RESUMO
PURPOSE: Ilofotase alfa is a human recombinant alkaline phosphatase with reno-protective effects that showed improved survival and reduced Major Adverse Kidney Events by 90 days (MAKE90) in sepsis-associated acute kidney injury (SA-AKI) patients. REVIVAL, was a phase-3 trial conducted to confirm its efficacy and safety. METHODS: In this international double-blinded randomized-controlled trial, SA-AKI patients were enrolled < 72 h on vasopressor and < 24 h of AKI. The primary endpoint was 28-day all-cause mortality. The main secondary endpoint was MAKE90, other secondary endpoints were (i) days alive and free of organ support through day 28, (ii) days alive and out of the intensive care unit (ICU) through day 28, and (iii) time to death through day 90. Prior to unblinding, the statistical analysis plan was amended, including an updated MAKE90 definition. RESULTS: Six hundred fifty patients were treated and analyzed for safety; and 649 for efficacy data (ilofotase alfa n = 330; placebo n = 319). The observed mortality rates in the ilofotase alfa and placebo groups were 27.9% and 27.9% at 28 days, and 33.9% and 34.8% at 90 days. The trial was stopped for futility on the primary endpoint. The observed proportion of patients with MAKE90A and MAKE90B were 56.7% and 37.4% in the ilofotase alfa group vs. 64.6% and 42.8% in the placebo group. Median [interquartile range (IQR)] days alive and free of organ support were 17 [0-24] and 14 [0-24], number of days alive and discharged from the ICU through day 28 were 15 [0-22] and 10 [0-22] in the ilofotase alfa and placebo groups, respectively. Adverse events were reported in 67.9% and 75% patients in the ilofotase and placebo group. CONCLUSION: Among critically ill patients with SA-AKI, ilofotase alfa did not improve day 28 survival. There may, however, be reduced MAKE90 events. No safety concerns were identified.
Assuntos
Injúria Renal Aguda , Fosfatase Alcalina , Sepse , Humanos , Injúria Renal Aguda/tratamento farmacológico , Injúria Renal Aguda/etiologia , Fosfatase Alcalina/uso terapêutico , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Sepse/complicações , Sepse/tratamento farmacológicoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Fluid overload is associated with increased mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The GODIF trial aims to assess the benefits and harms of fluid removal with furosemide versus placebo in stable adult patients with moderate to severe fluid overload in the ICU. This article describes the detailed statistical analysis plan for the primary results of the second version of the GODIF trial. METHODS: The GODIF trial is an international, multi-centre, randomised, stratified, blinded, parallel-group, pragmatic clinical trial, allocating 1000 adult ICU patients with moderate to severe fluid overload 1:1 to furosemide versus placebo. The primary outcome is days alive and out of hospital within 90 days post-randomisation. With a power of 90% and an alpha level of 5%, we may reject or detect an improvement of 8%. The primary analyses of all outcomes will be performed in the intention-to-treat population. For the primary outcome, the Kryger Jensen and Lange method will be used to compare the two treatment groups adjusted for stratification variables supplemented with sensitivity analyses in the per-protocol population and with further adjustments for prognostic variables. Secondary outcomes will be analysed with multiple linear regressions, logistic regressions or the Kryger Jensen and Lange method as suitable with adjustment for stratification variables. CONCLUSION: The GODIF trial data will increase the certainty about the effects of fluid removal using furosemide in adult ICU patients with fluid overload. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: EudraCT identifier: 2019-004292-40 and ClinicalTrials.org: NCT04180397.
