Higher energy delivery is associated with improved long-term survival among adults with major burn injury: A multicenter, multinational, observational study.

BACKGROUND: Numerous feeding strategies have been used to mitigate the catabolism of major burn injury. Whether higher energy and/or protein delivery results in better long-term outcomes is unknown. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of data from adults with major burn injuries enrolled in the Randomized Trial of Enteral Glutamine to Minimize the Effects of Burn Injury at 54 burn centers in 18 countries. The sample was restricted to those who were mechanically ventilated within 72 hours of injury and for ≥7 days. Our key exposure was adequacy of energy, and protein ([Deliveredi/Prescribedi] × 100) was categorized into three groups each: low, 0% to 50%; moderate, ≥50% to 79%; and high, ≥80%. We also analyzed adequacy using restricted cubic splines. Primary and secondary outcomes included 6-month mortality and functional outcomes (i.e., 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living, Lawton Activities of Daily Living scores), respectively. Regression models were adjusted for age, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, baseline Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II and modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores, burn size, energy/protein adequacy, and study site. RESULTS: A total of 493 participants met the cohort restriction criteria; 336 participants were alive at 6 months. 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living, and Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale were completed by 218, 216, and 215 participants, respectively. The mean ± SD age was 48 ± 17 years, and 74% were male. The mean ± SD burn size was 41% ± 18% total body surface area. Participants who received 25% of recommended calories had nearly four times the hazard of death during the 6-month follow-up period than participants who received 100% of prescribed calories (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-11.20) (p = 0.02). There was no significant association between protein and 6-month mortality or energy/protein delivery and 6-month functional outcomes. CONCLUSION: There was a positive association between higher doses of energy and 6-month survival. This relationship conflicts somewhat with several energy studies among critically ill and non-burn-injured patients. The lack of consistent evidence on optimal nutrition for critically injured patients, a fundamental component of burn care, suggests potential for a randomized trial of lower versus higher energy to improve long-term outcomes after burn injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Psychometric Testing of an Instrument Assessing Family Knowledge, Contemplation, Confidence and Readiness for Engaging in Early Mobilisation of Critically Ill Patients: A Multi-Site Cross-Sectional Design.

BACKGROUND: Early mobilisation is beneficial to support recovery among critically ill patients. The literature highlights the benefits of family engagement in early mobilisation, yet this practice remains underutilised. Effective implementation depends on understanding the key antecedents that influence family engagement in early mobilisation, specifically families' knowledge, contemplation, confidence and readiness. However, no measurement tools currently exist to assess these. Therefore, developing a psychometrically supported instrument is essential to understanding and enhancing families' factors influencing their engagement in early mobilisation. AIM: To develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of an instrument to assess families' knowledge, contemplation, confidence and readiness to engage in early mobilisation. DESIGN: A multi-site cross-sectional survey design. METHODS: Based on established psychological theory (Social Cognitive Theories and Behaviour Change Theories), an item pool was developed to assess families' knowledge, contemplation, confidence and readiness to participate in early mobilisation. To psychometrically evaluate the new tool, a multi-site cross-sectional survey was undertaken from May 2020 to June 2022 across five intensive care units in Australia. Data from 370 families of critically ill patients were used to evaluate the structural, convergent and discriminant validity as well as the reliability of the new instrument. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis indicated good model fit, supporting the proposed structure. All items displayed high standardised factor loadings except one, which improved upon freeing an error covariance. Positive inter-factor correlations were moderate to strong and were substantially lower than the square root of the average variance extracted, supporting both convergent and discriminant validity, respectively. Additionally, all subscales demonstrated well to excellent reliability. CONCLUSION: The findings provide preliminary support for the multiple types of validity evidence and the reliability of the instrument. This new instrument is suitable for use in clinical and research applications to assess families' knowledge, contemplation, confidence and readiness for their engagement in early mobilisation. IMPACT: Family engagement in early mobilisation activities may have multiple benefits but it is not commonly implemented in the ICU. Factors influencing family engagement in early mobilisation are poorly understood. Influential psychological theories highlight the likely importance of knowledge, contemplation, confidence and readiness. A readily available instrument designed to assess these constructs among family members is needed to deepen research understanding and guide clinical practice. The proposed instrument is designed to measure factors influencing family engagement in early mobilisation, which may support healthcare professionals and health services to identify and tailor strategies to support family engagement in early mobilisation. REPORTING METHOD: Recommendations for reporting the results of studies of instrument and scale development and testing was followed to report this study. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Family members of adult critically ill patients participated in this study, and they provided the data through the survey.

