Lower or higher oxygenation targets in the intensive care unit: an individual patient data meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Optimal oxygenation targets for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in the intensive care unit (ICU) are not clearly defined due to substantial variability in design of previous trials. This study aimed to perform a pre-specified individual patient data meta-analysis of the Handling Oxygenation Targets in the ICU (HOT-ICU) and the Handling Oxygenation Targets in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (HOT-COVID) trials to compare targeting a partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2) of 8-12 kPa in adult ICU patients, assessing both benefits and harms. METHODS: We assessed 90-day all-cause mortality and days alive without life support in 90 days using a generalised mixed model. Heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) was evaluated in 14 subgroups, and results graded using the Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN). RESULTS: At 90 days, mortality was 40.4% (724/1792) in the 8 kPa group and 40.9% (733/1793) in the 12 kPa group (risk ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-1.07; P = 0.80). No difference was observed in number of days alive without life support. Subgroup analyses indicated more days alive without life support in COVID-19 patients targeting 8 kPa (P = 0.04) (moderate credibility), and lower mortality (P = 0.03) and more days alive without life support (P = 0.02) in cancer-patients targeting 12 kPa (low credibility). CONCLUSION: This study reported no overall differences comparing a PaO2 target of 8-12 kPa on mortality or days alive without life support in 90 days. Subgroup analyses suggested HTE in patients with COVID-19 (moderate credibility) and cancer (low credibility).

Effects of a lower versus a higher oxygenation target in intensive care unit patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: a subgroup analysis of a randomised clinical trial.

Background: Oxygen supplementation is ubiquitous in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and acute hypoxaemia, but the optimal oxygenation target has not been established. Methods: This was a pre-planned subgroup analysis of the Handling Oxygenation Targets in the ICU (HOT-ICU) trial, which allocated patients with acute hypoxaemia to a lower oxygenation target (partial pressure of arterial oxygen [Pao2] of 8 kPa) vs a higher target (Pao2 of 12 kPa) during ICU admission, for up to 90 days; the allocation was stratified for presence or absence of COPD. Here, we report key outcomes for patients with COPD. Results: The HOT-ICU trial enrolled 2928 patients of whom 563 had COPD; 277 were allocated to the lower and 286 to the higher oxygenation group. After allocation, the median Pao2 was 9.1 kPa (inter-quartile range 8.7-9.9) in the lower group vs 12.1 kPa (11.2-12.9) in the higher group. Data for arterial carbon dioxide (Paco2) were available for 497 patients (88%) with no between-group difference in time-weighted average; median Paco2 6.0 kPa (5.2-7.2) in the lower group vs 6.2 kPa (5.4-7.3) in the higher group. At 90 days, 122/277 patients (44%) in the lower oxygenation group had died vs 132/285 patients (46%) in the higher (relative risk 0.98; 95% confidence interval 0.82-1.17; P=0.67). No statistically significant differences were found in any secondary outcome. Conclusions: In ICU patients with COPD and acute hypoxaemia, a lower vs a higher oxygenation target did not reduce mortality. There were no between-group differences in Paco2 or in secondary outcomes. Clinical trial registration: NCT03174002, EudraCT number 2017-000632-34.

Lower vs Higher Oxygenation Target and Days Alive Without Life Support in COVID-19: The HOT-COVID Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Supplemental oxygen is ubiquitously used in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, but a lower dose may be beneficial. Objective: To assess the effects of targeting a Pao2 of 60 mm Hg vs 90 mm Hg in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia in the intensive care unit (ICU). Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized clinical trial including 726 adults with COVID-19 receiving at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation in 11 ICUs in Europe from August 2020 to March 2023. The trial was prematurely stopped prior to outcome assessment due to slow enrollment. End of 90-day follow-up was June 1, 2023. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to a Pao2 of 60 mm Hg (lower oxygenation group; n = 365) or 90 mm Hg (higher oxygenation group; n = 361) for up to 90 days in the ICU. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support (mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, or kidney replacement therapy) at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included mortality, proportion of patients with serious adverse events, and number of days alive and out of hospital, all at 90 days. Results: Of 726 randomized patients, primary outcome data were available for 697 (351 in the lower oxygenation group and 346 in the higher oxygenation group). Median age was 66 years, and 495 patients (68%) were male. At 90 days, the median number of days alive without life support was 80.0 days (IQR, 9.0-89.0 days) in the lower oxygenation group and 72.0 days (IQR, 2.0-88.0 days) in the higher oxygenation group (P = .009 by van Elteren test; supplemental bootstrapped adjusted mean difference, 5.8 days [95% CI, 0.2-11.5 days]; P = .04). Mortality at 90 days was 30.2% in the lower oxygenation group and 34.7% in the higher oxygenation group (risk ratio, 0.86 [98.6% CI, 0.66-1.13]; P = .18). There were no statistically significant differences in proportion of patients with serious adverse events or in number of days alive and out of hospital. Conclusion and Relevance: In adult ICU patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, targeting a Pao2 of 60 mm Hg resulted in more days alive without life support in 90 days than targeting a Pao2 of 90 mm Hg. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04425031.