Assuntos
Furosemida , Desequilíbrio Hidroeletrolítico , Adulto , Humanos , Furosemida/uso terapêutico , Cuidados Críticos/métodos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Humanos , COVID-19/terapia , Cuidados Críticos , Dinamarca/epidemiologia , SARS-CoV-2 , IdosoRESUMO
PURPOSE: To assess long-term outcomes of restrictive versus standard intravenous (IV) fluid therapy in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock included in the European Conservative versus Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy in Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial. METHODS: We conducted the pre-planned analyses of mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using EuroQol (EQ)-5D-5L index values and EQ visual analogue scale (VAS), and cognitive function using Mini Montreal Cognitive Assessment (Mini MoCA) test at 1 year. Deceased patients were assigned numerical zero for HRQoL as a state equal to death and zero for cognitive function outcomes as worst possible score, and we used multiple imputation for missing data on HRQoL and cognitive function. RESULTS: Among 1554 randomized patients, we obtained 1-year data on mortality in 97.9% of patients, HRQoL in 91.3%, and cognitive function in 86.3%. One-year mortality was 385/746 (51.3%) in the restrictive-fluid group versus 383/767 (49.9%) in the standard-fluid group, absolute risk difference 1.5%-points [99% confidence interval (CI) - 4.8 to 7.8]. Mean differences were 0.00 (99% CI - 0.06 to 0.05) for EQ-5D-5L index values, - 0.65 for EQ VAS (- 5.40 to 4.08), and - 0.14 for Mini MoCA (- 1.59 to 1.14) for the restrictive-fluid group versus the standard-fluid group. The results for survivors only were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among adult ICU patients with septic shock, restrictive versus standard IV fluid therapy resulted in similar survival, HRQoL, and cognitive function at 1 year, but clinically important differences could not be ruled out.
Assuntos
Choque Séptico , Humanos , Adulto , Choque Séptico/terapia , Qualidade de Vida , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Cuidados Críticos , SobreviventesRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Endotracheal suctioning is resource demanding, causes patient discomfort, and is associated with adverse effects. A new artificial cough method has been developed for automated secretion removal by using rapid deflation and inflation of the endotracheal tube cuff during the inspiratory phase of mechanical ventilation. This method has been evaluated in a bench model and in animals but not in human subjects. The aim of this study was to investigate whether this method can remove the need for endotracheal suctioning in subjects and whether this is dependent on ventilator settings. METHODS: This prospective, non-controlled study recruited 20 subjects on invasive mechanical ventilation. On the clinical need for endotracheal suctioning, the automatic cough procedure was applied 3 times over 30 s, with this repeated at higher ventilatory pressure and lower respiratory frequency if considered unsuccessful. Success was determined by removal of the clinical need for suctioning. Subject safety and comfort was measured by using the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool before and after the procedure, and negative effects were recorded. To assess intra-subject variability, the procedure was performed on 3 different occasions for each subject. RESULTS: The procedure was successful in 18 of 20 subjects (90%), with mean subject success rates of 53% at low settings (peak inspiratory pressure 21.8 ± 3.8 cm H2O) and 83% at high settings (peak inspiratory pressure 25.6 ± 3.6 cm H2O). The Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool category remained unchanged in 30 procedures (77%), improved in 7 (18%), and deteriorated in 2 (5%). CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrated the potential for significant reduction in the clinical need for endotracheal suctioning after the use of an automated artificial cough procedure at both low and high peak inspiratory pressures, and that was well tolerated.
Assuntos
Tosse , Respiração Artificial , Humanos , Animais , Tosse/etiologia , Estudos Prospectivos , Respiração Artificial/métodos , Ventiladores Mecânicos , Intubação Intratraqueal/efeitos adversos , Dor/etiologiaRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Trombose , Tromboembolia Venosa , Humanos , COVID-19/complicações , SARS-CoV-2 , Anticoagulantes/efeitos adversos , Tromboembolia Venosa/epidemiologia , Cuidados Críticos , Hemorragia , Unidades de Terapia IntensivaRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , COVID-19/terapia , Dinamarca/epidemiologia , Mortalidade Hospitalar , Humanos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Pandemias , Estudos Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2RESUMO
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.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Fragilidade , Atividades Cotidianas/psicologia , COVID-19/terapia , Cognição , Dinamarca/epidemiologia , Fadiga/epidemiologia , Fragilidade/epidemiologia , Estado Funcional , Humanos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Estudos Prospectivos , Qualidade de VidaRESUMO
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.).