Frailty as a sequela of burn injury: a post hoc analysis of the "RE-ENERGIZE" multicenter randomized-controlled trial and the National Health Interview Survey.

BACKGROUND: With advancements in burn treatment and intensive care leading to decreased mortality rates, a growing cohort of burn survivors is emerging. These individuals may be susceptible to frailty, characterized by reduced physiological reserve and increased vulnerability to stressors commonly associated with aging, which significantly complicates their recovery process. To date, no study has investigated burns as a potential risk factor for frailty. This study aimed to determine the short-term prevalence of frailty among burn survivors' months after injury and compare it with that of the general population. METHODS: A post hoc analysis was conducted on the Randomized Trial of Enteral Glutamine to Minimize the Effects of Burn Injury (RE-ENERGIZE) trial, an international randomized-controlled trial involving 1200 burn injury patients with partial- or full-thickness burns. Participants who did not complete the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) questionnaire were excluded. Data for the general population were obtained from the 2022 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). Frailty was assessed using the FRAIL (Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Illness, Loss of weight) scale. Due to lack of data on loss of weight, for the purposes of this study, malnutrition was used as the fifth variable. Illness and malnutrition were based on admission data, while fatigue, resistance, and ambulation were determined from post-discharge responses to the SF-36. The burn cohort and general population groups were matched using propensity score matching and compared in terms of frailty status. Within the burn group, patients were divided into different subgroups based on their frailty status, and the differences in their (instrumental) activities of daily living (iADL and ADL) were compared. A multivariable analysis was performed within the burn cohort to identify factors predisposing to frailty as well as compromised iADL and ADL. RESULTS: Out of the 1200 burn patients involved in the study, 600 completed the required questionnaires [follow-up time: (5.5 ± 2.3) months] and were matched to 1200 adults from the general population in the U.S. In comparison to the general population, burn patients exhibited a significantly higher likelihood of being pre-frail (42.3% vs. 19.8%, P < 0.0001), or frail (13.0% vs. 1.0%, P < 0.0001). When focusing on specific components, burn patients were more prone to experiencing fatigue (25.8% vs. 13.5%, P < 0.0001), limited resistance (34.0% vs. 2.7%, P < 0.0001), and restricted ambulation (41.8% vs. 3.8%, P < 0.0001). Conversely, the incidence rate of illness was observed to be higher in the general population (1.2% vs. 2.8%, P = 0.03), while no significant difference was detected regarding malnutrition (2.3% vs. 2.6%, P = 0.75). Furthermore, in comparison with robust burn patients, it was significantly more likely for pre-frail and frail patients to disclose compromise in ADL and iADL. The frail cohort reported the most pronounced limitation. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest a higher incidence of post-discharge frailty among burn survivors in the short-term following injury. Burn survivors experience compromised fatigue, resistance, and ambulation, while rates of illness and malnutrition were lower or unchanged, respectively. These results underscore the critical need for early identification of frailty after a burn injury, with timely and comprehensive involvement of a multidisciplinary team including burn and pain specialists, community physicians, physiotherapists, nutritionists, and social workers. This collaborative effort can ensure holistic care to address and mitigate frailty in this patient population.

The effect of high-dose selenium on mortality and postoperative organ dysfunction in post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock patients supported with mechanical circulatory support - A post-hoc analysis of the SUSTAIN CSX trial.

PURPOSE: Cardiac surgery, post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCCS), and temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) provoke substantial inflammation. We therefore investigated whether a selenium-based, anti-inflammatory strategy would benefit PCCS patients treated with tMCS in a post-hoc analysis of the sustain CSX trial. METHODS: Post-hoc analysis of patients receiving tMCS for PCCS in the Sustain CSX trial, which investigated the effects of high-dose selenium on postoperative organ dysfunction in cardiac surgery patients. PRIMARY OUTCOME: duration of tMCS therapy. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: postoperative organ dysfunction and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients were treated with tMCS for PCCS. There was no difference in the median duration of tMCS between the selenium and the placebo group (3 days [IQR: 1-6] vs. 2 days [IQR: 1-7], p = 0.52). Median dialysis duration was longer in the selenium group (1.5 days [0-21.8] vs. 0 days [0-1.8], p = 0.048). There was no difference in 30-day mortality (53% vs. 41%, OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.32-6.47, p = 0.62). CONCLUSION: In this explorative study, a perioperative high-dose selenium-supplementation did not show beneficial effects on organ dysfunctions and mortality rates in patients with PCCS receiving tMCS.

