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: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:ObjectiveThis study aimed to synthesize available evidence on the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines for frail older adults through a rapid review, supplemented with geriatricians' consensus statements.MethodsReferences were identified through MEDLINE and Web of Science on 1st February 2021 using relevant terms related to COVID-19, vaccine, and older adults. Searches were also conducted on reference lists of review articles and Google Scholar. The content was updated on 8th April via hand searching. We included studies on Phase III randomized controlled trials, and data from real world administration of vaccines. A two-round Delphi study was conducted with 15 geriatricians to elicit their thoughts and recommendations regarding COVID-19 vaccination for frail older adults.ResultsFive Phase III randomized controlled efficacy trials reported vaccine efficacy ranging from 66.7% to 95% among participants aged 16 to 95. The vaccine efficacy for participants aged 65 and above is 94.7% and 86.4% for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna respectively. Sputnik V reported a vaccine efficacy of 91.8% for participants 60 and above. Serious adverse events were reported by 0.27% to 1% of participants who received at least one dose of the four vaccines. For the Delphi study, 16 out of 24 statements achieved consensus. The Delphi panel opined that frail or very old adults, except those with limited life expectancy, should be vaccinated due to their vulnerability. They also agree that vaccination decisions should be made by patients when possible, with the involvement of next-of-kin should the frail older adult be unable to do so. Lastly, the panel thought that frail older adults should be included in future clinical trials.ConclusionIn early clinical trials, there is paucity of evidence on efficacy and safety of current COVID-19 vaccines among frail older adults. Geriatricians' consensus indicate that frail older adults should be vaccinated except where life expectancy is limited. Future trials assessing efficacy and safety should include frail older adults.