Safety and Efficacy of Midline vs Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters Among Adults Receiving IV Therapy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Midline catheters (MCs) are widely used, but safety and efficacy compared with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) has not been adequately evaluated. Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of MCs with PICCs among adult patients with an anticipated intravenous therapy lasting from 5 to 28 days. Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel, 2-group, open-label, randomized clinical trial (RCT) was conducted in Denmark from October 2018 to February 2022 at a single academic tertiary care center. Adult inpatients and outpatients were consecutively randomized. Intervention: Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the MC group or the PICC control group. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), analyzed using the Fisher exact test. Secondary outcomes were symptomatic catheter-related thrombosis and catheter failure, including mechanical cause, phlebitis, infiltration, pain in relation to drug or fluid administration, and leaking from the puncture site. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated to assess between-group failure rates over device dwell time using Poisson regression. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed. Results: A total of 304 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.6 [13.5] years; 130 [42.8%] female) were included in the analysis, and 152 patients were allocated to each catheter group. The incidence of CRBSI was low, with 0 in the MC group and 1 in the PICC control group (P > .99). The MC group had a higher catheter-related complication rate (20 [13.2%] vs 11 [7.2%]), and an IRR of 2.37 (95% CI, 1.12-5.02; P = .02) for complications compared with the PICC control group. In a post hoc analysis stratified by catheter dwell time, no significant difference in complication rate (IRR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.50-2.68; P = .73) was found between the 2 groups for catheters used less than 16 days. Conclusions and Relevance: In this RCT with patients who received medium- to long-term intravenous therapy, the incidence of CRBSI was low, with no difference between MCs and PICCs. The use of MCs resulted in a higher incidence of catheter-related complications compared with use of PICCs. This finding should be balanced in the decision of type of catheter used at the individual patient level. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04140916.

Higher versus lower oxygenation targets in adult ICU patients: A rapid practice guideline.

The aim of this Intensive Care Medicine Rapid Practice Guideline (ICM-RPG) was to provide evidence-based clinical guidance about the use of higher versus lower oxygenation targets for adult patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). The guideline panel comprised 27 international panelists, including content experts, ICU clinicians, methodologists, and patient representatives. We adhered to the methodology for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines, including the use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of evidence, and used the Evidence-to-Decision framework to generate recommendations. A recently published updated systematic review and meta-analysis constituted the evidence base. Through teleconferences and web-based discussions, the panel provided input on the balance and magnitude of the desirable and undesirable effects, the certainty of evidence, patients' values and preferences, costs and resources, equity, feasibility, acceptability, and research priorities. The updated systematic review and meta-analysis included data from 17 randomized clinical trials with 10,248 participants. There was little to no difference between the use of higher versus lower oxygenation targets for all outcomes with available data, including all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, stroke, functional outcomes, cognition, and health-related quality of life (very low certainty of evidence). The panel felt that values and preferences, costs and resources, and equity favored the use of lower oxygenation targets. The ICM-RPG panel issued one conditional recommendation against the use of higher oxygenation targets: "We suggest against the routine use of higher oxygenation targets in adult ICU patients (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). Remark: an oxygenation target of SpO2 88%-92% or PaO2 8 kPa/60 mmHg is relevant and safe for most adult ICU patients."

Platform trials.

