BackgroundThe Japanese Society of Respiratory Care Medicine and the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine provide here a clinical practice guideline for the management of adult patients with ARDS in the ICU.MethodThe guideline was developed applying the GRADE system for performing robust systematic reviews with plausible recommendations. The guideline consists of 13 clinical questions mainly regarding ventilator settings and drug therapies (the last question includes 11 medications that are not approved for clinical use in Japan).ResultsThe recommendations for adult patients with ARDS include: we suggest against early tracheostomy (GRADE 2C), we suggest using NPPV for early respiratory management (GRADE 2C), we recommend the use of low tidal volumes at 6-8 mL/kg (GRADE 1B), we suggest setting the plateau pressure at 30cmH20 or less (GRADE2B), we suggest using PEEP within the range of plateau pressures less than or equal to 30cmH2O, without compromising hemodynamics (Grade 2B), and using higher PEEP levels in patients with moderate to severe ARDS (Grade 2B), we suggest using protocolized methods for liberation from mechanical ventilation (Grade 2D), we suggest prone positioning especially in patients with moderate to severe respiratory dysfunction (GRADE 2C), we suggest against the use of high frequency oscillation (GRADE 2C), we suggest the use of neuromuscular blocking agents in patients requiring mechanical ventilation under certain circumstances (GRADE 2B), we suggest fluid restriction in the management of ARDS (GRADE 2A), we do not suggest the use of neutrophil elastase inhibitors (GRADE 2D), we suggest the administration of steroids, equivalent to methylprednisolone 1-2mg/kg/ day (GRADE 2A), and we do not recommend other medications for the treatment of adult patients with ARDS (GRADE1B; inhaled/intravenous β2 stimulants, prostaglandin E1, activated protein C, ketoconazole, and lisofylline, GRADE 1C; inhaled nitric oxide, GRADE 1D; surfactant, GRADE 2B; granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor, N-acetylcysteine, GRADE 2C; Statin.)ConclusionsThis article was translated from the Japanese version originally published as the ARDS clinical practice guidelines 2016 by the committee of ARDS clinical practice guideline (Tokyo, 2016, 293p, available from http://www.jsicm.org/ARDSGL/ARDSGL2016.pdf). The original article, written for Japanese healthcare providers, provides points of view that are different from those in other countries.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40560-017-0222-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J‐SSCG 2020), a Japanese‐specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J‐SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English‐language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese‐language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high‐quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J‐SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU‐acquired weakness [ICU‐AW], post‐intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J‐SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient‐ and family‐centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro‐intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large‐scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members. As a result, 79 GRADE‐based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J‐SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

No abstract

BackgroundProportional modes (proportional assist ventilation, PAV, and neurally adjusted ventilatory assist, NAVA) could improve patient–ventilator interaction and consequently may be efficient as a weaning mode. The purpose of this systematic review is to examine whether proportional modes improved patient–ventilator interaction and whether they had an impact on the weaning success and length of mechanical ventilation, in comparison with PSV. MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception through May 13, 2018. We included both parallel-group and crossover randomized studies that examined the efficacy of proportional modes in comparison with PSV in mechanically ventilated adults. The primary outcomes were (1) asynchrony index (AI), (2) weaning failure, and (3) duration of mechanical ventilation.ResultsWe included 15 studies (four evaluated PAV, ten evaluated NAVA, and one evaluated both modes). Although the use of proportional modes was not associated with a reduction in AI (WMD − 1.43; 95% CI − 3.11 to 0.25; p = 0.096; PAV—one study, and NAVA—seven studies), the use of proportional modes was associated with a reduction in patients with AI > 10% (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.04–0.58; p = 0.006; PAV—two studies, and NAVA—five studies), compared with PSV. There was a significant heterogeneity among studies for AI, especially with NAVA. Compared with PSV, use of proportional modes was associated with a reduction in weaning failure (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.26–0.75; p = 0.003; PAV—three studies) and duration of mechanical ventilation (WMD − 1.78 days; 95% CI − 3.24 to − 0.32; p = 0.017; PAV—three studies, and NAVA—two studies). Reduced duration of mechanical ventilation was found with PAV but not with NAVA.ConclusionThe use of proportional modes was associated with a reduction in the incidence with AI > 10%, weaning failure and duration of mechanical ventilation, compared with PSV. However, reduced weaning failure and duration of mechanical ventilation were found with only PAV. Due to a significant heterogeneity among studies and an insufficient number of studies, further investigation seems warranted to better understand the impact of proportional modes.Clinical trial registration PROSPERO registration number, CRD42017059791. Registered 20 March 2017Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13613-018-0470-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.