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.).

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.).

Acute amiodarone-induced pulmonary toxicity in adult ICU patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation-A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: New-onset atrial fibrillation or flutter (NOAF) is a common arrhythmia in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Intravenous amiodarone is one of the most used anti-arrhythmic drugs, despite its risk of inducing acute amiodarone-induced pulmonary toxicity (APT). We aimed to outline the body of evidence on acute APT in ICU patients with NOAF. METHODS: We performed a systematic search using the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) approach. We included studies of adults admitted to the ICU, who developed NOAF during their ICU stay, were treated with amiodarone, and reported on acute APT, irrespective of research design. The CASE guidelines were applied to evaluate the quality of the included studies, and study results are reported in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. RESULTS: No randomised controlled trials or observational studies were identified. Nine case reports and one retrospective case series of fatal outcomes in ICU patients treated with amiodarone for NOAF constituted the evidence base. The quality of the included studies was high with a mean of 10 (range 8-12) of the 13 CASE guideline criteria fulfilled. The studies included a total of 16 critically ill adults who was diagnosed with acute APT after a mean of 9 days (range 2-20 days) following initiation of amiodarone with a mean total dose of amiodarone of 4553 mg (range 1100-13,500 mg) predominantly administrated intravenously. Three out of nine patients in the case reports died in the ICU during the amiodarone treatment. No long-term follow-up was conducted for the survivors. CONCLUSION: Acute APT in adult ICU patients treated with amiodarone for NOAF is poorly described and is based on a total of 16 reported cases. Additional studies assessing the safety of amiodarone in critically ill adults with NOAF in the ICU is warranted.

Long-term cognitive and pulmonary functions following a lower versus a higher oxygenation target in the HOT-ICU and HOT-COVID trials: A protocol update.

BACKGROUND: The Handling Oxygenation Targets in the Intensive Care Unit (HOT-ICU) trial was a multicentre, randomised, parallel-group trial of a lower oxygenation target (arterial partial pressure of oxygen [PaO2 ] = 8 kPa) versus a higher oxygenation target (PaO2 = 12 kPa) in adult ICU patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure; the Handling Oxygenation Targets in coronavirus disease 2019 (HOT-COVID) tested the same oxygenation targets in patients with confirmed COVID-19. In this study, we aim to evaluate the long-term effects of these oxygenation targets on cognitive and pulmonary function. We hypothesise that a lower oxygenation target throughout the ICU stay may result in cognitive impairment, whereas a higher oxygenation target may result in impaired pulmonary function. METHODS: This is the updated protocol and statistical analysis plan of two pre-planned secondary outcomes, the long-term cognitive function, and long-term pulmonary function, in the HOT-ICU and HOT-COVID trials. Patients enrolled in both trials at selected Danish sites and surviving to 1 year after randomisation are eligible to participate. A Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status score and a full-body plethysmography, including diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide, will be obtained. The last patient is expected to be included in the spring of 2024. CONCLUSION: This study will provide important information on the long-term effects of a lower versus a higher oxygenation target on long-term cognitive and pulmonary functions in adult ICU patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure.

Empirical meropenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam for adult patients with sepsis (EMPRESS) trial: Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Piperacillin/tazobactam may be associated with less favourable outcomes than carbapenems in patients with severe bacterial infections, but the certainty of evidence is low. METHODS: The Empirical Meropenem versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam for Adult Patients with Sepsis (EMPRESS) trial is an investigator-initiated, international, parallel-group, randomised, open-label, adaptive clinical trial with an integrated feasibility phase. We will randomise adult, critically ill patients with sepsis to empirical treatment with meropenem or piperacillin/tazobactam for up to 30 days. The primary outcome is 30-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes are serious adverse reactions within 30 days; isolation precautions due to resistant bacteria within 30 days; days alive without life support and days alive and out of hospital within 30 and 90 days; 90- and 180-day all-cause mortality and 180-day health-related quality of life. EMPRESS will use Bayesian statistical models with weak to somewhat sceptical neutral priors. Adaptive analyses will be conducted after follow-up of the primary outcome for the first 400 participants concludes and after every 300 subsequent participants, with adaptive stopping for superiority/inferiority and practical equivalence (absolute risk difference <2.5%-points) and response-adaptive randomisation. The expected sample sizes in scenarios with no, small or large differences are 5189, 5859 and 2570 participants, with maximum 14,000 participants and ≥99% probability of conclusiveness across all scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: EMPRESS will compare the effects of empirical meropenem against piperacillin/tazobactam in adult, critically ill patients with sepsis. Due to the pragmatic, adaptive design with high probability of conclusiveness, the trial results are expected to directly inform clinical practice.

