highest stage of AKI and death occurring between enrolment and 14 days after enrolment. This will be compared between patients randomised to cefepime and randomised to piperacillin–tazobactam using an unadjusted proportional odds regression model. The secondary outcomes are major adverse kidney events through day 14 and number of days alive and free of delirium and coma in 14 days after enrolment. Enrolment began on 10 November 2021 and is expected to be completed in December 2022.Ethics and disseminationThe trial was approved by the Vanderbilt University Medical Center institutional review board (IRB#210591) with a waiver of informed consent. Results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific conferences.Trial registration numberNCT05094154.