Effect of Individualized vs Standard Blood Pressure Management Strategies on Postoperative Organ Dysfunction Among High-Risk Patients Undergoing Major Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Perioperative hypotension is associated with an increase in postoperative morbidity and mortality, but the appropriate management strategy remains uncertain. Objective: To evaluate whether an individualized blood pressure management strategy tailored to individual patient physiology could reduce postoperative organ dysfunction. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Intraoperative Norepinephrine to Control Arterial Pressure (INPRESS) study was a multicenter, randomized, parallel-group clinical trial conducted in 9 French university and nonuniversity hospitals. Adult patients (n = 298) at increased risk of postoperative complications with a preoperative acute kidney injury risk index of class III or higher (indicating moderate to high risk of postoperative kidney injury) undergoing major surgery lasting 2 hours or longer under general anesthesia were enrolled from December 4, 2012, through August 28, 2016 (last follow-up, September 28, 2016). Interventions: Individualized management strategy aimed at achieving a systolic blood pressure (SBP) within 10% of the reference value (ie, patient's resting SBP) or standard management strategy of treating SBP less than 80 mm Hg or lower than 40% from the reference value during and for 4 hours following surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of systemic inflammatory response syndrome and dysfunction of at least 1 organ system of the renal, respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and neurologic systems by day 7 after surgery. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcome, durations of ICU and hospital stay, adverse events, and all-cause mortality at 30 days after surgery. Results: Among 298 patients who were randomized, 292 patients completed the trial (mean [SD] age, 70 [7] years; 44 [15.1%] women) and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The primary outcome event occurred in 56 of 147 patients (38.1%) assigned to the individualized treatment strategy vs 75 of 145 patients (51.7%) assigned to the standard treatment strategy (relative risk, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.94; P = .02; absolute risk difference, -14%, 95% CI, -25% to -2%). Sixty-eight patients (46.3%) in the individualized treatment group and 92 (63.4%) in the standard treatment group had postoperative organ dysfunction by day 30 (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.84; P = .001). There were no significant between-group differences in severe adverse events or 30-day mortality. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients predominantly undergoing abdominal surgery who were at increased postoperative risk, management targeting an individualized systolic blood pressure, compared with standard management, reduced the risk of postoperative organ dysfunction. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01536470.

Epidural analgesia in critically ill patients with acute pancreatitis: the multicentre randomised controlled EPIPAN study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Acute pancreatitis (AP) is associated with high morbidity and mortality in its most severe forms. Most patients with severe AP require intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation, frequently for more than 7 days, which is associated with the worst outcome. Recent increasing evidence from preclinical and clinical studies support the beneficial effects of epidural analgesia (EA) in AP, such as increased gut barrier function and splanchnic, pancreatic and renal perfusion, decreased liver damage and inflammatory response, and reduced mortality. Because recent studies suggest that EA might be a safe procedure in the critically ill, we sought to determine whether EA reduced AP-associated respiratory failure and other major clinical outcomes in patients with AP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Epidural Analgesia for Pancreatitis (EPIPAN) trial is an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled two-arm trial with assessor-blinded outcome assessment. The EPIPAN trial will randomise 148 patients with AP requiring admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) to receive EA (with patient-controlled epidural administration of ropivacaine and sufentanil) combined with standard care based on current recommendations on the treatment of AP (interventional group), or standard care alone (reference group). The primary outcome is the number of ventilator-free days at day 30. Secondary outcomes include main complications of AP (eg, organ failure and mortality, among others), levels of biological markers of systemic inflammation, epithelial lung injury, renal failure, and healthcare-associated costs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the appropriate ethics committee (CPP Sud-Est VI). Informed consent is required. If the combined application of EA and standard care proves superior to standard care alone in patients with AP in the ICU, the use of EA may become standard practice in experienced centres, thereby decreasing potential complications related to AP and its burden in critically ill patients. The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02126332.