Platform trials focus on the perpetual testing of many interventions in a disease or a setting. These trials have lasting organizational, administrative, data, analytic, and operational frameworks making them highly efficient. The use of adaptation often increases the probabilities of allocating participants to better interventions and obtaining conclusive results. The COVID-19 pandemic showed the potential of platform trials as a fast and valid way to improved treatments. This review gives an overview of key concepts and elements using the Intensive Care Platform Trial (INCEPT) as an example.

Higher versus lower fractions of inspired oxygen or targets of arterial oxygenation for adults admitted to the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated review concerning 'Higher versus lower fractions of inspired oxygen or targets of arterial oxygenation for adults admitted to the intensive care unit'. Supplementary oxygen is provided to most patients in intensive care units (ICUs) to prevent global and organ hypoxia (inadequate oxygen levels). Oxygen has been administered liberally, resulting in high proportions of patients with hyperoxemia (exposure of tissues to abnormally high concentrations of oxygen). This has been associated with increased mortality and morbidity in some settings, but not in others. Thus far, only limited data have been available to inform clinical practice guidelines, and the optimum oxygenation target for ICU patients is uncertain. Because of the publication of new trial evidence, we have updated this review. OBJECTIVES: To update the assessment of benefits and harms of higher versus lower fractions of inspired oxygen (FiO2) or targets of arterial oxygenation for adults admitted to the ICU. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Previews, and LILACS. We searched for ongoing or unpublished trials in clinical trial registers and scanned the reference lists and citations of included trials. Literature searches for this updated review were conducted in November 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared higher versus lower FiO2 or targets of arterial oxygenation (partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2), peripheral or arterial oxygen saturation (SpO2 or SaO2)) for adults admitted to the ICU. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, and language. We excluded trials randomising participants to hypoxaemia (FiO2 below 0.21, SaO2/SpO2 below 80%, or PaO2 below 6 kPa) or to hyperbaric oxygen, and cross-over trials and quasi-randomised trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors independently, and in pairs, screened the references identified in the literature searches and extracted the data. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, the proportion of participants with one or more serious adverse events (SAEs), and quality of life. We analysed all outcomes at maximum follow-up. Only three trials reported the proportion of participants with one or more SAEs as a composite outcome. However, most trials reported on events categorised as SAEs according to the International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP) criteria. We, therefore, conducted two analyses of the effect of higher versus lower oxygenation strategies using 1) the single SAE with the highest reported proportion in each trial, and 2) the cumulated proportion of participants with an SAE in each trial. Two trials reported on quality of life. Secondary outcomes were lung injury, myocardial infarction, stroke, and sepsis. No trial reported on lung injury as a composite outcome, but four trials reported on the occurrence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and five on pneumonia. We, therefore, conducted two analyses of the effect of higher versus lower oxygenation strategies using 1) the single lung injury event with the highest reported proportion in each trial, and 2) the cumulated proportion of participants with ARDS or pneumonia in each trial. We assessed the risk of systematic errors by evaluating the risk of bias in the included trials using the Risk of Bias 2 tool. We used the GRADEpro tool to assess the overall certainty of the evidence. We also evaluated the risk of publication bias for outcomes reported by 10b or more trials. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 RCTs (10,385 participants), of which 17 reported relevant outcomes for this review (10,248 participants). For all-cause mortality, 10 trials were judged to be at overall low risk of bias, and six at overall high risk of bias. For the reported SAEs, 10 trials were judged to be at overall low risk of bias, and seven at overall high risk of bias. Two trials reported on quality of life, of which one was judged to be at overall low risk of bias and one at high risk of bias for this outcome. Meta-analysis of all trials, regardless of risk of bias, indicated no significant difference from higher or lower oxygenation strategies at maximum follow-up with regard to mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (C)I 0.96 to 1.06; I2 = 14%; 16 trials; 9408 participants; very low-certainty evidence); occurrence of SAEs: the highest proportion of any specific SAE in each trial RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.06; I2 = 36%; 9466 participants; 17 trials; very low-certainty evidence), or quality of life (mean difference (MD) 0.5 points in participants assigned to higher oxygenation strategies (95% CI -2.75 to 1.75; I2 = 34%, 1649 participants; 2 trials; very low-certainty evidence)). Meta-analysis of the cumulated number of SAEs suggested benefit of a lower oxygenation strategy (RR 1.04 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.07; I2 = 74%; 9489 participants; 17 trials; very low certainty evidence)). However, trial sequential analyses, with correction for sparse data and repetitive testing, could reject a relative risk increase or reduction of 10% for mortality and the highest proportion of SAEs, and 20% for both the cumulated number of SAEs and quality of life. Given the very low-certainty of evidence, it is necessary to interpret these findings with caution. Meta-analysis of all trials indicated no statistically significant evidence of a difference between higher or lower oxygenation strategies on the occurrence of lung injuries at maximum follow-up (the highest reported proportion of lung injury RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.38; I2 = 0%; 2048 participants; 8 trials; very low-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis of all trials indicated harm from higher oxygenation strategies as compared with lower on the occurrence of sepsis at maximum follow-up (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.93; I2 = 0%; 752 participants; 3 trials; very low-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis indicated no differences regarding the occurrences of myocardial infarction or stroke. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In adult ICU patients, it is still not possible to draw clear conclusions about the effects of higher versus lower oxygenation strategies on all-cause mortality, SAEs, quality of life, lung injuries, myocardial infarction, stroke, and sepsis at maximum follow-up. This is due to low or very low-certainty evidence.

