Restriction of Intravenous Fluid in ICU Patients with Septic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous fluids are recommended for the treatment of patients who are in septic shock, but higher fluid volumes have been associated with harm in patients who are in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: In this international, randomized trial, we assigned patients with septic shock in the ICU who had received at least 1 liter of intravenous fluid to receive restricted intravenous fluid or standard intravenous fluid therapy; patients were included if the onset of shock had been within 12 hours before screening. The primary outcome was death from any cause within 90 days after randomization. RESULTS: We enrolled 1554 patients; 770 were assigned to the restrictive-fluid group and 784 to the standard-fluid group. Primary outcome data were available for 1545 patients (99.4%). In the ICU, the restrictive-fluid group received a median of 1798 ml of intravenous fluid (interquartile range, 500 to 4366); the standard-fluid group received a median of 3811 ml (interquartile range, 1861 to 6762). At 90 days, death had occurred in 323 of 764 patients (42.3%) in the restrictive-fluid group, as compared with 329 of 781 patients (42.1%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.7 to 4.9; P = 0.96). In the ICU, serious adverse events occurred at least once in 221 of 751 patients (29.4%) in the restrictive-fluid group and in 238 of 772 patients (30.8%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, -1.7 percentage points; 99% CI, -7.7 to 4.3). At 90 days after randomization, the numbers of days alive without life support and days alive and out of the hospital were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among adult patients with septic shock in the ICU, intravenous fluid restriction did not result in fewer deaths at 90 days than standard intravenous fluid therapy. (Funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and others; CLASSIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03668236.).

COVID-19 versus influenza A/B supeRInfectionS in the IntenSive care unit (CRISIS): Protocol for a Danish nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Superinfection following viral infection is a known complication, which may lead to longer hospitalisation and worse outcome. Empirical antibiotic therapy may prevent bacterial superinfections, but may also lead to overuse, adverse effects and development of resistant pathogens. Knowledge about the incidence of superinfections in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. METHODS: We will conduct a nationwide cohort study comparing the incidence of superinfections in patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to the ICU compared with ICU patients with influenza A/B in Denmark. We will include approximately 1000 patients in each group from the time period of 1 October 2014 to 30 April 2019 and from 10 March 2020 to 1 March 2021 for patients with influenza and COVID-19, respectively. The primary outcome is any superinfection within 90 days of admission to the ICU. We will use logistic regression analysis comparing COVID-19 with influenza A/B after adjustment for relevant predefined confounders. Secondarily, we will use unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression analyses to assess six potential risk factors (sex, age, cancer [including haematological], immunosuppression and use of life support on day 1 in the ICU) for superinfections and compare outcomes in patients with COVID-19 with/without superinfections, and present descriptive data regarding the superinfections. CONCLUSION: This study will provide important knowledge about superinfections in ICU patients with severe COVID-19.

A new tool to assess Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM) of interventions.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM), a new tool for assessing clinical diversity between trials in meta-analyses of interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The development of CDIM was based on consensus work informed by empirical literature and expertise. We drafted the CDIM tool, refined it, and validated CDIM for interrater scale reliability and agreement in three groups. RESULTS: CDIM measures clinical diversity on a scale that includes four domains with 11 items overall: setting (time of conduct/country development status/units type); population (age, sex, patient inclusion criteria/baseline disease severity, comorbidities); interventions (intervention intensity/strength/duration of intervention, timing, control intervention, cointerventions); and outcome (definition of outcome, timing of outcome assessment). The CDIM is completed in two steps: first two authors independently assess clinical diversity in the four domains. Second, after agreeing upon scores of individual items a consensus score is achieved. Interrater scale reliability and agreement ranged from moderate to almost perfect depending on the type of raters. CONCLUSION: CDIM is the first tool developed for assessing clinical diversity in meta-analyses of interventions. We found CDIM to be a reliable tool for assessing clinical diversity among trials in meta-analysis.

Effects of shorter versus longer storage time of transfused red blood cells in adult ICU patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

PURPOSE: Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) are often transfused with red blood cells (RBC). During storage, the RBCs and storage medium undergo changes, which may have clinical consequences. Several trials now have assessed these consequences, and we reviewed the present evidence on the effects of shorter versus longer storage time of transfused RBCs on outcomes in ICU patients. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (TSA) of randomised clinical trials including adult ICU patients transfused with fresher versus older or standard issue blood. RESULTS: We included seven trials with a total of 18,283 randomised ICU patients; two trials of 7504 patients were judged to have low risk of bias. We observed no effects of fresher versus older blood on death (relative risk 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97-1.11; 7349 patients; TSA-adjusted CI 0.93-1.15), adverse events (1.26, 0.76-2.09; 7332 patients; TSA-adjusted CI 0.16-9.87) or post-transfusion infections (1.07, 0.96-1.20; 7332 patients; TSA-adjusted CI 0.90-1.27). The results were unchanged by including trials with high risk of bias. TSA confirmed the results and the required information size was reached for mortality for a relative risk change of 20%. CONCLUSIONS: We may be able to reject a clinically meaningful effect of RBC storage time on mortality in transfused adult ICU patients as our trial sequential analyses reject a 10% relative risk change in death when comparing fresher versus older blood for transfusion.