A double-blind randomised feasibility trial of angiotensin-2 in cardiac surgery.

Acute kidney injury is common after cardiac surgery. Vasoplegic hypotension may contribute to kidney injury, and different vasopressors may have variable effects on kidney function. We conducted a double-blind, randomised feasibility trial comparing peri-operative angiotensin-2 with noradrenaline. We randomly allocated 60 patients at two centres to a blinded equipotent angiotensin-2 or noradrenaline infusion intra-operatively and for up to 48 h postoperatively, titrated to mean arterial pressure of 70-80 mmHg. Primary feasibility outcomes included consent rate, protocol adherence, infusion duration, mean arterial pressure maintenance in the target range and major adverse outcomes. Secondary outcomes included kidney injury rate. The consent rate was 47%. Protocol adherence was 100% in the angiotensin-2 group and 94% in the noradrenaline group. Study drug duration was median (IQR [range]) 217 (160-270 [30-315]) vs. 185 (135-301 [0-480]) min (p = 0.78) min intra-operatively, and 5 (0-16 [0-48]) vs. 14.5 (4.8-29 [0-48]) hours (p = 0.075) postoperatively for angiotensin-2 and noradrenaline, respectively. The mean arterial pressure target was achieved postoperatively in 25 of 28 (89%) of the angiotensin-2 group and 27 of 32 (84%) of the noradrenaline group. One participant had a stroke, one required extracorporeal support and three required renal replacement therapy, all in the noradrenaline group (p = 0.99, p = 0.99 and p = 0.1). Acute kidney injury occurred in 7 of 28 in the angiotensin-2 group vs. 12 of 32 patients in the noradrenaline group (p = 0.31). This pilot study suggests that a trial comparing angiotensin-2 with noradrenaline is feasible. Its findings justify further investigations of angiotensin-2 in cardiac surgery.

Intraoperative positive end-expiratory pressure and postoperative pulmonary complications: a patient-level meta-analysis of three randomised clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: High intraoperative PEEP with recruitment manoeuvres may improve perioperative outcomes. We re-examined this question by conducting a patient-level meta-analysis of three clinical trials in adult patients at increased risk for postoperative pulmonary complications who underwent non-cardiothoracic and non-neurological surgery. METHODS: The three trials enrolled patients at 128 hospitals in 24 countries from February 2011 to February 2018. All patients received volume-controlled ventilation with low tidal volume. Analyses were performed using one-stage, two-level, mixed modelling (site as a random effect; trial as a fixed effect). The primary outcome was a composite of postoperative pulmonary complications within the first week, analysed using mixed-effect logistic regression. Pre-specified subgroup analyses of nine patient characteristics and seven procedure and care-delivery characteristics were also performed. RESULTS: Complete datasets were available for 1913 participants ventilated with high PEEP and recruitment manoeuvres, compared with 1924 participants who received low PEEP. The primary outcome occurred in 562/1913 (29.4%) participants randomised to high PEEP, compared with 620/1924 (32.2%) participants randomised to low PEEP (unadjusted odds ratio [OR]=0.87; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.75-1.01; P=0.06). Higher PEEP resulted in 87/1913 (4.5%) participants requiring interventions for desaturation, compared with 216/1924 (11.2%) participants randomised to low PEEP (OR=0.34; 95% CI, 0.26-0.45). Intraoperative hypotension was associated more frequently (784/1913 [41.0%]) with high PEEP, compared with low PEEP (579/1924 [30.1%]; OR=1.87; 95% CI, 1.60-2.17). CONCLUSIONS: High PEEP combined with recruitment manoeuvres during low tidal volume ventilation in patients undergoing major surgery did not reduce postoperative pulmonary complications. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03937375 (Clinicaltrials.gov).