A survey of preferences for respiratory support in the intensive care unit for patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure.

BACKGROUND: When caring for mechanically ventilated adults with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF), clinicians are faced with an uncertain choice between ventilator modes allowing for spontaneous breaths or ventilation fully controlled by the ventilator. The preferences of clinicians managing such patients, and what motivates their choice of ventilator mode, are largely unknown. To better understand how clinicians' preferences may impact the choice of ventilatory support for patients with AHRF, we issued a survey to an international network of intensive care unit (ICU) researchers. METHODS: We distributed an online survey with 32 broadly similar and interlinked questions on how clinicians prioritise spontaneous or controlled ventilation in invasively ventilated patients with AHRF of different severity, and which factors determine their choice. RESULTS: The survey was distributed to 1337 recipients in 12 countries. Of these, 415 (31%) completed the survey either fully (52%) or partially (48%). Most respondents were identified as medical specialists (87%) or physicians in training (11%). Modes allowing for spontaneous ventilation were considered preferable in mild AHRF, with controlled ventilation considered as progressively more important in moderate and severe AHRF. Among respondents there was strong support (90%) for a randomised clinical trial comparing spontaneous with controlled ventilation in patients with moderate AHRF. CONCLUSIONS: The responses from this international survey suggest that there is clinical equipoise for the preferred ventilator mode in patients with AHRF of moderate severity. We found strong support for a randomised trial comparing modes of ventilation in patients with moderate AHRF.

Vasopressin and methylprednisolone and hemodynamics after in-hospital cardiac arrest - A post hoc analysis of the VAM-IHCA trial.

INTRODUCTION: The Vasopressin and Methylprednisolone for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (VAM-IHCA) trial demonstrated a significant improvement in return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) with no clear effect on long-term outcomes. The objective of the current manuscript was to evaluate the hemodynamic effects of intra-cardiac arrest vasopressin and methylprednisolone during the first 24 hours after ROSC. METHODS: The VAM-IHCA trial randomized patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest to a combination of vasopressin and methylprednisolone or placebo during the cardiac arrest. This study is a post hoc analysis focused on the hemodynamic effects of the intervention after ROSC. Post-ROSC data on the administration of glucocorticoids, mean arterial blood pressure, heart rate, blood gases, vasopressor and inotropic therapy, and sedation were collected. Total vasopressor dose between the two groups was calculated based on noradrenaline-equivalent doses for adrenaline, phenylephrine, terlipressin, and vasopressin. RESULTS: The present study included all 186 patients who achieved ROSC in the VAM IHCA-trial of which 100 patients received vasopressin and methylprednisolone and 86 received placebo. The number of patients receiving glucocorticoids during the first 24 hours was 22/86 (26%) in the placebo group and 14/100 (14%) in the methylprednisolone group with no difference in the cumulative hydrocortisone-equivalent dose. There was no significant difference between the groups in the mean cumulative noradrenaline-equivalent dose (vasopressin and methylprednisolone: 603 ug/kg [95CI% 227; 979] vs. placebo: 651 ug/kg [95CI% 296; 1007], mean difference -48 ug/kg [95CI% -140; 42.9], p = 0.30), mean arterial blood pressure, or lactate levels. There was no difference between groups in arterial blood gas values and vital signs. CONCLUSION: Treatment with vasopressin and methylprednisolone during cardiac arrest caused no difference in mean arterial blood pressure, vasopressor use, or arterial blood gases within the first 24 hours after ROSC when compared to placebo.

