Protocol implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic: experiences from a randomized trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many intensive care units (ICUs) halted research to focus on COVID-19-specific studies. OBJECTIVE: To describe the conduct of an international randomized trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis (Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions in the ICU [REVISE]) during the pandemic, addressing enrolment patterns, center engagement, informed consent processes, data collection, a COVID-specific substudy, patient transfers, and data monitoring. METHODS: REVISE is a randomized trial among mechanically ventilated patients, comparing pantoprazole 40 mg IV to placebo on the primary efficacy outcome of clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding and the primary safety outcome of 90-day mortality. We documented protocol implementation status from March 11th 2020-August 30th 2022. RESULTS: The Steering Committee did not change the scientific protocol. From the first enrolment on July 9th 2019 to March 10th 2020 (8 months preceding the pandemic), 267 patients were enrolled in 18 centers. From March 11th 2020-August 30th 2022 (30 months thereafter), 41 new centers joined; 59 were participating by August 30th 2022 which enrolled 2961 patients. During a total of 1235 enrolment-months in the pandemic phase, enrolment paused for 106 (8.6%) months in aggregate (median 3 months, interquartile range 2;6). Protocol implementation involved a shift from the a priori consent model pre-pandemic (188, 58.8%) to the consent to continue model (1615, 54.1%, p < 0.01). In one new center, an opt-out model was approved. The informed consent rate increased slightly (80.7% to 85.0%, p = 0.05). Telephone consent encounters increased (16.6% to 68.2%, p < 0.001). Surge capacity necessitated intra-institutional transfers; receiving centers continued protocol implementation whenever possible. We developed a nested COVID-19 substudy. The Methods Centers continued central statistical monitoring of trial metrics. Site monitoring was initially remote, then in-person when restrictions lifted. CONCLUSION: Protocol implementation adaptations during the pandemic included a shift in the consent model, a sustained high consent rate, and launch of a COVID-19 substudy. Recruitment increased as new centers joined, patient transfers were optimized, and monitoring methods were adapted.

A survey of Australian public opinion on using comorbidity to triage intensive care patients in a pandemic.

ObjectivesThis study aimed to determine which method to triage intensive care patients using chronic comorbidity in a pandemic was perceived to be the fairest by the general public. Secondary objectives were to determine whether the public perceived it fair to provide preferential intensive care triage to vulnerable or disadvantaged people, and frontline healthcare workers.MethodsA postal survey of 2000 registered voters randomly selected from the Australian Electoral Commission electoral roll was performed. The main outcome measures were respondents' fairness rating of four hypothetical intensive care triage methods that assess comorbidity (chronic medical conditions, long-term survival, function and frailty); and respondents' fairness rating of providing preferential triage to vulnerable or disadvantaged people, and frontline healthcare workers.ResultsThe proportion of respondents who considered it fair to triage based on chronic medical conditions, long-term survival, function and frailty, was 52.1, 56.1, 65.0 and 62.4%, respectively. The proportion of respondents who considered it unfair to triage based on these four comorbidities was 31.9, 30.9, 23.8 and 23.2%, respectively. More respondents considered it unfair to preferentially triage vulnerable or disadvantaged people, than fair (41.8% versus 21.2%). More respondents considered it fair to preferentially triage frontline healthcare workers, than unfair (44.2% versus 30.0%).ConclusionRespondents in this survey perceived all four hypothetical methods to triage intensive care patients based on comorbidity in a pandemic disaster to be fair. However, the sizable minority who consider this to be unfair indicates that these triage methods could encounter significant opposition if they were to be enacted in health policy.

Intensive care utilisation after elective surgery in Australia and New Zealand: A point prevalence study.

