Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis during Invasive Mechanical Ventilation.

BACKGROUND: Whether proton-pump inhibitors are beneficial or harmful for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients undergoing invasive ventilation is unclear. METHODS: In this international, randomized trial, we assigned critically ill adults who were undergoing invasive ventilation to receive intravenous pantoprazole (at a dose of 40 mg daily) or matching placebo. The primary efficacy outcome was clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the intensive care unit (ICU) at 90 days, and the primary safety outcome was death from any cause at 90 days. Multiplicity-adjusted secondary outcomes included ventilator-associated pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile infection, and patient-important bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 4821 patients underwent randomization in 68 ICUs. Clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in 25 of 2385 patients (1.0%) receiving pantoprazole and in 84 of 2377 patients (3.5%) receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19 to 0.47; P<0.001). At 90 days, death was reported in 696 of 2390 patients (29.1%) in the pantoprazole group and in 734 of 2379 patients (30.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.04; P = 0.25). Patient-important bleeding was reduced with pantoprazole; all other secondary outcomes were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing invasive ventilation, pantoprazole resulted in a significantly lower risk of clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding than placebo, with no significant effect on mortality. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; REVISE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03374800.).

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.).

From ICU Syndromes to ICU Subphenotypes: Consensus Report and Recommendations For Developing Precision Medicine in ICU.

Critical care uses syndromic definitions to describe patient groups for clinical practice and research. There is growing recognition that a "precision medicine" approach is required and that integrated biologic and physiologic data identify reproducible subpopulations that may respond differently to treatment. This article reviews the current state of the field and considers how to successfully transition to a precision medicine approach. In order to impact clinical care, identified subpopulations must do more than differentiate prognosis. They must differentiate response to treatment, ideally by defining subgroups with distinct functional or pathobiological mechanisms (endotypes). There are now multiple examples of reproducible subpopulations of sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and acute kidney or brain injury described using clinical, physiological, and/or biological data. Many of these subpopulations have demonstrated the potential to define differential treatment response, largely in retrospective studies, and that the same treatment-responsive subpopulations may cross multiple clinical syndromes (treatable traits). To bring about a change in clinical practice, a precision medicine approach must be evaluated in prospective clinical studies requiring novel adaptive trial designs. Several such studies are underway but there are multiple challenges to be tackled. Such subpopulations must be readily identifiable and be applicable to all critically ill populations around the world. Subdividing clinical syndromes into subpopulations will require large patient numbers. Global collaboration of investigators, clinicians, industry and patients over many years will therefore be required to transition to a precision medicine approach and ultimately realize treatment advances seen in other medical fields. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Acute kidney injury in patients with cirrhosis: Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) and International Club of Ascites (ICA) joint multidisciplinary consensus meeting.

Patients with cirrhosis are prone to developing acute kidney injury (AKI), a complication associated with a markedly increased in-hospital morbidity and mortality, along with a risk of progression to chronic kidney disease. Whereas patients with cirrhosis are at increased risk of developing any phenotype of AKI, hepatorenal syndrome (HRS), a specific form of AKI (HRS-AKI) in patients with advanced cirrhosis and ascites, carries an especially high mortality risk. Early recognition of HRS-AKI is crucial since administration of splanchnic vasoconstrictors may reverse the AKI and serve as a bridge to liver transplantation, the only curative option. In 2023, a joint meeting of the International Club of Ascites (ICA) and the Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) was convened to develop new diagnostic criteria for HRS-AKI, to provide graded recommendations for the work-up, management and post-discharge follow-up of patients with cirrhosis and AKI, and to highlight priorities for further research.

The Road to Precision Medicine for Acute Kidney Injury.

OBJECTIVES: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common form of organ dysfunction in the ICU. AKI is associated with adverse short- and long-term outcomes, including high mortality rates, which have not measurably improved over the past decade. This review summarizes the available literature examining the evidence of the need for precision medicine in AKI in critical illness, highlights the current evidence for heterogeneity in the field of AKI, discusses the progress made in advancing precision in AKI, and provides a roadmap for studying precision-guided care in AKI. DATA SOURCES: Medical literature regarding topics relevant to precision medicine in AKI, including AKI definitions, epidemiology, and outcomes, novel AKI biomarkers, studies of electronic health records (EHRs), clinical trial design, and observational studies of kidney biopsies in patients with AKI. STUDY SELECTION: English language observational studies, randomized clinical trials, reviews, professional society recommendations, and guidelines on areas related to precision medicine in AKI. DATA EXTRACTION: Relevant study results, statements, and guidelines were qualitatively assessed and narratively synthesized. DATA SYNTHESIS: We synthesized relevant study results, professional society recommendations, and guidelines in this discussion. CONCLUSIONS: AKI is a syndrome that encompasses a wide range of underlying pathologies, and this heterogeneity has hindered the development of novel therapeutics for AKI. Wide-ranging efforts to improve precision in AKI have included the validation of novel biomarkers of AKI, leveraging EHRs for disease classification, and phenotyping of tubular secretory clearance. Ongoing efforts such as the Kidney Precision Medicine Project, identifying subphenotypes in AKI, and optimizing clinical trials and endpoints all have great promise in advancing precision medicine in AKI.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities 2023.

