Patient recall of intensive care delirium: A qualitative investigation.

BACKGROUND: Many patients in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) experience delirium. Understanding the patient perspective of delirium is important to improve care and reduce suffering. The aim of our study was to investigate the subjective patient experience of delirium, delirium-related distress, and delirium management in ICU. METHODS: Our study had a qualitative multicenter design applying individual interviews and thematic analysis. Participants were critically ill adult patients that were determined delirium positive according to validated delirium screening tools during ICU admission. The interviews were conducted after ICU discharge when patients were delirium-free as assessed by the "Rapid clinical test for delirium" (4AT) and able to participate in an interview. RESULTS: We interviewed 30 patients choosing the main themes deductively: Delirium experience; Delirium related distress; and Delirium management. Despite variations in recollection detail, ICU survivors consistently reported delirium-related distress during and after their ICU stay, manifesting as temporal confusion, misinterpretations, and a sense of distrust towards ICU staff. Delusions were characterized by a blend of factual and fictional elements. Impaired short-term memory hindered communication and intensified feelings of isolation, neglect, and loss of control. CONCLUSION: The ICU survivors in our study recalled delirium as an unpleasant and frightening experience, often leading to delirium-related distress during and after their ICU stay, indicating the necessity for enhanced assessment and treatment.

Lower vs Higher Oxygenation Target and Days Alive Without Life Support in COVID-19: The HOT-COVID Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Supplemental oxygen is ubiquitously used in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, but a lower dose may be beneficial. Objective: To assess the effects of targeting a Pao2 of 60 mm Hg vs 90 mm Hg in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia in the intensive care unit (ICU). Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized clinical trial including 726 adults with COVID-19 receiving at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation in 11 ICUs in Europe from August 2020 to March 2023. The trial was prematurely stopped prior to outcome assessment due to slow enrollment. End of 90-day follow-up was June 1, 2023. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to a Pao2 of 60 mm Hg (lower oxygenation group; n = 365) or 90 mm Hg (higher oxygenation group; n = 361) for up to 90 days in the ICU. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support (mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, or kidney replacement therapy) at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included mortality, proportion of patients with serious adverse events, and number of days alive and out of hospital, all at 90 days. Results: Of 726 randomized patients, primary outcome data were available for 697 (351 in the lower oxygenation group and 346 in the higher oxygenation group). Median age was 66 years, and 495 patients (68%) were male. At 90 days, the median number of days alive without life support was 80.0 days (IQR, 9.0-89.0 days) in the lower oxygenation group and 72.0 days (IQR, 2.0-88.0 days) in the higher oxygenation group (P = .009 by van Elteren test; supplemental bootstrapped adjusted mean difference, 5.8 days [95% CI, 0.2-11.5 days]; P = .04). Mortality at 90 days was 30.2% in the lower oxygenation group and 34.7% in the higher oxygenation group (risk ratio, 0.86 [98.6% CI, 0.66-1.13]; P = .18). There were no statistically significant differences in proportion of patients with serious adverse events or in number of days alive and out of hospital. Conclusion and Relevance: In adult ICU patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, targeting a Pao2 of 60 mm Hg resulted in more days alive without life support in 90 days than targeting a Pao2 of 90 mm Hg. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04425031.

Long-term outcomes with haloperidol versus placebo in acutely admitted adult ICU patients with delirium.

PURPOSE: We assessed long-term outcomes in acutely admitted adult patients with delirium treated in intensive care unit (ICU) with haloperidol versus placebo. METHODS: We conducted pre-planned analyses of 1-year outcomes in the Agents Intervening against Delirium in the ICU (AID-ICU) trial, including mortality and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessed by Euroqol (EQ) 5-dimension 5-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) index values and EQ visual analogue scale (EQ VAS) (deceased patients were assigned the numeric value zero). Outcomes were analysed using logistic and linear regressions with bootstrapping and G-computation, all with adjustment for the stratification variables (site and delirium motor subtype) and multiple imputations for missing HRQoL values. RESULTS: At 1-year follow-up, we obtained vital status for 96.2% and HRQoL data for 83.3% of the 1000 randomised patients. One-year mortality was 224/501 (44.7%) in the haloperidol group versus 251/486 (51.6%) in the placebo group, with an adjusted absolute risk difference of - 6.4%-points (95% confidence interval [CI] - 12.8%-points to - 0.2%-points; P = 0.045). These results were largely consistent across the secondary analyses. For HRQoL, the adjusted mean differences were 0.04 (95% CI - 0.03 to 0.11; P = 0.091) for EQ-5D-5L-5L index values, and 3.3 (95% CI - 9.3 to 17.5; P = 0.142) for EQ VAS. CONCLUSIONS: In acutely admitted adult ICU patients with delirium, haloperidol treatment reduced mortality at 1-year follow-up, but did not statistically significantly improve HRQoL.