Objective: We aimed to describe the characteristics, outcomes and resource utilisation of patients being cared for in an ICU after undergoing elective surgery in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ). Methods: This was a point prevalence study involving 51 adult ICUs in ANZ in June 2021. Patients met inclusion criteria if they were being treated in a participating ICU on he study dates. Patients were categorised according to whether they had undergone elective surgery, admitted directly from theatre or unplanned from the ward. Descriptive and comparative analysis was performed according to the source of ICU admission. Resource utilisation was measured by Length of stay, organ support and occupied bed days. Results: 712 patients met inclusion criteria, with 172 (24%) have undergone elective surgery. Of these, 136 (19%) were admitted directly to the ICU and 36 (5.1%) were an unplanned admission from the ward. Elective surgical patients occupied 15.8% of the total ICU patient bed days, of which 44.3% were following unplanned admissions. Elective surgical patients who were an unplanned admission from the ward, compared to those admitted directly from theatre, had a higher severity of illness (AP2 17 vs 13, p<0.01), require respiratory or vasopressor support (75% vs 44%, p<0.01) and hospital mortality (16.7% vs 2.2%, p < 0.01). Conclusions: ICU resource utilisation of patients who have undergone elective surgery is substantial. Those patients admitted directly from theatre have good outcomes and low resource utilisation. Patient admitted unplanned from the ward, although fewer, were sicker, more resource intensive and had significantly worse outcomes.

European Society of Intensive Care Medicine clinical practice guideline on fluid therapy in adult critically ill patients. Part 1: the choice of resuscitation fluids.

PURPOSE: This is the first of three parts of the clinical practice guideline from the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) on resuscitation fluids in adult critically ill patients. This part addresses fluid choice and the other two will separately address fluid amount and fluid removal. METHODS: This guideline was formulated by an international panel of clinical experts and methodologists. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was applied to evaluate the certainty of evidence and to move from evidence to decision. RESULTS: For volume expansion, the guideline provides conditional recommendations for using crystalloids rather than albumin in critically ill patients in general (moderate certainty of evidence), in patients with sepsis (moderate certainty of evidence), in patients with acute respiratory failure (very low certainty of evidence) and in patients in the perioperative period and patients at risk for bleeding (very low certainty of evidence). There is a conditional recommendation for using isotonic saline rather than albumin in patients with traumatic brain injury (very low certainty of evidence). There is a conditional recommendation for using albumin rather than crystalloids in patients with cirrhosis (very low certainty of evidence). The guideline provides conditional recommendations for using balanced crystalloids rather than isotonic saline in critically ill patients in general (low certainty of evidence), in patients with sepsis (low certainty of evidence) and in patients with kidney injury (very low certainty of evidence). There is a conditional recommendation for using isotonic saline rather than balanced crystalloids in patients with traumatic brain injury (very low certainty of evidence). There is a conditional recommendation for using isotonic crystalloids rather than small-volume hypertonic crystalloids in critically ill patients in general (very low certainty of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: This guideline provides eleven recommendations to inform clinicians on resuscitation fluid choice in critically ill patients.

Proton pump inhibitors for gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: A systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the most commonly prescribed drugs for preventing upper gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. However, concerns have arisen about the possible harms of using PPIs, including potentially increased risk of pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile infection, and more seriously, an increased risk of death in the most severely ill patients. Triggered by the REVISE trial, which is a forthcoming large randomized trial comparing pantoprazole to placebo in invasively mechanically ventilated patients, we will conduct this systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PPIs versus no prophylaxis for critically ill patients. METHODS: We will systematically search randomized trials that compared gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs versus placebo or no prophylaxis in adults in the intensive care unit (ICU). Pairs of reviewers will independently screen the literature, and for those eligible trials, extract data and assess risk of bias. We will perform meta-analyses using a random-effects model, and calculate relative risks for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes, and the associated 95% confidence intervals. We will conduct subgroup analysis to explore whether the impact of PPIs on mortality differs in more and less severely ill patients. We will assess certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will provide the most up-to-date evidence regarding the merits and limitations of stress ulcer prophylaxis with PPIs in critically ill patients in contemporary practice.

