Co-administration of iloprost and eptifibatide in septic shock (CO-ILEPSS)-a randomised, controlled, double-blind investigator-initiated trial investigating safety and efficacy.

BACKGROUND: Part of the pathophysiology in septic shock is a progressive activation of the endothelium and platelets leading to widespread microvascular injury with capillary leakage, microthrombi and consumption coagulopathy. Modulating the inflammatory response of endothelium and thrombocytes might attenuate this vicious cycle and improve outcome. METHOD: The CO-ILEPSS trial was a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, pilot trial. Patients admitted to the intensive care unit with septic shock were randomised and allocated in a 2:1 ratio to active treatment with dual therapy of iloprost 1 ng/kg/min and eptifibatide 0.5 µg/kg/min for 48 h or placebo. The primary outcomes were changes in biomarkers reflecting endothelial activation and disruption, platelet consumption and fibrinolysis. We compared groups with mixed models, post hoc Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: We included 24 patients of which 18 (12 active, 6 placebo) completed the full 7-day trial period and were included in the per-protocol analyses of the primary outcomes. Direct comparison between groups showed no differences in the primary outcomes. Analyses of within-group delta values revealed that biomarkers of endothelial activation and disruption changed differently between groups with increasing levels of thrombomodulin (p = 0.03) and nucleosomes (p = 0.02) in the placebo group and decreasing levels of sE-Selectin (p = 0.007) and sVEGFR1 (p = 0.005) in the active treatment group. Platelet count decreased the first 48 h in the placebo group (p = 0.049) and increased from baseline to day 7 in the active treatment group (p = 0.023). Levels of fibrin monomers declined in the active treatment group within the first 48 h (p = 0.048) and onwards (p = 0.03). Furthermore, there was a significant reduction in SOFA score from 48 h (p = 0.024) and onwards in the active treatment group. Intention-to-treat analyses of all included patients showed no differences in serious adverse events including bleeding, use of blood products or mortality. CONCLUSION: Our results could indicate benefit from the experimental treatment with reduced endothelial injury, reduced platelet consumption and ensuing reduction in fibrinolytic biomarkers along with improved SOFA score. The results of the CO-ILEPSS trial are exploratory and hypothesis generating and warrant further investigation in a large-scale trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.com, NCT02204852 (July 30, 2014); EudraCT no. 2014-002440-41.

Loop diuretics in adult intensive care patients with fluid overload: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Fluid overload is a risk factor for organ dysfunction and death in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, but no guidelines exist for its management. We systematically reviewed benefits and harms of a single loop diuretic, the predominant treatment used for fluid overload in these patients. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) of a single loop diuretic vs. other interventions reported in randomised clinical trials, adhering to our published protocol, the Cochrane Handbook, and PRISMA statement. We assessed the risks of bias with the ROB2-tool and certainty of evidence with GRADE. This study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42020184799). RESULTS: We included 10 trials (804 participants), all at overall high risk of bias. For loop diuretics vs. placebo/no intervention, we found no difference in all-cause mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-1.06; 4 trials; 359 participants; I2 = 0%; TSA-adjusted CI 0.15-3.48; very low certainty of evidence). Fewer serious adverse events were registered in the group treated with loop diuretics (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66-0.99; 6 trials; 476 participants; I2 = 0%; very low certainty of evidence), though contested by TSA (TSA-adjusted CI 0.55-1.20). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of loop diuretics on mortality and serious adverse events in adult ICU patients with fluid overload. Loop diuretics may reduce the occurrence of these outcomes, but large randomised placebo-controlled trials at low risk of bias are needed.

Predicting recovery from acute kidney injury in critically ill patients: development and validation of a prediction model.

OBJECTIVE: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) who recover kidney function within 28 days experience less severe chronic kidney impairment and have increased long term survival. The aims of this study were to develop and validate a risk prediction model to identify these patients. DESIGN: Observational study with development and validation of a risk prediction model. SETTING: Nine academic ICUs in Denmark. PARTICIPANTS: Development cohort of critically ill patients with AKI at ICU admission from the Procalcitonin and Survival Study cohort (n = 568), validation cohort of adult patients with AKI admitted to two university hospitals in Denmark in 2012-13 (n = 766). INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Recovery of kidney function was defined as living for 5 consecutive days with no renal replacement therapy and with creatinine plasma levels below 1.5-fold the levels determined before ICU admission. RESULTS: A total of 266 patients (46.8%) recovered prior kidney function in the development cohort, and 453 patients (59.1%) in the validation cohort. The prediction model included elevation in creatinine, urinary output, sex and age. In the validation cohort, 69 patients (9.0%) had a predicted chance of recovery < 25%, and their observed rate of recovery was 21.5%. This observed rate of recovery was 81.7% among the 325 patients who had a predicted chance > 75%. The area under the receiver operations curves for predicting recovery in the validation cohort was 73.1%. CONCLUSION: We constructed and validated a simple model that can predict the chance of recovery from AKI in critically ill patients.

Effect of intermediate care on mortality following emergency abdominal surgery. The InCare trial: study protocol, rationale and feasibility of a randomised multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: Emergency abdominal surgery carries a 15% to 20% short-term mortality rate. Postoperative medical complications are strongly associated with increased mortality. Recent research suggests that timely recognition and effective management of complications may reduce mortality. The aim of the present trial is to evaluate the effect of postoperative intermediate care following emergency major abdominal surgery in high-risk patients. METHODS AND DESIGN: The InCare trial is a randomised, parallel-group, non-blinded clinical trial with 1:1 allocation. Patients undergoing emergency laparotomy or laparoscopic surgery with a perioperative Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 10 or above, who are ready to be transferred to the surgical ward within 24 h of surgery are allocated to either intermediate care for 48 h, or surgical ward care. The primary outcome measure is all-cause 30-day mortality. We aim to enrol 400 patients in seven Danish hospitals. The sample size allows us to detect or refute a 34% relative risk reduction of mortality with 80% power. DISCUSSION: This trial evaluates the benefits and possible harm of intermediate care. The results may potentially influence the survival of many high-risk surgical patients. As a pioneer trial in the area, it will provide important data on the feasibility of future large-scale randomised clinical trials evaluating different levels of postoperative care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01209663.