Sepsis-associated acute kidney injury: recent advances in enrichment strategies, sub-phenotyping and clinical trials.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) often complicates sepsis and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, several important clinical trials have improved our understanding of sepsis-associated AKI (SA-AKI) and impacted clinical care. Advances in sub-phenotyping of sepsis and AKI and clinical trial design offer unprecedented opportunities to fill gaps in knowledge and generate better evidence for improving the outcome of critically ill patients with SA-AKI. In this manuscript, we review the recent literature of clinical trials in sepsis with focus on studies that explore SA-AKI as a primary or secondary outcome. We discuss lessons learned and potential opportunities to improve the design of clinical trials and generate actionable evidence in future research. We specifically discuss the role of enrichment strategies to target populations that are most likely to derive benefit and the importance of patient-centered clinical trial endpoints and appropriate trial designs with the aim to provide guidance in designing future trials.

Higher versus lower oxygenation targets in adult ICU patients: A rapid practice guideline.

The aim of this Intensive Care Medicine Rapid Practice Guideline (ICM-RPG) was to provide evidence-based clinical guidance about the use of higher versus lower oxygenation targets for adult patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). The guideline panel comprised 27 international panelists, including content experts, ICU clinicians, methodologists, and patient representatives. We adhered to the methodology for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines, including the use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of evidence, and used the Evidence-to-Decision framework to generate recommendations. A recently published updated systematic review and meta-analysis constituted the evidence base. Through teleconferences and web-based discussions, the panel provided input on the balance and magnitude of the desirable and undesirable effects, the certainty of evidence, patients' values and preferences, costs and resources, equity, feasibility, acceptability, and research priorities. The updated systematic review and meta-analysis included data from 17 randomized clinical trials with 10,248 participants. There was little to no difference between the use of higher versus lower oxygenation targets for all outcomes with available data, including all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, stroke, functional outcomes, cognition, and health-related quality of life (very low certainty of evidence). The panel felt that values and preferences, costs and resources, and equity favored the use of lower oxygenation targets. The ICM-RPG panel issued one conditional recommendation against the use of higher oxygenation targets: "We suggest against the routine use of higher oxygenation targets in adult ICU patients (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). Remark: an oxygenation target of SpO2 88%-92% or PaO2 8 kPa/60 mmHg is relevant and safe for most adult ICU patients."

Evolving Management Practices for Early Sepsis-induced Hypoperfusion: A Narrative Review.

Sepsis causes significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Resuscitation is a cornerstone of management. This review covers five areas of evolving practice in the management of early sepsis-induced hypoperfusion: fluid resuscitation volume, timing of vasopressor initiation, resuscitation targets, route of vasopressor administration, and use of invasive blood pressure monitoring. For each topic, we review the seminal evidence, discuss the evolution of practice over time, and highlight questions for additional research. Intravenous fluids are a core component of early sepsis resuscitation. However, with growing concerns about the harms of fluid, practice is evolving toward smaller-volume resuscitation, which is often paired with earlier vasopressor initiation. Large trials of fluid-restrictive, vasopressor-early strategies are providing more information about the safety and potential benefit of these approaches. Lowering blood pressure targets is a means to prevent fluid overload and reduce exposure to vasopressors; mean arterial pressure targets of 60-65 mm Hg appear to be safe, at least in older patients. With the trend toward earlier vasopressor initiation, the need for central administration of vasopressors has been questioned, and peripheral vasopressor use is increasing, although it is not universally accepted. Similarly, although guidelines suggest the use of invasive blood pressure monitoring with arterial catheters in patients receiving vasopressors, blood pressure cuffs are less invasive and often sufficient. Overall, the management of early sepsis-induced hypoperfusion is evolving toward fluid-sparing and less-invasive strategies. However, many questions remain, and additional data are needed to further optimize our approach to resuscitation.

