Furosemide versus placebo for fluid overload in intensive care patients-The randomised GODIF trial second version: Statistical analysis plan.

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.

Nonsedation or Light Sedation in Critically Ill, Mechanically Ventilated Patients.

BACKGROUND: In critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients, daily interruption of sedation has been shown to reduce the time on ventilation and the length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU). Data on whether a plan of no sedation, as compared with a plan of light sedation, has an effect on mortality are lacking. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, we assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, mechanically ventilated ICU patients to a plan of no sedation (nonsedation group) or to a plan of light sedation (i.e., to a level at which the patient was arousable, defined as a score of -2 to -3 on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale [RASS], on which scores range from -5 [unresponsive] to +4 [combative]) (sedation group) with daily interruption. The primary outcome was mortality at 90 days. Secondary outcomes were the number of major thromboembolic events, the number of days free from coma or delirium, acute kidney injury according to severity, the number of ICU-free days, and the number of ventilator-free days. Between-group differences were calculated as the value in the nonsedation group minus the value in the sedation group. RESULTS: A total of 710 patients underwent randomization, and 700 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The characteristics of the patients at baseline were similar in the two trial groups, except for the score on the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, which was 1 point higher in the nonsedation group than in the sedation group, indicating a greater chance of in-hospital death. The mean RASS score in the nonsedation group increased from -1.3 on day 1 to -0.8 on day 7 and, in the sedation group, from -2.3 on day 1 to -1.8 on day 7. Mortality at 90 days was 42.4% in the nonsedation group and 37.0% in the sedated group (difference, 5.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.2 to 12.2; P = 0.65). The number of ICU-free days and of ventilator-free days did not differ significantly between the trial groups. The patients in the nonsedation group had a median of 27 days free from coma or delirium, and those in the sedation group had a median of 26 days free from coma or delirium. A major thromboembolic event occurred in 1 patient (0.3%) in the nonsedation group and in 10 patients (2.8%) in the sedation group (difference, -2.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.8 to -0.7 [unadjusted for multiple comparisons]). CONCLUSIONS: Among mechanically ventilated ICU patients, mortality at 90 days did not differ significantly between those assigned to a plan of no sedation and those assigned to a plan of light sedation with daily interruption. (Funded by the Danish Medical Research Council and others; NONSEDA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01967680.).

Sleep quality and quantity determined by polysomnography in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients randomized to dexmedetomidine or placebo.

BACKGROUND: Abnormal sleep is commonly observed in the ICU and is associated with delirium and increased mortality. If sedation is necessary, it is often performed with gamma-aminobutyric acid agonists such as propofol or midazolam leading to an absence of restorative sleep. We aim to evaluate the effect of dexmedetomidine on sleep quality and quantity. METHODS: Thirty consecutive patients were included. The study was conducted as a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial with two parallel groups: 20 patients were treated with dexmedetomidine, and 10 with placebo. Two 16 h of polysomnography recordings were done for each patient on two consecutive nights. Patients were randomized to dexmedetomidine or placebo after the first recording, thus providing a control recording for all patients. Dexmedetomidine was administered during the second recording (6 p.m.-6 a.m.). OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of dexmedetomidine versus. placebo on sleep - quality and quantity. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Sleep quality, total sleep time (TST), Sleep efficiency (SE), and Rapid Eye Movement (REM) sleep determined by Polysomnography (PSG). SECONDARY OUTCOME: Delirium and daytime function determined by Confusion Assessment Method of the Intensive Care Unit and physical activity. Alertness and wakefulness were determined by RASS (Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale). RESULTS: SE were increased in the dexmedetomidine group by; 37.6% (29.7;45.6 95% CI) versus 3.7% (-11.4;18.8 95% CI) (p < .001) and TST were prolonged by 271 min. (210;324 95% CI) versus 27 min. (-82;135 95% CI), (p < .001). No significant difference in REM sleep, delirium physical activity, or RASS score was found except for RASS night two. CONCLUSION: Total sleep time and sleep efficiency were significantly increased, without elimination of REM sleep, in mechanically ventilated ICU patients randomized to dexmedetomidine, when compared to a control PSG recording performed during non-sedation/standard care.