Assuntos
Hidratação , Choque Séptico , Administração Intravenosa , Adulto , Cuidados Críticos/métodos , Hidratação/efeitos adversos , Hidratação/métodos , Humanos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Choque Séptico/mortalidade , Choque Séptico/terapiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Fluid treatment in sepsis is a challenge and clinical equipoise exists regarding intravenous (IV) volumes. We aimed to determine whether a 24-h protocol restricting IV fluid was feasible in adult patients with sepsis without shock presenting to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: The REFACED Sepsis trial is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, open-label, feasibility trial, assigning sepsis patients without shock to 24 h of restrictive, crystal IV fluid administration or standard care. In the IV fluid restriction group fluid boluses were only permitted if predefined criteria for hypoperfusion occurred. Standard care was at the discretion of the treating team. The primary outcome was total IV crystalloid fluid volumes at 24 h after randomization. Secondary outcomes included total fluid volumes, feasibility measures, and patient-centered outcomes. RESULTS: We included 123 patients (restrictive 61 patients and standard care 62 patients) in the primary analysis. A total of 32% (95% confidence interval [CI] 28%-37%) of eligible patients meeting all inclusion criteria and no exclusion criteria were included. At 24 h, the mean (±SD) IV crystalloid fluid volumes were 562 (±1076) ml versus 1370 (±1438) ml in the restrictive versus standard care group (mean difference -801 ml, 95% CI -1257 to -345 ml, p = 0.001). Protocol violations occurred in 21 (34%) patients in the fluid-restrictive group. There were no differences between groups in adverse events, use of mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, acute kidney failure, length of stay, or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: A protocol restricting IV crystalloid fluids in ED patients with sepsis reduced 24-h fluid volumes compared to standard care. A future trial powered toward patient-centered outcomes appears feasible.
Assuntos
Sepse , Choque Séptico , Adulto , Soluções Cristaloides/uso terapêutico , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , Estudos de Viabilidade , Hidratação/métodos , Humanos , Sepse/terapiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Secondary peritonitis is a severe condition with a 20-32% reported mortality. The accepted treatment modalities are vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) or primary closure with relaparotomy on-demand (ROD). However, no randomised controlled trial has been completed to compare the two methods potential benefits and disadvantages. METHODS: This study will be a randomised controlled multicentre trial, including patients aged 18 years or older with purulent or faecal peritonitis confined to at least two of the four abdominal quadrants originating from the small intestine, colon, or rectum. Randomisation will be web-based to either primary closure with ROD or VAC in blocks of 2, 4, and 6. The primary endpoint is peritonitis-related complications within 30 or 90 days and one year after index operation. Secondary outcomes are comprehensive complication index (CCI) and mortality after 30 or 90 days and one year; quality of life assessment by (SF-36) after three and 12 months, the development of incisional hernia after 12 months assessed by clinical examination and CT-scanning and healthcare resource utilisation. With an estimated superiority of 15% in the primary outcome for VAC, 340 patients must be included. Hospitals in Denmark and Europe will be invited to participate. DISCUSSION: There is no robust evidence for choosing either open abdomen with VAC treatment or primary closure with relaparotomy on-demand in patients with secondary peritonitis. The present study has the potential to answer this important clinical question. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study protocol has been registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03932461). Protocol version 1.0, 9 January 2022.