Safety and efficacy of damoctocog alfa pegol prophylaxis in patients with severe haemophilia A: Results of an interventional, post-marketing study.

INTRODUCTION: Damoctocog alfa pegol (BAY 94-9027, Jivi® ) is an approved extended half-life factor VIII (FVIII) for treatment of previously treated patients with haemophilia A aged ≥12 years. We report the final results of an interventional, post-marketing study of damoctocog alfa pegol prophylaxis in patients with severe haemophilia A. METHODS: In this open-label, interventional, post-marketing, phase 4 trial (NCT04085458), previously FVIII-treated patients with severe haemophilia A aged ≥18 years received damoctocog alfa pegol for ≥100 exposure days (EDs). Patients initially received 45 IU/kg every 5 days (recommended) or 40 IU/kg twice-weekly. At Visit 3, patients' doses could be increased, or treatment frequency adapted. The primary endpoint was FVIII inhibitor development (titre ≥.6 Bethesda units). Secondary endpoints included anti-polyethylene glycol (PEG) antibody development, treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and annualized bleeding rate (ABR). RESULTS: Overall, 36 patients were enrolled; 32 patients received treatment, of whom, 27 completed the study. No patients developed FVIII inhibitors; three tested transiently positive for low-titre anti-PEG antibodies without clinical relevance. Three patients reported study-drug-related AEs of mild or moderate intensity. Two patients discontinued the study due to AEs. No deaths occurred. Most patients (70%) were treated with E5D/E7D regimens. The median (Q1;Q3) total ABR (N = 30) was 3.0 (.0;9.0) pre-study and 1.8 (.7;5.9) during the study. CONCLUSION: Damoctocog alfa pegol individualized prophylaxis regimens were well-tolerated with no immunogenicity concerns. ABRs improved following the switch from pre-study prophylaxis to damoctocog alfa pegol prophylaxis. These results support the favourable safety and efficacy profile of damoctocog alfa pegol prophylaxis.

Long-term cognitive and pulmonary functions following a lower versus a higher oxygenation target in the HOT-ICU and HOT-COVID trials: A protocol update.

BACKGROUND: The Handling Oxygenation Targets in the Intensive Care Unit (HOT-ICU) trial was a multicentre, randomised, parallel-group trial of a lower oxygenation target (arterial partial pressure of oxygen [PaO2 ] = 8 kPa) versus a higher oxygenation target (PaO2 = 12 kPa) in adult ICU patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure; the Handling Oxygenation Targets in coronavirus disease 2019 (HOT-COVID) tested the same oxygenation targets in patients with confirmed COVID-19. In this study, we aim to evaluate the long-term effects of these oxygenation targets on cognitive and pulmonary function. We hypothesise that a lower oxygenation target throughout the ICU stay may result in cognitive impairment, whereas a higher oxygenation target may result in impaired pulmonary function. METHODS: This is the updated protocol and statistical analysis plan of two pre-planned secondary outcomes, the long-term cognitive function, and long-term pulmonary function, in the HOT-ICU and HOT-COVID trials. Patients enrolled in both trials at selected Danish sites and surviving to 1 year after randomisation are eligible to participate. A Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status score and a full-body plethysmography, including diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide, will be obtained. The last patient is expected to be included in the spring of 2024. CONCLUSION: This study will provide important information on the long-term effects of a lower versus a higher oxygenation target on long-term cognitive and pulmonary functions in adult ICU patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure.

