Furosemide versus placebo for fluid overload in intensive care patients-The randomised GODIF trial second version: Statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: Fluid overload is associated with increased mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The GODIF trial aims to assess the benefits and harms of fluid removal with furosemide versus placebo in stable adult patients with moderate to severe fluid overload in the ICU. This article describes the detailed statistical analysis plan for the primary results of the second version of the GODIF trial. METHODS: The GODIF trial is an international, multi-centre, randomised, stratified, blinded, parallel-group, pragmatic clinical trial, allocating 1000 adult ICU patients with moderate to severe fluid overload 1:1 to furosemide versus placebo. The primary outcome is days alive and out of hospital within 90 days post-randomisation. With a power of 90% and an alpha level of 5%, we may reject or detect an improvement of 8%. The primary analyses of all outcomes will be performed in the intention-to-treat population. For the primary outcome, the Kryger Jensen and Lange method will be used to compare the two treatment groups adjusted for stratification variables supplemented with sensitivity analyses in the per-protocol population and with further adjustments for prognostic variables. Secondary outcomes will be analysed with multiple linear regressions, logistic regressions or the Kryger Jensen and Lange method as suitable with adjustment for stratification variables. CONCLUSION: The GODIF trial data will increase the certainty about the effects of fluid removal using furosemide in adult ICU patients with fluid overload. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: EudraCT identifier: 2019-004292-40 and ClinicalTrials.org: NCT04180397.

Training non-intensivist doctors to work with COVID-19 patients in intensive care units.

BACKGROUND: Due to an expected surge of COVID-19 patients in need of mechanical ventilation, the intensive care capacity was doubled at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, in March 2020. This resulted in an urgent need for doctors with competence in working with critically ill COVID-19 patients. A training course and a theoretical test for non-intensivist doctors were developed. The aims of this study were to gather validity evidence for the theoretical test and explore the effects of the course. METHODS: The 1-day course was comprised of theoretical sessions and hands-on training in ventilator use, hemodynamic monitoring, vascular access, and use of personal protective equipment. Validity evidence was gathered for the test by comparing answers from novices and experts in intensive care. Doctors who participated in the course completed the test before (pretest), after (posttest), and again within 8 weeks following the course (retention test). RESULTS: Fifty-four non-intensivist doctors from 15 different specialties with a wide range in clinical experience level completed the course. The test consisted of 23 questions and demonstrated a credible pass-fail standard at 16 points. Mean pretest score was 11.9 (SD 3.0), mean posttest score 20.6 (1.8), and mean retention test score 17.4 (2.2). All doctors passed the posttest. CONCLUSION: Non-intensivist doctors, irrespective of experience level, can acquire relevant knowledge for working in the ICU through a focused 1-day evidence-based course. This knowledge was largely retained as shown by a multiple-choice test supported by validity evidence. The test is available in appendix and online.