Bilateral sternal infusion of ropivacaine and length of stay in ICU after cardiac surgery with increased respiratory risk: A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The continuous bilateral infusion of a local anaesthetic solution around the sternotomy wound (bilateral sternal) is an innovative technique for reducing pain after sternotomy. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of the technique on the need for intensive care in cardiac patients at increased risk of respiratory complications. DESIGN: Randomised, observer-blind controlled trial. SETTING: Single centre, French University Hospital. PATIENTS: In total, 120 adults scheduled for open-heart surgery, with one of the following conditions: age more than 75 years, BMI >30 kg m, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, active smoking habit. INTERVENTION: Either a bilateral sternal infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine (3 ml h through each catheter; 'intervention' group), or standardised care only ('control' group). Analgesia was provided with paracetamol and self-administered intravenous morphine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The length of time to readiness for discharge from ICU, blindly assessed by a committee of experts. RESULTS: No effect was found between groups for the primary outcome (P = 0.680, intention to treat); the median values were 42.4 and 37.7 h, respectively for the control and intervention groups (P = 0.873). Similar nonsignificant trends were noted for other postoperative delays. Significant effects favouring the intervention were noted for dynamic pain, patient satisfaction, occurrence of nausea and vomiting, occurrence of delirium or mental confusion and occurrence of pulmonary complications. In 12 patients, although no symptoms actually occurred, the total ropivacaine plasma level exceeded the lowest value for which neurological symptoms have been observed in healthy volunteers. CONCLUSION: Because of a small size effect, and despite significant analgesic effects, this strategy failed to reduce the time spent in ICU. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT (N°: 2012-005225-69); ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01828788).

Sevoflurane for Sedation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study.

RATIONALE: Sevoflurane improves gas exchange, and reduces alveolar edema and inflammation in preclinical studies of lung injury, but its therapeutic effects have never been investigated in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). OBJECTIVES: To assess whether sevoflurane would improve gas exchange and inflammation in ARDS. METHODS: We did a parallel, open-label single-center randomized controlled trial at three intensive care units from a French university hospital between April 2014 and February 2016. Adult patients were randomized within 24 hours of moderate-to-severe ARDS onset to receive either intravenous midazolam or inhaled sevoflurane for 48 hours. The primary outcome was the PaO2/FiO2 ratio on Day 2. Secondary endpoints included alveolar and plasma levels of cytokines and soluble form of the receptor for advanced glycation end-products, and safety. Investigators who did the analyses were masked to group allocation. Analysis was by intention to treat. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were assigned to the sevoflurane group and 25 to the midazolam group. On Day 2, PaO2/FiO2 ratio was higher in the sevoflurane group than in the midazolam group (mean ± SD, 205 ± 56 vs. 166 ± 59, respectively; P = 0.04). There was a significant reduction over time in cytokines and soluble form of the receptor for advanced glycation end-products levels in the sevoflurane group, compared with the midazolam group, and no serious adverse event was observed with sevoflurane. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ARDS, use of inhaled sevoflurane improved oxygenation and decreased levels of a marker of epithelial injury and of some inflammatory markers, compared with midazolam. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 02166853).

Epidural analgesia in the intensive care unit: An observational series of 121 patients.

BACKGROUND: Epidural analgesia (EA) has been more investigated during the perioperative period than in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. Recent studies support beneficial effects for EA beyond analgesia itself. However, data on feasibility and safety are still lacking in the ICU. Our goal was to assess the feasibility and practice of EA in ICU patients. METHODS: Multicentre observational study in 3 ICUs over a 10-month period. Goals were to report the incidence of EA-related complications and EA duration. All ICU patients receiving EA were included, whether EA was initiated in the ICU or elsewhere, e.g. in the operating room. Demographics, clinical and biological data were prospectively recorded. Epidural catheter tips were sent to the microbiology laboratory for culture. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-one patients were included (mean age 60 years), with mean SOFA and median SAPS II scores of 3.2 and 32, respectively. Reasons for EA initiation included trauma (14%), postoperative pain management after major surgery (42%), and pancreatitis (31%). No EA-related neurologic complication was recorded, and one case of epidural abscess is discussed. No other EA-related infectious complications were observed. Median duration of EA was 11 days. Reasons for EA discontinuation included efficient analgesia without EA (60%) and accidental catheter removal (17%). 22% of epidural catheter cultures were positive for skin flora bacteria. CONCLUSION: EA seems feasible in the ICU. Its apparent safety should be further validated in larger cohorts, but these preliminary results may stimulate more interest in the assessment of potential benefits associated with EA in the ICU setting.