Validation of PRE-DELIRIC and E-PRE-DELIRIC in a Danish population of intensive care unit patients-A prospective observational multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a clinical condition characterized by an acute change in brain function and is frequently observed in critically ill patients. The condition has been associated with negative outcomes, making it crucial to identify patients who are at risk. Two recent prediction models have been developed to estimate the risk of delirium in intensive care unit (ICU) patients; the prediction model for delirium (PRE-DELIRIC) and the early prediction model for delirium (E-PRE-DELIRIC). We aimed to perform an external validation of these models in a Danish cohort of critically ill patients. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational multicenter study to validate the PRE-DELIRIC and E-PRE-DELIRIC models in a population of patients admitted to four general ICUs in the Zealand Region of Denmark. From January 2022 to January 2023 all adult patients acutely admitted to the participating ICUs were assessed for eligibility. Patients had to be admitted to the ICU for >24 h to be included in the study. Included patients were screened with E-PRE-DELIRIC upon ICU admission and PRE-DELIRIC after 24 h of admission and followed throughout their ICU stay with CAM-ICU delirium assessments. Our primary outcomes were the prognostic accuracy measured by Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristics (AUROC) and the calibration plot for the E-PRE-DELIRIC and PRE-DELIRIC prediction models. RESULTS: We included 660 patients, of whom 660 were assessed with E-PRE-DELIRIC, and 622 were assessed with PRE-DELIRIC. PRE-DELIRIC showed acceptable discrimination with AUROC of 0.70 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.74) and good calibration. E-PRE-DELIRIC had inadequate discrimination AUROC of 0.63 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.67) and poor calibration. CONCLUSION: In a Danish cohort, we found that the PRE-DELIRIC model demonstrated acceptable performance and E-PRE-DELIRIC demonstrated poor performance. In critically ill adult patients PRE-DELIRIC may be useful in identifying patients at high risk of delirium.

Platform trials.

Platform trials focus on the perpetual testing of many interventions in a disease or a setting. These trials have lasting organizational, administrative, data, analytic, and operational frameworks making them highly efficient. The use of adaptation often increases the probabilities of allocating participants to better interventions and obtaining conclusive results. The COVID-19 pandemic showed the potential of platform trials as a fast and valid way to improved treatments. This review gives an overview of key concepts and elements using the Intensive Care Platform Trial (INCEPT) as an example.

A survey of preferences for respiratory support in the intensive care unit for patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure.

BACKGROUND: When caring for mechanically ventilated adults with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF), clinicians are faced with an uncertain choice between ventilator modes allowing for spontaneous breaths or ventilation fully controlled by the ventilator. The preferences of clinicians managing such patients, and what motivates their choice of ventilator mode, are largely unknown. To better understand how clinicians' preferences may impact the choice of ventilatory support for patients with AHRF, we issued a survey to an international network of intensive care unit (ICU) researchers. METHODS: We distributed an online survey with 32 broadly similar and interlinked questions on how clinicians prioritise spontaneous or controlled ventilation in invasively ventilated patients with AHRF of different severity, and which factors determine their choice. RESULTS: The survey was distributed to 1337 recipients in 12 countries. Of these, 415 (31%) completed the survey either fully (52%) or partially (48%). Most respondents were identified as medical specialists (87%) or physicians in training (11%). Modes allowing for spontaneous ventilation were considered preferable in mild AHRF, with controlled ventilation considered as progressively more important in moderate and severe AHRF. Among respondents there was strong support (90%) for a randomised clinical trial comparing spontaneous with controlled ventilation in patients with moderate AHRF. CONCLUSIONS: The responses from this international survey suggest that there is clinical equipoise for the preferred ventilator mode in patients with AHRF of moderate severity. We found strong support for a randomised trial comparing modes of ventilation in patients with moderate AHRF.

Haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Haloperidol is frequently used in critically ill patients with delirium, but evidence for its effects has been sparse and inconclusive. By including recent trials, we updated a systematic review assessing effects of haloperidol on mortality and serious adverse events in critically ill patients with delirium. METHODS: This is an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials investigating haloperidol versus placebo or any comparator in critically ill patients with delirium. We adhered to the Cochrane handbook, the PRISMA guidelines and the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation statements. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and proportion of patients with one or more serious adverse events or reactions (SAEs/SARs). Secondary outcomes were days alive without delirium or coma, delirium severity, cognitive function and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: We included 11 RCTs with 15 comparisons (n = 2200); five were placebo-controlled. The relative risk for mortality with haloperidol versus placebo was 0.89; 96.7% CI 0.77 to 1.03; I2 = 0% (moderate-certainty evidence) and for proportion of patients experiencing SAEs/SARs 0.94; 96.7% CI 0.81 to 1.10; I2 = 18% (low-certainty evidence). We found no difference in days alive without delirium or coma (moderate-certainty evidence). We found sparse data for other secondary outcomes and other comparators than placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Haloperidol may reduce mortality and likely result in little to no change in the occurrence of SAEs/SARs compared with placebo in critically ill patients with delirium. However, the results were not statistically significant and more trial data are needed to provide higher certainty for the effects of haloperidol in these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42017081133, date of registration 28 November 2017.