Dapagliflozin for Critically Ill Patients With Acute Organ Dysfunction: The DEFENDER Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors improve outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease, but their effect on outcomes of critically ill patients with organ failure is unknown. Objective: To determine whether the addition of dapagliflozin, an SGLT-2 inhibitor, to standard intensive care unit (ICU) care improves outcomes in a critically ill population with acute organ dysfunction. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized, open-label, clinical trial conducted at 22 ICUs in Brazil. Participants with unplanned ICU admission and presenting with at least 1 organ dysfunction (respiratory, cardiovascular, or kidney) were enrolled between November 22, 2022, and August 30, 2023, with follow-up through September 27, 2023. Intervention: Participants were randomized to 10 mg of dapagliflozin (intervention, n = 248) plus standard care or to standard care alone (control, n = 259) for up to 14 days or until ICU discharge, whichever occurred first. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a hierarchical composite of hospital mortality, initiation of kidney replacement therapy, and ICU length of stay through 28 days, analyzed using the win ratio method. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the hierarchical outcome, duration of organ support-free days, ICU, and hospital stay, assessed using bayesian regression models. Results: Among 507 randomized participants (mean age, 63.9 [SD, 15] years; 46.9%, women), 39.6% had an ICU admission due to suspected infection. The median time from ICU admission to randomization was 1 day (IQR, 0-1). The win ratio for dapagliflozin for the primary outcome was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.13; P = .89). Among all secondary outcomes, the highest probability of benefit found was 0.90 for dapagliflozin regarding use of kidney replacement therapy among 27 patients (10.9%) in the dapagliflozin group vs 39 (15.1%) in the control group. Conclusion and Relevance: The addition of dapagliflozin to standard care for critically ill patients and acute organ dysfunction did not improve clinical outcomes; however, confidence intervals were wide and could not exclude relevant benefits or harms for dapagliflozin. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05558098.

Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin in Mild-to-Moderate Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have been used to treat patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). However, evidence on the safety and efficacy of these therapies is limited. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label, three-group, controlled trial involving hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed Covid-19 who were receiving either no supplemental oxygen or a maximum of 4 liters per minute of supplemental oxygen. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive standard care, standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily, or standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily plus azithromycin at a dose of 500 mg once daily for 7 days. The primary outcome was clinical status at 15 days as assessed with the use of a seven-level ordinal scale (with levels ranging from one to seven and higher scores indicating a worse condition) in the modified intention-to-treat population (patients with a confirmed diagnosis of Covid-19). Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 667 patients underwent randomization; 504 patients had confirmed Covid-19 and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. As compared with standard care, the proportional odds of having a higher score on the seven-point ordinal scale at 15 days was not affected by either hydroxychloroquine alone (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 2.11; P = 1.00) or hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.73; P = 1.00). Prolongation of the corrected QT interval and elevation of liver-enzyme levels were more frequent in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, than in those who were not receiving either agent. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care. (Funded by the Coalition Covid-19 Brazil and EMS Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04322123.).

Use of days alive without life support and similar count outcomes in randomised clinical trials - an overview and comparison of methodological choices and analysis methods.

BACKGROUND: Days alive without life support (DAWOLS) and similar outcomes that seek to summarise mortality and non-mortality experiences are increasingly used in critical care research. The use of these outcomes is challenged by different definitions and non-normal outcome distributions that complicate statistical analysis decisions. METHODS: We scrutinized the central methodological considerations when using DAWOLS and similar outcomes and provide a description and overview of the pros and cons of various statistical methods for analysis supplemented with a comparison of these methods using data from the COVID STEROID 2 randomised clinical trial. We focused on readily available regression models of increasing complexity (linear, hurdle-negative binomial, zero-one-inflated beta, and cumulative logistic regression models) that allow comparison of multiple treatment arms, adjustment for covariates and interaction terms to assess treatment effect heterogeneity. RESULTS: In general, the simpler models adequately estimated group means despite not fitting the data well enough to mimic the input data. The more complex models better fitted and thus better replicated the input data, although this came with increased complexity and uncertainty of estimates. While the more complex models can model separate components of the outcome distributions (i.e., the probability of having zero DAWOLS), this complexity means that the specification of interpretable priors in a Bayesian setting is difficult. Finally, we present multiple examples of how these outcomes may be visualised to aid assessment and interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: This summary of central methodological considerations when using, defining, and analysing DAWOLS and similar outcomes may help researchers choose the definition and analysis method that best fits their planned studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: COVID STEROID 2 trial, ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04509973, ctri.nic.in: CTRI/2020/10/028731.

Association between Type of Fluid Received Prior to Enrollment, Type of Admission, and Effect of Balanced Crystalloid in Critically Ill Adults: A Secondary Exploratory Analysis of the BaSICS Clinical Trial.

