Effects of Losartan on Patients Hospitalized for Acute COVID-19: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) down-regulates angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, potentially increasing angiotensin II. We hypothesized that losartan compared to usual care decreases mortality and is safe in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to evaluate the effect of losartan versus usual care on 28-day mortality in patients hospitalized for acute COVID-19. METHODS: Eligibility criteria included adults admitted for acute COVID-19. Exclusion criteria were hypotension, hyperkalemia, acute kidney injury, and use of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors within 7 days. Participants were randomized to losartan 25-100 mg/day orally for the hospital duration or 3 months or the control arm (usual care) in 29 hospitals in Canada and France. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were hospital mortality, organ support, and serious adverse events (SAEs). RESULTS: The trial was stopped early because of a serious safety concern with losartan. In 341 patients, any SAE and hypotension were significantly higher in the losartan versus usual care groups (any SAE: 39.8% vs 27.2%, respectively, P = .01; hypotension: 30.4% vs 15.3%, respectively, P < .001) in both ward and intensive care patients. The 28-day mortality did not differ between losartan (6.5%) versus usual care (5.9%) (odds ratio, 1.11 [95% confidence interval, .47-2.64]; P = .81), nor did organ dysfunction or secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Caution is needed in deciding which patients to start or continue using ARBs in patients hospitalized with pneumonia to mitigate risk of hypotension, acute kidney injury, and other side effects. ARBs should not be added to care of patients hospitalized for acute COVID-19. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04606563.

Antiseizure Medications in Adult Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of any antiseizure medication on the incidence of early post-traumatic seizures among adult patients with traumatic brain injury. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and LILACS were searched from inception to October 2023. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized trials of adult patients with traumatic brain injury evaluating any antiseizure medication compared with either placebo or another agent. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted individual study data and evaluated studies for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Our main outcome of interest was the occurrence of early seizures (i.e., within 7 d); secondary outcomes included late-seizures and all-cause mortality. DATA SYNTHESIS: Bayesian network meta-analyses were used to derive risk ratios (RRs) alongside 95% credible intervals (CrIs). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology to rate the certainty in our findings. Overall, ten individual randomized controlled trials (1851 participants) were included. Compared with placebo, phenytoin (RR, 0.28; 95% CrI, 0.13-0.57; moderate certainty) and levetiracetam (RR, 0.20; 95% CrI, 0.07-0.60; moderate certainty) were associated with a reduction in the risk of early seizures. Carbamazepine may be associated with a reduced risk of early seizures, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR, 0.41; 95% CrI, 0.12-1.27; very low certainty). Valproic acid may result in little to no difference in the risk of early seizures, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR, 0.97; 95% CrI, 0.16-9.00; very low certainty). The evidence is very uncertain about the impact of any antiseizure medication on the risk of late seizures or all-cause mortality at longest reported follow-up time. CONCLUSIONS: Phenytoin or levetiracetam reduce the risk of early seizures among adult patients with traumatic brain injury. Further research is needed to evaluate required duration of therapy and long-term safety profiles.