Long-term outcomes in COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care in Denmark: A nationwide observational study.

BACKGROUND: Among ICU patients with COVID-19, it is largely unknown how the overall outcome and resource use have changed with time, different genetic variants, and vaccination status. METHODS: For all Danish ICU patients with COVID-19 from March 10, 2020 to March 31, 2022, we manually retrieved data on demographics, comorbidities, vaccination status, use of life support, length of stay, and vital status from medical records. We compared patients based on the period of admittance and vaccination status and described changes in epidemiology related to the Omicron variant. RESULTS: Among all 2167 ICU patients with COVID-19, 327 were admitted during the first (March 10-19, 2020), 1053 during the second (May 20, 2020 to June 30, 2021) and 787 during the third wave (July 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022). We observed changes over the three waves in age (median 72 vs. 68 vs. 65 years), use of invasive mechanical ventilation (81% vs. 58% vs. 51%), renal replacement therapy (26% vs. 13% vs. 12%), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (7% vs. 3% vs. 2%), duration of invasive mechanical ventilation (median 13 vs. 13 vs. 9 days) and ICU length of stay (median 13 vs. 10 vs. 7 days). Despite these changes, 90-day mortality remained constant (36% vs. 35% vs. 33%). Vaccination rates among ICU patients were 42% as compared to 80% in society. Unvaccinated versus vaccinated patients were younger (median 57 vs. 73 years), had less comorbidity (50% vs. 78%), and had lower 90-day mortality (29% vs. 51%). Patient characteristics changed significantly after the Omicron variant became dominant including a decrease in the use of COVID-specific pharmacological agents from 95% to 69%. CONCLUSIONS: In Danish ICUs, the use of life support declined, while mortality seemed unchanged throughout the three waves of COVID-19. Vaccination rates were lower among ICU patients than in society, but the selected group of vaccinated patients admitted to the ICU still had very severe disease courses. When the Omicron variant became dominant a lower fraction of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients received COVID treatment indicating other causes for ICU admission.

Real-World Effectiveness of rFIXFc Prophylaxis in Patients with Haemophilia B Switched from Standard Half-Life Therapy in Three European Countries.

INTRODUCTION: The current study describes real-world clinical outcomes and factor usage among patients with haemophilia B switching from standard half-life factor IX (SHL FIX) treatment to recombinant factor IX Fc fusion protein (rFIXFc) prophylaxis in European treatment centres. METHODS: This non-interventional, retrospective, multicentre chart review evaluated medical records from adult and paediatric patients with haemophilia B in Denmark, Germany and the UK. Patients had documented SHL FIX treatment, on-demand or prophylaxis, for ≥ 6 months before starting rFIXFc prophylaxis, and subsequent data for ≥ 6 months afterwards (up to 24 months). Primary endpoints included annualised bleeding rates (ABRs), prophylactic factor consumption and injection frequency. RESULTS: Data from 30 patients (24/30 [80.0%] with severe disease) showed overall mean (standard deviation, SD) ABRs of 4.7 (6.3) on SHL FIX treatment and 1.7 (2.3) after switching to rFIXFc prophylaxis. The reduction in mean (SD) ABRs was greater when switching from SHL FIX on-demand treatment (n = 6), with a decrease from 10.5 (9.9) to 2.6 (4.5), than when switching from SHL FIX prophylaxis (n = 24), with a decrease from 3.3 (4.3) to 1.5 (1.4). Among prior SHL FIX prophylaxis patients, switching to rFIXFc prophylaxis increased the proportion of those with zero bleeds from 21.7% to 45.8% during the 6 months before and after switching, respectively. In the total population, five of six target joints (83.3%) present when patients started rFIXFc prophylaxis subsequently resolved. In patients switching from SHL FIX prophylaxis to rFIXFc prophylaxis, mean (SD) weekly injection frequency was reduced by 1.0 (0.7) and mean (SD) factor consumption was reduced by 27.7 (49.6) IU/kg/week. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the effectiveness of rFIXFc prophylaxis in real-world clinical practice. Improvements in both clinical effectiveness and factor usage associated with rFIXFc prophylaxis may potentially reduce patient burden and improve quality of life.

