研究者業績
基本情報
研究分野
1経歴
7-
2020年10月 - 現在
-
2020年4月 - 2021年9月
-
2016年4月 - 2020年3月
-
2014年4月 - 2016年3月
-
2013年4月 - 2014年3月
学歴
3-
2015年4月 - 2019年3月
-
2000年4月 - 2006年3月
-
1997年4月 - 2000年3月
論文
115-
日本集中治療医学会雑誌 28(Suppl.2) 295-295 2021年9月
-
日本集中治療医学会雑誌 28(Suppl.2) 295-295 2021年9月
-
Journal of intensive care 9(1) 53-53 2021年8月25日The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.
-
Journal of intensive care 9(1) 32-32 2021年4月12日BACKGROUND: Noninvasive respiratory support devices may reduce the tracheal intubation rate compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT). To date, few studies have compared high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) use with noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV). We conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of three respiratory support devices in patients with acute respiratory failure. METHODS: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Ichushi databases were searched. Studies including adults aged ≥ 16 years with acute hypoxic respiratory failure and randomized-controlled trials that compared two different oxygenation devices (COT, NPPV, or HFNC) before tracheal intubation were included. A frequentist-based approach with a multivariate random-effects meta-analysis was used. The network meta-analysis was performed using the GRADE Working Group approach. The outcomes were short-term mortality and intubation rate. RESULTS: Among 5507 records, 27 studies (4618 patients) were included. The main cause of acute hypoxic respiratory failure was pneumonia. Compared with COT, NPPV and HFNC use tended to reduce mortality (relative risk, 0.88 and 0.93, respectively; 95% confidence intervals, 0.76-1.01 and 0.80-1.08, respectively; both low certainty) and lower the risk of endotracheal intubation (0.81 and 0.78; 0.72-0.91 and 0.68-0.89, respectively; both low certainty); however, short-term mortality or intubation rates did not differ (0.94 and 1.04, respectively; 0.78-1.15 and 0.88-1.22, respectively; both low certainty) between NPPV and HFNC use. CONCLUSION: NPPV and HFNC use are associated with a decreased risk of endotracheal intubation; however, there are no significant differences in short-term mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020139105 , 01/21/2020).
-
Critical care (London, England) 25(1) 135-135 2021年4月9日BACKGROUND: High-flow nasal cannula oxygenation (HFNC) and noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV) possibly decrease tracheal reintubation rates better than conventional oxygen therapy (COT); however, few large-scale studies have compared HFNC and NPPV. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the effectiveness of three post-extubation respiratory support devices (HFNC, NPPV, and COT) in reducing the mortality and reintubation risk. METHODS: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Ichushi databases were searched. COT, NPPV, and HFNC use were assessed in patients who were aged ≥ 16 years, underwent invasive mechanical ventilation for > 12 h for acute respiratory failure, and were scheduled for extubation after spontaneous breathing trials. The GRADE Working Group Approach was performed using a frequentist-based approach with multivariate random-effect meta-analysis. Short-term mortality and reintubation and post-extubation respiratory failure rates were compared. RESULTS: After evaluating 4631 records, 15 studies and 2600 patients were included. The main cause of acute hypoxic respiratory failure was pneumonia. Although NPPV/HFNC use did not significantly lower the mortality risk (relative risk [95% confidence interval] 0.75 [0.53-1.06] and 0.92 [0.67-1.27]; low and moderate certainty, respectively), HFNC use significantly lowered the reintubation risk (0.54 [0.32-0.89]; high certainty) compared to COT use. The associations of mortality with NPPV and HFNC use with respect to either outcome did not differ significantly (short-term mortality and reintubation, relative risk [95% confidence interval] 0.81 [0.61-1.08] and 1.02 [0.53-1.97]; moderate and very low certainty, respectively). CONCLUSION: NPPV or HFNC use may not reduce the risk of short-term mortality; however, they may reduce the risk of endotracheal reintubation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE OF REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020139112, 01/21/2020).