Trends in characteristics, interventions, and outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Canada: a multicentre prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Our objective was to investigate the temporal trends in baseline characteristics, interventions, and clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Canada over five pandemic waves. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre prospective cohort study enrolling adults and children admitted with COVID-19 from 47 Canadian hospitals. We compared characteristics, interventions, and outcomes of patients across five distinct pandemic waves. RESULTS: We enrolled 5,285 patients between 2 January 2020 and 8 February 2022. The mean (standard deviation) age was 62.6 (21.0) yr; 41.2% (n = 2,176) were female, and 48% (n = 2,539) required admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), of whom 60.3% (n = 1,530) underwent invasive mechanical ventilation. The proportion of vaccinated patients increased over time. The proportion of vaccinated hospitalized patients progressing to require ICU admission fell over pandemic waves while the proportion of unvaccinated hospitalized patients progressing to require ICU admission did not. Patients were most commonly treated with corticosteroids (48.7%; n = 2,575); use of corticosteroids and other evidence-based treatments increased over time. Hospital mortality was 22.1% (n = 1,166) among all patients, 30.2% (n = 766) among those admitted to an ICU, and 37.9% (n = 580) among those requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. Younger age, absence of chronic cardiac or pulmonary disease, severity of illness at admission, and prior vaccination was associated with a lower mortality; however, pandemic wave itself was not. CONCLUSION: Among patients hospitalized in Canada with COVID-19, several clinical factors including prior vaccination were associated with lower mortality, but pandemic wave was not.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Notre objectif était d'étudier les tendances temporelles des caractéristiques de base, des interventions et des issues cliniques chez la patientèle hospitalisée pour cause de COVID-19 au Canada au cours de cinq vagues de la pandémie. MéTHODE: Nous avons mené une étude de cohorte prospective multicentrique auprès d'adultes et d'enfants admis·es avec la COVID-19 dans 47 hôpitaux canadiens. Nous avons comparé les caractéristiques, les interventions et les issues des patient·es sur cinq vagues pandémiques distinctes. RéSULTATS: Nous avons recruté 5285 patient·es entre le 2 janvier 2020 et le 8 février 2022. L'âge moyen (écart type) était de 62,6 (21,0) ans; 41,2 % (n = 2176) étaient des femmes, et 48 % (n = 2539) ont dû être admis·es à une unité de soins intensifs (USI), dont 60,3 % (n = 1530) ont bénéficié de ventilation mécanique invasive. La proportion de patient·es vacciné·es a augmenté au fil du temps. La proportion de patient·es hospitalisé·es vacciné·es nécessitant une admission aux soins intensifs a diminué au cours des vagues pandémiques, tandis que la proportion de patient·es hospitalisé·es non vacciné·es nécessitant une admission aux soins intensifs n'a pas diminué. Les patient·es étaient le plus souvent traité·es par corticostéroïdes (48,7 %; n = 2575); l'utilisation de corticostéroïdes et d'autres traitements fondés sur des données probantes a augmenté au fil du temps. La mortalité hospitalière était de 22,1 % (n = 1166) parmi l'ensemble des patient·es, 30,2 % (n = 766) chez les personnes admises à l'unité de soins intensifs, et 37,9 % (n = 580) parmi les personnes nécessitant une ventilation mécanique invasive. Le jeune âge, l'absence de maladie cardiaque ou pulmonaire chronique, la gravité de la maladie à l'admission et la vaccination antérieure étaient associés à une mortalité plus faible; cependant, la vague pandémique elle-même ne l'était pas. CONCLUSION: Parmi les personnes hospitalisées au Canada en raison de la COVID-19, plusieurs facteurs cliniques, y compris la vaccination antérieure, étaient associés à une mortalité plus faible, mais pas la vague pandémique.

Understanding ventilator-induced lung injury: The role of mechanical power.

Mechanical ventilation stands as a life-saving intervention in the management of respiratory failure. However, it carries the risk of ventilator-induced lung injury. Despite the adoption of lung-protective ventilation strategies, including lower tidal volumes and pressure limitations, mortality rates remain high, leaving room for innovative approaches. The concept of mechanical power has emerged as a comprehensive metric encompassing key ventilator parameters associated with the genesis of ventilator-induced lung injury, including volume, pressure, flow, resistance, and respiratory rate. While numerous animal and human studies have linked mechanical power and ventilator-induced lung injury, its practical implementation at the bedside is hindered by calculation challenges, lack of equation consensus, and the absence of an optimal threshold. To overcome the constraints of measuring static respiratory parameters, dynamic mechanical power is proposed for all patients, regardless of their ventilation mode. However, establishing a causal relationship is crucial for its potential implementation, and requires further research. The objective of this review is to explore the role of mechanical power in ventilator-induced lung injury, its association with patient outcomes, and the challenges and potential benefits of implementing a ventilation strategy based on mechanical power.