Quantifying the Impact of Alternative Definitions of Sepsis-Associated Acute Kidney Injury on its Incidence and Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To derive a pooled estimate of the incidence and outcomes of sepsis-associated acute kidney injury (SA-AKI) in ICU patients and to explore the impact of differing definitions of SA-AKI on these estimates. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Medline Epub, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL between 1990 and 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials and prospective cohort studies of adults admitted to the ICU with either sepsis and/or SA-AKI. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted in duplicate. Risk of bias was assessed using adapted standard tools. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed by using a single covariate logistic regression model. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants in ICU with sepsis who developed AKI. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 189 studies met inclusion criteria. One hundred fifty-four reported an incidence of SA-AKI, including 150,978 participants. The pooled proportion of patients who developed SA-AKI across all definitions was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.37-0.42) and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.48-0.56) when only the Risk Injury Failure Loss End-Stage, Acute Kidney Injury Network, and Improving Global Outcomes definitions were used to define SA-AKI. There was significant variation in the incidence of SA-AKI depending on the definition of AKI used and whether AKI defined by urine output criteria was included; the incidence was lowest when receipt of renal replacement therapy was used to define AKI (0.26; 95% CI, 0.24-0.28), and highest when the Acute Kidney Injury Network score was used (0.57; 95% CI, 0.45-0.69; p < 0.01). Sixty-seven studies including 29,455 participants reported at least one SA-AKI outcome. At final follow-up, the proportion of patients with SA-AKI who had died was 0.48 (95% CI, 0.43-0.53), and the proportion of surviving patients who remained on dialysis was 0.10 (95% CI, 0.04-0.17). CONCLUSIONS: SA-AKI is common in ICU patients with sepsis and carries a high risk of death and persisting kidney impairment. The incidence and outcomes of SA-AKI vary significantly depending on the definition of AKI used.

Empirical carbapenems or piperacillin/tazobactam for infections in intensive care: An international retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICU) are frequently administered broad-spectrum antibiotics (e.g., carbapenems or piperacillin/tazobactam) for suspected or confirmed infections. This retrospective cohort study aimed to describe the use of carbapenems and piperacillin/tazobactam in two international, prospectively collected datasets. METHODS: We conducted a post hoc analysis of data from the "Adjunctive Glucocorticoid Therapy in Patients with Septic Shock" (ADRENAL) trial (n = 3713) and the "Antimicrobial de-escalation in the critically ill patient and assessment of clinical cure" (DIANA) study (n = 1488). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients receiving initial antibiotic treatment with carbapenems and piperacillin/tazobactam. Secondary outcomes included mortality, days alive and out of ICU and ICU length of stay at 28 days. RESULTS: In the ADRENAL trial, carbapenems were used in 648 out of 3713 (17%), whereas piperacillin/tazobactam was used in 1804 out of 3713 (49%) participants. In the DIANA study, carbapenems were used in 380 out of 1480 (26%), while piperacillin/tazobactam was used in 433 out of 1488 (29%) participants. Mortality at 28 days was 23% for patients receiving carbapenems and 24% for those receiving piperacillin/tazobactam in ADRENAL and 23% and 19%, respectively, in DIANA. We noted variations in secondary outcomes; in DIANA, patients receiving carbapenems had a median of 13 days alive and out of ICU compared with 18 days among those receiving piperacillin/tazobactam. In ADRENAL, the median hospital length of stay was 27 days for patients receiving carbapenems and 21 days for those receiving piperacillin/tazobactam. CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis of ICU patients with infections, we found widespread initial use of carbapenems and piperacillin/tazobactam in international ICUs, with the latter being more frequently used. Randomized clinical trials are needed to assess if the observed variations in outcomes may be drug-related effects or due to confounders.

Heterogeneity of treatment effect of higher dose dexamethasone by geographic region (Europe vs. India) in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia - a post hoc evaluation of the COVID STEROID 2 trial.

Background: In the COVID-STEROID 2 trial there was suggestion of heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) between patients enrolled from Europe vs. India on the primary outcome. Whether there was HTE for the remaining patient-centred outcomes is unclear. Methods: In this post hoc analysis of the COVID-STEROID 2 trial, which compared 12 mg vs. 6 mg dexamethasone in adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, we evaluated HTE by geographical region (Europe vs. India) for secondary outcomes with analyses adjusted for stratification variables. Results are presented as risk differences (RDs) or mean differences (MDs) with 99% confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values from interaction tests. Findings: There were differences in mortality at day 28 (RD for Europe -8.3% (99% CI: -17.7 to 1.0) vs. India 0.1% (99% CI: -10.0 to 10.0)), mortality at day 90 (RD for Europe -7.4% (99% CI: -17.1 to 2.0) vs. India -1.4% (99% CI: -12.8 to 9.8)), mortality at day 180 (RD for Europe -6.7% (99% CI: -16.4 to 2.9) vs. India -1.0% (99% CI: -12.3 to 10.3)), and number of days alive without life support at day 90 (MD for Europe 6.1 days (99% CI: -1.3 to 13.4) vs. India 1.7 days (99% CI: -8.4 to 11.8)). For serious adverse reactions, the direction was reversed (RD for Europe -1.0% (99% CI: -7.1 to 5.2) vs. India -5.3% (99% CI: -16.2 to 5.0). Interpretation: Our analysis suggests higher dose dexamethasone may have less beneficial effects for patients in India as compared with those in Europe; however, the evidence is weak, and this could represent a chance finding. Funding: None for this analysis. The COVID STEROID 2 trial was funded by The Novo Nordisk Foundation and supported by Rigshospitalet's Research Council.