Rationale: The effects of balanced crystalloid versus saline on clinical outcomes for ICU patients may be modified by the type of fluid that patients received for initial resuscitation and by the type of admission. Objectives: To assess whether the results of a randomized controlled trial could be affected by fluid use before enrollment and admission type. Methods: Secondary post hoc analysis of the BaSICS (Balanced Solution in Intensive Care Study) trial, which compared a balanced solution (Plasma-Lyte 148) with 0.9% saline in the ICU. Patients were categorized according to fluid use in the 24 hours before enrollment in four groups (balanced solutions only, 0.9% saline only, a mix of both, and no fluid before enrollment) and according to admission type (planned, unplanned with sepsis, and unplanned without sepsis). The association between 90-day mortality and the randomization group was assessed using a hierarchical logistic Bayesian model. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 10,520 patients were included. There was a low probability that the balanced solution was associated with improved 90-day mortality in the whole trial population (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; 89% credible interval [CrI], 0.66-10.51; probability of benefit, 0.58); however, probability of benefit was high for patients who received only balanced solutions before enrollment (regardless of admission type, OR, 0.78; 89% CrI, 0.56-1.03; probability of benefit, 0.92), mostly because of a benefit in unplanned admissions due to sepsis (OR, 0.70; 89% CrI, 0.50-0.97; probability of benefit, 0.96) and planned admissions (OR, 0.79; 89% CrI, 0.65-0.97; probability of benefit, 0.97). Conclusions: There is a high probability that balanced solution use in the ICU reduces 90-day mortality in patients who exclusively received balanced fluids before trial enrollment. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02875873).

Fluid Therapy for Critically Ill Adults With Sepsis: A Review.

Importance: Approximately 20% to 30% of patients admitted to an intensive care unit have sepsis. While fluid therapy typically begins in the emergency department, intravenous fluids in the intensive care unit are an essential component of therapy for sepsis. Observations: For patients with sepsis, intravenous fluid can increase cardiac output and blood pressure, maintain or increase intravascular fluid volume, and deliver medications. Fluid therapy can be conceptualized as 4 overlapping phases from early illness through resolution of sepsis: resuscitation (rapid fluid administered to restore perfusion); optimization (the risks and benefits of additional fluids to treat shock and ensure organ perfusion are evaluated); stabilization (fluid therapy is used only when there is a signal of fluid responsiveness); and evacuation (excess fluid accumulated during treatment of critical illness is eliminated). Among 3723 patients with sepsis who received 1 to 2 L of fluid, 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) reported that goal-directed therapy administering fluid boluses to attain a central venous pressure of 8 to 12 mm Hg, vasopressors to attain a mean arterial blood pressure of 65 to 90 mm Hg, and red blood cell transfusions or inotropes to attain a central venous oxygen saturation of at least 70% did not decrease mortality compared with unstructured clinical care (24.9% vs 25.4%; P = .68). Among 1563 patients with sepsis and hypotension who received 1 L of fluid, an RCT reported that favoring vasopressor treatment did not improve mortality compared with further fluid administration (14.0% vs 14.9%; P = .61). Another RCT reported that among 1554 patients in the intensive care unit with septic shock treated with at least 1 L of fluid compared with more liberal fluid administration, restricting fluid administration in the absence of severe hypoperfusion did not reduce mortality (42.3% vs 42.1%; P = .96). An RCT of 1000 patients with acute respiratory distress during the evacuation phase reported that limiting fluid administration and administering diuretics improved the number of days alive without mechanical ventilation compared with fluid treatment to attain higher intracardiac pressure (14.6 vs 12.1 days; P < .001), and it reported that hydroxyethyl starch significantly increased the incidence of kidney replacement therapy compared with saline (7.0% vs 5.8%; P = .04), Ringer lactate, or Ringer acetate. Conclusions and Relevance: Fluids are an important component of treating patients who are critically ill with sepsis. Although optimal fluid management in patients with sepsis remains uncertain, clinicians should consider the risks and benefits of fluid administration in each phase of critical illness, avoid use of hydroxyethyl starch, and facilitate fluid removal for patients recovering from acute respiratory distress syndrome.