Abnormal serum levels of magnesium, phosphate, and zinc in ICU patients-Characteristics, management, and outcomes: The WhyTrace cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Abnormal serum levels of magnesium, phosphate, and zinc appear common in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, but the epidemiology, management, and associations with outcomes are less well described. We described these factors and estimated associations with outcomes in a large dataset of Danish ICU patients. METHODS: We included adults who were acutely admitted to 10 general ICUs in Denmark between October 2011 and January 2018. From the dataset, we obtained characteristics of patients who had serum levels measured of magnesium, phosphate, or zinc, including data on supplementation. We used joint models with death as a competing outcome to estimate the associations between abnormal serum levels and time to successful extubation and, for magnesium, also incident tachyarrhythmia. RESULTS: We included 16,517 of 36,514 patients in the dataset. The cumulative probability of hypomagnesemia within 28 days was 64% (95% confidence interval [CI] 62-66); of hypophosphatemia 74% (95% CI 72-75); and of hypozincemia 98% (95% CI 98-98). Supplementation of magnesium was used in 3554 out of 13,506 (26%) patients, phosphate in 2115 out of 14,148 (15%) patients, and zinc in 4465 out of 9869 (45%) patients. During ICU stay, 38% experienced hypermagnesemia, 58% hyperphosphatemia, and 1% hyperzincemia. Low serum levels of magnesium, phosphate, and zinc were associated with shorter time to successful extubation, and high serum magnesium and phosphate and low serum zinc with the competing risk of increased mortality, but too few serum measurements made the results inconclusive. CONCLUSION: In this multicenter cohort study of acutely admitted ICU patients, most experienced low serum levels of magnesium, phosphate, or zinc during ICU stay, many received supplementation, and experiencing both low and high serum levels during ICU stay was not uncommon. Associations between serum levels and clinical outcomes appeared inconclusive because the data proved unfit for these analyses.

Association between days alive without life support/out of hospital and health-related quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Trials in critically ill patients increasingly focus on days alive without life support (DAWOLS) or days alive out of hospital (DAOOH) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). DAWOLS and DAOOH convey more information than mortality and are simpler and faster to collect than HRQoL. However, whether these outcomes are associated with HRQoL is uncertain. We thus aimed to assess the associations between DAWOLS and DAOOH and long-term HRQoL. METHODS: Secondary analysis of the COVID STEROID 2 trial including adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia and the Handling Oxygenation Targets in the Intensive Care Unit (HOT-ICU) trial including adult intensive care unit patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. Associations between DAWOLS and DAOOH at day 28 and 90 and long-term HRQoL (after 6 or 12 months) using the EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level survey (EQ VAS and EQ-5D-5L index values) were assessed using flexible models and evaluated using measures of fit and prediction adequacy in both datasets (comprising internal performance and external validation), non-parametric correlation coefficients and graphical presentations. RESULTS: We found no strong associations between DAWOLS or DAOOH and HRQoL in survivors at HRQoL-follow-up (615 and 1476 patients, respectively). There was substantial variability in outcomes, and predictions from the best fitted models were poor both internally and externally in the other trial dataset, which also showed inadequate calibration. Moderate associations were found when including non-survivors, although predictions remained uncertain and calibration inadequate. CONCLUSION: DAWOLS and DAOOH were poorly associated with HRQoL in adult survivors of severe or critical illness included in the COVID STEROID 2 and HOT-ICU trials.

Effect of Interpectoral-Pectoserratus Plane (PECS II) Block on Recovery Room Discharge Time in Breast Cancer Surgery.