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."

Face and content validity of the EMPOWER-UP questionnaire: a generic measure of empowerment in relational decision-making and problem-solving.

BACKGROUND: Decision-making and problem-solving processes are powerful activities occurring daily across all healthcare settings. Their empowering potential is seldom fully exploited, and they may even be perceived as disempowering. We developed the EMPOWER-UP questionnaire to enable assessment of healthcare users' perception of empowerment across health conditions, healthcare settings, and healthcare providers' professional backgrounds. This article reports the initial development of EMPOWER-UP, including face and content validation. METHODS: Four grounded theories explaining barriers and enablers to empowerment in relational decision-making and problem-solving were reviewed to generate a preliminary item pool, which was subsequently reduced using constant comparison. Preliminary items were evaluated for face and content validity using an expert panel of seven researchers and cognitive interviews in Danish and English with 29 adults diagnosed with diabetes, cancer, or schizophrenia. RESULTS: A preliminary pool of 139 items was reduced to 46. Independent feedback from expert panel members resulted in further item reduction and modifications supporting content validity and strengthening the potential for generic use. Forty-one preliminary items were evaluated through 29 cognitive interviews, resulting in a 36-item draft questionnaire deemed to have good face and content validity and generic potential. CONCLUSIONS: Face and content validation using an expert panel and cognitive interviews resulted in a 36-item draft questionnaire with a potential for evaluating empowerment in user-provider interactions regardless of health conditions, healthcare settings, and healthcare providers' professional backgrounds.

Users of healthcare services living with long-term health conditions may need empowerment-based support from healthcare providers to discover and develop their inherent capacity to be responsible for their own life. This ensures that healthcare users develop the skills needed to manage the many decisions and problems they face. Yet many healthcare users still experience lack of involvement and support in decision-making and problem-solving. Therefore, we developed the EMPOWER-UP questionnaire to allow healthcare users to evaluate the empowering qualities of their interactions with healthcare providers regardless of their diagnosis, where the interactions take place, and with whom. The aim of this article was to describe the development of EMPOWER-UP and to present the results of early evaluations of its content.The questionnaire was developed in Danish based on thorough qualitative research explaining distinct, complex patterns in user-provider interactions and translated to English during the evaluation process. We used individual feedback from a panel of expert researchers and interviews conducted with healthcare users diagnosed with diabetes, cancer, or schizophrenia to evaluate EMPOWER-UP's content. Interviews were conducted while the participants answered preliminary versions of the questionnaire.As a result of these evaluations, several items in the questionnaire were adjusted, some were deleted, and some new items were developed. We believe that EMPOWER-UP can be an important tool to help evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at ensuring empowering support from healthcare providers. Thus, EMPOWER-UP may help to identify the most effective interventions for specific healthcare contexts.

Acute Care Nurses' Partnership With Patients to Recognise and Respond to Changes in Patients' Clinical States: A Qualitative Study.