The effect of a selenium-based anti-inflammatory strategy on postoperative functional recovery in high-risk cardiac surgery patients - A nested sub-study of the sustain CSX trial.

AIM: The cardiac surgery-related ischemia-reperfusion-related oxidative stress triggers the release of cytotoxic reactive oxygen and nitrogen species, contributing to organ failure and ultimately influencing patients' short- and long-term outcomes. Selenium is an essential co-factor for various antioxidant enzymes, thereby contributing to the patients' endogenous antioxidant and anti-inflammatory defense mechanisms. Given these selenium's pleiotropic functions, we investigated the effect of a high-dose selenium-based anti-inflammatory perioperative strategy on functional recovery after cardiac surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study constituted a nested sub-study of the SUSTAIN CSX trial, a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled multicenter trial to investigate the impact of high-dose selenium supplementation on high-risk cardiac surgery patients' postoperative recovery. Functional recovery was assessed by 6-min walk distance, Short Form-36 (SF-36) and Barthel Index questionnaires. KEY FINDINGS: 174 patients were included in this sub-study. The mean age (SD) was 67.3 (8.9) years, and 78.7 % of the patients were male. The mean (SD) predicted 30-day mortality by the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II score was 12.6 % (9.4 %). There was no difference at hospital discharge and after three months in the 6-min walk distance between the selenium and placebo groups (131 m [IQR: not performed - 269] vs. 160 m [IQR: not performed - 252], p = 0.80 and 400 m [IQR: 299-461] vs. 375 m [IQR: 65-441], p = 0.48). The SF-36 and Barthel Index assessments also revealed no clinically meaningful differences between the selenium and placebo groups. SIGNIFICANCE: A perioperative anti-inflammatory strategy with high-dose selenium supplementation did not improve functional recovery in high-risk cardiac surgery patients.

Administration and effects of beta blockers and oxandrolone in severely burned adults: a post hoc analysis of the RE-ENERGIZE trial.

Background: Prospective randomized trials in severely burned children have shown the positive effects of oxandrolone (OX), beta blockers (BB) and a combination of the two (BBOX) on hypermetabolism, catabolism and hyperinflammation short- and long-term post-burn. Although data on severely burned adults are lacking in comparison, BB, OX and BBOX appear to be commonly employed in this patient population. In this study, we perform a secondary analysis of an international prospective randomized trial dataset to provide descriptive evidence regarding the current utilization patterns and potential treatment effects of OX, BB and BBOX. Methods: The RE-ENERGIZE (RandomizEd Trial of ENtERal Glutamine to minimIZE Thermal Injury, NCT00985205) trial included 1200 adult patients with severe burns. We stratified patients according to their receipt of OX, BB, BBOX or none of these drugs (None) during acute hospitalization. Descriptive statistics describe the details of drug therapy and unadjusted analyses identify predisposing factors for drug use per group. Association between OX, BB and BBOX and clinical outcomes such as time to discharge alive and 6-month mortality were modeled using adjusted multivariable Cox regressions. Results: More than half of all patients in the trial received either OX (n = 138), BB (n = 293) or BBOX (n = 282), as opposed to None (n = 487, 40.6%). Per study site and geographical region, use of OX, BB and BBOX was highly variable. Predisposing factors for the use of OX, BB and BBOX included larger total body surface area (TBSA) burned, higher acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II scores on admission and younger patient age. After adjustment for multiple covariates, the use of OX was associated with a longer time to discharge alive [hazard ratio (HR) 0.62, confidence interval (CI) (0.47-0.82) per 100% increase, p = 0.001]. A higher proportion of days on BB was associated with lower in-hospital-mortality (HR: 0.5, CI 0.28-0.87, p = 0.015) and 6-month mortality (HR: 0.44, CI 0.24-0.82, p = 0.01). Conclusions: The use of OX, BB and BBOX is common within the adult burn patient population, with its use varying considerably across sites worldwide. Our findings found mixed associations between outcomes and the use of BB and OX in adult burn patients, with lower acute and 6-month-mortality with BB and longer times to discharge with OX. Further research into these pharmacological modulators of the pathophysiological response to severe burn injury is indicated.