Assuntos
Laparotomia , Tratamento de Ferimentos com Pressão Negativa , Peritonite , Reoperação , Cavidade Abdominal/cirurgia , Humanos , Laparotomia/efeitos adversos , Estudos Multicêntricos como Assunto , Tratamento de Ferimentos com Pressão Negativa/efeitos adversos , Peritonite/cirurgia , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/epidemiologia , Qualidade de Vida , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Reoperação/efeitos adversosRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The primary results from the Vasopressin and Methylprednisolone for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (VAM-IHCA) trial have previously been reported. The objective of the current manuscript is to report long-term outcomes. METHODS: The VAM-IHCA trial was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted at ten hospitals in Denmark. Adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) were eligible for the trial if they had an in-hospital cardiac arrest and received at least one dose of epinephrine during resuscitation. The trial drugs consisted of 40 mg methylprednisolone (Solu-Medrol®, Pfizer) and 20 IU of vasopressin (Empressin®, Amomed Pharma GmbH) given as soon as possible after the first dose of epinephrine. This manuscript report outcomes at 6 months and 1 year including survival, survival with favorable neurological outcome, and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: 501 patients were included in the analysis. At 1 year, 15 patients (6.3%) in the intervention group and 22 patients (8.3%) in the placebo group were alive corresponding to a risk ratio of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.41-1.41). A favorable neurologic outcome at 1 year, based on the Cerebral Performance Category score, was observed in 14 patients (5.9%) in the intervention group and 20 patients (7.6%) in the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.41-1.49]. No differences existed between groups for favorable neurological outcome and health-related quality of life at either 6 months or 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of vasopressin and methylprednisolone, compared with placebo, in patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest did not improve long-term outcomes in this trial.
Assuntos
Reanimação Cardiopulmonar , Parada Cardíaca , Adolescente , Adulto , Reanimação Cardiopulmonar/métodos , Epinefrina , Parada Cardíaca/tratamento farmacológico , Hospitais , Humanos , Metilprednisolona/uso terapêutico , Qualidade de Vida , Vasopressinas/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Supplemental oxygen is the key intervention for severe and critical COVID-19 patients. With the unstable supplies of oxygen in many countries, it is important to define the lowest safe dosage. METHODS: In spring 2020, 110 COVID-19 patients were enrolled as part of the Handling Oxygenation Targets in the ICU trial (HOT-ICU). Patients were allocated within 12 h of ICU admission. Oxygen therapy was titrated to a partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2 ) of 8 kPa (lower oxygenation group) or a PaO2 of 12 kPa (higher oxygenation group) during ICU stay up to 90 days. We report key outcomes at 90 days for the subgroup of COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: At 90 days, 22 of 54 patients (40.7%) in the lower oxygenation group and 23 of 55 patients (41.8%) in the higher oxygenation group had died (adjusted risk ratio: 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.32). The percentage of days alive without life support was significantly higher in the lower oxygenation group (p = 0.03). The numbers of severe ischemic events were low with no difference between the two groups. Proning and inhaled vasodilators were used more frequently, and the positive end-expiratory pressure was higher in the higher oxygenation group. Tests for interactions with the results of the remaining HOT-ICU population were insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: Targeting a PaO2 of 8 kPa may be beneficial in ICU patients with COVID-19. These results come with uncertainty due to the low number of patients in this unplanned subgroup analysis, and insignificant tests for interaction with the main HOT-ICU trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03174002. Date of registration: June 2, 2017.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Humanos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Pulmão , Oxigenoterapia , Respiração Artificial , SARS-CoV-2RESUMO