AIM: To explore and describe acute care nurses' partnership with patients to recognise and respond to changes in patients' clinical states. Acute care nurses' decisions to partner with patients to recognise deterioration in clinical states and to respond by activating a rapid response system improves patient outcomes. Acutely unwell patients can also experience clinical changes that include improvement and deterioration that does not trigger rapid response system activation over the course of hospitalisation from illness and treatment. How acute care nurses partner with patients in response to improvement and deterioration not triggering a rapid response system is not well-understood. DESIGN: An exploratory, descriptive study underpinned by Tanner's Clinical Judgement Model. METHODS: Using purposive and quota sampling, 20 nurses with direct patient care responsibilities on one medical and one surgical ward in a large Australian hospital were recruited. Nonparticipant observations followed by semistructured interviews were conducted between January and May of 2021. Nurse-patient interactions were observed for 4 h, and verbally described and recorded. Semistructured interviews were recorded and explored nurses' reasoning behind decisions observed. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Three themes were identified from the data: nurses checking in for changes; nurses forming judgements; and nurses partnering with patients to respond. Acute care nurses promoted subjective assessment based on patients' safety risks. Patients' participation in response to changes was prioritised based on acute care nurses' judgement of safety. CONCLUSION: Patients receive significant safety benefits when acute care nurses partner with patients in response to their experience of improvement and deterioration during acute illness. Further research should evaluate the sensitivity of subjective cues in patient assessment. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND PATIENT CARE: Partnership with patients in assessment and management of improvement and deterioration improves the quality and safety of patient care. Assessment frameworks should equally prioritise the use of objective and subjective cues. Nursing education should promote the safety benefits of patient partnerships in responding to patient changes. REPORTING METHOD: Equator checklist COREQ. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Data collected included description of patients' interactions with study participants.

Acute care nurses' decisions to recognise and respond to patient improvement: A qualitative study.

AIM: To explore and describe acute care nurses' decisions to recognise and respond to improvement in patients' clinical states as they occurred in the real-world clinical environment. DESIGN: A descriptive study. METHODS: Nine medical and eleven surgical nurses in a large Australian metropolitan hospital were individually observed during nurse-patient interactions and followed up in interview to describe their reasoning and clinical judgements behind observed decisions. Verbal description of observations and interviews were recorded and transcribed. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: The three themes constructed from the data were as follows: nurses checking in; nurses reaching judgements about improvements; and nurses deciding on the best person to respond. Acute care nurses made targeted assessment decisions based on predicted safety risks related to improvement in clinical states. Subjective and objective cues were used to assess for and make judgements about patient improvement. Acute care nurses' judgment of patient safety and a desire to promote patient centred care guided their decisions to select the appropriate person to manage improvement. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of this research have demonstrated that the proven safety benefits of acute care nurses' decision making in response to deterioration extend to improvement in patients' clinical states. In response to improvement, acute care nurses' decisions protect patients from harm and promote recovery. IMPLICATIONS FOR PATIENT CARE: Early recognition and response to improvement enable acute care nurses to protect patients from risks of unnecessary treatment and promote recovery. IMPACT: This study makes explicit nurses' essential safety role in recognising and responding to improvement in patients' clinical states. Healthcare policy and education must reflect the equal importance of assessment for and management of deterioration and improvement to ensure patients are protected and provided with safe care.

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.

