Libing Jiang

Accurate assessment of critically ill patients is essential for informing treatment decisions and predicting outcomes. While chronological age—defined by the number of years lived—is commonly used in clinical practice, it does not necessarily capture a patient’s true physiological status. In contrast, biological age, which reflects genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors, offers a more precise indicator of overall health. Emerging evidence supports its potential as a robust predictor of mortality, intensive care readmission, and disease severity in conditions such as sepsis and respiratory failure. Notably, unlike the linear progression of chronological age, biological age can fluctuate in response to acute stress and may revert to lower levels if the patient’s condition improves. This dynamic property underscores the utility of biological age in guiding invasive procedures, refining medication strategies, and optimizing nutrition and rehabilitation. The present study provides an overview of the definitions and methods used to calculate biological age, examines its current applications in critical care, and discusses its prospective roles in intensive care unit.

Purpose: The study aimed to examine the changing incidence of geriatric trauma and evaluate the predictive ability of different scoring tools for in-hospital mortality in geriatric trauma patients. Methods: Annual reports released by the National Trauma Database (NTDB) in the USA from 2005 to 2015 and the Trauma Register DGU® in Germany from 1994 to 2012 were analyzed to examine the changing incidence of geriatric trauma. Secondary analysis of a single-center cohort study conducted among 311 severely injured geriatric trauma patients in a level I trauma center in Switzerland was completed. According to the in-hospital survival status, patients were divided into the survival and non-survival group. The differences of the ISS (injury severity score), NISS (new injury severity score), TRISS (Trauma and Injury Severity Score), APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II), and SPAS II (simplified acute physiology score II) between two groups were evaluated. Then, the areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) of different scoring tools for the prediction of in-hospital mortality in geriatric trauma patients were calculated. Results: The analysis of the NTDB showed that the increase in the number of geriatric trauma ranged from 18 to 30% between 2005 and 2015. The analysis of the DGU® showed that the mean age of trauma patients rose from 39.11 in 1993 to 51.10 in 2013, and the proportion of patients aged ≥ 60 years rose from 16.5 to 37.5%. The findings from the secondary analysis showed that 164 (52.73%) patients died in the hospital. The ISS, NISS, APACHE II, and SAPS II in the death group were significantly higher than those in the survival group, and the TRISS in the death group was significantly lower than those in the survival group. The AUCs of the ISS, NISS, TRISS, APACHE II, and SAPS II for the prediction of in-hospital mortality in geriatric trauma patients were 0.807, 0.850, 0.828, 0.715, and 0.725, respectively. Conclusion: The total number of geriatric trauma is increasing as the population ages. The accuracy of ISS, NISS and TRISS was higher than the APACHE II and SAPS II for the prediction of in-hospital mortality in geriatric trauma patients.

Backgrounds: The aim of this study is investigating the benefits and harms of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods: We comprehensively searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library for randomized controlled trials comparing NMBAs to any other comparator. We pooled data using relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed the quality of included studies using the Cochrane tool and levels of evidence using the GRADE method. Results: Finally, six RCTs (n = 1557 patients) were eligible for analysis. The results showed NMBAs use was not associated with reduced 28 days mortality (RR 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.06; P = 0.11), 90 days mortality (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.04; P = 0.16), and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.03; P = 0.13) in patients with ARDS. However, 21–28 days mortality was slightly lower in patients received NMBAs (RR 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.99; P = 0.04; I² = 53%). Besides, NMBAs use could improve the PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio at 48 and 72 h, decrease plateau pressure and PEEP at 72 h. Additionally, NMBAs had no significant effects on days free of ventilation at day 28 (WMD, 0.55; 95% CI, − 0.46 to 1.57; P = 0.29), days not in ICU at day 28 (WMD, 0.12; 95% CI, − 0.85 to 1.08; P = 0.82), ICU-acquired weakness (RR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.93; P = 0.06). Finally, NMBAs use was associated with a lower risk of barotrauma (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.85; P = 0.007). Conclusion: In patients with respiratory distress syndrome, NMBAs may be beneficial in reverse refractory hypoxemia and may be associated with reduced short-term mortality and incidence of barotrauma. However, there is no significant effects of NMBAs on mid-term and long-term mortality, and further studies are required.