The Intersection Between Heart Failure and Critical Care Cardiology: An International Perspective on Structure, Staffing, and Design Considerations.

The overall patient population in contemporary cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) has only increased with respect to patient acuity, complexity, and illness severity. The current population has more cardiac and noncardiac comorbidities, a higher prevalence of multiorgan injury, and consumes more critical care resources than previously. Patients with heart failure (HF) now occupy a large portion of contemporary tertiary or quaternary care CICU beds around the world. In this review, we discuss the core issues that relate to the care of critically ill patients with HF, including global perspectives on the organization, designation, and collaboration of CICUs regionally and across institutions, as well as unique models for provisioning care for patients with HF within a health care setting. The latter includes a discussion of traditional and emerging models, specialized HF units, the makeup and implementation of multidisciplinary team-based decision-making, and cardiac critical care admission and triage practices. This article illustrates the ways in which critically ill patients with HF have helped to shape contemporary CICUs throughout the world and explores how these very patients will similarly help to inform the future maturation of these specialized critical care units. Finally, we will critically examine broad, contemporary, international models of HF and cardiac critical care delivery in North America, Europe, South America, and Asia, and conclude with opportunities for the further investigation and generation of evidence for care delivery.

A Bayesian reanalysis of the Standard versus Accelerated Initiation of Renal-Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) trial.

BACKGROUND: Timing of initiation of kidney-replacement therapy (KRT) in critically ill patients remains controversial. The Standard versus Accelerated Initiation of Renal-Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) trial compared two strategies of KRT initiation (accelerated versus standard) in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury and found neutral results for 90-day all-cause mortality. Probabilistic exploration of the trial endpoints may enable greater understanding of the trial findings. We aimed to perform a reanalysis using a Bayesian framework. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of all 2927 patients randomized in multi-national STARRT-AKI trial, performed at 168 centers in 15 countries. The primary endpoint, 90-day all-cause mortality, was evaluated using hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression. A spectrum of priors includes optimistic, neutral, and pessimistic priors, along with priors informed from earlier clinical trials. Secondary endpoints (KRT-free days and hospital-free days) were assessed using zero-one inflated beta regression. RESULTS: The posterior probability of benefit comparing an accelerated versus a standard KRT initiation strategy for the primary endpoint suggested no important difference, regardless of the prior used (absolute difference of 0.13% [95% credible interval [CrI] - 3.30%; 3.40%], - 0.39% [95% CrI - 3.46%; 3.00%], and 0.64% [95% CrI - 2.53%; 3.88%] for neutral, optimistic, and pessimistic priors, respectively). There was a very low probability that the effect size was equal or larger than a consensus-defined minimal clinically important difference. Patients allocated to the accelerated strategy had a lower number of KRT-free days (median absolute difference of - 3.55 days [95% CrI - 6.38; - 0.48]), with a probability that the accelerated strategy was associated with more KRT-free days of 0.008. Hospital-free days were similar between strategies, with the accelerated strategy having a median absolute difference of 0.48 more hospital-free days (95% CrI - 1.87; 2.72) compared with the standard strategy and the probability that the accelerated strategy had more hospital-free days was 0.66. CONCLUSIONS: In a Bayesian reanalysis of the STARRT-AKI trial, we found very low probability that an accelerated strategy has clinically important benefits compared with the standard strategy. Patients receiving the accelerated strategy probably have fewer days alive and KRT-free. These findings do not support the adoption of an accelerated strategy of KRT initiation.

Using Bayesian Methods to Augment the Interpretation of Critical Care Trials. An Overview of Theory and Example Reanalysis of the Alveolar Recruitment for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Trial.

