Laryngeal edema is a frequent complication of intubation. It often presents shortly after extubation as post-extubation stridor and results from damage to the mucosa of the larynx. Mucosal damage is caused by pressure and ischemia resulting in an inflammatory response. Laryngeal edema may compromise the airway necessitating reintubation. Several studies show that a positive cuff leak test combined with the presence of risk factors can identify patients with increased risk for laryngeal edema. Meta-analyses show that pre-emptive administration of a multiple-dose regimen of glucocorticosteroids can reduce the incidence of laryngeal edema and subsequent reintubation. If post-extubation edema occurs this may necessitate medical intervention. Parenteral administration of corticosteroids, epinephrine nebulization and inhalation of a helium/oxygen mixture are potentially effective, although this has not been confirmed by randomized controlled trials. The use of non-invasive positive pressure ventilation is not indicated since this will delay reintubation. Reintubation should be considered early after onset of laryngeal edema to adequately secure an airway. Reintubation leads to increased cost, morbidity and mortality.

To study the efficacy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 .Methods: Critically ill adults with COVID-19 were randomized to receive lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, combination therapy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine or no antiviral therapy (control). The primary endpoint was an ordinal scale of organ support-free days. Analyses used a Bayesian cumulative logistic model and expressed treatment effects as an adjusted odds ratio (OR) where an OR > 1 is favorable. Results:We randomized 694 patients to receive lopinavir-ritonavir (n = 255), hydroxychloroquine (n = 50), combination therapy (n = 27) or control (n = 362). The median organ support-free days among patients in lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, and combination therapy groups was 4 (-1 to 15), 0 (-1 to 9) and-1 (-1 to 7), respectively,

The correlation between the two techniques was acceptable, although relevant systematic and variable errors were detected. USCOM-1A provided adequate data to distinguish non-invasively different shock types in ICU patients.

Supplemental parenteral nutrition (SPN) is used in a step-up approach when full enteral support is contraindicated or fails to reach caloric targets. Recent nutrition guidelines present divergent advices regarding timing of SPN in critically ill patients ranging from early SPN (<48 h after admission; EPN) to postponing initiation of SPN until day 8 after Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission (LPN). This systematic review summarizes results of prospective studies among adult ICU patients addressing the best timing of (supplemental) parenteral nutrition (S)PN. A structured PubMed search was conducted to identify eligible articles. Articles were screened and selected using predetermined criteria and appraised for relevance and validity. After critical appraisal, four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and two prospective observational studies remained. One RCT found a higher percentage of alive discharge from the ICU at day 8 in the LPN group compared to EPN group (p = 0.007) but no differences in ICU and in-hospital mortality. None of the other RCTs found differences in ICU or in-hospital mortality rates. Contradicting or divergent results on other secondary outcomes were found for ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, infection rates, nutrition targets, duration of mechanical ventilation, glucose control, duration of renal replacement therapy, muscle wasting and fat loss. Although the heterogeneity in quality and design of relevant studies precludes firm conclusions, it is reasonable to assume that in adult critically ill patients, there are no clinically relevant benefits of EPN compared with LPN with respect to morbidity or mortality end points, when full enteral support is contraindicated or fails to reach caloric targets. However, considering that infectious morbidity and resolution of organ failure may be negatively affected through mechanisms not yet clearly understood and acquisition costs of parenteral nutrition are higher, the early administration of parenteral nutrition cannot be recommended.

Background: The surprise question is widely used to identify patients nearing the last phase of life. Potential differences in accuracy between timeframe, patient subgroups and type of healthcare professionals answering the surprise question have been suggested. Recent studies might give new insights. Aim: To determine the accuracy of the surprise question in predicting death, differentiating by timeframe, patient subgroup and by type of healthcare professional. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources: Electronic databases PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL were searched from inception till 22nd January 2021. Studies were eligible if they used the surprise question prospectively and assessed mortality. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value and c-statistic were calculated. Results: Fifty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria, including 88.268 assessments. The meta-analysis resulted in an estimated sensitivity of 71.4% (95% CI [66.3–76.4]) and specificity of 74.0% (95% CI [69.3–78.6]). The negative predictive value varied from 98.0% (95% CI [97.7–98.3]) to 88.6% (95% CI [87.1–90.0]) with a mortality rate of 5% and 25% respectively. The positive predictive value varied from 12.6% (95% CI [11.0–14.2]) with a mortality rate of 5% to 47.8% (95% CI [44.2–51.3]) with a mortality rate of 25%. Seven studies provided detailed information on different healthcare professionals answering the surprise question. Conclusion: We found overall reasonable test characteristics for the surprise question. Additionally, this study showed notable differences in performance within patient subgroups. However, we did not find an indication of notable differences between timeframe and healthcare professionals.