The spectrum of acute illness and mortality of children and adolescents presenting to emergency services in Sanghar district hospital, Pakistan: a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe presenting diagnoses and rates and causes of death by age category and sex among children with acute illness brought to a district headquarter hospital in Pakistan. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Sanghar district headquarter hospital, Sindh, Pakistan between December 2019 and April 2020 and August 2020 and December 2020. PARTICIPANTS: 3850 children 0-14 years presenting with acute illness to the emergency and outpatient departments and 1286 children admitted to the inpatient department. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was Global Burden of Disease diagnosis category. Secondary outcomes were 28-day mortality rate, cause of death and healthcare delays, defined as delay in care-seeking, delay in reaching the healthcare facility and delay in appropriate treatment. RESULTS: Communicable diseases were the most common presenting diagnoses among outpatients and among inpatients aged 1 month to 9 years. Non-communicable diseases and nutritional disorders were more common with increasing age. Few children presented with injuries. Newborn period (age <28 days) was associated with increased odds of death (OR 4.34 [95% CI 2.38 to 8.18], p<0.001, reference age 28 days-14 years) and there was no significant difference in odds of death between female vs male children (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.6 to 2.04, p=0.72). 47 children died in the hospital (3.6%) and three (0.2%) died within 28 days of admission. Most children who died were <28 days old (n=32/50, 64%); leading diagnoses included neonatal sepsis/meningitis (n=13/50, 26%), neonatal encephalopathy (n=7/50, 14%) and lower respiratory tract infections (n=6/50, 12%). Delays in care-seeking (n=15) and in receiving appropriate treatment (n=12) were common. CONCLUSION: This study adds to sparse literature surrounding the epidemiology of disease and hospital outcomes for children with acute illness seeking healthcare in rural Pakistan and, in particular, among children aged 5-14 years. Further studies should include public and private hospitals within a single region to comprehensively describe patterns of care-seeking and interfacility transfer in district health systems.

Barriers, Solutions, and Opportunities for Adapting Critical Care Clinical Trials in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for clinical trials worldwide, threatening premature closure and trial integrity. Every phase of research operations was affected, often requiring modifications to protocol design and implementation. Objectives: To identify the barriers, solutions, and opportunities associated with continuing critical care trials that were interrupted during the pandemic, and to generate suggestions for future trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: This mixed-methods study performed an explanatory sequential analysis involving a self-administered electronic survey and focus groups of principal investigators (PIs) and project coordinators (PCs) conducting adult and pediatric individual-patient randomized trials of the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eligible trials were actively enrolling patients on March 11, 2020. Data were analyzed between September 2023 and January 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Importance ratings of barriers to trial conduct and completion, solutions employed, opportunities arising, and suggested strategies for future trials. Quantitative data examining barriers were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Data addressing solutions, opportunities, and suggestions were analyzed by qualitative content analysis. Integration involved triangulation of data sources and perspectives about 13 trials, synthesized by an interprofessional team incorporating reflexivity and member-checking. Results: A total of 13 trials run by 29 PIs and PCs (100% participation rate) were included. The highest-rated barriers (on a 5-point scale) to ongoing conduct during the pandemic were decisions to pause all clinical research (mean [SD] score, 4.7 [0.8]), focus on COVID-19 studies (mean [SD] score, 4.6 [0.8]), and restricted family presence in hospitals (mean [SD] score, 4.1 [0.8]). Suggestions to enable trial progress and completion included providing scientific leadership, implementing technology for communication and data management, facilitating the informed consent process, adapting the protocol as necessary, fostering site engagement, initiating new sites, streamlining ethics and contract review, and designing nested studies. The pandemic necessitated new funding opportunities to sustain trial enrollment. It increased public awareness of critical illness and the importance of randomized trial evidence. Conclusions and Relevance: While underscoring the vital role of research in society and drawing the scientific community together with a common purpose, the pandemic signaled the need for innovation to ensure the rigor and completion of ongoing trials. Lessons learned to optimize research procedures will help to ensure a vibrant clinical trials enterprise in the future.