Danish citizens' perspectives on the preventive medication recommended after screen-detected cardiovascular disease: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The rationale for screening for cardiovascular disease (CVD) is debated as a prevention strategy. However, research shows that when preventive medication is initiated after screening for CVD, mortality rates decrease, especially among men. When implementing screening programmes, facilitating citizens' informed decisions and empowering their autonomy in the decision-making process are crucial. We therefore aimed to explore citizens' perspectives on and decisions regarding initiating cardiovascular preventive medication for screen-detected CVD. METHODS: We employed an exploratory qualitative design using semi-structured interviews to investigate participants' perspectives on and decisions regarding initiating cardiovascular preventive medication for screen-detected CVD. Twelve interviews were conducted and analysed using thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke's six-step approach. FINDINGS: We found one overall theme, Being on a continuum between wellness and illness, with two underlying sub-themes. Sub-theme (1) Navigating mixed feelings and pathways reflects participants' perspectives on CVD preventive medication, which were positioned on a continuum with shifting perspectives. The state between wellness and illness was experienced as liminal and characterised by uncertainty and concerns about CVD risk. (2) Navigating medication decisions: a negotiated process. Pivotal medical decisions hinged on trust in authorities or own judgement, influenced by attitudes towards the need for medication, perception of meaningfulness, asymptomatic condition, age, family responsibility and predisposition. Participants' medical decisions were supported and impacted by significant others. CONCLUSION: We uncovered a continuum of shifting perspectives ranging from feeling improved health to experiencing fear of CVD. For certain citizens, it is like navigating between these contrasting feelings. The perceived necessity and meaningfulness, in particular, shape medical decisions. Providing support for informed decisions is crucial and includes significant others. Shared decision-making with healthcare professionals as facilitators is needed. Future research is warranted to investigate how to embrace the various perspectives on initiating CVD preventive medication in clinical practice.

The experiences and support needs of students with diabetes at university: An integrative literature review.

AIMS: Commencing university presents particular challenges for young adults with diabetes. This integrative literature review aimed to synthesise the research exploring the experiences and support needs of university students with diabetes. METHODS: Medline, CINAHL, PsychInfo and EMBASE databases were searched for quantitative and qualitative studies, among undergraduate and postgraduate students with type 1 or type 2 diabetes conducted in the university setting. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles. Data were analysed thematically and synthesised narratively utilising the ecological model as a framework for interpreting findings and making recommendations. RESULTS: We identified 25 eligible papers (20 studies) utilising various methods: individual interview, focus group, survey, online forum. Four themes were identified: barriers to self-care (e.g. lack of structure and routine); living with diabetes as a student; identity, stigma and disclosure; and strategies for managing diabetes at university. Students in the early years at university, recently diagnosed or moved away from home, reported more self-care difficulties, yet few accessed university support services. Risky alcohol-related behaviours, perceived stigma and reluctance to disclose diabetes inhibited optimal diabetes management. CONCLUSION: Despite the heterogeneity of studies, consistent themes related to diabetes self-care difficulties and risky behaviours were reported by young adults with diabetes transitioning to university life. No effective interventions to support students with diabetes were identified in this setting. Multilevel approaches to support students to balance the competing demands of study and diabetes self-care are needed, particularly in the early years of university life.

Effects of a low carbohydrate diet on heart failure symptoms and quality of life in patients with diabetic cardiomyopathy: A randomised controlled trial pilot study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Heart failure, insulin resistance and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus coexist in the syndrome that is diabetic cardiomyopathy. Patients with diabetic cardiomyopathy experience high symptom burden and poor quality of life. We tested the hypothesis that a low carbohydrate diet improves heart failure symptoms and quality of life in patients with diabetic cardiomyopathy. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a 16-week randomised controlled pilot trial comparing the effects of a low carbohydrate diet (LC) to usual care (UC) in 17 adult patients with diabetic cardiomyopathy. New York Heart Association classification, weight, thirst distress and quality of life scores as well as blood pressure and biochemical data were assessed at baseline and at 16 weeks. Thirteen (n = 8 LC; n = 5 UC) patients completed the trial. The low carbohydrate diet induced significant weight loss in completers (p = 0.004). There was a large between-group difference in systolic blood pressure at the end of the study (Hedges's g 0.99[-014,2.08]). There were no significant differences in thirst or quality of life between groups. CONCLUSION: This is the first clinical trial utilising the low carbohydrate dietary approach in patients with diabetic cardiomyopathy in an outpatient setting. A low carbohydrate diet can lead to significant weight loss in patients with diabetic cardiomyopathy. Future clinical trials with larger samples and that focus on fluid and sodium requirements of patients with diabetic cardiomyopathy who engage in a low carbohydrate diet are warranted. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12620001278921. DATE OF REGISTRATION: 26th November 2020.