2024 Focused Update: Guidelines on Use of Corticosteroids in Sepsis, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, and Community-Acquired Pneumonia.

RATIONALE: New evidence is available examining the use of corticosteroids in sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), warranting a focused update of the 2017 guideline on critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency. OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for use of corticosteroids in hospitalized adults and children with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP. PANEL DESIGN: The 22-member panel included diverse representation from medicine, including adult and pediatric intensivists, pulmonologists, endocrinologists, nurses, pharmacists, and clinician-methodologists with expertise in developing evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines. We followed Society of Critical Care Medicine conflict of interest policies in all phases of the guideline development, including task force selection and voting. METHODS: After development of five focused Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes (PICO) questions, we conducted systematic reviews to identify the best available evidence addressing each question. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and formulated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. RESULTS: In response to the five PICOs, the panel issued four recommendations addressing the use of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP. These included a conditional recommendation to administer corticosteroids for patients with septic shock and critically ill patients with ARDS and a strong recommendation for use in hospitalized patients with severe CAP. The panel also recommended against high dose/short duration administration of corticosteroids for septic shock. In response to the final PICO regarding type of corticosteroid molecule in ARDS, the panel was unable to provide specific recommendations addressing corticosteroid molecule, dose, and duration of therapy, based on currently available evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The panel provided updated recommendations based on current evidence to inform clinicians, patients, and other stakeholders on the use of corticosteroids for sepsis, ARDS, and CAP.

The feasibility and acceptability of a physician-led ICU follow-up service: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Increased recognition of post-intensive care syndrome has led to widespread development of intensive care follow-up services internationally. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility and acceptability of an intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up clinic in Australia for patients and their caregivers and to describe satisfaction with this service. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study in a mixed tertiary ICU in Australia. Eligible patients were adults admitted to the ICU for 7 days or more and/or ventilated for 48 h or more, as well as their primary caregiver. Patients and their primary caregivers were invited to attend a follow-up clinic 4-8 weeks after hospital discharge. The clinic appointment was attended by an ICU physician and nurse, with multidisciplinary support. Feasibility and acceptability were defined as the proportion of clinic attendance and frequency of interventions initiated at the clinic. Satisfaction was measured by a 5-point satisfaction survey (very dissatisfied to very satisfied). The burden of ongoing disease was reported via multiple validated instruments. RESULTS: From April 2020-July 2021, 386 patients met the inclusion criteria. Only 146 patients were approached for consent due to site staffing limitations. Eighty-three patients and 32 caregivers consented to attend the clinic. Seventy percent (54/77) of patients attended scheduled appointments and 50% (16/32) of caregivers. For patients, 23 medical referrals were made, 8 patients had medication changes, and 10 patients were offered social work support. Satisfaction surveys were completed by 65% (35/54) of attending patients; 97% (34) patients reported either being 'very satisfied' or 'satisfied' with the service. All responding caregivers (10) were either 'very satisfied' or 'satisfied' with the clinic. CONCLUSION: There were a large number of patients meeting the inclusion criteria to the ICU follow-up clinic, and clinic attendance was moderate for patients but lower for caregivers. Reported satisfaction with the service was high for both patients and their caregiver.

Perceptions of gender equity among critical care and other health professionals: A cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the association between gender and perceived gender equity in the critical care workforce and other health specialties. DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted an online cross-sectional survey between September and November 2020. Data on demographics and perceptions of equity including the representation of women across departments and in leadership roles, knowledge of and access to flexible work practices and carers leave, and opportunities for promotion were collected. PARTICIPANTS: The study population included health professionals from critical care (defined as intensive care and emergency) and other specialties. We conducted a descriptive gender-disaggregated analysis. RESULTS: A total of 478 respondents (70% women) completed the survey. The mean age of respondents was 43.9 ± 11.2 years. Approximately half of respondents were medical practitioners (n = 235, 54%), followed by nurses (n = 135, 36%)-the remainder were from other professions. The critical care workforce accounted for 280 (64%) of responder practice settings. Statistically significant differences were reported between genders on issues such as having confidence that their department would resolve equity issues (87 [70.7%] men vs. 146 [48.2%] women; p = 0.007), access to flexible work practices (5/124 [4.0%] men vs. 20/305 [6.6%] women p = 0.001), and taking unpaid leave for carer responsibilities (91 [30.3%] women vs 9 [7.4%] men, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This work highlights differences in how men and women perceive gender equity, particularly in the critical care workforce. These findings are important to understand health care practitioners' perceptions of gender equity, as these perceptions inform behaviour.