Methylene Blue in Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Although clinicians may use methylene blue (MB) in refractory septic shock, the effect of MB on patient-important outcomes remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the benefits and harms of MB administration in patients with septic shock. DATA SOURCES: We searched six databases (including PubMed, Embase, and Medline) from inception to January 10, 2024. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of critically ill adults comparing MB with placebo or usual care without MB administration. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers performed screening, full-text review, and data extraction. We pooled data using a random-effects model, assessed the risk of bias using the modified Cochrane tool, and used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to rate certainty of effect estimates. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included six RCTs (302 patients). Compared with placebo or no MB administration, MB may reduce short-term mortality (RR [risk ratio] 0.66 [95% CI, 0.47-0.94], low certainty) and hospital length of stay (mean difference [MD] -2.1 d [95% CI, -1.4 to -2.8], low certainty). MB may also reduce duration of vasopressors (MD -31.1 hr [95% CI, -16.5 to -45.6], low certainty), and increase mean arterial pressure at 6 hours (MD 10.2 mm Hg [95% CI, 6.1-14.2], low certainty) compared with no MB administration. The effect of MB on serum methemoglobin concentration was uncertain (MD 0.9% [95% CI, -0.2% to 2.0%], very low certainty). We did not find any differences in adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill adults with septic shock, based on low-certainty evidence, MB may reduce short-term mortality, duration of vasopressors, and hospital length of stay, with no evidence of increased adverse events. Rigorous randomized trials evaluating the efficacy of MB in septic shock are needed. REGISTRATION: Center for Open Science (https://osf.io/hpy4j).

Liberal or Restrictive Transfusion Strategy in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury.

BACKGROUND: The effect of a liberal transfusion strategy as compared with a restrictive strategy on outcomes in critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults with moderate or severe traumatic brain injury and anemia to receive transfusion of red cells according to a liberal strategy (transfusions initiated at a hemoglobin level of ≤10 g per deciliter) or a restrictive strategy (transfusions initiated at ≤7 g per deciliter). The primary outcome was an unfavorable outcome as assessed by the score on the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended at 6 months, which we categorized with the use of a sliding dichotomy that was based on the prognosis of each patient at baseline. Secondary outcomes included mortality, functional independence, quality of life, and depression at 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 742 patients underwent randomization, with 371 assigned to each group. The analysis of the primary outcome included 722 patients. The median hemoglobin level in the intensive care unit was 10.8 g per deciliter in the group assigned to the liberal strategy and 8.8 g per deciliter in the group assigned to the restrictive strategy. An unfavorable outcome occurred in 249 of 364 patients (68.4%) in the liberal-strategy group and in 263 of 358 (73.5%) in the restrictive-strategy group (adjusted absolute difference, restrictive strategy vs. liberal strategy, 5.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -2.9 to 13.7). Among survivors, a liberal strategy was associated with higher scores on some but not all the scales assessing functional independence and quality of life. No association was observed between the transfusion strategy and mortality or depression. Venous thromboembolic events occurred in 8.4% of the patients in each group, and acute respiratory distress syndrome occurred in 3.3% and 0.8% of patients in the liberal-strategy and restrictive-strategy groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury and anemia, a liberal transfusion strategy did not reduce the risk of an unfavorable neurologic outcome at 6 months. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; HEMOTION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03260478.).