Most randomized trials are designed and analyzed using frequentist statistical approaches such as null hypothesis testing and P values. Conceptually, P values are cumbersome to understand, as they provide evidence of data incompatibility with a null hypothesis (e.g., no clinical benefit) and not direct evidence of the alternative hypothesis (e.g., clinical benefit). This counterintuitive framework may contribute to the misinterpretation that the absence of evidence is equal to evidence of absence and may cause the discounting of potentially informative data. Bayesian methods provide an alternative, probabilistic interpretation of data. The reanalysis of completed trials using Bayesian methods is becoming increasingly common, particularly for trials with effect estimates that appear clinically significant despite P values above the traditional threshold of 0.05. Statistical inference using Bayesian methods produces a distribution of effect sizes that would be compatible with observed trial data, interpreted in the context of prior assumptions about an intervention (called "priors"). These priors are chosen by investigators to reflect existing beliefs and past empirical evidence regarding the effect of an intervention. By calculating the likelihood of clinical benefit, a Bayesian reanalysis can augment the interpretation of a trial. However, if priors are not defined a priori, there is a legitimate concern that priors could be constructed in a manner that produces biased results. Therefore, some standardization of priors for Bayesian reanalysis of clinical trials may be desirable for the critical care community. In this Critical Care Perspective, we discuss both frequentist and Bayesian approaches to clinical trial analysis, introduce a framework that researchers can use to select priors for a Bayesian reanalysis, and demonstrate how to apply our proposal by conducting a novel Bayesian trial reanalysis.

A Research Agenda for Precision Medicine in Sepsis and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

Background: Precision medicine focuses on the identification of therapeutic strategies that are effective for a group of patients based on similar unifying characteristics. The recent success of precision medicine in non-critical care settings has resulted from the confluence of large clinical and biospecimen repositories, innovative bioinformatics, and novel trial designs. Similar advances for precision medicine in sepsis and in the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are possible but will require further investigation and significant investment in infrastructure. Methods: This project was funded by the American Thoracic Society Board of Directors. A multidisciplinary and diverse working group reviewed the available literature, established a conceptual framework, and iteratively developed recommendations for the Precision Medicine Research Agenda for Sepsis and ARDS. Results: The following six priority recommendations were developed by the working group: 1) the creation of large richly phenotyped and harmonized knowledge networks of clinical, imaging, and multianalyte molecular data for sepsis and ARDS; 2) the implementation of novel trial designs, including adaptive designs, and embedding trial procedures in the electronic health record; 3) continued innovation in the data science and engineering methods required to identify heterogeneity of treatment effect; 4) further development of the tools necessary for the real-time application of precision medicine approaches; 5) work to ensure that precision medicine strategies are applicable and available to a broad range of patients varying across differing racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and demographic groups; and 6) the securement and maintenance of adequate and sustainable funding for precision medicine efforts. Conclusions: Precision medicine approaches that incorporate variability in genomic, biologic, and environmental factors may provide a path forward for better individualizing the delivery of therapies and improving care for patients with sepsis and ARDS.

Azithromycin in addition to standard of care versus standard of care alone in the treatment of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19 in Brazil (COALITION II): a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of azithromycin in the treatment of COVID-19 remain uncertain. We assessed whether adding azithromycin to standard of care, which included hydroxychloroquine, would improve clinical outcomes of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised clinical trial at 57 centres in Brazil. We enrolled patients admitted to hospital with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and at least one additional severity criteria as follows: use of oxygen supplementation of more than 4 L/min flow; use of high-flow nasal cannula; use of non-invasive mechanical ventilation; or use of invasive mechanical ventilation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to azithromycin (500 mg via oral, nasogastric, or intravenous administration once daily for 10 days) plus standard of care or to standard of care without macrolides. All patients received hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice daily for 10 days) because that was part of standard of care treatment in Brazil for patients with severe COVID-19. The primary outcome, assessed by an independent adjudication committee masked to treatment allocation, was clinical status at day 15 after randomisation, assessed by a six-point ordinal scale, with levels ranging from 1 to 6 and higher scores indicating a worse condition (with odds ratio [OR] greater than 1·00 favouring the control group). The primary outcome was assessed in all patients in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population who had severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection confirmed by molecular or serological testing before randomisation (ie, modified ITT [mITT] population). Safety was assessed in all patients according to which treatment they received, regardless of original group assignment. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04321278. FINDINGS: 447 patients were enrolled from March 28 to May 19, 2020. COVID-19 was confirmed in 397 patients who constituted the mITT population, of whom 214 were assigned to the azithromycin group and 183 to the control group. In the mITT population, the primary endpoint was not significantly different between the azithromycin and control groups (OR 1·36 [95% CI 0·94-1·97], p=0·11). Rates of adverse events, including clinically relevant ventricular arrhythmias, resuscitated cardiac arrest, acute kidney failure, and corrected QT interval prolongation, were not significantly different between groups. INTERPRETATION: In patients with severe COVID-19, adding azithromycin to standard of care treatment (which included hydroxychloroquine) did not improve clinical outcomes. Our findings do not support the routine use of azithromycin in combination with hydroxychloroquine in patients with severe COVID-19. FUNDING: COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and EMS.