Background and Objectives: The increase in the incidence and diagnosis rate of breast cancer demands the optimization of resources. The aim of this study was to assess whether the supplementation of the interpectoral-pectoserratus plane block (PECS II) reduces surgery and post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) time in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. Materials and methods: This was a retrospective data-analysis study. In 2016, PECS II block was introduced as a supplement to general anesthesia for all mastectomies with or without axillary resections in South Jutland regional hospital, Denmark. The perioperative data of patients operated 3 years before and 3 years after 2016 was retrieved through the Danish anesthesia database and patient journals and systematically analyzed. Female patients aged over 18 years, with no use of muscle relaxant, intubation, and inhalation agents, were included. The eligible data was organized into two groups, i.e., Block and Control, where the Block group received PECS II Block, while the Control group received only general anesthesia. Parameters such as surgery time, anesthesia time, PACU time, opioid consumption, and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in PACU were retrieved and statistically analyzed. Results: A total of 172 patients out of 358 patients met eligibility criteria. After applying exclusion criteria, 65 patients were filtered out. A total of 107 patients, 51 from the Block and 56 from the Control group, were eligible for the final analysis. The patients were comparable in demographic parameters. The median surgery time was significantly less in the Block group (78 min (60-99)) in comparison to the Control group (98.5 min (77.5-139.5) p < 0.0045). Consequently, the median anesthesia time was also shorter in the Block group (140 min (115-166)) vs. the Control group (160 min (131.5 to 188), p < 0.0026). Patients from the Block group had significantly lower intraoperative fentanyl consumption (60 µg (30-100)) as compared with the Control group (132.5 µg (80-232.5), p < 0.0001). The total opioid consumption during the entire procedure (converted to morphine) was significantly lower in the Block group (16.37 mg (8-23.6)) as compared with the Control group (31.17 mg (16-46.5), p < 0.0001). No statistically significant difference was found in the PACU time, incidences of PONV, and postoperative pain. Conclusions: The interpectoral-pectoserratus plane (PECS II) block supplementation reduces surgery time, anesthesia time, and opioid consumption but not PACU time during breast cancer surgery.

Patient-Important Outcomes Other Than Mortality in Contemporary ICU Trials: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in adult ICU patients increasingly include patient-important outcomes other than mortality. This comes with challenges regarding outcome choices/definitions, handling of deceased patients and missing data in analyses, and choices of effect measures and statistical methods due to complex distributions. This scoping review aimed to characterize how these challenges are handled in relevant contemporary RCTs. DATA SOURCES: We systematically searched 10 selected journals for RCTs conducted primarily in adult ICU patients published between 1 January 2018 and 5 May 2022 reporting at least one patient-important outcome other than mortality, including "days alive without"…-type outcomes, functional/cognitive/neurologic outcomes, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes, and ordinal/other outcomes. STUDY SELECTION: Abstracts and full-texts were assessed independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted independently and in duplicate by two reviewers using predefined and pilot-tested extraction forms and subsequently categorized to facilitate analysis. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 687 outcomes from 167 RCTs, with 32% of RCTs using a patient-important outcome other than mortality as a (co-)primary outcome, most frequently "days alive without"…-type outcomes. Many different functional/cognitive/neurologic (103) and HRQoL (29) outcomes were reported. Handling of deceased patients varied, with analyses frequently restricted to survivors only for functional/cognitive/neurologic (62%) and HRQoL (89%) outcomes. Follow-up was generally longer and missing data proportions higher for functional/cognitive/neurologic and HRQoL outcomes. Most outcomes were analyzed using nonparametric tests (31%), linear regression/ t tests (27%), chi-square-like tests (12%), and proportional odds logistic regression (9%), often without presentation of actual treatment effects estimates (38%). CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of RCTs, substantial variation in practice and suboptimal methodological choices were observed. This calls for increased focus on standardizing outcome choices and definitions, adequate handling of missing data and deceased patients in analyses, and use of statistical methods quantifying effect sizes.

Senicapoc treatment in COVID-19 patients with severe respiratory insufficiency-A randomized, open-label, phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the current study was to determine if treatment with senicapoc, improves the PaO2 /FiO2 ratio in patients with COVID-19 and severe respiratory insufficiency. METHODS: Investigator-initiated, randomized, open-label, phase II trial in four intensive care units (ICU) in Denmark. We included patients aged ≥18 years and admitted to an ICU with severe respiratory insufficiency due to COVID-19. The intervention consisted of 50 mg enteral senicapoc administered as soon as possible after randomization and again after 24 h. Patients in the control group received standard care only. The primary outcome was the PaO2 /FiO2 ratio at 72 h. RESULTS: Twenty patients were randomized to senicapoc and 26 patients to standard care. Important differences existed in patient characteristics at baseline, including more patients being on non-invasive/invasive ventilation in the control group (54% vs. 35%). The median senicapoc concentration at 72 h was 62.1 ng/ml (IQR 46.7-71.2). The primary outcome, PaO2 /FiO2 ratio at 72 h, was significantly lower in the senicapoc group (mean 19.5 kPa, SD 6.6) than in the control group (mean 24.4 kPa, SD 9.2) (mean difference -5.1 kPa [95% CI -10.2, -0.04] p = .05). The 28-day mortality in the senicapoc group was 2/20 (10%) compared with 6/26 (23%) in the control group (OR 0.36 95% CI 0.06-2.07, p = .26). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with senicapoc resulted in a significantly lower PaO2 /FiO2 ratio at 72 h with no differences for other outcomes.

