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.).

Conservative vs. liberal fluid therapy in septic shock - Protocol for secondary Bayesian analyses of the CLASSIC trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical equipoise exists regarding intravenous (IV) fluid volumes in sepsis. The Conservative vs. Liberal Approach to fluid therapy of Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial investigates the effect of restricted vs. standard IV fluid therapy in 1554 adult intensive care unit patients with septic shock. METHODS: This protocol describes secondary Bayesian analyses of the primary outcome (90-day all-cause mortality) and three secondary outcomes at day 90. We will analyse all binary outcomes with adjusted Bayesian logistic regressions and present results as conditional relative risks and risk differences with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). The secondary count outcome will be analysed using adjusted Bayesian linear regression with results summarised as conditional mean differences and ratios of means with 95% Crls. We will use weakly informative priors for the primary analyses, and sceptical and evidence-based priors in the sensitivity analyses. Exact probabilities will be presented for any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm and no clinically important difference. We will assess whether heterogeneity of treatment effects on mortality is present using Bayesian hierarchical models in subgroups and on the continuous scale using models with interactions according to five baseline variables assessing the overall severity of illness and the degree of circulatory and renal impairment. DISCUSSION: The outlined analyses will supplement the primary analysis of the CLASSIC trial by describing probabilities of beneficial and harmful effects and evaluating heterogeneity of treatment effects in a framework that may be easier to interpret for researchers and clinicians.

Interactions in clinical trials: Protocol and statistical analysis plan for an explorative study of four randomized ICU trials on use of pantoprazole, oxygenation targets, haloperidol and intravenous fluids.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients receive numerous interventions, but knowledge about potential interactions between these interventions is limited. Co-enrolment in randomized clinical trials represents a unique opportunity to investigate any such interactions. We aim to assess interactions in four randomized clinical trials with overlap in inclusion periods and patient populations. METHODS: This protocol and statistical analysis plan describes a secondary explorative analysis of interactions in four international ICU trials on pantoprazole, oxygenations targets, haloperidol and intravenous fluids, respectively. The primary outcome will be 90-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome will be days alive and out of hospital in 90 days after randomization. All patients included in the intention-to-treat populations of the four trials will be included. Four co-primary analyses will be conducted, one with each of the included trials as reference using a logistic regression model adjusted for the reference trial's stratification variables and for the co-interventions with interactions terms. The primary analytical measure of interest will be the analyses' tests of interaction. A p-value below .05 will be considered statically significant. The stratification variable- and co-intervention-adjusted effect estimates will be reported with 95% confidence intervals without adjustments for multiplicity. CONCLUSION: This exploratory analysis will investigate the presence of any interactions between pantoprazole, oxygenation targets, haloperidol and amount of intravenous fluids in four international ICU trials using co-enrolment. Assessment of possible interactions represents valuable information to guide the design, statistical powering and conduct of future trials.

Pantoprazole in Patients at Risk for Gastrointestinal Bleeding in the ICU.

BACKGROUND: Prophylaxis for gastrointestinal stress ulceration is frequently given to patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), but its risks and benefits are unclear. METHODS: In this European, multicenter, parallel-group, blinded trial, we randomly assigned adults who had been admitted to the ICU for an acute condition (i.e., an unplanned admission) and who were at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding to receive 40 mg of intravenous pantoprazole (a proton-pump inhibitor) or placebo daily during the ICU stay. The primary outcome was death by 90 days after randomization. RESULTS: A total of 3298 patients were enrolled; 1645 were randomly assigned to the pantoprazole group and 1653 to the placebo group. Data on the primary outcome were available for 3282 patients (99.5%). At 90 days, 510 patients (31.1%) in the pantoprazole group and 499 (30.4%) in the placebo group had died (relative risk, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.13; P=0.76). During the ICU stay, at least one clinically important event (a composite of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, or myocardial ischemia) had occurred in 21.9% of patients assigned to pantoprazole and 22.6% of those assigned to placebo (relative risk, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.11). In the pantoprazole group, 2.5% of patients had clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, as compared with 4.2% in the placebo group. The number of patients with infections or serious adverse reactions and the percentage of days alive without life support within 90 days were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among adult patients in the ICU who were at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, mortality at 90 days and the number of clinically important events were similar in those assigned to pantoprazole and those assigned to placebo. (Funded by Innovation Fund Denmark and others; SUP-ICU ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02467621 .).

Effect of 12 mg vs 6 mg of Dexamethasone on the Number of Days Alive Without Life Support in Adults With COVID-19 and Severe Hypoxemia: The COVID STEROID 2 Randomized Trial.