OBJECTIVES: To identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome, and pathophysiology of sepsis and septic shock. DESIGN: Shortly after publication of the most recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines, the Surviving Sepsis Research Committee, a multiprofessional group of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine, convened virtually and iteratively developed the article and recommendations, which represents an update from the 2018 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities. METHODS: Each task force member submitted five research questions on any sepsis-related subject. Committee members then independently ranked their top three priorities from the list generated. The highest rated clinical and basic science questions were developed into the current article. RESULTS: A total of 81 questions were submitted. After merging similar questions, there were 34 clinical and ten basic science research questions submitted for voting. The five top clinical priorities were as follows: 1) what is the best strategy for screening and identification of patients with sepsis, and can predictive modeling assist in real-time recognition of sepsis? 2) what causes organ injury and dysfunction in sepsis, how should it be defined, and how can it be detected? 3) how should fluid resuscitation be individualized initially and beyond? 4) what is the best vasopressor approach for treating the different phases of septic shock? and 5) can a personalized/precision medicine approach identify optimal therapies to improve patient outcomes? The five top basic science priorities were as follows: 1) How can we improve animal models so that they more closely resemble sepsis in humans? 2) What outcome variables maximize correlations between human sepsis and animal models and are therefore most appropriate to use in both? 3) How does sepsis affect the brain, and how do sepsis-induced brain alterations contribute to organ dysfunction? How does sepsis affect interactions between neural, endocrine, and immune systems? 4) How does the microbiome affect sepsis pathobiology? 5) How do genetics and epigenetics influence the development of sepsis, the course of sepsis and the response to treatments for sepsis? CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge advances in multiple clinical domains have been incorporated in progressive iterations of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, allowing for evidence-based recommendations for short- and long-term management of sepsis. However, the strength of existing evidence is modest with significant knowledge gaps and mortality from sepsis remains high. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.

Hemoadsorption: Consensus report of the 30th Acute Disease Quality Initiative workgroup.

Adsorption-based extracorporeal therapies have been subject to technical developments and clinical application for close to five decades. More recently, new technological developments in membrane and sorbent manipulation have made it possible to deliver more biocompatible extracorporeal adsorption therapies to patients with a variety of conditions. There are several key rationales based on physicochemical principles and clinical considerations that justify the application and investigation of such therapies as evidenced by multiple ex-vivo, experimental, and clinical observations. Accordingly, unspecific adsorptive extracorporeal therapies have now been applied to the treatment of a wide array of conditions from poisoning to drug overdoses, to inflammatory states and sepsis, and acute or chronic liver and kidney failure. In response to the rapidly expanding knowledge base and increased clinical evidence, we convened an Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) consensus conference dedicated to such treatment. The data show that hemoadsorption has clinically acceptable short-term biocompatibility and safety, technical feasibility, and experimental demonstration of specified target molecule removal. Pilot studies demonstrate potentially beneficial effects on physiology and larger studies of endotoxin-based hemoadsorption have identified possible target phenotypes for larger randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Moreover, in a variety of endogenous and exogenous intoxications, removal of target molecules has been confirmed in vivo. However, some studies have raised concerns about harm or failed to deliver benefits. Thus, despite many achievements, modern hemoadsorption remains a novel and experimental intervention with limited data, and a large research agenda.