Health-related quality of life and days alive without life support or out of hospital: Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Mortality is often the primary outcome in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in critically ill patients. Due to increased awareness on survivors after critical illness and outcomes other than mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and days alive without life support (DAWOLS) or days alive and out of hospital (DAAOOH) are increasingly being used. DAWOLS and DAAOOH convey more information than mortality, are easier to collect than HRQoL, and are usually assessed at earlier time points, which may be preferable in some situations. However, the associations between DAWOLS-DAAOOH and HRQoL are uncertain. METHODS: We will assess associations between DAWOLS-DAAOOH at day 28 and 90 (independent variables/predictors) and HRQoL assessed using the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L questionnaire (EQ-VAS and EQ-5D-5L index values) at 6 or 12 months (dependent variables) in two RCTs: the COVID STEROID 2 RCT conducted in adult patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia and the Handling Oxygenation Targets in the Intensive Care Unit (HOT-ICU) RCT conducted in adult intensive care patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. We will describe associations using best-fitting fractional polynomial transformations separately in each dataset, with the resulting models presented and assessed in both datasets graphically and using measures of fit and prediction adequacy (i.e., internal performance and external validation). We will use multiple imputation if missingness exceeds 5%. DISCUSSION: The outlined study will provide important knowledge on the associations between DAWOLS-DAAOOH and HRQoL in adult critically ill patients, which may help researchers and clinical trialists prioritise and select outcomes in future RCTs conducted in this population.

Goal directed fluid removal with furosemide versus placebo in intensive care patients with fluid overload: A trial protocol for a randomised, blinded trial (GODIF trial).

BACKGROUND: Fluid overload is a risk factor for mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Administration of loop diuretics is the predominant treatment of fluid overload, but evidence for its benefit is very uncertain when assessed in a systematic review of randomised clinical trials. The GODIF trial will assess the benefits and harms of goal directed fluid removal with furosemide versus placebo in ICU patients with fluid overload. METHODS: An investigator-initiated, international, randomised, stratified, blinded, parallel-group trial allocating 1000 adult ICU patients with fluid overload to infusion of furosemide versus placebo. The goal is to achieve a neutral fluid balance. The primary outcome is days alive and out of hospital 90 days after randomisation. Secondary outcomes are all-cause mortality at day 90 and 1-year after randomisation; days alive at day 90 without life support; number of participants with one or more serious adverse events or reactions; health-related quality of life and cognitive function at 1-year follow-up. A sample size of 1000 participants is required to detect an improvement of 8% in days alive and out of hospital 90 days after randomisation with a power of 90% and a risk of type 1 error of 5%. The conclusion of the trial will be based on the point estimate and 95% confidence interval; dichotomisation will not be used. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT04180397. PERSPECTIVE: The GODIF trial will provide important evidence of possible benefits and harms of fluid removal with furosemide in adult ICU patients with fluid overload.

Development of a core outcome set for general intensive care unit patients-A protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Different outcomes are reported in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, and no core outcome set (COS) is available for ICU patients in general. Accordingly, we aim to develop a COS for ICU patients in general. METHODS: The COS will be developed in accordance with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Handbook, using a modified Delphi consensus process and semi-structured interviews involving adults who have survived acute admission to an ICU, family members, clinicians, researchers and other stakeholders. The modified Delphi process will include two steps. Step 1: conduction of a modified Delphi survey, developed and informed by combining the outputs of a literature search of outcomes in previous COSs and semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders. We plan at least two survey rounds to obtain consensus and refine the COS. Step 2: a consensus process regarding instruments or definitions to be recommended for the measurements of the outcomes selected in Step 1. A 'patient and public involvement panel' consisting of a smaller group of patients, family members, clinicians and researchers will be included in the development, analysis and interpretation of the COS. DISCUSSION: The outlined multiple method studies will establish a COS for ICU patients in general, which may be used to increase the standardisation and comparability of results of RCTs conducted in patients in the ICU setting.

