Zinc inhibits replication of the SARS-CoV virus. We aimed to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and biological effect of administering high-dose intravenous zinc (HDIVZn) to patients with COVID-19. We performed a Phase IIa double-blind, randomized controlled trial to compare HDIVZn to placebo in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We administered trial treatment per day for a maximum of 7 days until either death or hospital discharge. We measured zinc concentration at baseline and during treatment and observed patients for any significant side effects. For eligible patients, we randomized and administered treatment to 33 adult participants to either HDIVZn (n = 15) or placebo (n = 18). We observed no serious adverse events throughout the study for a total of 94 HDIVZn administrations. However, three participants in the HDIVZn group reported infusion site irritation. Mean serum zinc on Day 1 in the placebo, and the HDIVZn group was 6.9 ± 1.1 and 7.7 ± 1.6 µmol/l, respectively, consistent with zinc deficiency. HDIVZn, but not placebo, increased serum zinc levels above the deficiency cutoff of 10.7 µmol/l (p < .001) on Day 6. Our study did not reach its target enrollment because stringent public health measures markedly reduced patient hospitalizations. Hospitalized COVID-19 patients demonstrated zinc deficiency. This can be corrected with HDIVZn. Such treatment appears safe, feasible, and only associated with minimal peripheral infusion site irritation. This pilot study justifies further investigation of this treatment in COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: There is no information on acute kidney injury (AKI) and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) among invasively ventilated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients in Western healthcare systems. OBJECTIVE: To study the prevalence, characteristics, risk factors and outcome of AKI and CRRT among invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Observational study in a tertiary care hospital in Milan, Italy. RESULTS: Among 99 patients, 72 (75.0%) developed AKI and 17 (17.7%) received CRRT. Most of the patients developed stage 1 AKI (33 [45.8%]), while 15 (20.8%) developed stage 2 AKI and 24 (33.4%) a stage 3 AKI. Patients who developed AKI or needed CRRT at latest follow-up were older, and among CRRT treated patients a greater proportion had preexisting CKD. Hospital mortality was 38.9% for AKI and 52.9% for CRRT patients. CONCLUSIONS: Among invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients, AKI is very common and CRRT use is common. Both carry a high risk of in-hospital mortality.

Cardiorenal syndromes are disorders of the heart and kidneys whereby acute or chronic dysfunction in one organ may induce acute or chronic dysfunction of the other. The pharmacological management of Cardiorenal syndromes may be complicated by unanticipated or unintended effects of agents targeting one organ on the other. Hence, a thorough understanding of the pathophysiology of these disorders is paramount. The treatment of cardiovascular diseases and risk factors may affect renal function and modify the progression of renal injury. Likewise, management of renal disease and associated complications can influence heart function or influence cardiovascular risk. In this paper, an overview of pharmacological management of acute and chronic Cardiorenal Syndromes is presented, and the need for high-quality future studies in this field is highlighted.

Introduction: Septic shock remains amongst the leading causes of childhood mortality. Therapeutic options to support children with septic shock refractory to initial resuscitation with fluids and inotropes are limited. Recently, the combination of intravenous hydrocortisone with high dose ascorbic acid and thiamine (HAT therapy), postulated to reduce sepsis-related organ dysfunction, has been proposed as a safe approach with potential for mortality benefit, but randomized trials in paediatric patients are lacking. We hypothesize that protocolised early use of HAT therapy ("metabolic resuscitation") in children with septic shock is feasible and will lead to earlier resolution of organ dysfunction. Here, we describe the protocol of the Resuscitation in Paediatric Sepsis Using Metabolic Resuscitation-A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study in the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (RESPOND PICU). Methods and Analysis: The RESPOND PICU study is an open label randomized-controlled, two-sided multicentre pilot study conducted in paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) in Australia and New Zealand. Sixty children aged between 28 days and 18 years treated with inotropes for presumed septic shock will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either metabolic resuscitation (1 mg/kg hydrocortisone q6h, 30 mg/kg ascorbic acid q6h, 4 mg/kg thiamine q12h) or standard septic shock management. Main outcomes include feasibility of the study protocol and survival free of organ dysfunction censored at 28 days. The study cohort will be followed up at 28-days and 6-months post enrolment to assess neurodevelopment, quality of life and functional status. Biobanking will allow ancillary studies on sepsis biomarkers. Ethics and Dissemination: The study received ethical clearance from Children's Health Queensland Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/18/QCHQ/49168) and commenced enrolment on June 12th, 2019. The primary study findings will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Trial Registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12619000829112). Protocol Version: V1.8 22/7/20.

