Dataset Information

Expert consensus statements for the management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure using a Delphi method

ABSTRACT:

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented pressure on healthcare system globally. Lack of high-quality evidence on the respiratory management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (C-ARF) has resulted in wide variation in clinical practice.

Methods

Using a Delphi process, an international panel of 39 experts developed clinical practice statements on the respiratory management of C-ARF in areas where evidence is absent or limited. Agreement was defined as achieved when?>?70% experts voted for a given option on the Likert scale statement or?>?80% voted for a particular option in multiple-choice questions. Stability was assessed between the two concluding rounds for each statement, using the non-parametric Chi-square (?2) test (p?Results Agreement was achieved for 27 (73%) management strategies which were then used to develop expert clinical practice statements. Experts agreed that COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is clinically similar to other forms of ARDS. The Delphi process yielded strong suggestions for use of systemic corticosteroids for critical COVID-19; awake self-proning to improve oxygenation and high flow nasal oxygen to potentially reduce tracheal intubation; non-invasive ventilation for patients with mixed hypoxemic-hypercapnic respiratory failure; tracheal intubation for poor mentation, hemodynamic instability or severe hypoxemia; closed suction systems; lung protective ventilation; prone ventilation (for 16–24 h per day) to improve oxygenation; neuromuscular blocking agents for patient-ventilator dyssynchrony; avoiding delay in extubation for the risk of reintubation; and similar timing of tracheostomy as in non-COVID-19 patients. There was no agreement on positive end expiratory pressure titration or the choice of personal protective equipment.

Conclusion

Using a Delphi method, an agreement among experts was reached for 27 statements from which 20 expert clinical practice statements were derived on the respiratory management of C-ARF, addressing important decisions for patient management in areas where evidence is either absent or limited. Trial registration: The study was registered with Clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT04534569.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-021-03491-y.

SUBMITTER: Nasa P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7962430 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionCurrently, there are no guidelines for the management of B-cell lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) from an Indian perspective. The diagnostic workup, monitoring, and treatment of B-ALL vary among different physicians and institutes.ObjectiveTo develop evidence-based practical consensus recommendations for the management of B-ALL in Indian settings.MethodsModified Delphi consensus methodology was considered to arrive at a consensus. An expert scientific committee of 15 experts from India constituted the panel. Clinically relevant questions belonging to three major domains were drafted for presentation and discussion: (i) diagnosis and risk assignment; (ii) frontline treatment; and (iii) choice of therapy (optimal vs. real-world practice) in relapsed/refractory (R/R) settings. The questionnaire was shared with the panel members through an online survey platform. The level of consensus was categorized into high (≥ 80%), moderate (60%-79%), and no consensus (< 60%). The process involved 2 rounds of discussion and 3 rounds of Delphi survey. The questions that received near or no consensus were discussed during virtual meetings (Delphi rounds 1 and 2). The final draft of the consensus was emailed to the panel for final review.ResultsExperts recommended morphologic assessment of peripheral blood or bone marrow, flow cytometric immunophenotyping, and conventional cytogenetic analysis in the initial diagnostic workup. Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster (BFM)-based protocol is the preferred frontline therapy in pediatric and adolescent and young adult patients with B-ALL. BFM/German Multicenter Study Group for Adult Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia-based regimen is suggested in adult patients with B-ALL. Immunotherapy (blinatumomab or inotuzumab ozogamicin) followed by allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) is the optimal choice of therapy that would yield the best outcomes if offered in the first salvage in patients with R/R B-ALL. In patients with financial constraints or prior allo-HCT (real-world practice) at first relapse, standard-intensive chemotherapy followed by allo-HCT may be considered. For subsequent relapses, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy or palliative care was suggested as the optimal choice of therapy.ConclusionThis expert consensus will offer guidance to oncologists/clinicians on the management of B-ALL in Indian settings.

Project description:Antidote stocking represents a major challenge to hospitals all over the world, including Kuwait. In order to assist hospitals to reduce costs and improve patient care, an essential antidote list can be used as an initial foundation for securing sufficient antidote availability at healthcare institutions. The aim of our study is to generate a nationally relevant essential antidote list for emergency care hospitals in Kuwait using the e-Delphi method by establishing consensus through a multidisciplinary expert group of healthcare providers. An electronic survey with 47 essential antidotes was developed. The e-Delphi method was used, with three rounds of voting, to determine expert consensus on an essential antidote list for hospitals in Kuwait. A purposive sample of healthcare professionals from governmental and private hospitals were selected for this study (n = 30). Consensus was gained if ≥75% of the expert panel agreed on the inclusion of the antidote, without any strong disagreements. Round 1 of the e-Delphi resulted in 41 antidotes reaching consensus and seven new antidotes suggested by the expert panel. Round 2 had two antidotes (out of seven newly suggested ones) reaching consensus. Round 3 was a confirmatory round, where the expert group agreed on their previous rounds' opinions. This resulted in the development of an essential antidote list with 43 antidotes. The optimal approach for ensuring adequate availability of antidotes is continuous monitoring of local poisoning incidence and antidote requirements through collaborations between academic researchers and emergency care clinicians. The development of an essential antidote list, with expert consensus, is one of the initial steps in securing a foundation for appropriate provision of antidotes at all healthcare institutions. This is the first study that the authors are aware of that demonstrates that the e-Delphi technique can consolidate recommendations of experts in emergency medicine to provide a list of essential antidotes.

Project description:AimsThere is considerable controversy regarding optimal management of patients with paraesophageal hiatus hernia (pHH). This survey aims at identifying recommended strategies for work-up, surgical therapy, and postoperative follow-up using Delphi methodology.MethodsWe conducted a 2-round, 33-question, web-based Delphi survey on perioperative management (preoperative work-up, surgical procedure and follow-up) of non-revisional, elective pHH among European surgeons with expertise in upper-GI. Responses were graded on a 5-point Likert scale and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Items from the questionnaire were defined as "recommended" or "discouraged" if positive or negative concordance among participants was > 75%. Items with lower concordance levels were labelled "acceptable" (neither recommended nor discouraged).ResultsSeventy-two surgeons with a median (IQR) experience of 23 (14-30) years from 17 European countries participated (response rate 60%). The annual median (IQR) individual and institutional caseload was 25 (15-36) and 40 (28-60) pHH-surgeries, respectively. After Delphi round 2, "recommended" strategies were defined for preoperative work-up (endoscopy), indication for surgery (typical symptoms and/or chronic anemia), surgical dissection (hernia sac dissection and resection, preservation of the vagal nerves, crural fascia and pleura, resection of retrocardial lipoma) and reconstruction (posterior crurorrhaphy with single stitches, lower esophageal sphincter augmentation (Nissen or Toupet), and postoperative follow-up (contrast radiography). In addition, we identified "discouraged" strategies for preoperative work-up (endosonography), and surgical reconstruction (crurorrhaphy with running sutures, tension-free hiatus repair with mesh only). In contrast, many items from the questionnaire including most details of mesh augmentation (indication, material, shape, placement, and fixation technique) were "acceptable".ConclusionsThis multinational European Delphi survey represents the first expert-led process to identify recommended strategies for the management of pHH. Our work may be useful in clinical practice to guide the diagnostic process, increase procedural consistency and standardization, and to foster collaborative research.