Non-sedation-Does it improve health-related quality of life after critical illness? A 3-month follow-up sub-study of the NONSEDA trial.

BACKGROUND: Critical illness is associated with severely impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for years following discharge. The NONSEDA trial was a multicenter randomized trial on non-sedation versus sedation with a daily wake-up trial in critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients in Scandinavia. The aim of this sub-study was to assess the effect of non-sedation on HRQoL and degree of independence in activities in daily living (ADL) 3 months post-ICU. METHODS: All survivors were asked to complete the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 questionnaire (SF-36) and the Barthel Index 3 months post-ICU. To limit missing data, reminders were sent. If unsuccessful, telephone interviews could be used. Outcomes were the level of HRQoL and ADL-function in each group. All outcomes were assessed blinded. RESULTS: Of the 700 patients included 412 survived to follow-up. A total of 344 survivors participated (82%). Baseline data were equal between the two groups. Mean SF-36 scores for the non-sedated vs sedated patients were as follows: Physical Function 45 vs 40, P = .69, Bodily Pain: 61 vs 52, P = .81, General Health: 50 vs 50, P = .84, Vitality: 42 vs 44, P = .85, Social Function: 75 vs 63, P = .85, Role Emotional: 58 vs 50, P = .82, Mental Health: 70 vs 70, P = .89, Role Physical: 25 vs 28, P = .32, Physical Component Score: 38 vs 37, P = .81, Mental Component Score: 48 vs 46, P = .94, Barthel Index: 20 vs 20, P = .74. CONCLUSION: Randomization to non-sedation neither improved nor impaired health-related quality of life or degree of independence in activities in daily living 3 months post-ICU discharge.

Patient-important outcomes other than mortality in recent ICU trials: Protocol for a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in intensive care units (ICUs) frequently focus on all-cause mortality, but other patient-important outcomes are increasingly used and recommended. Their use, however, is not straightforward: choices and definitions, operationalisation of death, handling of missing data, choice of effect measures, and statistical analyses for these outcomes vary greatly. METHODS: We will conduct a scoping review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. We will search 10 selected general and speciality journals for RCTs conducted in adult ICU patients from 2018 and onwards reporting at least 1 patient-important outcome other than mortality (including days alive without life support/days alive and out of hospital-type outcomes, health-related quality of life, functional/cognitive/neurological outcomes, and other general patient-important outcomes). We will summarise data on outcome measures and definitions, assessment time points, proportions and handling of death, proportions and handling of missing data, and effect measures and statistical methods used for analysis. DISCUSSION: The outlined scoping review will provide an overview of choices, definitions and handling of patient-important outcomes other than mortality in contemporary RCTs conducted in adult ICU patients. This may guide discussions with patients and relatives, the design of future RCTs, and research on optimal outcome choices and handling.

Higher vs Lower Doses of Dexamethasone in Patients with COVID-19 and Severe Hypoxia (COVID STEROID 2) trial: Protocol for a secondary Bayesian analysis.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to severe hypoxic respiratory failure and death. Corticosteroids decrease mortality in severely or critically ill patients with COVID-19. However, the optimal dose remains unresolved. The ongoing randomised COVID STEROID 2 trial investigates the effects of higher vs lower doses of dexamethasone (12 vs 6 mg intravenously daily for up to 10 days) in 1,000 adult patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia. METHODS: This protocol outlines the rationale and statistical methods for a secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis of the primary outcome (days alive without life support at day 28) and all secondary outcomes registered up to day 90. We will use hurdle-negative binomial models to estimate the mean number of days alive without life support in each group and present results as mean differences and incidence rate ratios with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). Additional count outcomes will be analysed similarly and binary outcomes will be analysed using logistic regression models with results presented as probabilities, relative risks and risk differences with 95% CrIs. We will present probabilities of any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm and probabilities of effects smaller than pre-defined clinically minimally important differences for all outcomes analysed. Analyses will be adjusted for stratification variables and conducted using weakly informative priors supplemented by sensitivity analyses using sceptic priors. DISCUSSION: This secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis will supplement the primary, conventional analysis and may help clinicians, researchers and policymakers interpret the results of the COVID STEROID 2 trial while avoiding arbitrarily dichotomised interpretations of the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04509973; EudraCT: 2020-003363-25.