Importance: Previous trials have suggested that vasopressin and methylprednisolone administered during in-hospital cardiac arrest might improve outcomes. Objective: To determine whether the combination of vasopressin and methylprednisolone administered during in-hospital cardiac arrest improves return of spontaneous circulation. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted at 10 hospitals in Denmark. A total of 512 adult patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest were included between October 15, 2018, and January 21, 2021. The last 90-day follow-up was on April 21, 2021. Intervention: Patients were randomized to receive a combination of vasopressin and methylprednisolone (n = 245) or placebo (n = 267). The first dose of vasopressin (20 IU) and methylprednisolone (40 mg), or corresponding placebo, was administered after the first dose of epinephrine. Additional doses of vasopressin or corresponding placebo were administered after each additional dose of epinephrine for a maximum of 4 doses. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was return of spontaneous circulation. Secondary outcomes included survival and favorable neurologic outcome at 30 days (Cerebral Performance Category score of 1 or 2). Results: Among 512 patients who were randomized, 501 met all inclusion and no exclusion criteria and were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 71 [13] years; 322 men [64%]). One hundred of 237 patients (42%) in the vasopressin and methylprednisolone group and 86 of 264 patients (33%) in the placebo group achieved return of spontaneous circulation (risk ratio, 1.30 [95% CI, 1.03-1.63]; risk difference, 9.6% [95% CI, 1.1%-18.0%]; P = .03). At 30 days, 23 patients (9.7%) in the intervention group and 31 patients (12%) in the placebo group were alive (risk ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.50-1.37]; risk difference: -2.0% [95% CI, -7.5% to 3.5%]; P = .48). A favorable neurologic outcome was observed in 18 patients (7.6%) in the intervention group and 20 patients (7.6%) in the placebo group at 30 days (risk ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.55-1.83]; risk difference, 0.0% [95% CI, -4.7% to 4.9%]; P > .99). In patients with return of spontaneous circulation, hyperglycemia occurred in 77 (77%) in the intervention group and 63 (73%) in the placebo group. Hypernatremia occurred in 28 (28%) and 27 (31%), in the intervention and placebo groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest, administration of vasopressin and methylprednisolone, compared with placebo, significantly increased the likelihood of return of spontaneous circulation. However, there is uncertainty whether this treatment results in benefit or harm for long-term survival. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03640949.
Assuntos
Fármacos Cardiovasculares/farmacologia , Glucocorticoides/farmacologia , Metilprednisolona/farmacologia , Retorno da Circulação Espontânea/efeitos dos fármacos , Vasopressinas/farmacologia , Idoso , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/efeitos adversos , Intervalos de Confiança , Dinamarca , Método Duplo-Cego , Epinefrina/administração & dosagem , Feminino , Glucocorticoides/administração & dosagem , Glucocorticoides/efeitos adversos , Parada Cardíaca , Humanos , Hiperglicemia/epidemiologia , Hiponatremia/epidemiologia , Masculino , Metilprednisolona/administração & dosagem , Metilprednisolona/efeitos adversos , Exame Neurológico , Placebos/farmacologia , Resultado do Tratamento , Incerteza , Vasoconstritores/administração & dosagem , Vasopressinas/administração & dosagem , Vasopressinas/efeitos adversosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Acute and persistent pain after surgery is well described. However, no large-scale studies on immediate postoperative pain in the operating room (OR) exist, hindering potential areas of research to improve clinical outcomes. Thus, we aimed to describe the occurrence and severity of immediate postoperative pain in a large, unselected cohort. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study, encompassing all procedures in 31 public hospitals in the Danish Realm, during a 5-day period including the weekend. Data on procedures and anesthesia were collected and the main outcome was occurrence of moderate or severe pain in the OR. Secondary outcomes included pain, sedation and nausea in the OR or during the first 15 min in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) including relevant risk factors. Descriptive and logistic regression statistics were used. RESULTS: A total of 3675 procedures were included for analysis (87% inclusion rate). Moderate or severe pain occurred in 7.4% (95% CI 6.5% to 8.3%) of cases in the OR immediately after awakening, rising to 20.2% in the OR and/or PACU. Large intraprocedure and interprocedure variations occurred (0.0%-37.5%), and in 20% of cases with epidural-general anesthesia patients experienced moderate or severe pain. Independent risk factors were female sex, younger age, preoperative pain, daily opioid use and major surgical procedures. CONCLUSION: Moderate or severe pain in the immediate postoperative phase occurred in 20% of all cases with procedure and anesthesiological technique variations, suggesting a need for identification of relevant procedure-specific risk factors and development of preventive treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: RoPR ID 43191.
