Alexa Hollinger

Bio: Alexa Hollinger is an academic researcher from University Hospital of Basel. The author has contributed to research in topics: Intensive care unit & Intensive care. The author has an hindex of 12, co-authored 43 publications receiving 594 citations. Previous affiliations of Alexa Hollinger include University of Paris & French Institute of Health and Medical Research.

Pantoprazole in Patients at Risk for Gastrointestinal Bleeding in the ICU

Abstract: Background Prophylaxis for gastrointestinal stress ulceration is frequently given to patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), but its risks and benefits are unclear. Methods In this European, multicenter, parallel-group, blinded trial, we randomly assigned adults who had been admitted to the ICU for an acute condition (i.e., an unplanned admission) and who were at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding to receive 40 mg of intravenous pantoprazole (a proton-pump inhibitor) or placebo daily during the ICU stay. The primary outcome was death by 90 days after randomization. Results A total of 3298 patients were enrolled; 1645 were randomly assigned to the pantoprazole group and 1653 to the placebo group. Data on the primary outcome were available for 3282 patients (99.5%). At 90 days, 510 patients (31.1%) in the pantoprazole group and 499 (30.4%) in the placebo group had died (relative risk, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.13; P=0.76). During the ICU stay, at least one clinically important event (a composite of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, or myocardial ischemia) had occurred in 21.9% of patients assigned to pantoprazole and 22.6% of those assigned to placebo (relative risk, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.11). In the pantoprazole group, 2.5% of patients had clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, as compared with 4.2% in the placebo group. The number of patients with infections or serious adverse reactions and the percentage of days alive without life support within 90 days were similar in the two groups. Conclusions Among adult patients in the ICU who were at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, mortality at 90 days and the number of clinically important events were similar in those assigned to pantoprazole and those assigned to placebo. (Funded by Innovation Fund Denmark and others; SUP-ICU ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02467621. opens in new tab.)

Lower or Higher Oxygenation Targets for Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure

Abstract: Background Patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in the intensive care unit (ICU) are treated with supplemental oxygen, but the benefits and harms of different oxygenation targ...

Management of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction

Abstract: Up to 10% of acute coronary syndromes are complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) with contemporary mortality rates of 40–50%. The extent of ischemic myocardium has a profound impact on the initial, in-hospital, and post-discharge management and prognosis in this patient population. Individualized patient risk assessment plays an important role in determining appropriate revascularization, drug treatment with inotropes and vasopressors, mechanical circulatory support, intensive care support of other organ systems, hospital level of care triage, and allocation of clinical resources. This review will outline the underlying causes and diagnostic criteria, pathophysiology, and treatment of CS complicating acute coronary syndromes with a focus on (a) potential therapeutic issues from the perspective an interventional cardiologist, an emergency physician, and an intensive care physician, (b) the type of revascularization, and (c) new therapeutic advancements in pharmacologic and mechanical percutaneous circulatory support.

Circulating adrenomedullin estimates survival and reversibility of organ failure in sepsis: the prospective observational multinational Adrenomedullin and Outcome in Sepsis and Septic Shock-1 (AdrenOSS-1) study

Abstract: Adrenomedullin (ADM) regulates vascular tone and endothelial permeability during sepsis. Levels of circulating biologically active ADM (bio-ADM) show an inverse relationship with blood pressure and a direct relationship with vasopressor requirement. In the present prospective observational multinational Adrenomedullin and Outcome in Sepsis and Septic Shock 1 (, AdrenOSS-1) study, we assessed relationships between circulating bio-ADM during the initial intensive care unit (ICU) stay and short-term outcome in order to eventually design a biomarker-guided randomized controlled trial. AdrenOSS-1 was a prospective observational multinational study. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included organ failure as defined by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, organ support with focus on vasopressor/inotropic use, and need for renal replacement therapy. AdrenOSS-1 included 583 patients admitted to the ICU with sepsis or septic shock. Circulating bio-ADM levels were measured upon admission and at day 2. Median bio-ADM concentration upon admission was 80.5 pg/ml [IQR 41.5–148.1 pg/ml]. Initial SOFA score was 7 [IQR 5–10], and 28-day mortality was 22%. We found marked associations between bio-ADM upon admission and 28-day mortality (unadjusted standardized HR 2.3 [CI 1.9–2.9]; adjusted HR 1.6 [CI 1.1–2.5]) and between bio-ADM levels and SOFA score (p 70 pg/ml upon admission than in those with bio-ADM ≤ 70 pg/ml. In patients with bio-ADM > 70 pg/ml upon admission, decrease in bio-ADM below 70 pg/ml at day 2 was associated with recovery of organ function at day 7 and better 28-day outcome (9.5% mortality). By contrast, persistently elevated bio-ADM at day 2 was associated with prolonged organ dysfunction and high 28-day mortality (38.1% mortality, HR 4.9, 95% CI 2.5–9.8). AdrenOSS-1 shows that early levels and rapid changes in bio-ADM estimate short-term outcome in sepsis and septic shock. These data are the backbone of the design of the biomarker-guided AdrenOSS-2 trial. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02393781 . Registered on March 19, 2015.