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.

Co-design of a question prompt list about pregnancy and childbearing for women with polycystic kidney disease: an exploratory sequential mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Although women with polycystic kidney disease (PKD) generally have healthy pregnancies and babies, pregnancy is associated with a greater risk of maternal complications and requires planning and management of their condition. Given these possible complications, routine communication about childbearing between women with PKD and their treating team is important. A question prompt list (QPL), a structured list of questions used by patients during consultations with healthcare providers, may be beneficial in assisting women with PKD to discuss their childbearing concerns with, and seek related information from, their treating team. The aims of this study were to co-design a QPL about pregnancy and childbearing for women with PKD, and evaluate its comprehensibility, salience, and acceptability. METHODS: An exploratory sequential mixed-methods study of women of reproductive age with PKD living in Australia, using an experience-based co-design approach with two phases. Women were recruited from a metropolitan public health service and via social media and invited to complete an anonymous online survey about the development of the PKD QPL (phase one) and participate in an online discussion group about its refinement (phase two). RESULTS: Sixteen women completed the development survey and seven participated in the evaluation discussion group. Participants reported that women with PKD would value and use a QPL to prompt discussions with and seek further information about pregnancy and childbearing from their healthcare providers. Women identified four main topics for the QPL: 'thinking about having a baby', 'pregnancy', 'my medications' and 'after my baby is born'. Within each section a series of questions was developed. Based on the findings, a QPL about pregnancy and childbearing for women with PKD was co-designed. CONCLUSIONS: Women with PKD often find it difficult to access information and have discussions with their health care providers about pregnancy and childbearing. The PKD QPL co-designed in this study was perceived to be an acceptable tool which will, from the perspectives of participants, assist women with PKD to access information more easily about pregnancy, childbearing and PKD; ask more targeted questions of their treating team; and make informed childbearing decisions.

Lower or higher oxygenation targets for acute Hypoxaemic respiratory failure: Protocol for an individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Supplemental oxygen therapy is central to the treatment of acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, a condition which remains a major driver for morbidity and mortality in intensive care. Despite several large randomised clinical trials comparing a higher versus a lower oxygenation target for these patients, significant differences in study design impede analysis of aggregate data and final clinical recommendations. METHODS: This paper presents the protocol for conducting an individual patient data meta-analysis where full individual patient data according to the intention-to-treat principle will be pooled from the HOT-ICU and HOT-COVID trials in a one-step procedure. The two trials are near-identical in design. We plan to use a hierarchical general linear mixed model that accounts for data clustering at a trial and site level. The primary outcome will be 90-day all-cause mortality while the secondary outcome will be days alive without life-support at 90 days. Further, we outline 14 clinically relevant predefined subgroups which we will analyse for heterogeneity in the intervention effects and interactions, and we present a plan for assessing the credibility of the subgroup analyses. CONCLUSION: The presented individual patient data meta-analysis will synthesise individual level patient data from two of the largest randomised clinical trials on targeted oxygen therapy in intensive care. The results will provide a re-analysis of the intervention effects on the pooled intention-to-treat populations and facilitate subgroup analyses with an increased power to detect clinically important effect modifications.

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.