Assuntos
Analgésicos Opioides , Dor Pós-Operatória , Anestesia Geral , Estudos de Coortes , Dinamarca/epidemiologia , Feminino , Humanos , Dor Pós-Operatória/diagnóstico , Dor Pós-Operatória/epidemiologia , Dor Pós-Operatória/etiologia , Estudos ProspectivosRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical trial "Vasopressin and Methylprednisolone for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest" (VAM-IHCA). METHODS: The VAM-IHCA trial is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel group, double-blind, superiority trial of vasopressin and methylprednisolone during adult in-hospital cardiac arrest. The study drugs consist of 40 mg methylprednisolone and 20 IU of vasopressin given as soon as possible after the first dose of adrenaline. Additional doses of vasopressin (20 IU) will be administered after each adrenaline dose for a maximum of four doses (80 IU).The primary outcome is return of spontaneous circulation and key secondary outcomes include survival and survival with a favorable neurological outcome at 30 days. 492 patients will be enrolled. The trial was registered at the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT Number: 2017-004773-13) on Jan. 25, 2018 and ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT03640949) on Aug. 21, 2018. RESULTS: The trial started in October 2018 and the last patient is anticipated to be included in January 2021. The primary results will be reported after 3-months follow-up and are, therefore, anticipated in mid-2021. CONCLUSION: The current article describes the design of the VAM-IHCA trial. The results from this trial will help clarify whether the combination of vasopressin and methylprednisolone when administered during in-hospital cardiac arrest improves outcomes.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: In the early phase of the pandemic, some guidelines recommended the use of corticosteroids for critically ill patients with COVID-19, whereas others recommended against the use despite lack of firm evidence of either benefit or harm. In the COVID STEROID trial, we aimed to assess the effects of low-dose hydrocortisone on patient-centred outcomes in adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia. METHODS: In this multicentre, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, blinded, centrally randomised, stratified clinical trial, we randomly assigned adults with confirmed COVID-19 and severe hypoxia (use of mechanical ventilation or supplementary oxygen with a flow of at least 10 L/min) to either hydrocortisone (200 mg/d) vs a matching placebo for 7 days or until hospital discharge. The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support at day 28 after randomisation. RESULTS: The trial was terminated early when 30 out of 1000 participants had been enrolled because of external evidence indicating benefit from corticosteroids in severe COVID-19. At day 28, the median number of days alive without life support in the hydrocortisone vs placebo group were 7 vs 10 (adjusted mean difference: -1.1 days, 95% CI -9.5 to 7.3, P = .79); mortality was 6/16 vs 2/14; and the number of serious adverse reactions 1/16 vs 0/14. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial of adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia, we were unable to provide precise estimates of the benefits and harms of hydrocortisone as compared with placebo as only 3% of the planned sample size were enrolled. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04348305. European Union Drug Regulation Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT) Database: 2020-001395-15.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Hidrocortisona , Adulto , Humanos , Hipóxia , SARS-CoV-2 , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in the intensive care unit (ICU) are treated with supplemental oxygen, but the benefits and harms of different oxygenation targets are unclear. We hypothesized that using a lower target for partial pressure of arterial oxygen (Pao2) would result in lower mortality than using a higher target. METHODS: In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 2928 adult patients who had recently been admitted to the ICU (≤12 hours before randomization) and who were receiving at least 10 liters of oxygen per minute in an open system or had a fraction of inspired oxygen of at least 0.50 in a closed system to receive oxygen therapy targeting a Pao2 of either 60 mm Hg (lower-oxygenation group) or 90 mm Hg (higher-oxygenation group) for a maximum of 90 days. The primary outcome was death within 90 days. RESULTS: At 90 days, 618 of 1441 patients (42.9%) in the lower-oxygenation group and 613 of 1447 patients (42.4%) in the higher-oxygenation group had died (adjusted risk ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.94 to 1.11; P = 0.64). At 90 days, there was no significant between-group difference in the percentage of days that patients were alive without life support or in the percentage of days they were alive after hospital discharge. The percentages of patients who had new episodes of shock, myocardial ischemia, ischemic stroke, or intestinal ischemia were similar in the two groups (P = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: Among adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in the ICU, a lower oxygenation target did not result in lower mortality than a higher target at 90 days. (Funded by the Innovation Fund Denmark and others; HOT-ICU ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03174002.).