The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has been designated a public health emergency of international concern.

Purpose In the critically ill, hospital-acquired bloodstream infections (HA-BSI) are associated with significant mortality. Granular data are required for optimizing management, and developing guidelines and clinical trials. Methods We carried out a prospective international cohort study of adult patients (≥ 18 years of age) with HA-BSI treated in intensive care units (ICUs) between June 2019 and February 2021. Results 2600 patients from 333 ICUs in 52 countries were included. 78% HA-BSI were ICU-acquired. Median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was 8 [IQR 5; 11] at HA-BSI diagnosis. Most frequent sources of infection included pneumonia (26.7%) and intravascular catheters (26.4%). Most frequent pathogens were Gram-negative bacteria (59.0%), predominantly Klebsiella spp. (27.9%), Acinetobacter spp . (20.3%), Escherichia coli (15.8%), and Pseudomonas spp . (14.3%). Carbapenem resistance was present in 37.8%, 84.6%, 7.4%, and 33.2%, respectively. Difficult-to-treat resistance (DTR) was present in 23.5% and pan-drug resistance in 1.5%. Antimicrobial therapy was deemed adequate within 24 h for 51.5%. Antimicrobial resistance was associated with longer delays to adequate antimicrobial therapy. Source control was needed in 52.5% but not achieved in 18.2%. Mortality was 37.1%, and only 16.1% had been discharged alive from hospital by day-28. Conclusions HA-BSI was frequently caused by Gram-negative, carbapenem-resistant and DTR pathogens. Antimicrobial resistance led to delays in adequate antimicrobial therapy. Mortality was high, and at day-28 only a minority of the patients were discharged alive from the hospital. Prevention of antimicrobial resistance and focusing on adequate antimicrobial therapy and source control are important to optimize patient management and outcomes. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-022-06944-2.

BackgroundThe pericapsular nerve group block (PENG) is a novel technique that blocks the articular branches of the hip joint. This study aimed to compare its effectiveness to a sham block in elderly patients with hip fractures.MethodA randomized double-blind controlled trial was conducted in elderly patients with intertrochanteric and neck of femur fractures. Patients were randomized to receive either PENG block or a sham block. Postblock, systemic analgesia was titrated using a standardized protocol of acetaminophen, oral morphine or patient-controlled analgesia. The primary outcome was the dynamic pain score (Numerical Rating Scale 0–10) at 30 min postblock. Secondary outcomes included pain scores at multiple other time points and 24-hour opioid consumption.Results60 patients were randomized and 57 completed the trial (PENG n=28, control n=29). Patients in PENG group had significantly lower dynamic pain scores at 30 min compared with control group (median (IQR) 3 (0.5–5) vs 5 (3–10), p<0.01). For the secondary outcomes, dynamic pain scores were lower in PENG group at 1 hour (median (IQR) 2 (1–3.25) vs 5 (3–8), p<0.01) and 3 hours postblock (median (IQR) 2 (0–5) vs 5 (2–8), p<0.05). Patients in PENG group had lower 24-hour opioid consumption (median (IQR) oral morphine equivalent dose 10 (0–15) vs 15 (10–30) mg, p<0.05).ConclusionPENG block provided effective analgesia for acute traumatic pain following hip fracture. Further studies are required to validate the superiority of PENG blocks over other regional techniques.Trial registration numberNCT04996979.

Background: Spinal anaesthesia is a common anaesthetic technique for caesarean sections. Neuraxial opioids such as intrathecal morphine may cause common adverse effects (pruritus, post-operative nausea and vomiting). Objectives: We investigated the incidence, severity and need for treatment of pruritus and post-operative nausea and vomiting following administration of intrathecal morphine in spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section at KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore. Methods: We conducted a prospective study involving 124 parturients who received intrathecal morphine in spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section from October 2012 to October 2014. Results: Seventy patients (56.5%) had moderate or severe pruritus (score 4-10), while 54 patients (43.5%) had no or mild pruritus (score 0-3). Mean (SD) value of the worst pruritus score reported on a scale of 0-10 was 4 (2.59). Only seven out of the 124 patients (5.6%) required treatment for pruritus. With respect to distress and bother from itching in the past 24 hours on a score of 0-4, the mean score reported was 1.7 (1.23). Fourteen (11.2%) patients reported vomiting, dry-retching and nausea. Six (4.8%) patients had nausea that interfered with activities of daily living. Four (3.2%) patients had clinically significant postoperative nausea and vomiting. Seven (5.6%) patients received anti-emetics. The average Overall Benefit of Analgesia Score was 3.8 (SD 2.6, min-max: 0-15). The average (SD) maternal satisfaction with pain relief and side effects was 84.9% (9.9%). Conclusion: There is a high incidence of pruritus, with most women reporting moderate to severe pruritus. The incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting is low, and women reported good maternal satisfaction.

Introduction: During the COVID-19 pandemic, multiple guidelines have recommended the videolaryngoscope for tracheal intubation. However, there is no evidence that videolaryngoscope reduces time to tracheal intubation, which is important for COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure. Methods: To simulate intubation of COVID-19 patients, we randomised 28 elective surgical patients to be intubated with either the McGrath™ MAC videolaryngoscope or the direct laryngoscope by specialist anaesthetists donning 3M™ Jupiter™ powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR) and N95 masks. Primary outcome was time to intubation. Results: The median (IQR) times to intubation were 61s (37–63 s) and 41.5s (37–56 s) in the videolaryngoscope and direct laryngoscope groups respectively (p = 0.35). The closest mean (SD) distances between the anaesthetist and the patient during intubation were 21.6 cm (4.8 cm) and 17.6 cm (5.3 cm) in the videolaryngoscope and direct laryngoscope groups, respectively (p = 0.045). There were no significant differences in the median intubation difficulty scale scores, proportion of successful intubation at first laryngoscopic attempt and proportion of intubations requiring adjuncts. Intubations for all the patients were successful with no adverse event. Conclusion: There was no significant difference in the time to intubation by specialist anaesthetists who were donned in PAPR and N95 masks on elective surgical patients with either the McGrath™ videolaryngoscope or direct laryngoscope. The distance between the anaesthetist and patient was significantly further with the videolaryngoscope. The direct laryngoscope could be an equal alternative to videolaryngoscope for specialist anaesthetists when resources are limited or disrupted due to the pandemic.