Effect of Slower vs Faster Intravenous Fluid Bolus Rates on Mortality in Critically Ill Patients: The BaSICS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Slower intravenous fluid infusion rates could reduce the formation of tissue edema and organ dysfunction in critically ill patients; however, there are no data to support different infusion rates during fluid challenges for important outcomes such as mortality. Objective: To determine the effect of a slower infusion rate vs control infusion rate on 90-day survival in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Design, Setting, and Participants: Unblinded randomized factorial clinical trial in 75 ICUs in Brazil, involving 11 052 patients requiring at least 1 fluid challenge and with 1 risk factor for worse outcomes were randomized from May 29, 2017, to March 2, 2020. Follow-up was concluded on October 29, 2020. Patients were randomized to 2 different infusion rates (reported in this article) and 2 different fluid types (balanced fluids or saline, reported separately). Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive fluid challenges at 2 different infusion rates; 5538 to the slower rate (333 mL/h) and 5514 to the control group (999 mL/h). Patients were also randomized to receive balanced solution or 0.9% saline using a factorial design. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was 90-day survival. Results: Of all randomized patients, 10 520 (95.2%) were analyzed (mean age, 61.1 years [SD, 17.0 years]; 44.2% were women) after excluding duplicates and consent withdrawals. Patients assigned to the slower rate received a mean of 1162 mL on the first day vs 1252 mL for the control group. By day 90, 1406 of 5276 patients (26.6%) in the slower rate group had died vs 1414 of 5244 (27.0%) in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.96-1.11; P = .46). There was no significant interaction between fluid type and infusion rate (P = .98). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients in the intensive care unit requiring fluid challenges, infusing at a slower rate compared with a faster rate did not reduce 90-day mortality. These findings do not support the use of a slower infusion rate. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02875873.

Role of organisational factors on the 'weekend effect' in critically ill patients in Brazil: a retrospective cohort analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Higher mortality for patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) during the weekends has been occasionally reported with conflicting results that could be related to organisational factors. We investigated the effects of ICU organisational and staffing patterns on the potential association between weekend admission and outcomes in critically ill patients. METHODS: We included 59 614 patients admitted to 78 ICUs participating during 2013. We defined 'weekend admission' as any ICU admission from Friday 19:00 until Monday 07:00. We assessed the association between weekend admission with hospital mortality using a mixed logistic regression model controlling for both patient-level (illness severity, age, comorbidities, performance status and admission type) and ICU-level (decrease in nurse/bed ratio on weekend, full-time intensivist coverage, use of checklists on weekends and number of institutional protocols) confounders. We performed secondary analyses in the subgroup of scheduled surgical admissions. RESULTS: A total of 41 894 patients (70.3%) were admitted on weekdays and 17 720 patients (29.7%) on weekends. In univariable analysis, weekend admitted patients had higher ICU (10.9% vs 9.0%, P<0.001) and hospital (16.5% vs 13.5%, P<0.001) mortality. After adjusting for confounders, weekend admission was not associated with higher hospital mortality (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.12, P=0.095). However, a 'weekend effect' was still observed in scheduled surgical admissions, as well as in ICUs not using checklists during the weekends. For unscheduled admissions, no 'weekend effect' was observed regardless of ICU's characteristics. For scheduled surgical admissions, a 'weekend effect' was present only in ICUs with a low number of implemented protocols and those with a reduction in the nurse/bed ratio and not applying checklists during weekends. CONCLUSIONS: ICU organisational factors, such as decreased nurse-to-patient ratio, absence of checklists and fewer standardised protocols, may explain, in part, increases in mortality in patients admitted to the ICU mortality on weekends.

Sepsis-Associated Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients with Malignancies.

RATIONALE: Sepsis is a major cause of mortality among critically ill patients with cancer. Information about clinical outcomes and factors associated with increased risk of death in these patients is necessary to help physicians recognize those patients who are most likely to benefit from ICU therapy and identify possible targets for intervention. OBJECTIVES: In this study, we evaluated cancer patients with sepsis chosen from a multicenter prospective study to characterize their clinical characteristics and to identify independent risk factors associated with hospital mortality. METHODS: Subgroup analysis of a multicenter prospective cohort study conducted in 28 Brazilian intensive care units (ICUs) to evaluate adult cancer patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. We used logistic regression to identify variables associated with hospital mortality. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the 717 patients admitted to the participating ICUs, 268 (37%) had severe sepsis (n = 142, 53%) or septic shock (n = 126, 47%). These patients comprised the population of the present study. The mean score on the third version of the Simplified Acute Physiology Score was 62.9 ± 17.7 points, and the median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 9 (7-12) points. The most frequent sites of infection were the lungs (48%), intraabdominal region (25%), bloodstream as primary infection (19%), and urinary tract (17%). Half of the patients had microbiologically proven infections, and Gram-negative bacteria were the most common pathogens causing sepsis (31%). ICU and hospital mortality rates were 42% and 56%, respectively. In multivariable analysis, the number of acute organ dysfunctions (odds ratio [OR], 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.87), hematological malignancies (OR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.05-6.27), performance status 2-4 (OR, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.44-4.43), and polymicrobial infections (OR, 3.74; 95% CI, 1.52-9.21) were associated with hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Sepsis is a common cause of critical illness in patients with cancer and remains associated with high mortality. Variables related to underlying malignancy, sepsis severity, and characteristics of infection are associated with a grim prognosis.