Haloperidol vs. placebo for the treatment of delirium in ICU patients: a pre-planned, secondary Bayesian analysis of the AID-ICU trial.

PURPOSE: The AID-ICU trial was a randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial investigating effects of haloperidol versus placebo in acutely admitted, adult patients admitted in intensive care unit (ICU) with delirium. This pre-planned Bayesian analysis facilitates probabilistic interpretation of the AID-ICU trial results. METHODS: We used adjusted Bayesian linear and logistic regression models with weakly informative priors to analyse all primary and secondary outcomes reported up to day 90, and with sensitivity analyses using other priors. The probabilities for any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm, and no clinically important differences with haloperidol treatment according to pre-defined thresholds are presented for all outcomes. RESULTS: The mean difference for days alive and out of hospital to day 90 (primary outcome) was 2.9 days (95% credible interval (CrI) - 1.1 to 6.9) with probabilities of 92% for any benefit and 82% for clinically important benefit. The risk difference for mortality was - 6.8 percentage points (95% CrI - 12.8 to - 0.8) with probabilities of 99% for any benefit and 94% for clinically important benefit. The adjusted risk difference for serious adverse reactions was 0.3 percentage points (95% CrI - 1.3 to 1.9) with 98% probability of no clinically important difference. Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses using different priors, with more than 83% probability of benefit and less than 17% probability of harm with haloperidol treatment. CONCLUSIONS: We found high probabilities of benefits and low probabilities of harm with haloperidol treatment compared with placebo in acutely admitted, adult ICU patients with delirium for the primary and most secondary outcomes.

Health and quality of life of patients with haemophilia: A national study of 124 Danish men.

PURPOSE: In the past decades, haemophilia treatment has greatly improved the health of persons with haemophilia (PWH). This study compares PWH to the general population on social conditions and health. METHODS: In December 2021, all Danes with moderate or severe haemophilia A or B, or von Willebrands disease type 3 were invited to participate in an online self-report survey concerning sociodemographic factors, self-rated health, teeth status, chronic health conditions, symptoms and loneliness. This study compares responses from the 124 adult male PWH with responses from a male general population sample (N = 4849). Analyses used logistic regression, controlling for age and highest completed education. RESULTS: Fewer PWH were in the oldest age group (65-84 years). Controlling for age, no significant differences were found regarding cohabitation status or education. Fewer PWH were employed (OR = .48, [.33-.71])-particularly in the 45-64 age group. PWH were less likely to report good health (OR = .49, [.31-.77]). The odds of joint disease was much higher (OR = 13.00, [8.37-20.28]). Also, hypertension (OR = 2.25, [1.13-5.65]) and previous stroke (OR = 2.51, [1.44-3.50]) were more frequent. PWH were more likely to report pain in the arms/hands/legs/hips (OR = 2.94, [1.92-4.52]), but less likely to report pain in the head/neck/shoulder (OR = .66, [.45-.96]). CONCLUSION: The disease burden of haemophilia has improved so PWH resembles the general population in areas such as marriage and education. However, even for young PWH, the disease still imposes a significant burden from hemophilia arthropathy and pain in extremities and joints. Middle-aged PWH also have poorer levels of employment than same-aged peers.

Patient and public involvement in contemporary large intensive care trials: A meta-epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement in randomised clinical trials has received increased focus, including in intensive care trials, but the frequency, method and extent is unknown. This meta-epidemiological study investigated patient and public involvement in contemporary, large ICU trials. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed for large (≥225 randomised patients), contemporary trials (published between 1 January 2019 and 31 January 2022) assessing interventions in adult patients in ICU settings. Abstracts and full-text articles were assessed independently and in duplicate. Data were extracted using a pre-defined, pilot-tested data extraction form with details on trials, patient and public involvement including categories and numbers of individuals involved, methods of involvement, and trial stage(s) with involvement. Trials authors were contacted as necessary. RESULTS: We included 100 trials, with 18 using patient and public involvement; these were larger and conducted in more centres than trials without patient and public involvement. Among trials with patient and public involvement, patients (in 14/18 trials), clinicians (13 trials), and family members (12 trials) were primarily involved, mainly in the development of research design (15 trials) and development of research focus (13 trials) stages and mostly by discussion (12 trials) and solo interviews (10 trials). A median of 65 individuals (range 1-6894) were involved. CONCLUSIONS: We found patient and public involvement in a fifth of large, contemporary ICU trials. Primarily patients, families, and clinicians were included, particularly in the trial planning stages and mostly through interviews and discussions. Increased patient and public involvement in ICU trials is warranted.