Patient and public involvement in contemporary large intensive care trials: A meta-epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement in randomised clinical trials has received increased focus, including in intensive care trials, but the frequency, method and extent is unknown. This meta-epidemiological study investigated patient and public involvement in contemporary, large ICU trials. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed for large (≥225 randomised patients), contemporary trials (published between 1 January 2019 and 31 January 2022) assessing interventions in adult patients in ICU settings. Abstracts and full-text articles were assessed independently and in duplicate. Data were extracted using a pre-defined, pilot-tested data extraction form with details on trials, patient and public involvement including categories and numbers of individuals involved, methods of involvement, and trial stage(s) with involvement. Trials authors were contacted as necessary. RESULTS: We included 100 trials, with 18 using patient and public involvement; these were larger and conducted in more centres than trials without patient and public involvement. Among trials with patient and public involvement, patients (in 14/18 trials), clinicians (13 trials), and family members (12 trials) were primarily involved, mainly in the development of research design (15 trials) and development of research focus (13 trials) stages and mostly by discussion (12 trials) and solo interviews (10 trials). A median of 65 individuals (range 1-6894) were involved. CONCLUSIONS: We found patient and public involvement in a fifth of large, contemporary ICU trials. Primarily patients, families, and clinicians were included, particularly in the trial planning stages and mostly through interviews and discussions. Increased patient and public involvement in ICU trials is warranted.

Association between days alive without life support/out of hospital and health-related quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Trials in critically ill patients increasingly focus on days alive without life support (DAWOLS) or days alive out of hospital (DAOOH) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). DAWOLS and DAOOH convey more information than mortality and are simpler and faster to collect than HRQoL. However, whether these outcomes are associated with HRQoL is uncertain. We thus aimed to assess the associations between DAWOLS and DAOOH and long-term HRQoL. METHODS: Secondary analysis of the COVID STEROID 2 trial including adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia and the Handling Oxygenation Targets in the Intensive Care Unit (HOT-ICU) trial including adult intensive care unit patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. Associations between DAWOLS and DAOOH at day 28 and 90 and long-term HRQoL (after 6 or 12 months) using the EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level survey (EQ VAS and EQ-5D-5L index values) were assessed using flexible models and evaluated using measures of fit and prediction adequacy in both datasets (comprising internal performance and external validation), non-parametric correlation coefficients and graphical presentations. RESULTS: We found no strong associations between DAWOLS or DAOOH and HRQoL in survivors at HRQoL-follow-up (615 and 1476 patients, respectively). There was substantial variability in outcomes, and predictions from the best fitted models were poor both internally and externally in the other trial dataset, which also showed inadequate calibration. Moderate associations were found when including non-survivors, although predictions remained uncertain and calibration inadequate. CONCLUSION: DAWOLS and DAOOH were poorly associated with HRQoL in adult survivors of severe or critical illness included in the COVID STEROID 2 and HOT-ICU trials.

Collaboration for Evidence-based Practice and Research in Anaesthesia (CEPRA): A consortium initiative for perioperative research.

Evidence in perioperative care is insufficient. There is an urgent need for large perioperative research programmes, including pragmatic randomised trials, testing daily clinical treatments and unanswered question, thereby providing solid evidence for effects of interventions given to a large and growing number of patients undergoing surgery and anaesthesia. This may be achieved through large collaborations. Collaboration for Evidence-based Practice and Research in Anaesthesia (CEPRA) is a novel collaborative research network founded to pursue evidence-based answers to major clinical questions in perioperative medicine. The aims of CEPRA are to (1) improve clinical treatment and outcomes and optimise the use of resources for patients undergoing anaesthesia and perioperative care, and (2) disseminate results and inform caretakers, patients and relatives, and policymakers of evidence-based treatments in anaesthesia and perioperative medicine. CEPRA is inclusive in its concept. We aim to extend our collaboration with all relevant clinical collaborators and patient associations and representatives. Although initiated in Denmark, CEPRA seeks to develop an international network infrastructure, for example, with other Nordic countries. The work of CEPRA will follow the highest methodological standards. The organisation aims to structure and optimise any element of the research collaboration to reduce economic costs and harness benefits from well-functioning research infrastructure. This includes successive continuation of trials, harmonisation of outcomes, and alignment of data management systems. This paper presents the initiation and visions of the CEPRA network. CEPRA aims to be inclusive, patient-focused, methodologically sound, and to optimise all aspects of research logistics. This will translate into faster research conduct, reliable results, and accelerated clinical implementation of results, thereby benefiting millions of patients whilst being cost and labour-saving.