Awake prone positioning in nonintubated spontaneous breathing ICU patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (PRONELIFE)-protocol for a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether awake prone positioning can prevent intubation for invasive ventilation in spontaneous breathing critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Awake prone positioning could benefit these patients for various reasons, including a reduction in direct harm to lung tissue, and prevention of tracheal intubation-related complications. DESIGN AND METHODS: The PRONELIFE study is an investigator-initiated, international, multicenter, randomized clinical trial in patients who may need invasive ventilation because of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Consecutive patients admitted to participating ICUs are randomly assigned to standard care with awake prone positioning, versus standard care without awake prone positioning. The primary endpoint is a composite of tracheal intubation and all-cause mortality in the first 14 days after enrolment. Secondary endpoints include time to tracheal intubation and effects of awake prone positioning on oxygenation parameters, dyspnea sensation, and complications. Other endpoints are the number of days free from ventilation and alive at 28 days, total duration of use of noninvasive respiratory support, total duration of invasive ventilation, length of stay in ICU and hospital, and mortality in ICU and hospital, and at 28, 60, and 90 days. We will also collect data regarding the tolerance of prone positioning. DISCUSSION: The PRONELIFE study is among the first randomized clinical trials investigating the effect of awake prone positioning on intubation rate in ICU patients with acute hypoxemic failure from any cause. The PRONELIFE study is sufficiently sized to determine the effect of awake prone positioning on intubation for invasive ventilation-patients are eligible in case of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure without restrictions regarding etiology. The PRONELIFE study is a pragmatic trial in which blinding is impossible-however, as around 35 ICUs worldwide will participate in this study, its findings will be highly generalizable. The findings of the PRONELIFE study have the potential to change clinical management of patients who may need invasive ventilation because of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN11536318 . Registered on 17 September 2021. The PRONELIFE study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov with reference number NCT04142736 (October, 2019).

Practice of tracheostomy in patients with acute respiratory failure related to COVID-19 - Insights from the PRoVENT-COVID study.

OBJECTIVE: Invasively ventilated patients with acute respiratory failure related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) potentially benefit from tracheostomy. The aim of this study was to determine the practice of tracheostomy during the first wave of the pandemic in 2020 in the Netherlands, to ascertain whether timing of tracheostomy had an association with outcome, and to identify factors that had an association with timing. METHODS: Secondary analysis of the 'PRactice of VENTilation in COVID-19' (PRoVENT-COVID) study, a multicenter observational study, conducted from March 1, 2020 through June 1, 2020 in 22 Dutch intensive care units (ICU) in the Netherlands. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients receiving tracheostomy; secondary endpoints were timing of tracheostomy, duration of ventilation, length of stay in ICU and hospital, mortality, and factors associated with timing. RESULTS: Of 1023 patients, 189 patients (18.5%) received a tracheostomy at median 21 [17 to 28] days from start of ventilation. Timing was similar before and after online publication of an amendment to the Dutch national guidelines on tracheostomy focusing on COVID-19 patients (21 [17-28] vs. 21 [17-26] days). Tracheostomy performed ≤ 21 days was independently associated with shorter duration of ventilation (median 26 [21 to 32] vs. 40 [34 to 47] days) and higher mortality in ICU (22.1% vs. 10.2%), hospital (26.1% vs. 11.9%) and at day 90 (27.6% vs. 14.6%). There were no patient demographics or ventilation characteristics that had an association with timing of tracheostomy. CONCLUSIONS: Tracheostomy was performed late in COVID-19 patients during the first wave of the pandemic in the Netherlands and timing of tracheostomy possibly had an association with outcome. However, prospective studies are needed to further explore these associations. It remains unknown which factors influenced timing of tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients.

Epidemiology, ventilation management and outcome in patients receiving intensive care after non-thoracic surgery - Insights from the LAS VEGAS study.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Information about epidemiology, ventilation management and outcome in postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) patients remains scarce. The objective was to test whether postoperative ventilation differs from that in the operation room. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a substudy of the worldwide observational LAS VEGAS study, including patients undergoing non-thoracic surgeries. Of 146 study sites participating in the LAS VEGAS study, 117 (80%) sites reported on the postoperative ICU course, including ventilation and complications. The coprimary outcomes were two key elements of ventilator management, i.e., tidal volume (VT) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients receiving low VT ventilation (LTVV, defined as ventilation with a median VT < 8.0 ml/kg PBW), and the proportion of patients developing postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC), including ARDS, pneumothorax, pneumonia and need for escalation of ventilatory support, ICU and hospital length of stay, and mortality at day 28. RESULTS: Of 653 patients who were admitted to the ICU after surgery, 274 (42%) patients received invasive postoperative ventilation. Median postoperative VT was 8.4 [7.3-9.8] ml/kg predicted body weight (PBW), PEEP was 5 [5-5] cm H2O, statistically significant but not meaningfully different from median intraoperative VT (8.1 [7.3-8.9] ml/kg PBW; P < 0.001) and PEEP (4 [2-5] cm H2O; P < 0.001). The proportion of patients receiving LTVV after surgery was 41%. The PPC rate was 10%. Length of stay in ICU and hospital was independent of development of a PPC, but hospital mortality was higher in patients who developed a PPC (24 versus 4%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this observational study of patients undergoing non-thoracic surgeries, postoperative ventilation was not meaningfully different from that in the operating room. Like in the operating room, there is room for improved use of LTVV. Development of PPC is associated with mortality.