Impact of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or receptor blockers on post-ICU discharge outcome in patients with acute kidney injury

Abstract: Purpose: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is associated with the activation of the renin–angiotensin system. Whether angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARB) improve outcome in patients recovering from AKI remains unexplored. The purpose was to investigate the association between prescription of ACEi/ARB at intensive care unit (ICU) discharge and 1-year outcome in patients recovering from AKI. Methods: Association between ACEi/ARB and 1-year mortality rate was explored in 1551 patients discharged from 21 European ICUs in an observational cohort. One-year all-cause mortality after ICU discharge was the primary endpoint. AKI was defined using the kidney disease improvement global outcome definition. Propensity score matching was used to consider the probability to receive ACEi/ARB at ICU discharge and included chronic heart failure, ACEi/ARB on ICU admission, Charlson Comorbidity Index, age, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, estimated glomerular filtration rate and arterial blood pressure at ICU discharge vasopressors and renal replacement therapy. Results: Overall, 1-year mortality was 28 and 15% in patients with AKI (n = 611, 39%) and without AKI (n = 940), respectively. In patients with AKI, unadjusted, adjusted and propensity-score matched 1-year mortality rates were lower in patients treated with ACEi/ARB at ICU discharge [HR of 0.55 (0.35–0.89), HR of 0.45 (0.27–0.75), and HR of 0.48 (0.27–0.85, p < 0.001), respectively]. These results were consistent across sensitivity analysis. No association was observed in patients without AKI. Conclusions: In patients discharged alive from the ICU after experiencing AKI, ACEi/ARB prescription at discharge is associated with a decrease in 1-year mortality.

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.

2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure

Abstract: Document Reviewers: Rudolf A. de Boer (CPG Review Coordinator) (Netherlands), P. Christian Schulze (CPG Review Coordinator) (Germany), Magdy Abdelhamid (Egypt), Victor Aboyans (France), Stamatis Adamopoulos (Greece), Stefan D. Anker (Germany), Elena Arbelo (Spain), Riccardo Asteggiano (Italy), Johann Bauersachs (Germany), Antoni Bayes‐Genis (Spain), Michael A. Borger (Germany), Werner Budts (Belgium), Maja Cikes (Croatia), Kevin Damman (Netherlands), Victoria Delgado (Netherlands), Paul Dendale (Belgium), Polychronis Dilaveris (Greece), Heinz Drexel (Austria), Justin Ezekowitz (Canada), Volkmar Falk (Germany), Laurent Fauchier (France), Gerasimos Filippatos (Greece), Alan Fraser (United Kingdom), Norbert Frey (Germany), Chris P. Gale (United Kingdom), Finn Gustafsson (Denmark), Julie Harris (United Kingdom), Bernard Iung (France), Stefan Janssens (Belgium), Mariell Jessup (United States of America), Aleksandra Konradi (Russia), Dipak Kotecha (United Kingdom), Ekaterini Lambrinou (Cyprus), Patrizio Lancellotti (Belgium), Ulf Landmesser (Germany), Christophe Leclercq (France), Basil S. Lewis (Israel), Francisco Leyva (United Kingdom), AleVs Linhart (Czech Republic), Maja‐Lisa Løchen (Norway), Lars H. Lund (Sweden), Donna Mancini (United States of America), Josep Masip (Spain), Davor Milicic (Croatia), Christian Mueller (Switzerland), Holger Nef (Germany), Jens‐Cosedis Nielsen (Denmark), Lis Neubeck (United Kingdom), Michel Noutsias (Germany), Steffen E. Petersen (United Kingdom), Anna Sonia Petronio (Italy), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Eva Prescott (Denmark), Amina Rakisheva (Kazakhstan), Dimitrios J. Richter (Greece), Evgeny Schlyakhto (Russia), Petar Seferovic (Serbia), Michele Senni (Italy), Marta Sitges (Spain), Miguel Sousa‐Uva (Portugal), Carlo G. Tocchetti (Italy), Rhian M. Touyz (United Kingdom), Carsten Tschoepe (Germany), Johannes Waltenberger (Germany/Switzerland)