Long-term outcomes in COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care in Denmark: A nationwide observational study.

BACKGROUND: Among ICU patients with COVID-19, it is largely unknown how the overall outcome and resource use have changed with time, different genetic variants, and vaccination status. METHODS: For all Danish ICU patients with COVID-19 from March 10, 2020 to March 31, 2022, we manually retrieved data on demographics, comorbidities, vaccination status, use of life support, length of stay, and vital status from medical records. We compared patients based on the period of admittance and vaccination status and described changes in epidemiology related to the Omicron variant. RESULTS: Among all 2167 ICU patients with COVID-19, 327 were admitted during the first (March 10-19, 2020), 1053 during the second (May 20, 2020 to June 30, 2021) and 787 during the third wave (July 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022). We observed changes over the three waves in age (median 72 vs. 68 vs. 65 years), use of invasive mechanical ventilation (81% vs. 58% vs. 51%), renal replacement therapy (26% vs. 13% vs. 12%), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (7% vs. 3% vs. 2%), duration of invasive mechanical ventilation (median 13 vs. 13 vs. 9 days) and ICU length of stay (median 13 vs. 10 vs. 7 days). Despite these changes, 90-day mortality remained constant (36% vs. 35% vs. 33%). Vaccination rates among ICU patients were 42% as compared to 80% in society. Unvaccinated versus vaccinated patients were younger (median 57 vs. 73 years), had less comorbidity (50% vs. 78%), and had lower 90-day mortality (29% vs. 51%). Patient characteristics changed significantly after the Omicron variant became dominant including a decrease in the use of COVID-specific pharmacological agents from 95% to 69%. CONCLUSIONS: In Danish ICUs, the use of life support declined, while mortality seemed unchanged throughout the three waves of COVID-19. Vaccination rates were lower among ICU patients than in society, but the selected group of vaccinated patients admitted to the ICU still had very severe disease courses. When the Omicron variant became dominant a lower fraction of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients received COVID treatment indicating other causes for ICU admission.

Pleural effusion and thoracentesis in ICU patients: A longitudinal observational cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Pleural effusion is common among patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) but reported prevalence varies. Thoracentesis may improve respiratory status, however, indications for this are unclear. We aimed to explore prevalence, development, and progression of pleural effusion, and the incidence and effects of thoracentesis in adult ICU patients. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study utilizing repeated daily ultrasonographic assessments of pleurae bilaterally, conducted in all adult patients admitted to the four ICUs of a Danish university hospital throughout a 14-day period. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with ultrasonographically significant pleural effusion (separation between parietal and visceral pleurae >20 mm) in either pleural cavity on any ICU day. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients with ultrasonographically significant pleural effusion receiving thoracentesis in ICU, and the progression of pleural effusion without drainage, among others. The protocol was published before study initiation. RESULTS: In total, 81 patients were included of which 25 (31%) had or developed ultrasonographically significant pleural effusion. Thoracentesis was performed in 10 of these 25 patients (40%). Patients with ultrasonographically significant pleural effusion, which was not drained, had an overall decrease in estimated pleural effusion volume on subsequent days. CONCLUSION: Pleural effusion was common in the ICU, but less than half of all patients with ultrasonographically significant pleural effusion underwent thoracentesis. Progression of pleural effusion without thoracentesis showed reduced volumes on subsequent days.

Haloperidol for the Treatment of Delirium in ICU Patients.

