Medanta

About: Medanta is a healthcare organization based out in Gurgaon, India. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Liver transplantation & Medicine. The organization has 1015 authors who have published 1561 publications receiving 15318 citations.

Epidemiology of acute kidney injury in critically ill patients: the multinational AKI-EPI study

Abstract: Current reports on acute kidney injury (AKI) in the intensive care unit (ICU) show wide variation in occurrence rate and are limited by study biases such as use of incomplete AKI definition, selected cohorts, or retrospective design. Our aim was to prospectively investigate the occurrence and outcomes of AKI in ICU patients. The Acute Kidney Injury–Epidemiologic Prospective Investigation (AKI-EPI) study was an international cross-sectional study performed in 97 centers on patients during the first week of ICU admission. We measured AKI by Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria, and outcomes at hospital discharge. A total of 1032 ICU patients out of 1802 [57.3 %; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 55.0–59.6] had AKI. Increasing AKI severity was associated with hospital mortality when adjusted for other variables; odds ratio of stage 1 = 1.679 (95 % CI 0.890–3.169; p = 0.109), stage 2 = 2.945 (95 % CI 1.382–6.276; p = 0.005), and stage 3 = 6.884 (95 % CI 3.876–12.228; p < 0.001). Risk-adjusted rates of AKI and mortality were similar across the world. Patients developing AKI had worse kidney function at hospital discharge with estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 in 47.7 % (95 % CI 43.6–51.7) versus 14.8 % (95 % CI 11.9–18.2) in those without AKI, p < 0.001. This is the first multinational cross-sectional study on the epidemiology of AKI in ICU patients using the complete KDIGO criteria. We found that AKI occurred in more than half of ICU patients. Increasing AKI severity was associated with increased mortality, and AKI patients had worse renal function at the time of hospital discharge. Adjusted risks for AKI and mortality were similar across different continents and regions.

Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021.

Abstract: Background Sepsis poses a global threat to millions of lives. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the recognition and management of sepsis and its complications. Methods We formed a panel of 60 experts from 22 countries and 11 members of the public. The panel prioritized questions that are relevant to the recognition and management of sepsis and septic shock in adults. New questions and sections were addressed, relative to the previous guidelines. These questions were grouped under 6 subgroups (screening and early treatment, infection, hemodynamics, ventilation, additional therapies, and long-term outcomes and goals of care). With input from the panel and methodologists, professional medical librarians performed the search strategy tailored to either specific questions or a group of relevant questions. A dedicated systematic review team performed screening and data abstraction when indicated. For each question, the methodologists, with input from panel members, summarized the evidence assessed and graded the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The panel generated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice statements. When evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation, the panel was surveyed to generate “in our practice” statements. Results The SSC panel issued 93 statements: 15 best practice statements, 15 strong recommendations, and 54 weak recommendations and no recommendation was provided for 9 questions. The recommendations address several important clinical areas related to screening tools, acute resuscitation strategies, management of fluids and vasoactive agents, antimicrobials and diagnostic tests and the use of additional therapies, ventilation management, goals of care, and post sepsis care. Conclusion The SSC panel issued evidence-based recommendations to help support key stakeholders caring for adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021.

Abstract: Background Sepsis poses a global threat to millions of lives. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the recognition and management of sepsis and its complications. Methods We formed a panel of 60 experts from 22 countries and 11 members of the public. The panel prioritized questions that are relevant to the recognition and management of sepsis and septic shock in adults. New questions and sections were addressed, relative to the previous guidelines. These questions were grouped under 6 subgroups (screening and early treatment, infection, hemodynamics, ventilation, additional therapies, and long-term outcomes and goals of care). With input from the panel and methodologists, professional medical librarians performed the search strategy tailored to either specific questions or a group of relevant questions. A dedicated systematic review team performed screening and data abstraction when indicated. For each question, the methodologists, with input from panel members, summarized the evidence assessed and graded the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The panel generated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice statements. When evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation, the panel was surveyed to generate “in our practice” statements. Results The SSC panel issued 93 statements: 15 best practice statements, 15 strong recommendations, and 54 weak recommendations and no recommendation was provided for 9 questions. The recommendations address several important clinical areas related to screening tools, acute resuscitation strategies, management of fluids and vasoactive agents, antimicrobials and diagnostic tests and the use of additional therapies, ventilation management, goals of care, and post sepsis care. Conclusion The SSC panel issued evidence-based recommendations to help support key stakeholders caring for adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families.

Cardiovascular disease and COVID-19.

Abstract: Background and aims Many patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have underlying cardiovascular (CV) disease or develop acute cardiac injury during the course of the illness. Adequate understanding of the interplay between COVID-19 and CV disease is required for optimum management of these patients. Methods A literature search was done using PubMed and Google search engines to prepare a narrative review on this topic. Results Respiratory illness is the dominant clinical manifestation of COVID-19; CV involvement occurs much less commonly. Acute cardiac injury, defined as significant elevation of cardiac troponins, is the most commonly reported cardiac abnormality in COVID-19. It occurs in approximately 8–12% of all patients. Direct myocardial injury due to viral involvement of cardiomyocytes and the effect of systemic inflammation appear to be the most common mechanisms responsible for cardiac injury. The information about other CV manifestations in COVID-19 is very limited at present. Nonetheless, it has been consistently shown that the presence of pre-existing CV disease and/or development of acute cardiac injury are associated with significantly worse outcome in these patients. Conclusions Most of the current reports on COVID-19 have only briefly described CV manifestations in these patients. Given the enormous burden posed by this illness and the significant adverse prognostic impact of cardiac involvement, further research is required to understand the incidence, mechanisms, clinical presentation and outcomes of various CV manifestations in COVID-19 patients.

Association Between Administration of IL-6 Antagonists and Mortality Among Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19: A Meta-analysis.

Abstract: Importance Clinical trials assessing the efficacy of IL-6 antagonists in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 have variously reported benefit, no effect, and harm. Objective To estimate the association between administration of IL-6 antagonists compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality and other outcomes. Data Sources Trials were identified through systematic searches of electronic databases between October 2020 and January 2021. Searches were not restricted by trial status or language. Additional trials were identified through contact with experts. Study Selection Eligible trials randomly assigned patients hospitalized for COVID-19 to a group in whom IL-6 antagonists were administered and to a group in whom neither IL-6 antagonists nor any other immunomodulators except corticosteroids were administered. Among 72 potentially eligible trials, 27 (37.5%) met study selection criteria. Data Extraction and Synthesis In this prospective meta-analysis, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using theI2statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance–weighted fixed-effects meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for 28-day all-cause mortality. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. There were 9 secondary outcomes including progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death and risk of secondary infection by 28 days. Results A total of 10 930 patients (median age, 61 years [range of medians, 52-68 years]; 3560 [33%] were women) participating in 27 trials were included. By 28 days, there were 1407 deaths among 6449 patients randomized to IL-6 antagonists and 1158 deaths among 4481 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.79-0.95];P = .003 based on a fixed-effects meta-analysis). This corresponds to an absolute mortality risk of 22% for IL-6 antagonists compared with an assumed mortality risk of 25% for usual care or placebo. The corresponding summary ORs were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74-0.92;P Conclusions and Relevance In this prospective meta-analysis of clinical trials of patients hospitalized for COVID-19, administration of IL-6 antagonists, compared with usual care or placebo, was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality. Trial Registration PROSPERO Identifier:CRD42021230155