Higher vs lower doses of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia (COVID STEROID 2) trial: Protocol and statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in millions of deaths and overburdened healthcare systems worldwide. Systemic low-dose corticosteroids have proven clinical benefit in patients with severe COVID-19. Higher doses of corticosteroids are used in other inflammatory lung diseases and may offer additional clinical benefits in COVID-19. At present, the balance between benefits and harms of higher vs. lower doses of corticosteroids for patients with COVID-19 is unclear. METHODS: The COVID STEROID 2 trial is an investigator-initiated, international, parallel-grouped, blinded, centrally randomised and stratified clinical trial assessing higher (12 mg) vs. lower (6 mg) doses of dexamethasone for adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia. We plan to enrol 1,000 patients in Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland and India. The primary outcome is days alive without life support (invasive mechanical ventilation, circulatory support or renal replacement therapy) at day 28. Secondary outcomes include serious adverse reactions at day 28; all-cause mortality at day 28, 90 and 180; days alive without life support at day 90; days alive and out of hospital at day 90; and health-related quality of life at day 180. The primary outcome will be analysed using the Kryger Jensen and Lange test adjusted for stratification variables and reported as adjusted mean differences and median differences. The full statistical analysis plan is outlined in this protocol. DISCUSSION: The COVID STEROID 2 trial will provide evidence on the optimal dosing of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 patients with severe hypoxia with important implications for patients, their relatives and society.

Low-dose hydrocortisone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia: The COVID STEROID randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

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.

Effect of Nonsedation on Cognitive Function in Survivors of Critical Illness.

OBJECTIVES: Critical illness can cause severe cognitive impairments. The objective of this trial was to assess the effect of nonsedation versus sedation with a daily wake-up call during mechanical ventilation on cognitive function in adult survivors of critical illness. DESIGN: Single-center substudy of the multicenter, randomized Non-sedation Versus Sedation With a Daily Wake-up Trial in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation trial. Three months after ICU-discharge participants were tested for cognitive function by a neuropsychologist. SETTING: Mixed 14-bed ICU in teaching hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 205 critically ill, orally intubated, and mechanically ventilated adults. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized within the first 24 hours from intubation to either nonsedation with sufficient analgesia or light sedation with a daily wake-up call during mechanical ventilation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 118 patients survived to follow-up and 89 participated (75%). The participating survivors in the two groups did not differ regarding baseline data or premorbid cognitive impairments. Sedated patients had received more sedatives, whereas doses of morphine and antipsychotics were equal. The primary outcome was that no significant difference was found in the number of patients with mild/moderate cognitive impairments (six nonsedated patients vs four sedated patients) or severe cognitive impairments (16 nonsedated patients vs 17 sedated patients; p = 0.71). Secondary outcomes were cognitive test scores, and no differences were found between the scores in nonsedated and sedated patients. Hypothetical worst case scenarios where all patients, who had not participated in follow-up assessment, were assumed to have severe cognitive impairments were analyzed, but still no difference between the groups was found. We found more patients with delirium in the sedated group (96% vs 69% of patients; p = 0.002) and increased duration of delirium in sedated patients (median 5 vs 1 d; p < 0.001). Delirium subtypes were equally distributed between the groups, with hypoactive delirium most frequent (61%), followed by mixed delirium (39%). CONCLUSIONS: Nonsedation did not affect cognitive function 3 months after ICU-discharge.