How often are infusion sets for central venous catheters changed in Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Units? A point prevalence survey.

BACKGROUND: Infusion sets (comprising the tubing, measuring burettes, fluid containers, transducers) that are connected to invasive vascular devices are changed on a regular basis in an effort to reduce bacterial colonisation and bloodstream infection. There is a balance between reducing infection and creating unnecessary waste. Current evidence suggests that for central venous catheters (CVCs), changing infusion sets at 7 days does not increase infection risks. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to describe the current unit guidelines in Australian and New Zealand intensive care units (ICUs) for changing infusion sets for CVCs. METHODS: prospective cross-sectional point prevalence study, as a part of the 2021 Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Point Prevalence Program. PARTICIPANTS: Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) adult ICUs and their patients on the day of the study. RESULTS: Data were collected from 51 ICUs across ANZ. One-third of these (16/49) ICUs had a guideline that specified a 7-day replacement period, with the rest having a more frequent replacement period. CONCLUSION: Most ICUs participating in this survey had policies to change their CVC infusion tubing in 3-4 days, and recent high-level evidence supports an update to extend this to 7 days. There remains work to be done to spread this evidence to ANZ ICUs and improve environmental sustainability initiatives.

Balanced crystalloids versus saline for critically ill patients (BEST-Living): a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The effect of balanced crystalloids compared with that of saline in critically ill patients overall and in specific subgroups is unclear. We aimed to assess whether use of balanced solutions, compared with 0·9% sodium chloride (saline), decreased in-hospital mortality in adult patients in intensive care units (ICUs). METHODS: For this systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases from inception until March 1, 2022 (updated Sept 1, 2023) for individually randomised and cluster-randomised trials comparing balanced solutions with saline for adult patients in the ICU. Eligible trials were those that allocated patients to receive balanced solutions or saline for fluid resuscitation and maintenance fluids, or for maintenance fluids only; and administered the allocated fluid throughout ICU admission or, for trials using landmark mortality as their primary outcome, until the timepoint at which mortality was assessed (if ≥28 days). Authors of eligible trials were contacted to request individual patient data. Data obtained from eligible trials were merged, checked for accuracy, and centrally analysed by use of Bayesian regression models. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Prespecified subgroups included patients with traumatic brain injury. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022299282). FINDINGS: Our search identified 5219 records, yielding six eligible randomised controlled trials. Data obtained for 34 685 participants from the six trials, 17 407 assigned to receive balanced crystalloids and 17 278 to receive saline, were included in the analysis. The mean age of participants was 58·8 years (SD 17·5). Of 34 653 participants with available data, 14 579 (42·1%) were female and 20 074 (57·9%) were male. Among patients who provided consent to report in-hospital mortality, 2907 (16·8%) of 17 313 assigned balanced solutions and 2975 (17·3%) of 17 166 assigned saline died in hospital (odds ratio [OR] 0·962 [95% CrI 0·909 to 1·019], absolute difference -0·4 percentage points [-1·5 to 0·2]). The posterior probability that balanced solutions reduced mortality was 0·895. In patients with traumatic brain injury, 191 (19·1%) of 999 assigned balanced and 141 (14·7%) of 962 assigned saline died (OR 1·424 [1·100 to 1·818], absolute difference 3·2 percentage points [0·7 to 8·7]). The probability that balanced solutions increased mortality in patients with traumatic brain injury was 0·975. In an independent risk of bias assessment, two trials were deemed to be at low risk of bias and four at high risk of bias. INTERPRETATION: The probability that using balanced solutions in the ICU reduces in-hospital mortality is high, although the certainty of the evidence was moderate and the absolute risk reduction was small. In patients with traumatic brain injury, using balanced solutions was associated with increased in-hospital mortality. FUNDING: HCor (Brazil) and The George Institute for Global Health (Australia).