-
Pancreas 50(3) 371-377 2021年3月1日OBJECTIVES: In patients with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP), early enteral nutrition (EN) is recommended by major clinical practice guidelines, but the exact timing for the initiation of EN is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a post hoc analysis of the database for a multicenter (44 institutions) retrospective study of patients with SAP in Japan. The patients were classified into 3 groups according to the timing of EN initiation after the diagnosis of SAP: within 24 hours, between 24 and 48 hours, and more than 48 hours. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Of the 1094 study patients, 176, 120, and 798 patients started EN within 24 hours, between 24 and 48 hours, and more than 48 hours after SAP diagnosis, respectively. On multivariable analysis, hospital mortality was significantly better with EN within 48 hours than with more than 48 hours (adjusted odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.83; P < 0.001) but did not significantly differ between the groups with EN starting within 24 hours and between 24 and 48 hours (P = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Enteral nutrition within 24 hours may not confer any additional benefit on clinical outcomes compared with EN between 24 and 48 hours.
-
Journal of intensive care 9(1) 3-3 2021年1月6日BACKGROUND: The lack of precise information on the epidemiology of peripheral intravascular catheter (PIVC)-related phlebitis and complications in critically ill patients results in the absence of appropriate preventive measures. Therefore, we aimed to describe the epidemiology of the use of PIVCs and the incidence/occurrence of phlebitis and complications in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: This prospective multicenter cohort study was conducted in 23 ICUs in Japan. All consecutive patients aged ≥ 18 years admitted to the ICU were enrolled. PIVCs inserted prior to ICU admission and those newly inserted after ICU admission were included in the analysis. Characteristics of the ICU, patients, and PIVCs were recorded. The primary and secondary outcomes were the occurrence and incidence rate of PIVC-related phlebitis and complications (catheter-related blood stream infection [CRBSI] and catheter failure) during the ICU stay. RESULTS: We included 2741 patients and 7118 PIVCs, of which 48.2% were inserted in the ICU. PIVC-related phlebitis occurred in 7.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.9-8.2%) of catheters (3.3 cases / 100 catheter-days) and 12.9% (95% CI 11.7-14.2%) of patients (6.3 cases / 100 catheter-days). Most PIVCs were removed immediately after diagnosis of phlebitis (71.9%). Grade 1 was the most common phlebitis (72.6%), while grade 4 was the least common (1.5%). The incidence rate of CRBSI was 0.8% (95% CI 0.4-1.2%). In cases of catheter failure, the proportion and incidence rate per 100 intravenous catheter-days of catheter failure were 21% (95% CI 20.0-21.9%) and 9.1 (95% CI 8.7-10.0), respectively. CONCLUSION: PIVC-related phlebitis and complications were common in critically ill patients. The results suggest the importance of preventing PIVC-related complications, even in critically ill patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN-CTR, the Japanese clinical trial registry (registration number: UMIN000028019 , July 1, 2017).
-
Acute medicine & surgery 8(1) e706 2021年BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread worldwide since early 2020, and there are still no signs of resolution. The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock (J-SSCG) 2020 Special Committee created the Japanese rapid/living recommendations on drug management for COVID-19 using the experience of creating the J-SSCG. METHODS: The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to determine the certainty of the evidence and strength of the recommendations. The first edition of this guideline was released on September 9, 2020, and this document is the revised edition (version 4.0; released on September 9, 2021). Clinical questions (CQs) were set for the following seven drugs: favipiravir (CQ1), remdesivir (CQ2), corticosteroids (CQ4), tocilizumab (CQ5), anticoagulants (CQ7), baricitinib (CQ8), and casirivimab/imdevimab (CQ9). Two CQs (hydroxychloroquine [CQ3] and ciclesonide [CQ6]) were retrieved in this updated version. RECOMMENDATIONS: Favipiravir is not suggested for all patients with COVID-19 (GRADE 2C). Remdesivir is suggested for patients with moderate COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization (GRADE 2B). Corticosteroids are recommended for patients with moderate COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization (GRADE 1B) and for patients with severe COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation/intensive care (GRADE 1A); however, their administration is not recommended for patients with mild COVID-19 not requiring supplemental oxygen (GRADE 1B). Tocilizumab is suggested for patients with moderate COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization (GRADE 2B). Anticoagulant administration is recommended for patients with moderate COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization and patients with severe COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation/intensive care (good practice statement). Baricitinib is suggested for patients with moderate COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization (GRADE 2C). Casirivimab/imdevimab is recommended for patients with mild COVID-19 not requiring supplemental oxygen (GRADE 1B). We hope that these updated clinical practice guidelines will help medical professionals involved in the care of patients with COVID-19.