OBJECTIVES: Saline and Plasma-Lyte have different physiochemical contents; consequently, they may differently affect patients' renal function. We compared the effects of fluid therapy with 0.9% saline and with Plasma-Lyte 148 on renal function as assessed by creatinine concentration among patients undergoing major surgery. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, double-blinded cluster crossover trial comparing the effects of the two fluids on major surgery patients. The primary aim was to establish the pilot feasibility, safety and preliminary efficacy evidence base for a large interventional trial to establish whether saline or Plasma-Lyte is the preferred crystalloid fluid for managing major surgery patients. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of patients with changes in renal function as assessed by creatinine concentration during their index hospital admission. We used changes in creatinine to define acute kidney injury (AKI) according to the RIFLE criteria. RESULTS: The study was feasible with 100% patient and clinician acceptance. There were no deviations from the trial protocol. After screening, we allocated 602 patients to saline and 458 to Plasma-Lyte. The median (IQR) volume of intraoperative fluid received was 2000 mL (1000:2000) in both groups. Forty-nine saline patients (8.1%) and 49 Plasma-Lyte patients (10.7%) developed a postoperative AKI (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR]: 1.34; 95% CI: 0.93-1.95; p = 0.120). No differences were observed in the development of postoperative complications (aIRR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.89-1.08) or the severity of the worst complication (aIRR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.78-1.30). The median (IQR) length of hospital stay was six days (3:11) for the saline group and five days (3:10) for the Plasma-Lyte group (aIRR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.73-0.98). There were no serious adverse events relating to the trial fluids, nor were there fluid crossover or contamination events. CONCLUSIONS: The study design was feasible to support a future follow-up larger clinical trial. Patients treated with saline did not demonstrate an increased incidence of postoperative AKI (defined as changes in creatinine) compared to those treated with Plasma-Lyte. Our findings imply that clinicians can reasonably use either solution intraoperatively for adult patients undergoing major surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry; ACTRN12613001042730; URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=364988.

BACKGROUND: Prehabilitation services assist patients in preparing for surgery, yet access to these services are often limited by geographical factors. Enabling rural and regional patients to access specialist surgical prehabilitation support with the use of telehealth technology has the potential to overcome health inequities and improve post-operative outcomes. AIM: To evaluate the current and likely future impact of a telehealth preoperative education package for patients preparing for major abdominal cancer surgery. METHODS: A telehealth alternative to a hospital based pre-operative education session was developed and implemented at a dedicated cancer hospital. Adult patients (≥18 years) scheduled for elective major cancer surgery were offered this telehealth alternative. Impact evaluation was conducted using the RE-AIM framework. RESULTS: To date, 35 participants have consented to participate in the study. Thirty-one participants attended the intervention; 24 (69%) residing in rural or regional areas. Twenty-four (77%) reported that if given a choice they would prefer the online session as opposed to attending the hospital in person. The majority (97%) reported they would recommend the intervention to others preparing for surgery. Session information was recalled by all 26 participants and 77% of participants reported acting on recommendations 2 weeks after the session. Lessons learnt and recommendations for providers implementing similar programs are reported. CONCLUSION: Telehealth alternatives to hospital based pre-operative education are well received by patients preparing for major cancer surgery. We make seven recommendations to improve implementation. Further evaluation of implementation strategies alongside clinical effectiveness in future studies is essential. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12620000096954 , 04/02/2020.

Background: Prehabilitation aims to improve functional capacity prior to cancer treatment to achieve better psychosocial and clinical outcomes. Prehabilitation interventions vary considerably in design and delivery. In order to identify gaps in knowledge and facilitate the design of future studies, we undertook a scoping review of prehabilitation studies to map the range of work on prehabilitation being carried out in any cancer type and with a particular focus on diet or nutrition interventions. Objectives: Firstly, to describe the type of prehabilitation programs currently being conducted. Secondly, to describe the extent to which prehabilitation studies involved aspects of nutrition, including assessment, interventions, implementation, and outcomes. Eligibility Criteria: Any study of quantitative or qualitative design that employed a formal prehabilitation program before cancer treatment ("prehabilitation" listed in keywords, title, or abstract). Sources of Evidence: Search was conducted in July 2020 using MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL, and AMED. Charting Methods: Quantitative data were reported as frequencies. Qualitative nutrition data were charted using a framework analysis that reflects the Nutrition Care Process Model: assessment, intervention, and monitoring/evaluation of the nutrition intervention. Results: Five hundred fifty unique articles were identified: 110 studies met inclusion criteria of a formal prehabilitation study in oncology. prehabilitation studies were mostly cohort studies (41%) or randomized-controlled trials (38%) of multimodal (49%), or exercise-only (44%) interventions that were applied before surgery (94%). Nutrition assessment was inconsistently applied across these studies, and often conducted without validated tools (46%). Of the 110 studies, 37 (34%) included a nutrition treatment component. Half of these studies provided the goal for the nutrition component of their prehabilitation program; of these goals, less than half referenced accepted nutrition guidelines in surgery or oncology. Nutrition interventions largely consisted of counseling with dietary supplementation. The nutrition intervention was indiscernible in 24% of studies. Two-thirds of studies did not monitor the nutrition intervention nor evaluate nutrition outcomes. Conclusion: Prehabilitation literature lacks standardized and validated nutritional assessment, is frequently conducted without evidence-based nutrition interventions, and is typically implemented without monitoring the nutrition intervention or evaluating the intervention's contribution to outcomes. We suggest that the development of a core outcome set could improve the quality of the studies, enable pooling of evidence, and address some of the research gaps identified.