BACKGROUND: Haloperidol is frequently used to treat delirium in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), but evidence of its effect is limited. METHODS: In this multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned adult patients with delirium who had been admitted to the ICU for an acute condition to receive intravenous haloperidol (2.5 mg 3 times daily plus 2.5 mg as needed up to a total maximum daily dose of 20 mg) or placebo. Haloperidol or placebo was administered in the ICU for as long as delirium continued and as needed for recurrences. The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of the hospital at 90 days after randomization. RESULTS: A total of 1000 patients underwent randomization; 510 were assigned to the haloperidol group and 490 to the placebo group. Among these patients, 987 (98.7%) were included in the final analyses (501 in the haloperidol group and 486 in the placebo group). Primary outcome data were available for 963 patients (97.6%). At 90 days, the mean number of days alive and out of the hospital was 35.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 32.9 to 38.6) in the haloperidol group and 32.9 (95% CI, 29.9 to 35.8) in the placebo group, with an adjusted mean difference of 2.9 days (95% CI, -1.2 to 7.0) (P = 0.22). Mortality at 90 days was 36.3% in the haloperidol group and 43.3% in the placebo group (adjusted absolute difference, -6.9 percentage points [95% CI, -13.0 to -0.6]). Serious adverse reactions occurred in 11 patients in the haloperidol group and in 9 patients in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients in the ICU with delirium, treatment with haloperidol did not lead to a significantly greater number of days alive and out of the hospital at 90 days than placebo. (Funded by Innovation Fund Denmark and others; AID-ICU ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03392376; EudraCT number, 2017-003829-15.).

Changes over time in characteristics, resource use and outcomes among ICU patients with COVID-19-A nationwide, observational study in Denmark.

BACKGROUND: Characteristics and care of intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID-19 may have changed during the pandemic, but longitudinal data assessing this are limited. We compared patients with COVID-19 admitted to Danish ICUs in the first wave with those admitted later. METHODS: Among all Danish ICU patients with COVID-19, we compared demographics, chronic comorbidities, use of organ support, length of stay and vital status of those admitted 10 March to 19 May 2020 (first wave) versus 20 May 2020 to 30 June 2021. We analysed risk factors for death by adjusted logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Among all hospitalised patients with COVID-19, a lower proportion was admitted to ICU after the first wave (13% vs. 8%). Among all 1374 ICU patients with COVID-19, 326 were admitted during the first wave. There were no major differences in patient's characteristics or mortality between the two periods, but use of invasive mechanical ventilation (81% vs. 58% of patients), renal replacement therapy (26% vs. 13%) and ECMO (8% vs. 3%) and median length of stay in ICU (13 vs. 10 days) and in hospital (20 vs. 17 days) were all significantly lower after the first wave. Risk factors for death were higher age, larger burden of comorbidities (heart failure, pulmonary disease and kidney disease) and active cancer, but not admission during or after the first wave. CONCLUSIONS: After the first wave of COVID-19 in Denmark, a lower proportion of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 were admitted to ICU. Among ICU patients, use of organ support was lower and length of stay was reduced, but mortality rates remained at a relatively high level.

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.).

Long-term cognitive and functional status in Danish ICU patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: ICU admission due to COVID-19 may result in cognitive and physical impairment. We investigated the long-term cognitive and physical status of Danish ICU patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We included all patients with COVID-19 admitted to Danish ICUs between March 10 and May 19, 2020. Patients were the contacted prospectively at 6 and 12 months for follow-up. Our primary outcomes were cognitive function and frailty at 6 and 12 months after ICU admission, estimated by the Mini Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and the Clinical Frailty Scale. Secondary outcomes were 6- and 12-month mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessed by EQ-5D-5L, functional status (Barthel activities of daily living and Lawton-Brody instrumental activities of daily living), and fatigue (Fatigue Assessment Scale). The study had no information on pre-ICU admission status for the participants. RESULTS: A total of 326 patients were included. The 6- and 12-month mortality was 37% and 38%, respectively. Among the 204 six-month survivors, 105 (51%) participated in the 6-month follow-up; among the 202 twelve-month survivors, 95 (47%) participated in the 12-month follow-up. At 6 months, cognitive scores indicated impairment for 26% (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.4-12.4) and at 12 months for 17% (95% CI, 12.0-12.8) of participants. Frailty was indicated in 20% (95% CI, 3.4-3.9) at 6 months, and for 18% (95% CI, 3.3-3.8) at 12 months. Fatigue was reported by 52% at 6 months, and by 47% at 12 months. For HRQoL, moderate, severe, or extreme health problems were reported by 28% at 6 months, and by 25% at 12 months. CONCLUSION: Long-term cognitive, functional impairment was found in up to one in four of patients surviving intensive care for COVID-19. Fatigue was present in nearly half the survivors at both 6 and 12 months. However, pre-ICU admission status of the patients was unknown.