-
Journal of clinical medicine research 13(1) 48-63 2021年1月Background: The effects of plateau pressure during the initial days of mechanical ventilation on outcomes for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome have not been fully examined. We conducted meta-regression analysis of plateau pressure during the first 7 days using randomized control trials to investigate the optimal upper limits of plateau pressure on different days of mechanical ventilation. Methods: Randomized controlled trials comparing two mechanical ventilation strategies with lower and higher plateau pressures in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome were included. Meta-regression analysis was performed to determine the association of plateau pressure with mortality on days 1, 3, and 7 of mechanical ventilation. Results: After evaluation of 2,975 citations from a comprehensive search across electronic databases, 14 studies were included in the final qualitative analysis. A total of 4,984 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. As a result of the pairwise comparison, overall short-term mortality was significantly higher for patients with plateau pressures over 32 cm H2O during the first 3 days after intensive care unit (ICU) admission (day 1: relative risk (RR), 0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.66 - 0.89; I2 = 0%; day 3: RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64 - 0.90; I2 = 0%), but not on day 7 (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65 - 1.04; I2 = 16%). Plateau pressures below 27 cm H2O and 30 cm H2O were not associated with an absolute risk reduction of short-term mortality. According to univariable meta-regression analysis, mortality was significantly associated with plateau pressure on day 1 (β = 0.01 (95% CI, 0.002 - 0.024), P = 0.02). On days 3 and 7, however, no significant difference was detected. When the cutoffs were set at 27, 30 and 32 cm H2O on day 1, which showed a significant difference, plateau pressure tended to be associated with increased mortality at pressures above the cut-off values, and there were no significant differences at pressures below the cut-off values, regardless of the cutoff used. Conclusions: This study suggests that the optimal cut-off value for plateau pressure may be 27 cm H2O especially during the initial period of mechanical ventilation, although this association may not continue during the latter period of mechanical ventilation.
-
Acute Medicine & Surgery 7(1) 2020年1月 査読有り
-
Acute medicine & surgery 7(1) e468 2020年AIM: An index that accurately measures intravascular volume is paramount for the optimal resuscitation of sepsis. Selecting an adequate indicator to substitute for central venous pressure (CVP) has remained an issue. The objective of our study was to compare the usefulness of standard early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) with CVP (EGDT-CVP) and modified EGDT with global end-diastolic volume index (GEDI; EGDT-GEDI) for sepsis. METHODS: This was a multicenter prospective randomized controlled study. All patients with sepsis who were expected to require mechanical ventilator support for a minimum of 48 h were included. The patients were classified into an EGDT-CVP group and an EGDT-GEDI group. All participants underwent the extubation protocol. The primary outcome was the ventilator-free days over a 28-day period. RESULTS: The ventilator-free days was not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.59). However, the EGDT-GEDI group showed a trend of shorter ventilator support duration (5.1 days [2.0-8.7 days] versus 3.9 days [2.4-5.7 days], P = 0.27) and length of stay in the intensive care unit (7.2 days [3.8-10.7 days] versus 5.1 days [3.7-8.8 days], P = 0.05) and a smaller 3-day infusion balance than the EGDT-CVP group (4,405 mL [1,092-8,163 mL] versus 3,046 mL [830-6,806 mL], P = 0.34), but the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Although there was no significant efficacy, EGDT guided by GEDI showed a trend of shorter length of stay in the intensive care unit and lower 3-day infusion balance than the EGDT-CVP group in sepsis. The GEDI monitoring did not appear to improve the ventilator-free days over a 28-day period.