Selective digestive tract decontamination in critically ill adults with acute brain injuries: a post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine whether selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) reduces in-hospital mortality in mechanically ventilated critically ill adults admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with acute brain injuries or conditions. METHODS: We carried out a post hoc analysis from a crossover, cluster randomized clinical trial. ICUs were randomly assigned to adopt or not to adopt a SDD strategy for two alternating 12-month periods, separated by a 3-month inter-period gap. Patients in the SDD group (n = 2791; 968 admitted to the ICU with an acute brain injury) received a 6-hourly application of an oral paste and administration of a gastric suspension containing colistin, tobramycin, and nystatin for the duration of mechanical ventilation, plus a 4-day course of an intravenous antibiotic with a suitable antimicrobial spectrum. Patients in the control group (n = 3191; 1093 admitted to the ICU with an acute brain injury) received standard care. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality within 90 days. There were four secondary clinical outcomes: death in ICU, ventilator-, ICU- and hospital-free days to day 90. RESULTS: Of 2061 patients with acute brain injuries (mean age, 55.8 years; 36.4% women), all completed the trial. In patients with acute brain injuries, there were 313/968 (32.3%) and 415/1093 (38%) in-hospital deaths in the SDD and standard care groups (unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-0.92; p = 0.004). The use of SDD was associated with statistically significant improvements in the four clinical secondary outcomes compared to standard care. There was no significant heterogeneity of treatment effect between patients with and without acute brain injuries (interaction p = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial in critically ill patients with acute brain injuries receiving mechanical ventilation, the use of SDD significantly reduced in-hospital mortality in patients compared to standard care without SDD. These findings require confirmation.

EARLY PERSISTENT LYMPHOPENIA AND RISK OF DEATH IN CRITICALLY ILL PATIENTS WITH AND WITHOUT SEPSIS.

ABSTRACT: Purpose: To examine the relationship of early persistent lymphopenia with hospital survival in critically ill patients with and without sepsis to assess whether it can be considered a treatable trait. Methods: Retrospective database analysis of patients with nonelective admission to intensive care units (ICUs) during January 2015 to December 2018. Patients were classified as having sepsis if the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III admission diagnostic code included sepsis or coded for an infection combined with a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of ≥2. We defined early persistent lymphopenia at two thresholds (absolute lymphocyte count [ALC] <1.0 and <0.75 × 10 9 /L) based on two qualifying values recorded during the first 4 days in ICU. The main outcome measure was time to in-hospital death. Results: Of 8,507 eligible patients, 7,605 (89.4%) had two ALCs recorded during their first 4 days in ICU; of these, 1,482 (19.5%) had sepsis. Persistent lymphopenia (ALC <1.0) was present in 728 of 1,482 (49.1%) and 2,302 of 6,123 (37.6%) patients with and without sepsis, respectively. For ALC <0.75, the results were 487 of 1,482 (32.9%) and 1,125 of 6,123 (18.4%), respectively. Of 3,030 patients with persistent lymphopenia (ALC <1.0), 562 (18.5%) died compared with 439 of 4,575 (9.6%) without persistent lymphopenia. Persistent lymphopenia was an independent risk factor for in-hospital death in all patients. The hazard ratios for death at ALC <1.0 were 1.89 (95% confidence interval, 1.32-2.71; P = 0.0005) and 1.17 (95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.35; P = 0.0246) in patients with and without sepsis respectively. Conclusions: Early persistent lymphopenia is common in critically ill patients and associated with increased risk of death in patients with and without sepsis. Although the association is stronger in patients with sepsis, lymphopenia is a candidate to be considered a treatable trait; drugs that reverse lymphopenia should be trialed in critically ill patients.