Comparison of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, prone position and supine mechanical ventilation for severely hypoxemic acute respiratory distress syndrome: a network meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with PaO2/FiO2 < 80 mmHg is a life-threatening condition. The optimal management strategy is unclear. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the effects of low tidal volumes (Vt), moderate Vt, prone ventilation, and venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) on mortality in severe ARDS. METHODS: We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with participants who had severe ARDS and met eligibility criteria for VV-ECMO or had PaO2/FiO2 < 80 mmHg. We applied the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to discern the relative effect of interventions on mortality and the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: Ten RCTs including 812 participants with severe ARDS were eligible. VV-ECMO reduces mortality compared to low Vt (risk ratio [RR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-0.99, moderate certainty) and compared to moderate Vt (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57-0.98, low certainty). Prone ventilation reduces mortality compared to moderate Vt (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.66-0.93, high certainty) and compared to low Vt (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63-1.02, moderate certainty). We found no difference in the network comparison of VV-ECMO compared to prone ventilation (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72-1.26), but inferences were based solely on indirect comparisons with very low certainty due to very wide confidence intervals. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with ARDS and severe hypoxia, both VV-ECMO (low to moderate certainty evidence) and prone ventilation (moderate to high certainty evidence) improve mortality relative to low and moderate Vt strategies. The impact of VV-ECMO versus prone ventilation remains uncertain.

Prospective Study of Ultrasound Markers of Organ Congestion in Critically Ill Patients With Acute Kidney Injury.

Introduction: Organ congestion may be a mediator of adverse outcomes in critically ill patients with severe acute kidney injury (AKI). The presence of abnormal venous Doppler waveforms could identify patients with clinically significant organ congestion who may benefit from a decongestive strategy. Methods: This prospective multicenter cohort study enrolled patients with severe AKI defined as Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes stage 2 or higher. Patients were not eligible if they received renal replacement therapy (RRT) for more than 72 hours at the time of screening. Participants underwent serial Doppler ultrasound examinations of the portal, hepatic and intrarenal veins during the week following enrolment. We calculated the venous excess ultrasound (VExUS) score based on these data. The primary outcome studied was major adverse kidney events at 30 days (MAKE30) defined as death, RRT dependence, or a persistent decrease in kidney function. Results: A total of 125 patients were included for whom 291 ultrasound assessments were performed. Severely abnormal venous waveforms were documented in 14.4% of portal vein assessments, 6.5% of intrarenal venous assessments, and 14.4% of hepatic vein assessments. The individual ultrasound markers were not associated with MAKE30. The VExUS score (grade 0-1: reference; grade 2: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 4.03, confidence interval [CI]: 1.81-8.99; grade 3: aHR: 2.70, CI: 1.10-6.65; P = 0.03), as well as severely abnormal portal, hepatic and intrarenal vein Doppler were each independently associated with mortality. Conclusion: Although not significantly associated with MAKE30, venous Doppler abnormalities suggestive of venous congestion were associated with higher mortality in critically ill patients with severe AKI.

Regional Practice Variation and Outcomes in the Standard Versus Accelerated Initiation of Renal Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) Trial: A Post Hoc Secondary Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Among patients with severe acute kidney injury (AKI) admitted to the ICU in high-income countries, regional practice variations for fluid balance (FB) management, timing, and choice of renal replacement therapy (RRT) modality may be significant. DESIGN: Secondary post hoc analysis of the STandard vs. Accelerated initiation of Renal Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02568722). SETTING: One hundred-fifty-three ICUs in 13 countries. PATIENTS: Altogether 2693 critically ill patients with AKI, of whom 994 were North American, 1143 European, and 556 from Australia and New Zealand (ANZ). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Total mean FB to a maximum of 14 days was +7199 mL in North America, +5641 mL in Europe, and +2211 mL in ANZ (p < 0.001). The median time to RRT initiation among patients allocated to the standard strategy was longest in Europe compared with North America and ANZ (p < 0.001; p < 0.001). Continuous RRT was the initial RRT modality in 60.8% of patients in North America and 56.8% of patients in Europe, compared with 96.4% of patients in ANZ (p < 0.001). After adjustment for predefined baseline characteristics, compared with North American and European patients, those in ANZ were more likely to survive to ICU (p < 0.001) and hospital discharge (p < 0.001) and to 90 days (for ANZ vs. Europe: risk difference [RD], -11.3%; 95% CI, -17.7% to -4.8%; p < 0.001 and for ANZ vs. North America: RD, -10.3%; 95% CI, -17.5% to -3.1%; p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Among STARRT-AKI trial centers, significant regional practice variation exists regarding FB, timing of initiation of RRT, and initial use of continuous RRT. After adjustment, such practice variation was associated with lower ICU and hospital stay and 90-day mortality among ANZ patients compared with other regions.