Increased mortality in elderly patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome is not explained by host response.

BACKGROUND: Advanced age is associated with increased mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients. Preclinical studies suggest that the host response to an injurious challenge is age-dependent. In ARDS patients, we investigated whether the association between age and mortality is mediated through age-related differences in the host response. METHODS: This was a prospective longitudinal observational cohort study, performed in the ICUs of two university-affiliated hospitals. The systemic host response was characterized in three predefined age-groups, based on the age-tertiles of the studied population: young (18 to 54 years, N = 209), middle-aged (55 to 67 years, N = 213), and elderly (67 years and older, N = 196). Biomarkers of inflammation, endothelial activation, and coagulation were determined in plasma obtained at the onset of ARDS. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. A mediation analysis was performed to examine whether age-related differences in biomarker levels serve as potential causal pathways mediating the association between age and mortality. RESULTS: Ninety-day mortality rates were 30% (63/209) in young, 37% (78/213) in middle-aged, and 43% (84/196) in elderly patients. Middle-aged and elderly patients had a higher risk of death compared to young patients (adjusted odds ratio, 1.5 [95% confidence interval 1.0 to 2.3] and 2.1 [1.4 to 3.4], respectively). Relative to young patients, the elderly had significantly lower systemic levels of biomarkers of inflammation and endothelial activation. Tissue plasminogen activator, a marker of coagulation, was the only biomarker that showed partial mediation (proportion of mediation, 10 [1 to 28] %). CONCLUSION: Little evidence was found that the association between age and mortality in ARDS patients is mediated through age-dependent differences in host response pathways. Only tissue plasminogen activator was identified as a possible mediator of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT01905033 , date of registration July 23, 2013).

Effect of Intraoperative High Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) With Recruitment Maneuvers vs Low PEEP on Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Obese Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: An intraoperative higher level of positive end-expiratory positive pressure (PEEP) with alveolar recruitment maneuvers improves respiratory function in obese patients undergoing surgery, but the effect on clinical outcomes is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether a higher level of PEEP with alveolar recruitment maneuvers decreases postoperative pulmonary complications in obese patients undergoing surgery compared with a lower level of PEEP. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial of 2013 adults with body mass indices of 35 or greater and substantial risk for postoperative pulmonary complications who were undergoing noncardiac, nonneurological surgery under general anesthesia. The trial was conducted at 77 sites in 23 countries from July 2014-February 2018; final follow-up: May 2018. Interventions: Patients were randomized to the high level of PEEP group (n = 989), consisting of a PEEP level of 12 cm H2O with alveolar recruitment maneuvers (a stepwise increase of tidal volume and eventually PEEP) or to the low level of PEEP group (n = 987), consisting of a PEEP level of 4 cm H2O. All patients received volume-controlled ventilation with a tidal volume of 7 mL/kg of predicted body weight. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of pulmonary complications within the first 5 postoperative days, including respiratory failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome, bronchospasm, new pulmonary infiltrates, pulmonary infection, aspiration pneumonitis, pleural effusion, atelectasis, cardiopulmonary edema, and pneumothorax. Among the 9 prespecified secondary outcomes, 3 were intraoperative complications, including hypoxemia (oxygen desaturation with Spo2 ≤92% for >1 minute). Results: Among 2013 adults who were randomized, 1976 (98.2%) completed the trial (mean age, 48.8 years; 1381 [69.9%] women; 1778 [90.1%] underwent abdominal operations). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome occurred in 211 of 989 patients (21.3%) in the high level of PEEP group compared with 233 of 987 patients (23.6%) in the low level of PEEP group (difference, -2.3% [95% CI, -5.9% to 1.4%]; risk ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.83 to 1.04]; P = .23). Among the 9 prespecified secondary outcomes, 6 were not significantly different between the high and low level of PEEP groups, and 3 were significantly different, including fewer patients with hypoxemia (5.0% in the high level of PEEP group vs 13.6% in the low level of PEEP group; difference, -8.6% [95% CI, -11.1% to 6.1%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among obese patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia, an intraoperative mechanical ventilation strategy with a higher level of PEEP and alveolar recruitment maneuvers, compared with a strategy with a lower level of PEEP, did not reduce postoperative pulmonary complications. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02148692.