Importance: A daily dose with 6 mg of dexamethasone is recommended for up to 10 days in patients with severe and critical COVID-19, but a higher dose may benefit those with more severe disease. Objective: To assess the effects of 12 mg/d vs 6 mg/d of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter, randomized clinical trial was conducted between August 2020 and May 2021 at 26 hospitals in Europe and India and included 1000 adults with confirmed COVID-19 requiring at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation. End of 90-day follow-up was on August 19, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to 12 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 503) or 6 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 497) for up to 10 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support (invasive mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, or kidney replacement therapy) at 28 days and was adjusted for stratification variables. Of the 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, 5 are included in this analysis (the number of days alive without life support at 90 days, the number of days alive out of the hospital at 90 days, mortality at 28 days and at 90 days, and ≥1 serious adverse reactions at 28 days). Results: Of the 1000 randomized patients, 982 were included (median age, 65 [IQR, 55-73] years; 305 [31%] women) and primary outcome data were available for 971 (491 in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 480 in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group). The median number of days alive without life support was 22.0 days (IQR, 6.0-28.0 days) in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 20.5 days (IQR, 4.0-28.0 days) in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted mean difference, 1.3 days [95% CI, 0-2.6 days]; P = .07). Mortality at 28 days was 27.1% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 32.3% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.86 [99% CI, 0.68-1.08]). Mortality at 90 days was 32.0% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 37.7% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.87 [99% CI, 0.70-1.07]). Serious adverse reactions, including septic shock and invasive fungal infections, occurred in 11.3% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 13.4% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.83 [99% CI, 0.54-1.29]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, 12 mg/d of dexamethasone compared with 6 mg/d of dexamethasone did not result in statistically significantly more days alive without life support at 28 days. However, the trial may have been underpowered to identify a significant difference. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04509973 and ctri.nic.in Identifier: CTRI/2020/10/028731.

Long-term patient-important outcomes after septic shock: A protocol for 1-year follow-up of the CLASSIC trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with septic shock, mortality is high, and survivors experience long-term physical, mental and social impairments. The ongoing Conservative vs Liberal Approach to fluid therapy of Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial assesses the benefits and harms of a restrictive vs standard-care intravenous (IV) fluid therapy. The hypothesis is that IV fluid restriction improves patient-important long-term outcomes. AIM: To assess the predefined patient-important long-term outcomes in patients randomised into the CLASSIC trial. METHODS: In this pre-planned follow-up study of the CLASSIC trial, we will assess all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and cognitive function 1 year after randomisation in the two intervention groups. The 1-year mortality will be collected from electronic patient records or central national registries in most participating countries. We will contact survivors and assess EuroQol 5-Dimension, -5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) and EuroQol-Visual Analogue Scale and Montreal Cognitive Assessment 5-minute protocol score. We will analyse mortality by logistic regression and use general linear models to assess HRQoL and cognitive function. DISCUSSION: With this pre-planned follow-up study of the CLASSIC trial, we will provide patient-important data on long-term survival, HRQoL and cognitive function of restrictive vs standard-care IV fluid therapy in patients with septic shock.

Lower vs Higher Fluid Volumes in Adult Patients With Sepsis: An Updated Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

BACKGROUND: IV fluids are recommended for adults with sepsis. However, the optimal strategy for IV fluid management in sepsis is unknown, and clinical equipoise exists. RESEARCH QUESTION: Do lower vs higher fluid volumes improve patient-important outcomes in adult patients with sepsis? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We updated a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials assessing lower vs higher IV fluid volumes in adult patients with sepsis. The coprimary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. We followed the recommendations from the Cochrane Handbook and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Primary conclusions were based on trials with low risk of bias if available. RESULTS: We included 13 trials (N = 4,006) with four trials (n = 3,385) added to this update. The meta-analysis of all-cause mortality in eight trials with low risk of bias showed a relative risk of 0.99 (97% CI, 0.89-1.10; moderate certainty evidence). Six trials with predefined definitions of serious adverse events showed a relative risk of 0.95 (97% CI, 0.83-1.07; low certainty evidence). Health-related quality of life was not reported. INTERPRETATION: Among adult patients with sepsis, lower IV fluid volumes probably result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality compared with higher IV fluid volumes, but the interpretation is limited by imprecision in the estimate, which does not exclude potential benefit or harm. Similarly, the evidence suggests lower IV fluid volumes result in little to no difference in serious adverse events. No trials reported on health-related quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO; No.: CRD42022312572; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.

A new tool to assess Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM) of interventions.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM), a new tool for assessing clinical diversity between trials in meta-analyses of interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The development of CDIM was based on consensus work informed by empirical literature and expertise. We drafted the CDIM tool, refined it, and validated CDIM for interrater scale reliability and agreement in three groups. RESULTS: CDIM measures clinical diversity on a scale that includes four domains with 11 items overall: setting (time of conduct/country development status/units type); population (age, sex, patient inclusion criteria/baseline disease severity, comorbidities); interventions (intervention intensity/strength/duration of intervention, timing, control intervention, cointerventions); and outcome (definition of outcome, timing of outcome assessment). The CDIM is completed in two steps: first two authors independently assess clinical diversity in the four domains. Second, after agreeing upon scores of individual items a consensus score is achieved. Interrater scale reliability and agreement ranged from moderate to almost perfect depending on the type of raters. CONCLUSION: CDIM is the first tool developed for assessing clinical diversity in meta-analyses of interventions. We found CDIM to be a reliable tool for assessing clinical diversity among trials in meta-analysis.