Thromboembolic and bleeding events in ICU patients with COVID-19: A nationwide, observational study.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have an increased risk of thromboembolic complications. We describe the occurrence of thromboembolic and bleeding events in all ICU patients with COVID-19 in Denmark during the first and second waves of the pandemic. METHODS: This was a sub-study of the Danish Intensive Care Covid database, in which all patients with SARS-CoV-2 admitted to Danish ICUs from 10th March 2020 to 30th June 2021 were included. We registered coagulation variables at admission, and all thromboembolic and bleeding events, and the use of heparins during ICU stay. Variables associated with thrombosis and bleeding and any association with 90-day mortality were estimated using Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: We included 1369 patients in this sub-study; 158 (12%, 95% confidence interval 10-13) had a thromboembolic event in ICU and 309 (23%, 20-25) had a bleeding event, among whom 81 patients (6%, 4.8-7.3) had major bleeding. We found that mechanical ventilation and increased D-dimer were associated with thrombosis and mechanical ventilation, low platelet count and presence of haematological malignancy were associated with bleeding. Most patients (76%) received increased doses of thromboprophylaxis during their ICU stay. Thromboembolic events were not associated with mortality in adjusted analysis (hazard ratio 1.35 [0.91-2.01, p = .14], whereas bleeding events were 1.55 [1.18-2.05, p = .002]). CONCLUSIONS: Both thromboembolic and bleeding events frequently occurred in ICU patients with COVID-19. Based on these data, it is not apparent that increased doses of thromboprophylaxis were beneficial.

Haloperidol for the Treatment of Delirium in ICU Patients.

BACKGROUND: Haloperidol is frequently used to treat delirium in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), but evidence of its effect is limited. METHODS: In this multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned adult patients with delirium who had been admitted to the ICU for an acute condition to receive intravenous haloperidol (2.5 mg 3 times daily plus 2.5 mg as needed up to a total maximum daily dose of 20 mg) or placebo. Haloperidol or placebo was administered in the ICU for as long as delirium continued and as needed for recurrences. The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of the hospital at 90 days after randomization. RESULTS: A total of 1000 patients underwent randomization; 510 were assigned to the haloperidol group and 490 to the placebo group. Among these patients, 987 (98.7%) were included in the final analyses (501 in the haloperidol group and 486 in the placebo group). Primary outcome data were available for 963 patients (97.6%). At 90 days, the mean number of days alive and out of the hospital was 35.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 32.9 to 38.6) in the haloperidol group and 32.9 (95% CI, 29.9 to 35.8) in the placebo group, with an adjusted mean difference of 2.9 days (95% CI, -1.2 to 7.0) (P = 0.22). Mortality at 90 days was 36.3% in the haloperidol group and 43.3% in the placebo group (adjusted absolute difference, -6.9 percentage points [95% CI, -13.0 to -0.6]). Serious adverse reactions occurred in 11 patients in the haloperidol group and in 9 patients in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients in the ICU with delirium, treatment with haloperidol did not lead to a significantly greater number of days alive and out of the hospital at 90 days than placebo. (Funded by Innovation Fund Denmark and others; AID-ICU ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03392376; EudraCT number, 2017-003829-15.).

Changes over time in characteristics, resource use and outcomes among ICU patients with COVID-19-A nationwide, observational study in Denmark.