Protective ventilation with high versus low positive end-expiratory pressure during one-lung ventilation for thoracic surgery (PROTHOR): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) may result in longer duration of in-hospital stay and even mortality. Both thoracic surgery and intraoperative mechanical ventilation settings add considerably to the risk of PPC. It is unclear if one-lung ventilation (OLV) for thoracic surgery with a strategy of intraoperative high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment maneuvers (RM) reduces PPC, compared to low PEEP without RM. METHODS: PROTHOR is an international, multicenter, randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, two-arm trial initiated by investigators of the PROtective VEntilation NETwork. In total, 2378 patients will be randomly assigned to one of two different intraoperative mechanical ventilation strategies. Investigators screen patients aged 18 years or older, scheduled for open thoracic or video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery under general anesthesia requiring OLV, with a maximal body mass index of 35 kg/m2, and a planned duration of surgery of more than 60 min. Further, the expected duration of OLV shall be longer than two-lung ventilation, and lung separation is planned with a double lumen tube. Patients will be randomly assigned to PEEP of 10 cmH2O with lung RM, or PEEP of 5 cmH2O without RM. During two-lung ventilation tidal volume is set at 7 mL/kg predicted body weight and, during OLV, it will be decreased to 5 mL/kg. The occurrence of PPC will be recorded as a collapsed composite of single adverse pulmonary events and represents the primary endpoint. DISCUSSION: PROTHOR is the first randomized controlled trial in patients undergoing thoracic surgery with OLV that is adequately powered to compare the effects of intraoperative high PEEP with RM versus low PEEP without RM on PPC. The results of the PROTHOR trial will support anesthesiologists in their decision to set intraoperative PEEP during protective ventilation for OLV in thoracic surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered in clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02963025 ) on 15 November 2016.

Intraoperative ventilation settings and their associations with postoperative pulmonary complications in obese patients.

BACKGROUND: There is limited information concerning the current practice of intraoperative mechanical ventilation in obese patients, and the optimal ventilator settings for these patients are debated. We investigated intraoperative ventilation parameters and their associations with the development of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) in obese patients. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of the international multicentre Local ASsessment of VEntilatory management during General Anesthesia for Surgery' (LAS VEGAS) study, restricted to obese patients, with a predefined composite outcome of PPCs as primary end-point. RESULTS: We analysed 2012 obese patients from 135 hospitals across 29 countries in Europe, North America, North Africa, and the Middle East. Tidal volume was 8.8 [25th-75th percentiles: 7.8-9.9] ml kg-1 predicted body weight, PEEP was 4 [1-5] cm H2O, and recruitment manoeuvres were performed in 7.7% of patients. PPCs occurred in 11.7% of patients and were independently associated with age (P<0.001), body mass index ≥40 kg m-2 (P=0.033), obstructive sleep apnoea (P=0.002), duration of anaesthesia (P<0.001), peak airway pressure (P<0.001), use of rescue recruitment manoeuvres (P<0.05) and routine recruitment manoeuvres performed by bag squeezing (P=0.021). PPCs were associated with an increased length of hospital stay (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Obese patients are frequently ventilated with high tidal volume and low PEEP, and seldom receive recruitment manoeuvres. PPCs increase hospital stay, and are associated with preoperative conditions, duration of anaesthesia and intraoperative ventilation settings. Randomised trials are warranted to clarify the role of different ventilatory parameters in obese patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01601223.

