The efficacy of convalescent plasma for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear. Although most randomized controlled trials have shown negative results, uncontrolled studies have suggested that the antibody content could influence patient outcomes. We conducted an open-label, randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma for adults with COVID-19 receiving oxygen within 12 d of respiratory symptom onset (NCT04348656). Patients were allocated 2:1 to 500 ml of convalescent plasma or standard of care. The composite primary outcome was intubation or death by 30 d. Exploratory analyses of the effect of convalescent plasma antibodies on the primary outcome was assessed by logistic regression. The trial was terminated at 78% of planned enrollment after meeting stopping criteria for futility. In total, 940 patients were randomized, and 921 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Intubation or death occurred in 199/614 (32.4%) patients in the convalescent plasma arm and 86/307 (28.0%) patients in the standard of care arm—relative risk (RR) = 1.16 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94–1.43, P = 0.18). Patients in the convalescent plasma arm had more serious adverse events (33.4% versus 26.4%; RR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.02–1.57, P = 0.034). The antibody content significantly modulated the therapeutic effect of convalescent plasma. In multivariate analysis, each standardized log increase in neutralization or antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity independently reduced the potential harmful effect of plasma (odds ratio (OR) = 0.74, 95% CI 0.57–0.95 and OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.50–0.87, respectively), whereas IgG against the full transmembrane spike protein increased it (OR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.14–2.05). Convalescent plasma did not reduce the risk of intubation or death at 30 d in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Transfusion of convalescent plasma with unfavorable antibody profiles could be associated with worse clinical outcomes compared to standard care.

Physician wellness is critical for patient safety and quality of care. Coaching has been successfully and widely applied across many industries to enhance well-being but has only recently been considered for physicians. This review aimed to summarize the existing evidence on the effect of coaching by trained coaches on physician well-being, distress and burnout. MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, PsycINFO and Web of Science were searched without language restrictions to December 21, 2022. Studies of any design were included if they involved physicians of any specialty undergoing coaching by trained coaches and assessed at least one measure along the wellness continuum. Pairs of independent reviewers determined reference eligibility. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tools for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and for Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I). Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity in study design and outcome measures as well as inconsistent reporting. The search retrieved 2531 references, of which 14 were included (5 RCTs, 2 non-randomized controlled studies, 4 before-and-after studies, 2 mixed-methods studies, 1 qualitative study). There were 1099 participants across all included studies. Risk of bias was moderate or serious for non-RCTs, while the 5 RCTs were of lower risk. All quantitative studies reported effectiveness of coaching for at least one outcome assessed. The included qualitative study reported a perceived positive impact of coaching by participants. Evidence from available RCTs suggests coaching for physicians can improve well-being and reduce distress/burnout. Non-randomized interventional studies have similar findings but face many limitations. Consistent reporting and standardized outcome measures are needed.

Background Evidence suggests that there are substantial inconsistencies in the practice of anesthesia. There has not yet been a comprehensive summary of the anesthesia literature that can guide future knowledge translation interventions to move evidence into practice. As the first step toward identifying the most promising interventions for systematic implementation in anesthesia practice, this scoping review of multicentre RCTs aimed to explore and map the existing literature investigating perioperative anesthesia-related interventions and clinical patient outcomes. Methods Multicenter randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion if they involved a tested anesthesia-related intervention administered to adult surgical patients (≥ 16 years old), with a control group receiving either another anesthesia intervention or no intervention at all. The electronic databases Embase (via OVID), MEDLINE, and MEDLINE in Process (via OVID), and Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL) were searched from inception to February 26, 2021. Studies were screened and data were extracted by pairs of independent reviewers in duplicate with disagreements resolved through consensus or a third reviewer. Data were summarized narratively. Results We included 638 multicentre randomized controlled trials (n patients = 615,907) that met the eligibility criteria. The most commonly identified anesthesia-related intervention theme across all studies was pharmacotherapy (n studies = 361 [56.6%]; n patients = 244,610 [39.7%]), followed by anesthetic technique (n studies = 80 [12.5%], n patients = 48,455 [7.9%]). Interventions were most often implemented intraoperatively (n studies = 233 [36.5%]; n patients = 175,974 [28.6%]). Studies typically involved multiple types of surgeries (n studies = 187 [29.2%]; n patients = 206 667 [33.5%]), followed by general surgery only (n studies = 115 [18.1%]; n patients = 201,028 [32.6%]) and orthopedic surgery only (n studies = 94 [14.7%]; n patients = 34,575 [5.6%]). Functional status was the most commonly investigated outcome (n studies = 272), followed by patient experience (n studies = 168), and mortality (n studies = 153). Conclusions This scoping review provides a map of multicenter RCTs in anesthesia which can be used to optimize future research endeavors in the field. Specifically, we have identified key knowledge gaps in anesthesia that require further systematic assessment, as well as areas where additional research would likely not add value. These findings provide the foundation for streamlining knowledge translation in anesthesia in order to reduce practice variation and enhance patient outcomes.

Introduction: Booster sessions can improve cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) skill retention among healthcare providers; however, the optimal timing of these sessions is unknown. This study aimed to explore differences in skill retention based on booster session timing. Methods: After ethics approval, healthcare providers who completed an initial CPR training course were randomly assigned to either an early booster, late booster, or no booster group. Participants’ mean resuscitation scores, time to initiate compressions, and time to successfully provide defibrillation were assessed immediately post-course and four months later using linear mixed models. Results: Seventy-three healthcare professionals were included in the analysis. There were no significant differences by randomization in the immediate post-test (9.7, 9.2, 8.9) or retention test (10.2, 9.8, and 9.5) resuscitation scores. No significant effects were observed for time to compression. Post-test time to defibrillation (mean ± SE: 112.8 ± 3.0 sec) was significantly faster compared to retention (mean ± SE: 120.4 ± 2.7 sec) (p = 0.04); however, the effect did not vary by randomization. Conclusion: No difference was observed in resuscitation skill retention between the early, late, and no booster groups. More research is needed to determine the aspects of a booster session beyond timing that contribute to skill retention.