Effect of vasopressin and methylprednisolone vs. placebo on long-term outcomes in patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The primary results from the Vasopressin and Methylprednisolone for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (VAM-IHCA) trial have previously been reported. The objective of the current manuscript is to report long-term outcomes. METHODS: The VAM-IHCA trial was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted at ten hospitals in Denmark. Adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) were eligible for the trial if they had an in-hospital cardiac arrest and received at least one dose of epinephrine during resuscitation. The trial drugs consisted of 40 mg methylprednisolone (Solu-Medrol®, Pfizer) and 20 IU of vasopressin (Empressin®, Amomed Pharma GmbH) given as soon as possible after the first dose of epinephrine. This manuscript report outcomes at 6 months and 1 year including survival, survival with favorable neurological outcome, and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: 501 patients were included in the analysis. At 1 year, 15 patients (6.3%) in the intervention group and 22 patients (8.3%) in the placebo group were alive corresponding to a risk ratio of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.41-1.41). A favorable neurologic outcome at 1 year, based on the Cerebral Performance Category score, was observed in 14 patients (5.9%) in the intervention group and 20 patients (7.6%) in the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.41-1.49]. No differences existed between groups for favorable neurological outcome and health-related quality of life at either 6 months or 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of vasopressin and methylprednisolone, compared with placebo, in patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest did not improve long-term outcomes in this trial.

Senicapoc treatment in COVID-19 patients with severe respiratory insufficiency-A randomized, open-label, phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the current study was to determine if treatment with senicapoc, improves the PaO2 /FiO2 ratio in patients with COVID-19 and severe respiratory insufficiency. METHODS: Investigator-initiated, randomized, open-label, phase II trial in four intensive care units (ICU) in Denmark. We included patients aged ≥18 years and admitted to an ICU with severe respiratory insufficiency due to COVID-19. The intervention consisted of 50 mg enteral senicapoc administered as soon as possible after randomization and again after 24 h. Patients in the control group received standard care only. The primary outcome was the PaO2 /FiO2 ratio at 72 h. RESULTS: Twenty patients were randomized to senicapoc and 26 patients to standard care. Important differences existed in patient characteristics at baseline, including more patients being on non-invasive/invasive ventilation in the control group (54% vs. 35%). The median senicapoc concentration at 72 h was 62.1 ng/ml (IQR 46.7-71.2). The primary outcome, PaO2 /FiO2 ratio at 72 h, was significantly lower in the senicapoc group (mean 19.5 kPa, SD 6.6) than in the control group (mean 24.4 kPa, SD 9.2) (mean difference -5.1 kPa [95% CI -10.2, -0.04] p = .05). The 28-day mortality in the senicapoc group was 2/20 (10%) compared with 6/26 (23%) in the control group (OR 0.36 95% CI 0.06-2.07, p = .26). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with senicapoc resulted in a significantly lower PaO2 /FiO2 ratio at 72 h with no differences for other outcomes.

Interactions in clinical trials: Protocol and statistical analysis plan for an explorative study of four randomized ICU trials on use of pantoprazole, oxygenation targets, haloperidol and intravenous fluids.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients receive numerous interventions, but knowledge about potential interactions between these interventions is limited. Co-enrolment in randomized clinical trials represents a unique opportunity to investigate any such interactions. We aim to assess interactions in four randomized clinical trials with overlap in inclusion periods and patient populations. METHODS: This protocol and statistical analysis plan describes a secondary explorative analysis of interactions in four international ICU trials on pantoprazole, oxygenations targets, haloperidol and intravenous fluids, respectively. The primary outcome will be 90-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome will be days alive and out of hospital in 90 days after randomization. All patients included in the intention-to-treat populations of the four trials will be included. Four co-primary analyses will be conducted, one with each of the included trials as reference using a logistic regression model adjusted for the reference trial's stratification variables and for the co-interventions with interactions terms. The primary analytical measure of interest will be the analyses' tests of interaction. A p-value below .05 will be considered statically significant. The stratification variable- and co-intervention-adjusted effect estimates will be reported with 95% confidence intervals without adjustments for multiplicity. CONCLUSION: This exploratory analysis will investigate the presence of any interactions between pantoprazole, oxygenation targets, haloperidol and amount of intravenous fluids in four international ICU trials using co-enrolment. Assessment of possible interactions represents valuable information to guide the design, statistical powering and conduct of future trials.