No abstract

The impact of a new therapy that includes pressure-controlled inverse ratio ventilation followed by extracorporeal CO2 removal on the survival of patients with severe ARDS was evaluated in a randomized controlled clinical trial. Computerized protocols generated around-the-clock instructions for management of arterial oxygenation to assure equivalent intensity of care for patients randomized to the new therapy limb and those randomized to the control, mechanical ventilation limb. We randomized 40 patients with severe ARDS who met the ECMO entry criteria. The main outcome measure was survival at 30 days after randomization. Survival was not significantly different in the 19 mechanical ventilation (42%) and 21 new therapy (extracorporeal) (33%) patients (p = 0.8). All deaths occurred within 30 days of randomization. Overall patient survival was 38% (15 of 40) and was about four times that expected from historical data (p = 0.0002). Extracorporeal treatment group survival was not significantly different from other published survival rates after extracorporeal CO2 removal. Mechanical ventilation patient group survival was significantly higher than the 12% derived from published data (p = 0.0001). Protocols controlled care 86% of the time. Average PaO2 was 59 mm Hg in both treatment groups. Intensity of care required to maintain arterial oxygenation was similar in both groups (2.6 and 2.6 PEEP changes/day; 4.3 and 5.0 FIO2 changes/day). We conclude that there was no significant difference in survival between the mechanical ventilation and the extracorporeal CO2 removal groups. We do not recommend extracorporeal support as a therapy for ARDS. Extracorporeal support for ARDS should be restricted to controlled clinical trials.

BackgroundSurvivors of critical illness often experience poor outcomes after hospitalisation, including delayed return to work, which carries substantial economic consequences.ObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of return to work after critical illness.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Library from 1970 to February 2018. Data were extracted, in duplicate, and random-effects meta-regression used to obtain pooled estimates.ResultsFifty-two studies evaluated return to work in 10 015 previously employed survivors of critical illness, over a median (IQR) follow-up of 12 (6.25–38.5) months. By 1–3, 12 and 42–60 months’ follow-up, pooled return to work prevalence (95% CI) was 36% (23% to 49%), 60% (50% to 69%) and 68% (51% to 85%), respectively (τ2=0.55, I2=87%, p=0.03). No significant difference was observed based on diagnosis (acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) vs non-ARDS) or region (Europe vs North America vs Australia/New Zealand), but was observed when comparing mode of employment evaluation (in-person vs telephone vs mail). Following return to work, 20%–36% of survivors experienced job loss, 17%–66% occupation change and 5%–84% worsening employment status (eg, fewer work hours). Potential risk factors for delayed return to work include pre-existing comorbidities and post-hospital impairments (eg, mental health).ConclusionApproximately two-thirds, two-fifths and one-third of previously employed intensive care unit survivors are jobless up to 3, 12 and 60 months following hospital discharge. Survivors returning to work often experience job loss, occupation change or worse employment status. Interventions should be designed and evaluated to reduce the burden of this common and important problem for survivors of critical illness.Trial registration numberPROSPERO CRD42018093135.

No abstract

No abstract