-
Journal of intensive care 8 61-61 2020年Background: Intracranial pressure control has long been recognized as an important requirement for patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Hypertonic saline has drawn attention as an alternative to mannitol in this setting. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of hypertonic saline versus mannitol on clinical outcomes in patients with traumatic brain injury in prehospital, emergency department, and intensive care unit settings by systematically reviewing the literature and synthesizing the evidence from randomized controlled trials. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE database, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Igaku Chuo Zasshi (ICHUSHI) Web database with no date restrictions. We selected randomized controlled trials in which the clinical outcomes of adult patients with traumatic brain injury were compared between hypertonic saline and mannitol strategies. Two investigators independently screened the search results and conducted the data extraction. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were 90-day and 180-day mortality, good neurological outcomes, reduction in intracranial pressure, and serum sodium level. Random effects estimators with weights calculated by the inverse variance method were used to determine the pooled risk ratios. Results: A total of 125 patients from four randomized trials were included, and all the studies were conducted in the intensive care unit. Among 105 patients from three trials that evaluated the primary outcome, 50 patients were assigned to the hypertonic saline group and 55 patients were assigned to the mannitol group. During the observation period, death was observed for 16 patients in the hypertonic saline group (32.0%) and 21 patients in the mannitol group (38.2%). The risks were not significant between the two infusion strategies (pooled risk ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-1.37). There were also no significant differences between the two groups in the other secondary outcomes. However, the certainty of the evidence was rated very low for all outcomes. Conclusions: Our findings revealed no significant difference in the all-cause mortality rates between patients receiving hypertonic saline or mannitol to control intracranial pressure. Further investigation is warranted because we only included a limited number of studies.
-
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY 53(5) 385-391 2019年5月 査読有り
-
Thrombosis research 171 136-142 2018年10月 査読有り
-
Journal of critical care 47 173-177 2018年10月 査読有り
-
Journal of critical care 46 1-5 2018年8月 査読有りPURPOSE: To observe arterial oxygen in relation to fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) during mechanical ventilation (MV). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this multicenter prospective observational study, we included adult patients required MV for >48h during the period from March to May 2015. We obtained FIO2, PaO2 and SaO2 from commencement of MV until the 7th day of MV in the ICU. RESULTS: We included 454 patients from 28 ICUs in this study. The median APACHE II score was 22. Median values of FIO2, PaO2 and SaO2 were 0.40, 96mmHg and 98%. After day two, patients spent most of their time with a FIO2 between 0.3 and 0.49 with median PaO2 of approximately 90mmHg and SaO2 of 97%. PaO2 was ≥100mmHg during 47.2% of the study period and was ≥130mmHg during 18.4% of the study period. FIO2 was more likely decreased when PaO2 was ≥130mmHg or SaO2 was ≥99% with a FIO2 of 0.5 or greater. When FIO2 was <0.5, however, FIO2 was less likely decreased regardless of the value of PaO2 and SaO2. CONCLUSIONS: In our multicenter prospective study, we found that hyperoxemia was common and that hyperoxemia was not corrected.