BACKGROUND: Characteristics and care of intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID-19 may have changed during the pandemic, but longitudinal data assessing this are limited. We compared patients with COVID-19 admitted to Danish ICUs in the first wave with those admitted later. METHODS: Among all Danish ICU patients with COVID-19, we compared demographics, chronic comorbidities, use of organ support, length of stay and vital status of those admitted 10 March to 19 May 2020 (first wave) versus 20 May 2020 to 30 June 2021. We analysed risk factors for death by adjusted logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Among all hospitalised patients with COVID-19, a lower proportion was admitted to ICU after the first wave (13% vs. 8%). Among all 1374 ICU patients with COVID-19, 326 were admitted during the first wave. There were no major differences in patient's characteristics or mortality between the two periods, but use of invasive mechanical ventilation (81% vs. 58% of patients), renal replacement therapy (26% vs. 13%) and ECMO (8% vs. 3%) and median length of stay in ICU (13 vs. 10 days) and in hospital (20 vs. 17 days) were all significantly lower after the first wave. Risk factors for death were higher age, larger burden of comorbidities (heart failure, pulmonary disease and kidney disease) and active cancer, but not admission during or after the first wave. CONCLUSIONS: After the first wave of COVID-19 in Denmark, a lower proportion of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 were admitted to ICU. Among ICU patients, use of organ support was lower and length of stay was reduced, but mortality rates remained at a relatively high level.

Long-term cognitive and functional status in Danish ICU patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: ICU admission due to COVID-19 may result in cognitive and physical impairment. We investigated the long-term cognitive and physical status of Danish ICU patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We included all patients with COVID-19 admitted to Danish ICUs between March 10 and May 19, 2020. Patients were the contacted prospectively at 6 and 12 months for follow-up. Our primary outcomes were cognitive function and frailty at 6 and 12 months after ICU admission, estimated by the Mini Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and the Clinical Frailty Scale. Secondary outcomes were 6- and 12-month mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessed by EQ-5D-5L, functional status (Barthel activities of daily living and Lawton-Brody instrumental activities of daily living), and fatigue (Fatigue Assessment Scale). The study had no information on pre-ICU admission status for the participants. RESULTS: A total of 326 patients were included. The 6- and 12-month mortality was 37% and 38%, respectively. Among the 204 six-month survivors, 105 (51%) participated in the 6-month follow-up; among the 202 twelve-month survivors, 95 (47%) participated in the 12-month follow-up. At 6 months, cognitive scores indicated impairment for 26% (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.4-12.4) and at 12 months for 17% (95% CI, 12.0-12.8) of participants. Frailty was indicated in 20% (95% CI, 3.4-3.9) at 6 months, and for 18% (95% CI, 3.3-3.8) at 12 months. Fatigue was reported by 52% at 6 months, and by 47% at 12 months. For HRQoL, moderate, severe, or extreme health problems were reported by 28% at 6 months, and by 25% at 12 months. CONCLUSION: Long-term cognitive, functional impairment was found in up to one in four of patients surviving intensive care for COVID-19. Fatigue was present in nearly half the survivors at both 6 and 12 months. However, pre-ICU admission status of the patients was unknown.

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.).

Platelet function testing: Current practice among clinical centres in Northern Europe.

INTRODUCTION: Platelet function tests are used to screen and diagnose patients with possible inherited platelet function defects (IPFD). Some acquired platelet dysfunction may be caused by certain drugs or comorbidities, which need to be excluded before testing. AIMS: To identify current practice among centres performing platelet function tests in Northern Europe. METHODS: A total of 14 clinical centres from Sweden (six), Finland (two), Denmark (two), Norway (one), Estonia (two) and Iceland (one) completed the survey questionnaire, the population capture area of about 29.5 million. RESULTS: Six of the 14 (42.8%) centres providing platelet function assessment represent comprehensive treatment centres (EUHANET status). A Bleeding score (BS) or ISTH bleeding assessment tool (ISTH BAT score) is evaluated in 11/14 (78.6%) centres and family history in all. Five/14 centres (35.7%) use structured preanalytical patient instructions, and 10/14 (71.4%) recorded questionnaire on the preassessment of avoidance of any drugs or natural products affecting platelet functions. Preliminary investigations of screening tests of coagulation are performed in 10/14 (71.4%), while in 4/14 (28.6%), the diagnostic work-up of IPFD and von Willebrand disease (VWD) is performed simultaneously. The work-up of IPFD includes peripheral blood smear in 10/14 (71.4%), platelet aggregometry in all, flow cytometry in 10/14 (71.4%) and Platelet Function Analysis (PFA) in 3/11 (28.6%). Molecular genetic diagnosis is available in 7/14 (50%) centres. CONCLUSIONS: The considerable variability in the current practice illustrates the need for harmonization between the Northern European centres according to the international registers (i.e. EUHASS) and IPFD guidelines (ISTH, EHA).