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

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

Vitamin D metabolism in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D deficiency in critically ill patients is associated with poor outcomes, and vitamin D supplementation is recommended for patients with chronic kidney disease. Whether acute kidney injury (AKI) is associated with altered Vitamin D metabolism is unknown. We aimed to compare the longitudinal profiles of serum 25(OH)D and 1,25(OH)2D concentrations in critically ill patients with and without moderate to severe AKI and explore the impact of renal recovery and parathyroid hormone (PTH). METHODS: In this prospective, observational study in two centres in the UK, critically ill patients with and without AKI underwent serial measurement of serum 25(OH)D and 1,25(OH)2D and plasma PTH concentrations for 5 days. Linear mixed model analysis and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Serial data of 137 patients were analysed. Seventy-one patients had AKI stage II/III of whom 23 recovered kidney function during the 5-day study period; 66 patients did not have AKI at enrolment of whom 14 developed new AKI. On day of enrolment, patients' serum 25(OH)D concentrations were low (median 18 nmol/L) but there was no significant difference between patients with and without AKI. Median serum 1,25(OH)2D levels were significantly lower in patients with AKI II/III (41 pmol/L [IQR 26, 58]) compared to similarly unwell patients without AKI (54 pmol/L [IQR 33, 69]) during the 5-day period. Recovery of kidney function in patients with AKI was associated with a rise in 1,25(OH)2D concentrations. Plasma PTH results were impacted by serum calcium and magnesium levels but not associated with 1,25(OH)2D levels. CONCLUSIONS: Critically ill patients with moderate-to-severe AKI have significantly lower serum 1,25(OH)2D concentrations than similarly sick patients without AKI but there was no difference in serum 25(OH)D concentrations. Recovery of AKI was associated with a rise in serum 1,25(OH)2D concentrations. More research is needed to investigate the health benefits and safety of supplementation with active vitamin D in critically ill patients with moderate-to-severe AKI. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02869919), registered on 16 May 2016.

Sepsis-associated acute kidney injury: recent advances in enrichment strategies, sub-phenotyping and clinical trials.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) often complicates sepsis and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, several important clinical trials have improved our understanding of sepsis-associated AKI (SA-AKI) and impacted clinical care. Advances in sub-phenotyping of sepsis and AKI and clinical trial design offer unprecedented opportunities to fill gaps in knowledge and generate better evidence for improving the outcome of critically ill patients with SA-AKI. In this manuscript, we review the recent literature of clinical trials in sepsis with focus on studies that explore SA-AKI as a primary or secondary outcome. We discuss lessons learned and potential opportunities to improve the design of clinical trials and generate actionable evidence in future research. We specifically discuss the role of enrichment strategies to target populations that are most likely to derive benefit and the importance of patient-centered clinical trial endpoints and appropriate trial designs with the aim to provide guidance in designing future trials.

ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers differentially alter the response to angiotensin II treatment in vasodilatory shock.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) medications are widely prescribed. We sought to assess how pre-admission use of these medications might impact the response to angiotensin-II treatment during vasodilatory shock. METHODS: In a post-hoc subgroup analysis of the randomized, placebo-controlled, Angiotensin Therapy for High Output Shock (ATHOS-3) trial, we compared patients with chronic angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) use, and patients with angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) use, to patients without exposure to either ACEi or ARB. The primary outcome was mean arterial pressure after 1-h of treatment. Additional clinical outcomes included mean arterial pressure and norepinephrine equivalent dose requirements over time, and study-drug dose over time. Biological outcomes included baseline RAS biomarkers (renin, angiotensin-I, angiotensin-II, and angiotensin-I/angiotensin-II ratio), and the change in renin from 0 to 3 h. RESULTS: We included n = 321 patients, of whom, 270 were ACEi and ARB-unexposed, 29 were ACEi-exposed and 22 ARB-exposed. In ACEi/ARB-unexposed patients, angiotensin-treated patients, compared to placebo, had higher hour-1 mean arterial pressure (9.1 mmHg [95% CI 7.6-10.1], p < 0.0001), lower norepinephrine equivalent dose over 48-h (p = 0.0037), and lower study-drug dose over 48-h (p < 0.0001). ACEi-exposed patients treated with angiotensin-II showed similarly higher hour-1 mean arterial pressure compared to ACEi/ARB-unexposed (difference in treatment-effect: - 2.2 mmHg [95% CI - 7.0-2.6], pinteraction = 0.38), but a greater reduction in norepinephrine equivalent dose (pinteraction = 0.0031) and study-drug dose (pinteraction < 0.0001) over 48-h. In contrast, ARB-exposed patients showed an attenuated effect of angiotensin-II on hour-1 mean arterial pressure versus ACEi/ARB-unexposed (difference in treatment-effect: - 6.0 mmHg [95% CI - 11.5 to - 0.6], pinteraction = 0.0299), norepinephrine equivalent dose (pinteraction < 0.0001), and study-drug dose (pinteraction = 0.0008). Baseline renin levels and angiotensin-I/angiotensin-II ratios were highest in ACEi-exposed patients. Finally, angiotensin-II treatment reduced hour-3 renin in ACEi/ARB-unexposed and ACEi-exposed patients but not in ARB-exposed patients. CONCLUSIONS: In vasodilatory shock patients, the cardiovascular and biological RAS response to angiotensin-II differed based upon prior exposure to ACEi and ARB medications. ACEi-exposure was associated with increased angiotensin II responsiveness, whereas ARB-exposure was associated with decreased responsiveness. These findings have clinical implications for patient selection and dosage of angiotensin II in vasodilatory shock. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.Gov Identifier: NCT02338843 (Registered January 14th 2015).