-
Renal Replacement Therapy 4(1) 2018年2月21日
-
Journal of intensive care 6 7-7 2018年 査読有りBackground and purpose: The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in February 2017 and published in the Journal of JSICM, [2017; Volume 24 (supplement 2)] 10.3918/jsicm.24S0001 and Journal of Japanese Association for Acute Medicine [2017; Volume 28, (supplement 1)] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jja2.2017.28.issue-S1/issuetoc.This abridged English edition of the J-SSCG 2016 was produced with permission from the Japanese Association of Acute Medicine and the Japanese Society for Intensive Care Medicine. Methods: Members of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine were selected and organized into 19 committee members and 52 working group members. The guidelines were prepared in accordance with the Medical Information Network Distribution Service (Minds) creation procedures. The Academic Guidelines Promotion Team was organized to oversee and provide academic support to the respective activities allocated to each Guideline Creation Team. To improve quality assurance and workflow transparency, a mutual peer review system was established, and discussions within each team were open to the public. Public comments were collected once after the initial formulation of a clinical question (CQ) and twice during the review of the final draft. Recommendations were determined to have been adopted after obtaining support from a two-thirds (> 66.6%) majority vote of each of the 19 committee members. Results: A total of 87 CQs were selected among 19 clinical areas, including pediatric topics and several other important areas not covered in the first edition of the Japanese guidelines (J-SSCG 2012). The approval rate obtained through committee voting, in addition to ratings of the strengths of the recommendation, and its supporting evidence were also added to each recommendation statement. We conducted meta-analyses for 29 CQs. Thirty-seven CQs contained recommendations in the form of an expert consensus due to insufficient evidence. No recommendations were provided for five CQs. Conclusions: Based on the evidence gathered, we were able to formulate Japanese-specific clinical practice guidelines that are tailored to the Japanese context in a highly transparent manner. These guidelines can easily be used not only by specialists, but also by non-specialists, general clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, clinical engineers, and other healthcare professionals.
-
Acute medicine & surgery 5(1) 3-89 2018年1月 査読有りBackground and Purpose: The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in February 2017 in Japanese. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. Methods: Members of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine were selected and organized into 19 committee members and 52 working group members. The guidelines were prepared in accordance with the Medical Information Network Distribution Service (Minds) creation procedures. The Academic Guidelines Promotion Team was organized to oversee and provide academic support to the respective activities allocated to each Guideline Creation Team. To improve quality assurance and workflow transparency, a mutual peer review system was established, and discussions within each team were open to the public. Public comments were collected once after the initial formulation of a clinical question (CQ), and twice during the review of the final draft. Recommendations were determined to have been adopted after obtaining support from a two-thirds (>66.6%) majority vote of each of the 19 committee members. Results: A total of 87 CQs were selected among 19 clinical areas, including pediatric topics and several other important areas not covered in the first edition of the Japanese guidelines (J-SSCG 2012). The approval rate obtained through committee voting, in addition to ratings of the strengths of the recommendation and its supporting evidence were also added to each recommendation statement. We conducted meta-analyses for 29 CQs. Thirty seven CQs contained recommendations in the form of an expert consensus due to insufficient evidence. No recommendations were provided for 5 CQs. Conclusions: Based on the evidence gathered, we were able to formulate Japanese-specific clinical practice guidelines that are tailored to the Japanese context in a highly transparent manner. These guidelines can easily be used not only by specialists, but also by non-specialists, general clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, clinical engineers, and other healthcare professionals.
-
Critical Care 21(1) 320-320 2017年12月21日 査読有り
-
INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE 43(6) 949-951 2017年6月 査読有り
-
UNITED EUROPEAN GASTROENTEROLOGY JOURNAL 5(3) 389-397 2017年4月 査読有り
-
Critical Care Medicine 45(3) e329-e330 2017年3月1日 査読有り
-
Journal of Intensive Care 5(1) 2017年 査読有り
-
Annals of the American Thoracic Society 14(1) 149-150 2017年1月 査読有り
-
Critical Care Medicine 45(6) e617 2017年 査読有り
MISC
459書籍等出版物
6
講演・口頭発表等
39所属学協会
5-
2012年8月 - 現在
共同研究・競争的資金等の研究課題
3-
日本学術振興会 科学研究費助成事業 基盤研究(C) 2021年4月 - 2026年3月
-
日本学術振興会 科学研究費助成事業 基盤研究(C) 2019年4月 - 2024年3月
-
日本学術振興会 科学研究費助成事業 2017年4月 - 2019年3月