The fragility of statistically significant findings in randomised controlled anaesthesiology trials: systematic review of the medical literature.

The fragility index (FI), the number of events the statistical significance a result depends on, and the number of patients lost to follow-up are important parameters for interpreting randomised clinical trial results. We evaluated these two parameters in randomised controlled trials in anaesthesiology. For this, we performed a systematic search of the medical literature, seeking articles reporting on anaesthesiology trials with a statistically significant difference in the primary outcome and published in the top five general medicine journals, or the top 15 anaesthesiology journals. We restricted the analysis to trials reporting clinically important primary outcome measures. The search identified 139 articles, 35 published in general medicine journals and 104 in anaesthesiology journals. The median (inter-quartile range) sample size was 150 (70-300) patients. The FI was 4 (2-17) and 3 (2-7), and the number of patients lost to follow-up was 0 (0-18) and 0 (0-6) patients in trials published in general medicine and anaesthesiology journals, respectively. The number of patients lost to follow-up exceeded the FI in 41 and 27% in trials in general medicine journals and anaesthesiology journals, respectively. The FI positively correlated with sample size and number of primary outcome events, and negatively correlated with the reported P-values. The results of this systematic review suggest that statistically significant differences in randomised controlled anaesthesiology trials are regularly fragile, implying that the primary outcome status of patients lost to follow-up could possibly have changed the reported effect.

Protective intraoperative ventilation with higher versus lower levels of positive end-expiratory pressure in obese patients (PROBESE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) increase the morbidity and mortality of surgery in obese patients. High levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) with lung recruitment maneuvers may improve intraoperative respiratory function, but they can also compromise hemodynamics, and the effects on PPCs are uncertain. We hypothesized that intraoperative mechanical ventilation using high PEEP with periodic recruitment maneuvers, as compared with low PEEP without recruitment maneuvers, prevents PPCs in obese patients. METHODS/DESIGN: The PRotective Ventilation with Higher versus Lower PEEP during General Anesthesia for Surgery in OBESE Patients (PROBESE) study is a multicenter, two-arm, international randomized controlled trial. In total, 2013 obese patients with body mass index ≥35 kg/m2 scheduled for at least 2 h of surgery under general anesthesia and at intermediate to high risk for PPCs will be included. Patients are ventilated intraoperatively with a low tidal volume of 7 ml/kg (predicted body weight) and randomly assigned to PEEP of 12 cmH2O with lung recruitment maneuvers (high PEEP) or PEEP of 4 cmH2O without recruitment maneuvers (low PEEP). The occurrence of PPCs will be recorded as collapsed composite of single adverse pulmonary events and represents the primary endpoint. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, the PROBESE trial is the first multicenter, international randomized controlled trial to compare the effects of two different levels of intraoperative PEEP during protective low tidal volume ventilation on PPCs in obese patients. The results of the PROBESE trial will support anesthesiologists in their decision to choose a certain PEEP level during general anesthesia for surgery in obese patients in an attempt to prevent PPCs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02148692. Registered on 23 May 2014; last updated 7 June 2016.

Bisphosphonate therapy in patients under androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The objective of this study was to clarify the role of bisphosphonates in the treatment of osteoporosis in patients with prostate adenocarcinoma under androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The Medline, EMBASE, Cancerlit and the American Society of Clinical Oncology abstract databases were searched for published randomized, placebo-controlled trials evaluating the usage of bisphosphonates in patients with prostate cancer (PC) under ADT. The outcomes assessed were fracture, osteoporosis, incidence of adverse events and changes in bone mineral density (BMD) during treatment. A total of 15 articles (2634 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. Treatment with bisphosphonates showed a substantial effect in preventing fractures (risk ratio (RR), 0.80; P = 0.005) and osteoporosis (RR, 0.39; P <0.00001). Zoledronic acid showed the best number needed to treat (NTT), compared with placebo, in relation to fractures and osteoporosis (NNT = 14.9 and NNT = 2.68, respectively). The between-group difference (bisphosphonates vs placebo) in the lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD were 5.18 ± 3.38% and 2.35 ± 1.16%, respectively. This benefit of bone loss prevention could be reached without major side effects (cardiovascular or gastrointestinal events). Bisphosphonates are effective in preventing bone loss in patients with PC who are under ADT.