Pediatric AKI in the real world: changing outcomes through education and advocacy-a report from the 26th Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) consensus conference.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is independently associated with increased morbidity and mortality across the life course, yet care for AKI remains mostly supportive. Raising awareness of this life-threatening clinical syndrome through education and advocacy efforts is the key to improving patient outcomes. Here, we describe the unique roles education and advocacy play in the care of children with AKI, discuss the importance of customizing educational outreach efforts to individual groups and contexts, and highlight the opportunities created through innovations and partnerships to optimize lifelong health outcomes. METHODS: During the 26th Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) consensus conference, a multidisciplinary group of experts discussed the evidence and used a modified Delphi process to achieve consensus on recommendations on AKI research, education, practice, and advocacy in children. RESULTS: The consensus statements developed in response to three critical questions about the role of education and advocacy in pediatric AKI care are presented here along with a summary of available evidence and recommendations for both clinical care and research. CONCLUSIONS: These consensus statements emphasize that high-quality care for patients with AKI begins in the community with education and awareness campaigns to identify those at risk for AKI. Education is the key across all healthcare and non-healthcare settings to enhance early diagnosis and develop mitigation strategies, thereby improving outcomes for children with AKI. Strong advocacy efforts are essential for implementing these programs and building critical collaborations across all stakeholders and settings.

Albumin use in patients with septic shock-Post-hoc analyses of an international randomised fluid trial.

BACKGROUND: Albumin administration is suggested in patients with sepsis and septic shock who have received large volumes of crystalloids. Given lack of firm evidence, clinical practice variation may exist. To address this, we investigated if patient characteristics or trial site were associated with albumin use in septic shock. METHODS: We conducted a post-hoc study of the CLASSIC international, randomised clinical trial of fluid volumes in septic shock. Associations between selected baseline variables and trial site with albumin use during ICU stay were assessed in Cox models considering death, ICU discharge, and loss-to-follow-up as competing events. Baseline variables were first assessed individually, adjusted for treatment allocation (restrictive vs. standard IV fluid), and then adjusted for allocation and the other baseline variables. Site was assessed in a model adjusted for allocation and baseline variables. RESULTS: We analysed 1541 of 1554 patients randomised in CLASSIC (99.2%). During ICU stay, 36.3% of patients in the restrictive-fluid group and 52.6% in the standard-fluid group received albumin. Gastrointestinal focus of infection and higher doses of norepinephrine were most strongly associated with albumin use (subgroup with highest quartile of norepinephrine doses, hazard ratio (HR) 2.58, 95% CI 1.89 to 3.53). HRs for associations between site and albumin use ranged from 0.11 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.26) to 1.70 (95% CI 1.06 to 2.74); test for overall effect of site: p < .001. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with septic shock, gastrointestinal focus of infection and higher doses of norepinephrine at baseline were associated with albumin use, which also varied substantially between sites.

Restrictive versus standard IV fluid therapy in adult ICU patients with septic shock-Bayesian analyses of the CLASSIC trial.