Objective: The aim of this study was to explore the effects and safety of low-dose hydrocortisone in patients with septic shock. Methods: The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from database inception until 1 August 2018. Two reviewers performed literature selection, data extraction, and quality evaluation independently. Results: Twelve randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis. The combined results showed that low-dose hydrocortisone use had no survival benefit in patients with septic shock (relative risk = 1.09; 95% confidence interval = 0.88–1.05; P = 0.37). But low-dose hydrocortisone use was useful for shock reverse (relative risk = 1.09; 95% confidence interval = 1.00–1.19; P = 0.04) and in shortening the time of vasopressor support (weighted mean difference = −1.79, 95% confidence interval = −2.05 to −1.52; P < 0.00001). In addition, use of low-dose hydrocortisone was associated with a higher risk of hyperglycemia (relative risk = 1.21; 95% confidence interval = 1.04–1.40; P = 0.01) and hypernatremia (relative risk = 6.34; 95% confidence interval = 1.19–33.81; P = 0.03). There was no significant improvement of intensive care unit mortality (relative risk = 1.11; 95% confidence interval = 0.93–1.33; P = 0.23) or hospital mortality (relative risk = 1.08; 95% confidence interval = 0.94–1.24; P = 0.29), length of intensive care unit (weighted mean difference = −1.84; 95% confidence interval = −5.80 to 2.11; P = 0.36) or length of hospital (weighted mean difference = 0.11; 95% confidence interval = −2.06 to 2.29; P = 0.98), and time of mechanical support (weighted mean difference = −0.69; 95% confidence interval = −1.76 to −0.38; P = 0.20) with the use of low-dose hydrocortisone. There was no significant difference in secondary infection (relative risk = 1.04; 95% confidence interval = 0.91–1.18; P = 0.57), recurrence of shock (relative risk = 1.47; 95% confidence interval = 0.64–3.39; P = 0.36), and gastrointestinal bleeding (relative risk = 1.41; 95% confidence interval = 0.89–2.22; P = 0.14) with the use of low-dose hydrocortisone. Conclusion: Although there was no effect of low-dose hydrocortisone on survival of patients with septic shock, it is associated with a higher rate of shock reversal and shortening duration of vasopressor support; thus, low-dose hydrocortisone may be an alternative drug in septic shock patients who are refractory to fluid resuscitation and vasopressors.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects and safety of vasopressin receptor agonists in patients with septic shock. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of vasopressin receptor agonists in septic shock patients. Two reviewers performed literature selection, data extraction, and quality evaluation independently. The primary outcome was mortality. And secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and incidence of adverse events. In addition, a trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed. Twenty studies were eligible for meta-analysis. The results showed vasopressin receptor agonists use was associated with reduced mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.99; I2 = 0%). Nevertheless, they had no significant effects on ICU length of stay (mean deviation (MD) − 0.08, 95% CI, − 0.68 to 0.52, I2 = 0%) and duration of mechanical ventilation (MD − 0.58, 95% CI − 1.47 to 0.31, I2 = 57%). Additionally, there was no significant difference in total adverse events between two groups (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.90, I2 = 57%), but vasopressin receptor agonists administration could significantly increase the risk of digital ischemia (RR 4.85, 95% CI 2.81 to 8.39, I2 = 26%). Finally, there was no statistical difference of cardiovascular events (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.57, I2 = 1%), arrhythmia (0.77, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.23, I2 = 23%), mesenteric ischemia (0.83, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.55, I2 = 0%), diarrhea (2.47, 95% CI 0.77 to 7.96, I2 = 49%), cerebrovascular events (1.36, 95% CI 0.18 to 10.54, I2 = 0%), and hyponatremia (1.47, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.55, I2 = 0%) between two groups. Egger’s test showed there was no significant publication bias among studies (P = 0.36). The use of vasopressin might result in reduced mortality in patients with septic shock. An increased risk of digital ischemia must be taken into account.

Background: High-quality chest compression is crucial for cardiac arrest patients. However, only few studies are focusing on the optimal compression point. Objective: The aim of this study was to explore the optimal compression point based on chest-computed tomography. Methods: We retrospectively selected 166 adult health subjects between January 2018 and May 2018 in a university-affiliated hospital. Results: The median length of sternum was 14.9 cm. The median length from the inter-nipple line to the distal end of sternum was 1.0 cm. The median length from the point at which the maximal left ventricular diameter projected onto the sternum to the distal end of the sternum was −1.4 (–2.2 to 0.0) cm. The median value of the length from the inter-nipple line to the distal end of sternum plus the length from the point at which the maximal left ventricular diameter projected onto the sternum to the distal end of the sternum was 2.0 (1.0–3.1) cm. Conclusion: One size does not fit all. The point recommended by the current guideline may not appropriate for Chinese person. Further studies are required focusing on individual chest compression during cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Background: Hollow organs perforation is a life-threatening condition. Early diagnosis and emergent intervention are important. Bedside ultrasound may be an alternative diagnostic tool for this condition.Objective: The aim of this study was to explore the diagnostic value of ultrasound of pneumoperitoneum in emergent or critical conditions through meta-analysis.Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for potential studies. Then, two reviewers performed the processes of study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment independently. Finally, diagnostic indexes were analyzed with STATA 12.0 software (Serial No. 40120519635).Results: A total of five studies with moderate to high quality were eligible for meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio and their 95% confidence interval were 0.91 (95% confidence interval = 0.86–0.94), 0.96 (95% confidence interval = 0.75–0.99), 22.05 (95% confidence interval = 3.10–156.96), and 0.10 (95% confidence interval = 0.07–0.15), respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.92 (95% confidence interval = 0.90–0.94).Conclusion: Abdominal ultrasound is a useful alternative tool in diagnosing of pneumoperitoneum. However, due to limited evidence, it is not yet indicated for routine clinical use.