Geo-economic Influence on the Effect of Fluid Volume for Sepsis Resuscitation: A Meta-Analysis.

Rationale: Sepsis management relies on fluid resuscitation avoiding fluid overload and its related organ congestion. Objectives: To explore the influence of country income group on risk-benefit balance of fluid management strategies in sepsis. Methods: We searched e-databases for all randomized controlled trials on fluid resuscitation in patients with sepsis or septic shock up to January 2023, excluding studies on hypertonic fluids, colloids, and depletion-based interventions. The effect of fluid strategies (higher versus lower volumes) on mortality was analyzed per income group (i.e., low- and middle-income countries [LMICs] or high-income countries [HICs]). Measurements and Main Results: Twenty-nine studies (11,798 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. There was a numerically higher mortality in studies of LMICs as compared with those of HICs: median, 37% (interquartile range [IQR]: 26-41) versus 29% (IQR: 17-38; P = 0.06). Income group significantly interacted with the effect of fluid volume on mortality: Higher fluid volume was associated with higher mortality in LMICs but not in HICs: odds ratio (OR), 1.47; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.14-1.90 versus 1.00 (95% CI: 0.87-1.16), P = 0.01 for subgroup differences. Higher fluid volume was associated with increased need for mechanical ventilation in LMICs (OR, 1.24 [95% CI: 1.08-1.43]) but not in HICs (OR, 1.02 [95% CI: 0.80-1.29]). Self-reported access to mechanical ventilation also significantly influenced the effect of fluid volume on mortality, which increased with higher volumes only in settings with limited access to mechanical ventilation (OR: 1.45 [95% CI: 1.09-1.93] vs. 1.09 [95% CI: 0.93-1.28], P = 0.02 for subgroup differences). Conclusions: In sepsis trials, the effect of fluid resuscitation approach differed by setting, with higher volume of fluid resuscitation associated with increased mortality in LMICs and in settings with restricted access to mechanical ventilation. The precise reason for these differences is unclear and may be attributable in part to resource constraints, participant variation between trials, or other unmeasured factors.

Prevalence of frailty and association with patient centered outcomes: A prospective registry-embedded cohort study from India.

PURPOSE: We aimed to study the prevalence of frailty, evaluate risk factors, and understand impact on outcomes in India. METHODS: This was a prospective registry-embedded cohort study across 7 intensive care units (ICUs) and included adult patients anticipated to stay for at least 48 h. Primary exposure was frailty, as defined by a score ≥ 5 on the Clinical Frailty Scale and primary outcome was ICU mortality. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and resource utilization. We used generalized linear models to evaluate risk factors and model association between frailty and outcomes. RESULTS: 838 patients were included, with median (IQR) age 57 (42,68) yrs.; 64.8% were male. Prevalence of frailty was 19.8%. Charlson comorbidity index (OR:1.73 (95%CI:1.39,2.15)), Subjective Global Assessment categories mild/moderate malnourishment (OR:1.90 (95%CI:1.29, 2.80)) and severe malnourishment (OR:4.76 (95% CI:2.10,10.77)) were associated with frailty. Frailty was associated with higher odds of ICU mortality (adjusted OR:2.04 (95% CI:1.25,3.33)), hospital mortality (adjusted OR:2.36 (95%CI:1.45,3.84)), development of stage2/3 AKI (unadjusted OR:2.35 (95%CI:1.60, 3.43)), receipt of non-invasive ventilation (unadjusted OR:2.68 (95%CI:1.77, 4.03)), receipt of vasopressors (unadjusted OR:1.47 (95%CI:1.04, 2.07)), and receipt of kidney replacement therapy (unadjusted OR:3.15 (95%CI:1.90, 5.17)). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty is common among critically ill patients in India and is associated with worse outcomes. STUDY REGISTRATION: CTRI/2021/02/031503.