Preferences for the measurement and supplementation of magnesium, phosphate and zinc in ICUs: The international WhyTrace survey.

BACKGROUND: Patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) often have low magnesium, phosphate and zinc levels. Monitoring of serum concentrations and supplementation may be important, but there is no consensus on optimal practice. The objective of the WhyTrace survey was to describe current practice regarding the measurement and supplementation of magnesium, phosphate and zinc in ICUs. METHODS: A 54-item electronic questionnaire was developed in accordance with SURGE, SUrvey Reporting GuidelinE, to address international clinical practice in the ICU. National investigators recruited ICUs in ten countries with one physician responding per ICU using a unique e-mail distributed survey-link. RESULTS: The questionnaire was sent to clinicians in 336 ICUs of whom 283 (84%) responded. In 62% of the ICUs, a standard procedure was in place regarding the measurement of serum magnesium levels, in 58% for phosphate and in 9% for zinc. Zinc was never or rarely measured in 64% of ICUs. The frequency of requesting serum levels varied from twice daily to once weekly. Regarding supplementation, 66% of ICUs had a standard procedure for magnesium, 63% for phosphate and 15% for zinc. Most procedures recommended supplementation when serum levels were below the lower reference level, but some used the upper reference levels as the threshold for supplementation and others decided on a case-by-case basis. CONCLUSION: The practice of measuring and supplementing magnesium, phosphate and zinc differed substantially between ICUs. Our findings indicate that there is a need for high-quality prospective data on frequencies of measurements, treatment goals and effects of supplementation on patient-important outcomes.

Effects of a Resuscitation Strategy Targeting Peripheral Perfusion Status versus Serum Lactate Levels among Patients with Septic Shock. A Bayesian Reanalysis of the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK Trial.

Rationale: A recent randomized controlled trial showed that a peripheral perfusion-guided resuscitation strategy was associated with lower mortality and less organ dysfunction when compared with lactate-guided resuscitation strategy in patients with septic shock, but the difference in the primary outcome, 28-day mortality, did not reach the proposed statistical significance threshold (P = 0.06). We tested different analytic methods to aid in the interpretation of these results.Objectives: To reassess the results of the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK trial using both Bayesian and frequentist frameworks.Methods: All patients recruited in ANDROMEDA-SHOCK were included. Both a post hoc Bayesian analysis and a mixed logistic regression analysis were performed. The Bayesian analysis included four different priors (optimistic, neutral, null, and pessimistic) for mortality endpoints. The probability of having a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment in the lowest quartile at 72 hours was assessed using Bayesian networks.Measurements and Main Results: In the Bayesian analysis, the posterior probability that a peripheral perfusion-targeted resuscitation strategy is superior to lactate-targeted resuscitation at 28 days was above 90% for all priors; the probability of benefit at 90 days was above 90% for all but the pessimistic prior. Using an optimistic prior, posterior median odds ratios were 0.61 (95% credible interval, 0.41-0.90) and 0.68 (95% credible interval, 0.47-1.01) for 28-day and 90-day mortality, respectively. The comparable frequentist odds ratios for 28-day and 90-day mortality were 0.61 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-0.92) and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.45-1.08), respectively. The odds that that patients in the peripheral perfusion-targeted resuscitation arm had Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores in the lower quartile at 72 hours was 1.55 (95% CI, 1.02-2.37).Conclusions: Peripheral perfusion-targeted resuscitation may result in lower mortality and faster resolution of organ dysfunction when compared with a lactate-targeted resuscitation strategy.