BACKGROUND: The CLASSIC trial assessed the effects of restrictive versus standard intravenous (IV) fluid therapy in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock. This pre-planned study provides a probabilistic interpretation and evaluates heterogeneity in treatment effects (HTE). METHODS: We analysed mortality, serious adverse events (SAEs), serious adverse reactions (SARs) and days alive without life-support within 90 days using Bayesian models with weakly informative priors. HTE on mortality was assessed according to five baseline variables: disease severity, vasopressor dose, lactate levels, creatinine values and IV fluid volumes given before randomisation. RESULTS: The absolute difference in mortality was 0.2%-points (95% credible interval: -5.0 to 5.4; 47% posterior probability of benefit [risk difference <0.0%-points]) with restrictive IV fluid. The posterior probabilities of benefits with restrictive IV fluid were 72% for SAEs, 52% for SARs and 61% for days alive without life-support. The posterior probabilities of no clinically important differences (absolute risk difference ≤2%-points) between the groups were 56% for mortality, 49% for SAEs, 90% for SARs and 38% for days alive without life-support. There was 97% probability of HTE for previous IV fluid volumes analysed continuously, that is, potentially relatively lower mortality of restrictive IV fluids with higher previous IV fluids. No substantial evidence of HTE was found in the other analyses. CONCLUSION: We could not rule out clinically important effects of restrictive IV fluid therapy on mortality, SAEs or days alive without life-support, but substantial effects on SARs were unlikely. IV fluids given before randomisation might interact with IV fluid strategy.

Effects of IV fluid restriction according to site-specific intensity of standard fluid treatment-protocol.

BACKGROUND: Variation in usual practice in fluid trials assessing lower versus higher volumes may affect overall comparisons. To address this, we will evaluate the effects of heterogeneity in treatment intensity in the Conservative versus Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy of Septic Shock in Intensive Care trial. This will reflect the effects of differences in site-specific intensities of standard fluid treatment due to local practice preferences while considering participant characteristics. METHODS: We will assess the effects of heterogeneity in treatment intensity across one primary (all-cause mortality) and three secondary outcomes (serious adverse events or reactions, days alive without life support and days alive out of hospital) after 90 days. We will classify sites based on the site-specific intensity of standard fluid treatment, defined as the mean differences in observed versus predicted intravenous fluid volumes in the first 24 h in the standard-fluid group while accounting for differences in participant characteristics. Predictions will be made using a machine learning model including 22 baseline predictors using the extreme gradient boosting algorithm. Subsequently, sites will be grouped into fluid treatment intensity subgroups containing at least 100 participants each. Subgroups differences will be assessed using hierarchical Bayesian regression models with weakly informative priors. We will present the full posterior distributions of relative (risk ratios and ratios of means) and absolute differences (risk differences and mean differences) in each subgroup. DISCUSSION: This study will provide data on the effects of heterogeneity in treatment intensity while accounting for patient characteristics in critically ill adult patients with septic shock. REGISTRATIONS: The European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT): 2018-000404-42, ClinicalTrials. gov: NCT03668236.

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

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

A Systematic Bibliometric Analysis of High-Impact Articles in Critical Care Nephrology.

INTRODUCTION: Critical care nephrology is a subspecialty that merges critical care and nephrology in response to shared pathobiology, clinical care, and technological innovations. To date, there has been no description of the highest impact articles. Accordingly, we systematically identified high impact articles in critical care nephrology. METHODS: This was a bibliometric analysis. The search was developed by a research librarian. Web of Science was searched for articles published between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2020. Articles required a minimum of 30 citations, publication in English language, and reporting of primary (or secondary) original data. Articles were screened by two reviewers for eligibility and further adjudicated by three experts. The "Top 100" articles were hierarchically ranked by adjudication, citations in the 2 years following publication and journal impact factor (IF). For each article, we extracted detailed bibliometric data. Risk of bias was assessed for randomized trials by the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Analyses were descriptive. RESULTS: The search yielded 2,805 articles. Following initial screening, 307 articles were selected for full review and adjudication. The Top 100 articles were published across 20 journals (median [IQR] IF 10.6 [8.9-56.3]), 38% were published in the 5 years ending in 2020 and 62% were open access. The agreement between adjudicators was excellent (intraclass correlation, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.84-0.99). Of the Top 100, 44% were randomized trials, 35% were observational, 14% were systematic reviews, 6% were nonrandomized interventional studies and one article was a consensus document. The risk of bias among randomized trials was low. Common subgroup themes were RRT (42%), AKI (30%), fluids/resuscitation (14%), pediatrics (10%), interventions (8%), and perioperative care (6%). The citations for the Top 100 articles were 175 (95-393) and 9 were cited >1,000 times. CONCLUSION: Critical care nephrology has matured as an important subspecialty of critical care and nephrology. These high impact papers have focused largely on original studies, mostly clinical trials, within a few core themes. This list can be leveraged for curricula development, to stimulate research, and for quality assurance.

Current Fluid Management Practice in Critically Ill Adults on Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy: A Binational, Observational Study.