A Pilot Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravenous Vitamin C in Adults with Sepsis in the Intensive Care Unit: The Lessening Organ Dysfunction with Vitamin C-India (LOVIT-India) Trial.

Background: The burden of sepsis is high in India and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Vitamin C, an endogenous antioxidant, may improve patient outcomes. Methods: This was a parallel-group pilot feasibility randomized controlled trial conducted at 2 intensive care units in India. Adult patients (≥18 years) with proven or suspected infection as the main diagnosis and needing a continuous intravenous vasopressor infusion were randomized to intravenous vitamin C (50 mg/kg every 6 hours for a maximum of 16 doses) or matching placebo. Primary outcomes were related to protocol adherence and feasibility (enrollment per month). The key secondary outcome was the composite of mortality or persistent organ dysfunction (POD) at day 28 after randomization. Results: 60 patients were screened, 51 were eligible, 32 were randomized, and 30 were included in the analysis (randomized/eligible ratio: 0.63). The overall rate of enrollment was 1.5 patients per month. The median (IQR) age was 63.5 (51.0, 70.0) and 70.0% of the patients were male. In both arms, all patients received ≥90% of scheduled doses of the study drug. No patient received open-label vitamin C and there were no deviations from the glucose monitoring protocol. The composite outcome of mortality or POD at day 28 occurred in 56.3% (9/16) in the vitamin C arm as compared to 42.9% (6/14) in the placebo arm [RR: 1.31 (95% CI: 0.62, 2.76), p = 0.47]. Conclusion: In this pilot feasibility randomized controlled trial of vitamin C for adult patients with sepsis, protocol adherence was excellent and feasibility endpoints were met. Trial registration: CTRI/2020/03/024371. How to cite this article: Vijayaraghavan BKT, Venkataraman R, Ramanathan Y, Margabandhu S, Jayakumar D, Ramachandran P, et al. A Pilot Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravenous Vitamin C in Adults with Sepsis in the Intensive Care Unit: The Lessening Organ Dysfunction with Vitamin C-India (LOVIT-India) Trial. Indian J Crit Care Med 2023;27(12):910-916.

Critical care delivery across health care systems in low-income and low-middle-income country settings: A systematic review.

Background: Prior research has demonstrated that low- and low-middle-income countries (LLMICs) bear a higher burden of critical illness and have a higher rate of mortality from critical illness than high-income countries (HICs). There is a pressing need for improved critical care delivery in LLMICs to reduce this inequity. This systematic review aimed to characterise the range of critical care interventions and services delivered within LLMIC health care systems as reported in the literature. Methods: A search strategy using terms related to critical care in LLMICs was implemented in multiple databases. We included English language articles with human subjects describing at least one critical care intervention or service in an LLMIC setting published between 1 January 2008 and 1 January 2020. Results: A total of 1620 studies met the inclusion criteria. Among the included studies, 45% of studies reported on pediatric patients, 43% on adults, 23% on infants, 8.9% on geriatric patients and 4.2% on maternal patients. Most of the care described (94%) was delivered in-hospital, with the remainder (6.2%) taking place in out-of-hospital care settings. Overall, 49% of critical care described was delivered outside of a designated intensive care unit. Specialist physicians delivered critical care in 60% of the included studies. Additional critical care was delivered by general physicians (40%), as well as specialist physician trainees (22%), pharmacists (16%), advanced nursing or midlevel practitioners (8.9%), ambulance providers (3.3%) and respiratory therapists (3.1%). Conclusions: This review represents a comprehensive synthesis of critical care delivery in LLMIC settings. Approximately 50% of critical care interventions and services were delivered outside of a designated intensive care unit. Specialist physicians were the most common health care professionals involved in care delivery in the included studies, however generalist physicians were commonly reported to provide critical care interventions and services. This study additionally characterised the quality of the published evidence guiding critical care practice in LLMICs, demonstrating a paucity of interventional and cost-effectiveness studies. Future research is needed to understand better how to optimise critical care interventions, services, care delivery and costs in these settings. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42019146802.