BACKGROUND: Determining the cost-effectiveness and sustainability of patient blood management programmes relies on quantifying the economic burden of preoperative anaemia. This retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the hospital costs attributable to preoperative anaemia in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. METHODS: Patients who underwent major abdominal surgery between 2010 and 2018 were included. The association between preoperative patient haemoglobin (Hb) concentration and hospital costs was evaluated by curve estimation based on the least-square method. The in-hospital cost of index admission was calculated using an activity-based costing methodology. Multivariable regression analysis and propensity score matching were used to estimate the effects of Hb concentration on variables related directly to hospital costs. RESULTS: A total of 1286 patients were included. The median overall cost was US $18 476 (i.q.r.13 784-27 880), and 568 patients (44.2 per cent) had a Hb level below 13.0 g/dl. Patients with a preoperative Hb level below 9.0 g/dl had total hospital costs that were 50.6 (95 per cent c.i. 14.1 to 98.9) per cent higher than those for patients with a preoperative Hb level of 9.0-13.0 g/dl (P < 0.001), 72.5 (30.6 to 128.0) per cent higher than costs for patients with a Hb concentration of 13.1-15.0 g/dl (P < 0.001), and 62.4 (21.8 to 116.7) per cent higher than those for patients with a Hb level greater than 15.0 g/dl (P < 0.001). Multivariable general linear modelling showed that packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusions were a principal cost driver in patients with a Hb concentration below 9.0 g/dl. CONCLUSION: Patients with the lowest Hb concentration incurred the highest hospital costs, which were strongly associated with increased PRBC transfusions. Costs and possible complications may be decreased by treating preoperative anaemia, particularly more severe anaemia.

Objectives: This systematic review set out to identify, evaluate and synthesise the evidence examining the effect of prehabilitation including exercise on postoperative outcomes following abdominal cancer surgery. Methods: Five electronic databases (MEDLINE 1946-2020, EMBASE 1947-2020, CINAHL 1937-2020, PEDro 1999-2020, and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials 1991-2020) were systematically searched (until August 2020) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the effects of prehabilitation interventions in patients undergoing abdominal cancer surgery. This review included any form of prehabilitation either unimodal or multimodal that included whole body and/or respiratory exercises as a stand-alone intervention or in addition to other prehabilitation interventions (such as nutrition and psychology) compared to standard care. Results: Twenty-two studies were included in the systematic review and 21 studies in the meta-analysis. There was moderate quality of evidence that multimodal prehabilitation improves pre-operative functional capacity as measured by 6 min walk distance (Mean difference [MD] 33.09 metres, 95% CI 17.69-48.50; p = <0.01) but improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness such as preoperative oxygen consumption at peak exercise (VO2 peak; MD 1.74 mL/kg/min, 95% CI -0.03-3.50; p = 0.05) and anaerobic threshold (AT; MD 1.21 mL/kg/min, 95% CI -0.34-2.76; p = 0.13) were not significant. A reduction in hospital length of stay (MD 3.68 days, 95% CI 0.92-6.44; p = 0.009) was observed but no effect was observed for postoperative complications (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.81, 95% CI 0.55-1.18; p = 0.27), pulmonary complications (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.28-1.01; p = 0.05), hospital re-admission (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.61-1.90; p = 0.81) or postoperative mortality (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.43-2.09, p = 0.90). Conclusion: Multimodal prehabilitation improves preoperative functional capacity with reduction in hospital length of stay. This supports the need for ongoing research on innovative cost-effective prehabilitation approaches, research within large multicentre studies to verify this effect and to explore implementation strategies within clinical practise.