Association of early mobility with the incidence of deep-vein thrombosis and mortality among critically ill patients: a post hoc analysis of PREVENT trial.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the mobility levels among critically ill patients and the association of early mobility with incident proximal lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis and 90-day mortality. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of the multicenter PREVENT trial, which evaluated adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression in critically ill patients receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis with an expected ICU stay ≥ 72 h and found no effect on the primary outcome of incident proximal lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis. Mobility levels were documented daily up to day 28 in the ICU using a tool with an 8-point ordinal scale. We categorized patients according to mobility levels within the first 3 ICU days into three groups: early mobility level 4-7 (at least active standing), 1-3 (passive transfer from bed to chair or active sitting), and 0 (passive range of motion). We evaluated the association of early mobility and incident lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis and 90-day mortality by Cox proportional models adjusting for randomization and other co-variables. RESULTS: Of 1708 patients, only 85 (5.0%) had early mobility level 4-7 and 356 (20.8%) level 1-3, while 1267 (74.2%) had early mobility level 0. Patients with early mobility levels 4-7 and 1-3 had less illness severity, femoral central venous catheters, and organ support compared to patients with mobility level 0. Incident proximal lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis occurred in 1/85 (1.3%) patients in the early mobility 4-7 group, 7/348 (2.0%) patients in mobility 1-3 group, and 50/1230 (4.1%) patients in mobility 0 group. Compared with early mobility group 0, mobility groups 4-7 and 1-3 were not associated with differences in incident proximal lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16, 8.90; p = 0.87 and 0.91, 95% CI 0.39, 2.12; p = 0.83, respectively). However, early mobility groups 4-7 and 1-3 had lower 90-day mortality (aHR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22, 1.01; p = 0.052, and 0.43, 95% CI 0.30, 0.62; p < 0.0001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Only a small proportion of critically ill patients with an expected ICU stay ≥ 72 h were mobilized early. Early mobility was associated with reduced mortality, but not with different incidence of deep-vein thrombosis. This association does not establish causality, and randomized controlled trials are required to assess whether and to what extent this association is modifiable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PREVENT trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02040103 (registered on 3 November 2013) and Current controlled trials, ID: ISRCTN44653506 (registered on 30 October 2013).

Statistical analysis plan for the replacing protein via enteral nutrition in a stepwise approach in critically ill patients (REPLENISH) randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal amount and timing of protein intake in critically ill patients are unknown. REPLENISH (Replacing Protein via Enteral Nutrition in a Stepwise Approach in Critically Ill Patients) trial evaluates whether supplemental enteral protein added to standard enteral nutrition to achieve a high amount of enteral protein given from ICU day five until ICU discharge or ICU day 90 as compared to no supplemental enteral protein to achieve a moderate amount of enteral protein would reduce all-cause 90-day mortality in adult critically ill mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: In this multicenter randomized trial, critically ill patients will be randomized to receive supplemental enteral protein (1.2 g/kg/day) added to standard enteral nutrition to achieve a high amount of enteral protein (range of 2-2.4 g/kg/day) or no supplemental enteral protein to achieve a moderate amount of enteral protein (0.8-1.2 g/kg/day). The primary outcome is 90-day all-cause mortality; other outcomes include functional and health-related quality-of-life assessments at 90 days. The study sample size of 2502 patients will have 80% power to detect a 5% absolute risk reduction in 90-day mortality from 30 to 25%. Consistent with international guidelines, this statistical analysis plan specifies the methods for evaluating primary and secondary outcomes and subgroups. Applying this statistical analysis plan to the REPLENISH trial will facilitate unbiased analyses of clinical data. CONCLUSION: Ethics approval was obtained from the institutional review board, Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (RC19/414/R). Approvals were also obtained from the institutional review boards of each participating institution. Our findings will be disseminated in an international peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences and meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04475666 . Registered on July 17, 2020.

Replacing protein via enteral nutrition in a stepwise approach in critically ill patients: the REPLENISH randomized clinical trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Protein intake is recommended in critically ill patients to mitigate the negative effects of critical illness-induced catabolism and muscle wasting. However, the optimal dose of enteral protein remains unknown. We hypothesize that supplemental enteral protein (1.2 g/kg/day) added to standard enteral nutrition formula to achieve high amount of enteral protein (range 2-2.4 g/kg/day) given from ICU day 5 until ICU discharge or ICU day 90 as compared to no supplemental enteral protein to achieve moderate amount enteral protein (0.8-1.2 g/kg/day) would reduce all-cause 90-day mortality in adult critically ill mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: The REPLENISH (Replacing Protein Via Enteral Nutrition in a Stepwise Approach in Critically Ill Patients) trial is an open-label, multicenter randomized clinical trial. Patients will be randomized to the supplemental protein group or the control group. Patients in both groups will receive the primary enteral formula as per the treating team, which includes a maximum protein 1.2 g/kg/day. The supplemental protein group will receive, in addition, supplemental protein at 1.2 g/kg/day starting the fifth ICU day. The control group will receive the primary formula without supplemental protein. The primary outcome is 90-day all-cause mortality. Other outcomes include functional and quality of life assessments at 90 days. The trial will enroll 2502 patients. DISCUSSION: The study has been initiated in September 2021. Interim analysis is planned at one third and two thirds of the target sample size. The study is expected to be completed by the end of 2025. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04475666 . Registered on July 17, 2020.

Combination of norepinephrine with phenylephrine versus norepinephrine with vasopressin in critically ill patients with septic shock: A retrospective study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the outcomes of patients with septic shock treated with a combination of norepinephrine with phenylephrine compared to norepinephrine with vasopressin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study including adults admitted between 2002 and 2017 with septic shock according to the Sepsis 3 criteria. We compared outcomes of patients treated with norepinephrine with phenylephrine to those treated with norepinephrine with vasopressin. Multivariate analysis was carried out to evaluate the association of norepinephrine with phenylephrine compared to norepinephrine with vasopressin with in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: During the study period, 158 patients with septic shock were treated with norepinephrine with phenylephrine and 129 with norepinephrine with vasopressin. Crude in-hospital mortality was not different between the two groups [91/158 (57.6%) versus 80/129 (62.5%), p = 0.40]. There was also no difference in ICU length of stay or hospital length of stay. Multivariate analysis demonstrated no significant association of norepinephrine with phenylephrine with in-hospital mortality compared to norepinephrine with vasopressin (OR 0.62 (95% confidence interval 0.31, 1.23, p = 0.17). CONCLUSION: Phenylephrine used as a second-line vasoactive agent combined with norepinephrine may be a reasonable option compared to vasopressin. However, this finding needs to be validated in a randomized controlled trial.