Effect of Slower vs Faster Intravenous Fluid Bolus Rates on Mortality in Critically Ill Patients: The BaSICS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Slower intravenous fluid infusion rates could reduce the formation of tissue edema and organ dysfunction in critically ill patients; however, there are no data to support different infusion rates during fluid challenges for important outcomes such as mortality. Objective: To determine the effect of a slower infusion rate vs control infusion rate on 90-day survival in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Design, Setting, and Participants: Unblinded randomized factorial clinical trial in 75 ICUs in Brazil, involving 11 052 patients requiring at least 1 fluid challenge and with 1 risk factor for worse outcomes were randomized from May 29, 2017, to March 2, 2020. Follow-up was concluded on October 29, 2020. Patients were randomized to 2 different infusion rates (reported in this article) and 2 different fluid types (balanced fluids or saline, reported separately). Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive fluid challenges at 2 different infusion rates; 5538 to the slower rate (333 mL/h) and 5514 to the control group (999 mL/h). Patients were also randomized to receive balanced solution or 0.9% saline using a factorial design. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was 90-day survival. Results: Of all randomized patients, 10 520 (95.2%) were analyzed (mean age, 61.1 years [SD, 17.0 years]; 44.2% were women) after excluding duplicates and consent withdrawals. Patients assigned to the slower rate received a mean of 1162 mL on the first day vs 1252 mL for the control group. By day 90, 1406 of 5276 patients (26.6%) in the slower rate group had died vs 1414 of 5244 (27.0%) in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.96-1.11; P = .46). There was no significant interaction between fluid type and infusion rate (P = .98). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients in the intensive care unit requiring fluid challenges, infusing at a slower rate compared with a faster rate did not reduce 90-day mortality. These findings do not support the use of a slower infusion rate. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02875873.

Effect of Intravenous Fluid Treatment With a Balanced Solution vs 0.9% Saline Solution on Mortality in Critically Ill Patients: The BaSICS Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Intravenous fluids are used for almost all intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Clinical and laboratory studies have questioned whether specific fluid types result in improved outcomes, including mortality and acute kidney injury. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of a balanced solution vs saline solution (0.9% sodium chloride) on 90-day survival in critically ill patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Double-blind, factorial, randomized clinical trial conducted at 75 ICUs in Brazil. Patients who were admitted to the ICU with at least 1 risk factor for worse outcomes, who required at least 1 fluid expansion, and who were expected to remain in the ICU for more than 24 hours were randomized between May 29, 2017, and March 2, 2020; follow-up concluded on October 29, 2020. Patients were randomized to 2 different fluid types (a balanced solution vs saline solution reported in this article) and 2 different infusion rates (reported separately). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either a balanced solution (n = 5522) or 0.9% saline solution (n = 5530) for all intravenous fluids. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was 90-day survival. RESULTS: Among 11 052 patients who were randomized, 10 520 (95.2%) were available for the analysis (mean age, 61.1 [SD, 17] years; 44.2% were women). There was no significant interaction between the 2 interventions (fluid type and infusion speed; P = .98). Planned surgical admissions represented 48.4% of all patients. Of all the patients, 60.6% had hypotension or vasopressor use and 44.3% required mechanical ventilation at enrollment. Patients in both groups received a median of 1.5 L of fluid during the first day after enrollment. By day 90, 1381 of 5230 patients (26.4%) assigned to a balanced solution died vs 1439 of 5290 patients (27.2%) assigned to saline solution (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.90-1.05]; P = .47). There were no unexpected treatment-related severe adverse events in either group. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Among critically ill patients requiring fluid challenges, use of a balanced solution compared with 0.9% saline solution did not significantly reduce 90-day mortality. The findings do not support the use of this balanced solution. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02875873.

Guiding Principles for the Conduct of Observational Critical Care Research for Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemics and Beyond: The Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study Registry.

OBJECTIVES: Use of observational data to inform the response and care of patients during a pandemic faces unique challenges. DESIGN: The Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study COVID 2019 Registry Core data and research methodology team convened over virtual meetings throughout March to June 2020 to determine best practice goals for development of a pandemic disease registry to support rapid data collection and analysis. SETTING: International, multi-center registry of hospitalized patients. PATIENTS: None. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Large-scale observational data collection requires: 1) quality assurance and harmonization across many sites; 2) a transparent process for selecting from among many potential research questions; 3) the use of best practices in design of descriptive, predictive, and inferential studies; (4) innovative approaches to characterize random error in the setting of constantly updated data; (5) rapid peer-review and reporting; and (6) transitions from a focus on discovery to implementation. Herein, we describe the guiding principles to best practices and suggestions for innovations to study design and reporting within the coronavirus disease 2019 Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study pandemic registry. CONCLUSIONS: Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study coronavirus disease 2019 registry sought to develop and implement prespecified best practices combined with grassroots efforts from clinical sites worldwide in order to develop clinically useful knowledge in response to a pandemic.