Effect of non-sedation on post-traumatic stress and psychological health in survivors of critical illness-A substudy of the NONSEDA randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Critical illness can cause post-traumatic stress and impaired mental health. The NONSEDA trial was a Scandinavian multicenter RCT, assessing non-sedation versus sedation with a daily wake-up call during mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults. The aim of this substudy was to assess the effect of non-sedation on post-traumatic stress and mental health. METHODS: This substudy is based on all participating patients from a single NONSEDA trial site (Kolding, Denmark). Patients were randomized to sedation or non-sedation within the first 24 hours of mechanical ventilation. Three months after ICU discharge survivors were examined by a neuropsychologist for post-traumatic stress, anxiety and depression, and filled out the SF-36 questionnaire regarding quality of life. RESULTS: The two groups of survivors were similar with regard to baseline characteristics, length of admission and mechanical ventilation. Sedated patients received more propofol and midazolam. Doses of morphine and haloperidole were equal. PRIMARY OUTCOME: the number of patients with post-traumatic stress disorder did not differ between groups (non-sedated: 2 patients vs sedated: 0, P = .23). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: there were no differences between groups in Beck Anxiety Index (median, non-sedated: 0 vs sedated: 0, P = .62), Beck Depression Index (median, non-sedated: 7 vs sedated: 4, P = .24), SF-36 mental component score (mean, non-sedated: 46.7 vs sedated: 47.5, P = .73) or number of patients with symptoms of post-traumatic stress (8 in both groups, P = .89). CONCLUSION: Levels of PTSD, anxiety and depression and quality of life regarding mental health were similar between the non-sedated and sedated group.

Low-dose hydrocortisone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia (COVID STEROID) trial-Protocol and statistical analysis plan.

INTRODUCTION: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 has caused a pandemic of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) with many patients developing hypoxic respiratory failure. Corticosteroids reduce the time on mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit and potentially also mortality in similar patient populations. However, corticosteroids have undesirable effects, including longer time to viral clearance. Clinical equipoise on the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 exists. METHODS: The COVID STEROID trial is an international, randomised, stratified, blinded clinical trial. We will allocate 1000 adult patients with COVID-19 receiving ≥10 L/min of oxygen or on mechanical ventilation to intravenous hydrocortisone 200 mg daily vs placebo (0.9% saline) for 7 days. The primary outcome is days alive without life support (ie mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, and renal replacement therapy) at day 28. Secondary outcomes are serious adverse reactions at day 14; days alive without life support at day 90; days alive and out of hospital at day 90; all-cause mortality at day 28, day 90, and 1 year; and health-related quality of life at 1 year. We will conduct the statistical analyses according to this protocol, including interim analyses for every 250 patients followed for 28 days. The primary outcome will be compared using the Kryger Jensen and Lange test in the intention to treat population and reported as differences in means and medians with 95% confidence intervals. DISCUSSION: The COVID STEROID trial will provide important evidence to guide the use of corticosteroids in COVID-19 and severe hypoxia.

Congenital diaphragmatic hernia presenting with symptoms within the first day of life; outcomes from a non-ECMO centre in Denmark.

BACKGROUND: Between 1998 and 2015, we report on the survival of congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH)-infants presenting with symptoms within the first 24 h of life, treated at Odense University Hospital (OUH), a tertiary referral non-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) hospital for paediatric surgery. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of prospectively identified CDH-infants at our centre. Data from medical records and critical information systems were obtained. Baseline data included mode of delivery and infant condition. Outcome data included 24-h, 28-day, and 1 year mortality rates and management data included intensive care treatment, length of stay in the intensive care unit, time of discharge from hospital, and surgical intervention. Descriptive analyses were performed for all variables. Survivors and non-survivors were compared for baseline and treatment data. RESULTS: Ninety-five infants were identified (44% female). Of these, 77% were left-sided hernias, 52% were diagnosed prenatally, and 6.4% had concurrent malformations. The 28-day mortality rate was 21.1%, and the 1 year mortality rate was 22.1%. Of the 21 non-survivors, nine died within the first 24 h, and 10 were sufficiently stabilised to undergo surgery. A statistically significant difference was observed between survivors and non-survivors regarding APGAR score at 1 and 5 min., prenatal diagnosis, body length at birth, and delivery at OUH. CONCLUSIONS: Our outcome results were comparable to published data from other centres, including centres using ECMO.