INTRODUCTION: In critically ill patients undergoing continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), a positive fluid balance (FB) is associated with adverse outcomes. However, current FB management practices in CRRT patients are poorly understood. We aimed to study FB and its components in British and Australian CRRT patients to inform future trials. METHODS: We obtained detailed electronic health record data on all fluid-related variables during CRRT and hourly FB for the first 7 days of treatment. RESULTS: We studied 1,616 patients from three tertiary intensive care units (ICUs) in two countries. After the start of CRRT, the mean cumulative FB became negative at 31 h and remained negative over 7 days to a mean nadir of -4.1 L (95% confidence interval (CI) of -4.6 to -3.5). The net ultrafiltration (NUF) rate was the dominant fluid variable (-67.7 mL/h; standard deviation (SD): 75.7); however, residual urine output (-34.7 mL/h; SD: 54.5), crystalloid administration (48.1 mL/h; SD: 44.6), and nutritional input (36.4 mL/h; SD: 29.7) significantly contributed to FB. Patients with a positive FB after 72 h of CRRT were more severely ill, required high-dose vasopressors, and had high lactate concentrations (5.0 mmol/L; interquartile range: 2.3-10.5). A positive FB was independently associated with increased hospital mortality (odds ratio: 1.70; 95% CI; p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: In the study ICUs, most CRRT patients achieved a predominantly NUF-dependent negative FB. Patients with a positive FB at 72 h had greater illness severity and haemodynamic instability. Achieving equipoise for conducting trials that target a negative early FB in such patients may be difficult.

Assessing the role of Chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 14 in AKI: a European consensus meeting.

BACKGROUND: Urinary Chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 14 (CCL14) is a biomarker associated with persistent severe acute kidney injury (AKI). There is limited data to support the implementation of this AKI biomarker to guide therapeutic actions. METHODS: Sixteen AKI experts with clinical CCL14 experience participated in a Delphi-based method to reach consensus on when and how to potentially use CCL14. Consensus was defined as ≥ 80% agreement (participants answered with 'Yes', or three to four points on a five-point Likert Scale). RESULTS: Key consensus areas for CCL14 test implementation were: identifying challenges and mitigations, developing a comprehensive protocol and pairing it with a treatment plan, and defining the target population. The majority agreed that CCL14 results can help to prioritize AKI management decisions. CCL14 levels above the high cutoff (> 13 ng/mL) significantly changed the level of concern for modifying the AKI treatment plan (p < 0.001). The highest level of concern to modify the treatment plan was for discussions on renal replacement therapy (RRT) initiation for CCL14 levels > 13 ng/mL. The level of concern for discussion on RRT initiation between High and Low, and between Medium and Low CCL14 levels, showed significant differences. CONCLUSION: Real world urinary CCL14 use appears to provide improved care options to patients at risk for persistent severe AKI. Experts believe there is a role for CCL14 in AKI management and it may potentially reduce AKI-disease burden. There is, however, an urgent need for evidence on treatment decisions and adjustments based on CCL14 results.

Timing of Initiation of Renal-Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury is common in critically ill patients, many of whom receive renal-replacement therapy. However, the most effective timing for the initiation of such therapy remains uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a multinational, randomized, controlled trial involving critically ill patients with severe acute kidney injury. Patients were randomly assigned to receive an accelerated strategy of renal-replacement therapy (in which therapy was initiated within 12 hours after the patient had met eligibility criteria) or a standard strategy (in which renal-replacement therapy was discouraged unless conventional indications developed or acute kidney injury persisted for >72 hours). The primary outcome was death from any cause at 90 days. RESULTS: Of the 3019 patients who had undergone randomization, 2927 (97.0%) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (1465 in the accelerated-strategy group and 1462 in the standard-strategy group). Of these patients, renal-replacement therapy was performed in 1418 (96.8%) in the accelerated-strategy group and in 903 (61.8%) in the standard-strategy group. At 90 days, death had occurred in 643 patients (43.9%) in the accelerated-strategy group and in 639 (43.7%) in the standard-strategy group (relative risk, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 1.09; P = 0.92). Among survivors at 90 days, continued dependence on renal-replacement therapy was confirmed in 85 of 814 patients (10.4%) in the accelerated-strategy group and in 49 of 815 patients (6.0%) in the standard-strategy group (relative risk, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.24 to 2.43). Adverse events occurred in 346 of 1503 patients (23.0%) in the accelerated-strategy group and in 245 of 1489 patients (16.5%) in the standard-strategy group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill patients with acute kidney injury, an accelerated renal-replacement strategy was not associated with a lower risk of death at 90 days than a standard strategy. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; STARRT-AKI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02568722.).