Initiation of continuous renal replacement therapy versus intermittent hemodialysis in critically ill patients with severe acute kidney injury: a secondary analysis of STARRT-AKI trial.

BACKGROUND: There is controversy regarding the optimal renal-replacement therapy (RRT) modality for critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI). METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of the STandard versus Accelerated Renal Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) trial to compare outcomes among patients who initiated RRT with either continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) or intermittent hemodialysis (IHD). We generated a propensity score for the likelihood of receiving CRRT and used inverse probability of treatment with overlap-weighting to address baseline inter-group differences. The primary outcome was a composite of death or RRT dependence at 90-days after randomization. RESULTS: We identified 1590 trial participants who initially received CRRT and 606 who initially received IHD. The composite outcome of death or RRT dependence at 90-days occurred in 823 (51.8%) patients who commenced CRRT and 329 (54.3%) patients who commenced IHD (unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-1.09). After balancing baseline characteristics with overlap weighting, initial receipt of CRRT was associated with a lower risk of death or RRT dependence at 90-days compared with initial receipt of IHD (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.66-0.99). This association was predominantly driven by a lower risk of RRT dependence at 90-days (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.39-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with severe AKI, initiation of CRRT, as compared to IHD, was associated with a significant reduction in the composite outcome of death or RRT dependence at 90-days.

Intravenous Vitamin C for Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: Two Harmonized Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: The efficacy of vitamin C for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether vitamin C improves outcomes for patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two prospectively harmonized randomized clinical trials enrolled critically ill patients receiving organ support in intensive care units (90 sites) and patients who were not critically ill (40 sites) between July 23, 2020, and July 15, 2022, on 4 continents. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive vitamin C administered intravenously or control (placebo or no vitamin C) every 6 hours for 96 hours (maximum of 16 doses). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of organ support-free days defined as days alive and free of respiratory and cardiovascular organ support in the intensive care unit up to day 21 and survival to hospital discharge. Values ranged from -1 organ support-free days for patients experiencing in-hospital death to 22 organ support-free days for those who survived without needing organ support. The primary analysis used a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented efficacy (improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both), an OR less than 1 represented harm, and an OR less than 1.2 represented futility. Results: Enrollment was terminated after statistical triggers for harm and futility were met. The trials had primary outcome data for 1568 critically ill patients (1037 in the vitamin C group and 531 in the control group; median age, 60 years [IQR, 50-70 years]; 35.9% were female) and 1022 patients who were not critically ill (456 in the vitamin C group and 566 in the control group; median age, 62 years [IQR, 51-72 years]; 39.6% were female). Among critically ill patients, the median number of organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the vitamin C group vs 10 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.88 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.73 to 1.06]) and the posterior probabilities were 8.6% (efficacy), 91.4% (harm), and 99.9% (futility). Among patients who were not critically ill, the median number of organ support-free days was 22 (IQR, 18 to 22 days) for the vitamin C group vs 22 (IQR, 21 to 22 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.80 [95% CrI, 0.60 to 1.01]) and the posterior probabilities were 2.9% (efficacy), 97.1% (harm), and greater than 99.9% (futility). Among critically ill patients, survival to hospital discharge was 61.9% (642/1037) for the vitamin C group vs 64.6% (343/531) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.92 [95% CrI, 0.73 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 24.0% for efficacy. Among patients who were not critically ill, survival to hospital discharge was 85.1% (388/456) for the vitamin C group vs 86.6% (490/566) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.86 [95% CrI, 0.61 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 17.8% for efficacy. Conclusions and Relevance: In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, vitamin C had low probability of improving the primary composite outcome of organ support-free days and hospital survival. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT04401150 (LOVIT-COVID) and NCT02735707 (REMAP-CAP).