REVISE: re-evaluating the inhibition of stress erosions in the ICU-statistical analysis plan for a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The REVISE (Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions in the ICU) trial will evaluate the impact of the proton pump inhibitor pantoprazole compared to placebo in invasively ventilated critically ill patients. OBJECTIVE: To outline the statistical analysis plan for the REVISE trial. METHODS: REVISE is a randomized clinical trial ongoing in intensive care units (ICUs) internationally. Patients ≥ 18 years old, receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, and expected to remain ventilated beyond the calendar day after randomization are allocated to either 40 mg pantoprazole intravenously or placebo while mechanically ventilated. RESULTS: The primary efficacy outcome is clinically important upper GI bleeding; the primary safety outcome is 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes are ventilator-associated pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile infection, new renal replacement therapy, ICU and hospital mortality, and patient-important GI bleeding. Tertiary outcomes are total red blood cells transfused, peak serum creatinine concentration, and duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU, and hospital length of stay. Following an interim analysis of results from 2400 patients (50% of 4800 target sample size), the data monitoring committee recommended continuing enrolment. CONCLUSIONS: This statistical analysis plan outlines the statistical analyses of all outcomes, sensitivity analyses, and subgroup analyses. REVISE will inform clinical practice and guidelines worldwide. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov NCT03374800. November 21, 2017.

Intensive glucose control in critically ill adults: a protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis / Controle intensivo da glicose em adultos em estado grave: um protocolo de revisão sistemática e metanálise de dados individuais de pacientes

ABSTRACT Objective: The optimal target for blood glucose concentration in critically ill patients is unclear. We will perform a systematic review and meta-analysis with aggregated and individual patient data from randomized controlled trials, comparing intensive glucose control with liberal glucose control in critically ill adults. Data sources: MEDLINE®, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, and clinical trials registries (World Health Organization, clinical trials.gov). The authors of eligible trials will be invited to provide individual patient data. Published trial-level data from eligible trials that are not at high risk of bias will be included in an aggregated data meta-analysis if individual patient data are not available. Methods: Inclusion criteria: randomized controlled trials that recruited adult patients, targeting a blood glucose of ≤ 120mg/dL (≤ 6.6mmol/L) compared to a higher blood glucose concentration target using intravenous insulin in both groups. Excluded studies: those with an upper limit blood glucose target in the intervention group of > 120mg/dL (> 6.6mmol/L), or where intensive glucose control was only performed in the intraoperative period, and those where loss to follow-up exceeded 10% by hospital discharge. Primary endpoint: In-hospital mortality during index hospital admission. Secondary endpoints: mortality and survival at other timepoints, duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, vasoactive agents, and renal replacement therapy. A random effect Bayesian meta-analysis and hierarchical Bayesian models for individual patient data will be used. Discussion: This systematic review with aggregate and individual patient data will address the clinical question, 'what is the best blood glucose target for critically ill patients overall?' Protocol version 0.4 - 06/26/2023 PROSPERO registration: CRD42021278869

RESUMO Objetivo: Não está claro qual é a meta ideal de concentração de glicose no sangue em pacientes em estado grave. Realizaremos uma revisão sistemática e uma metanálise com dados agregados e de pacientes individuais de estudos controlados e randomizados, comparando o controle intensivo da glicose com o controle liberal da glicose em adultos em estado grave. Fontes de dados: MEDLINE®, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials e registros de ensaios clínicos (Organização Mundial da Saúde, clinical trials.gov). Os autores dos estudos qualificados serão convidados a fornecer dados individuais de pacientes. Os dados publicados em nível de ensaio qualificado que não apresentem alto risco de viés serão incluídos em uma metanálise de dados agregados se os dados individuais de pacientes não estiverem disponíveis. Métodos: Critérios de inclusão: ensaios clínicos controlados e randomizados que recrutaram pacientes adultos, com meta de glicemia ≤ 120mg/dL (≤ 6,6mmol/L) comparada a uma meta de concentração de glicemia mais alta com insulina intravenosa em ambos os grupos. Estudos excluídos: aqueles com meta de glicemia no limite superior no grupo de intervenção > 120mg/dL (> 6,6mmol/L), ou em que o controle intensivo de glicose foi realizado apenas no período intraoperatório, e aqueles em que a perda de seguimento excedeu 10% até a alta hospitalar. Desfecho primário: Mortalidade intra-hospitalar durante a admissão hospitalar. Desfechos secundários: Mortalidade e sobrevida em outros momentos, duração da ventilação mecânica invasiva, agentes vasoativos e terapia de substituição renal. Utilizaremos metanálise bayesiana de efeito randômico e modelos bayesianos hierárquicos para dados individuais de pacientes. Discussão: Essa revisão sistemática com dados agregados e de pacientes individuais abordará a questão clínica: Qual é a melhor meta de glicose no sangue de pacientes graves em geral? Protocolo versão 0.4 - 26/06/2023 Registro PROSPERO: CRD42021278869