Lower Respiratory Tract Infection and Short-Term Outcome in Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether ventilator-associated lower respiratory tract infections (VA-LRTIs) are associated with mortality in critically ill patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Post hoc analysis of prospective cohort study including mechanically ventilated patients from a multicenter prospective observational study (TAVeM study); VA-LRTI was defined as either ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis (VAT) or ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) based on clinical criteria and microbiological confirmation. Association between intensive care unit (ICU) mortality in patients having ARDS with and without VA-LRTI was assessed through logistic regression controlling for relevant confounders. Association between VA-LRTI and duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay was assessed through competing risk analysis. Contribution of VA-LRTI to a mortality model over time was assessed through sequential random forest models. RESULTS: The cohort included 2960 patients of which 524 fulfilled criteria for ARDS; 21% had VA-LRTI (VAT = 10.3% and VAP = 10.7%). After controlling for illness severity and baseline health status, we could not find an association between VA-LRTI and ICU mortality (odds ratio: 1.07; 95% confidence interval: 0.62-1.83; P = .796); VA-LRTI was also not associated with prolonged ICU length of stay or duration of mechanical ventilation. The relative contribution of VA-LRTI to the random forest mortality model remained constant during time. The attributable VA-LRTI mortality for ARDS was higher than the attributable mortality for VA-LRTI alone. CONCLUSION: After controlling for relevant confounders, we could not find an association between occurrence of VA-LRTI and ICU mortality in patients with ARDS.

Effect of Dexamethasone on Days Alive and Ventilator-Free in Patients With Moderate or Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and COVID-19: The CoDEX Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with substantial mortality and use of health care resources. Dexamethasone use might attenuate lung injury in these patients. Objective: To determine whether intravenous dexamethasone increases the number of ventilator-free days among patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized, open-label, clinical trial conducted in 41 intensive care units (ICUs) in Brazil. Patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe ARDS, according to the Berlin definition, were enrolled from April 17 to June 23, 2020. Final follow-up was completed on July 21, 2020. The trial was stopped early following publication of a related study before reaching the planned sample size of 350 patients. Interventions: Twenty mg of dexamethasone intravenously daily for 5 days, 10 mg of dexamethasone daily for 5 days or until ICU discharge, plus standard care (n =151) or standard care alone (n = 148). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was ventilator-free days during the first 28 days, defined as being alive and free from mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality at 28 days, clinical status of patients at day 15 using a 6-point ordinal scale (ranging from 1, not hospitalized to 6, death), ICU-free days during the first 28 days, mechanical ventilation duration at 28 days, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores (range, 0-24, with higher scores indicating greater organ dysfunction) at 48 hours, 72 hours, and 7 days. Results: A total of 299 patients (mean [SD] age, 61 [14] years; 37% women) were enrolled and all completed follow-up. Patients randomized to the dexamethasone group had a mean 6.6 ventilator-free days (95% CI, 5.0-8.2) during the first 28 days vs 4.0 ventilator-free days (95% CI, 2.9-5.4) in the standard care group (difference, 2.26; 95% CI, 0.2-4.38; P = .04). At 7 days, patients in the dexamethasone group had a mean SOFA score of 6.1 (95% CI, 5.5-6.7) vs 7.5 (95% CI, 6.9-8.1) in the standard care group (difference, -1.16; 95% CI, -1.94 to -0.38; P = .004). There was no significant difference in the prespecified secondary outcomes of all-cause mortality at 28 days, ICU-free days during the first 28 days, mechanical ventilation duration at 28 days, or the 6-point ordinal scale at 15 days. Thirty-three patients (21.9%) in the dexamethasone group vs 43 (29.1%) in the standard care group experienced secondary infections, 47 (31.1%) vs 42 (28.3%) needed insulin for glucose control, and 5 (3.3%) vs 9 (6.1%) experienced other serious adverse events. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with COVID-19 and moderate or severe ARDS, use of intravenous dexamethasone plus standard care compared with standard care alone resulted in a statistically significant increase in the number of ventilator-free days (days alive and free of mechanical ventilation) over 28 days. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04327401.