The long-term intercorrelation between post-burn pain, anxiety, and depression: a post hoc analysis of the "RE-ENERGIZE" double-blind, randomized, multicenter placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing prevalence of burn survivors, a gap persists in our understanding of the correlation between acute burn trauma and the long-term impact on psychosocial health. This study set out to investigate the prevalence of long-term pain and symptoms of anxiety and depression in survivors of extensive burns, comparing this to the general population, and identify injury and demographic-related factors predisposing individuals to psychosocial compromise. METHODS: RE-ENERGIZE was an international, double-blinded, randomized-controlled trial that enrolled 1200 patients with partial- or full-thickness burns that required surgical treatment. For the post hoc analysis, we excluded participants who did not complete the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) questionnaire. Normative data were taken from the 2021 National Health Interview Survey dataset. Propensity score matching was performed using the nearest-neighbor 1-to-1 method, and the two cohorts were compared in terms of chronic pain, and symptoms of anxiety and depression. A multivariable analysis was performed on the burns cohort to identify factors predicting post-discharge pain and symptoms of anxiety and depression. RESULTS: A total of 600 burn patients and 26,666 general population adults were included in this study. Following propensity score matching, both groups comprised 478 participants each, who were predominately male, white, overweight and between 20 and 60 years old. Compared to the general population, burn patients were significantly more likely to report the presence of moderate and a lot of pain (p = 0.002). Symptoms of anxiety were significantly higher in the burn population in two of four levels (most of the time; some of the time; p < 0.0001 for both). Responders in the burn population were significantly less likely to report the absence of depressive symptoms (p < 0.0001). Burn patients were also significantly more likely to report that their mental health affects their social life. TBSA, history of depression, and female sex were identified as independently associated factors for pain, anxiety, and depressive symptoms. The presence of chronic pain and anxiety symptoms independently predicted for symptoms of depression. CONCLUSIONS: Analyzing the largest multicenter cohort of patients with extensive burns, we find that burn injury is associated with chronic pain, and symptoms of anxiety and depression. In addition, TBSA-burned and history of depression directly correlate with the prevalence of chronic pain, and symptoms of anxiety and depression. Finally, pain, and symptoms of anxiety and depression are interrelated and may have interactive effects on the process of recovery following burn injury. Burn patients would, therefore, benefit from a multidisciplinary team approach with early mobilization of pain and mental health experts, in order to promptly prevent the development of psychosocial challenges and their consequences.

The Association Between Malnutrition and High Protein Treatment on Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients: A Post Hoc Analysis of the EFFORT Protein Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Preexisting malnutrition in critically ill patients is associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Malnutrition can be diagnosed with the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition using parameters such as weight loss, muscle wasting, and BMI. International critical care nutrition guidelines recommend high protein treatment to improve clinical outcomes in critically ill patients diagnosed with preexisting malnutrition. However, this recommendation is based on expert opinion. RESEARCH QUESTION: In critically ill patients, what is the association between preexisting malnutrition and time to discharge alive (TTDA), and does high protein treatment modify this association? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This multicenter randomized controlled trial involving 16 countries was designed to investigate the effects of high vs usual protein treatment in 1,301 critically ill patients. The primary outcome was TTDA. Multivariable regression was used to identify if preexisting malnutrition was associated with TTDA and if protein delivery modified their association. RESULTS: The prevalence of preexisting malnutrition was 43.8%, and the cumulative incidence of live hospital discharge by day 60 was 41.2% vs 52.9% in the groups with and without preexisting malnutrition, respectively. The average protein delivery in the high vs usual treatment groups was 1.6 g/kg per day vs 0.9 g/kg per day. Preexisting malnutrition was independently associated with slower TTDA (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.98). However, high protein treatment in patients with and without preexisting malnutrition was not associated with TTDA (adjusted hazard ratios of 0.84 [95% CI, 0.63-1.11] and 0.97 [95% CI, 0.77-1.21]). Furthermore, no effect modification was observed (ratio of adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.20). INTERPRETATION: Malnutrition was associated with slower TTDA, but high protein treatment did not modify the association. These findings challenge current international critical care nutrition guidelines. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03160547; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

The effects of higher versus lower protein delivery in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: A recent large multicentre trial found no difference in clinical outcomes but identified a possibility of increased mortality rates in patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) receiving higher protein. These alarming findings highlighted the urgent need to conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to inform clinical practice. METHODS: From personal files, citation searching, and three databases searched up to 29-5-2023, we included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult critically ill patients that compared higher vs lower protein delivery with similar energy delivery between groups and reported clinical and/or patient-centred outcomes. We conducted random-effect meta-analyses and subsequently trial sequential analyses (TSA) to control for type-1 and type-2 errors. The main subgroup analysis investigated studies with and without combined early physical rehabilitation intervention. A subgroup analysis of AKI vs no/not known AKI was also conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-three RCTs (n = 3303) with protein delivery of 1.49 ± 0.48 vs 0.92 ± 0.30 g/kg/d were included. Higher protein delivery was not associated with overall mortality (risk ratio [RR]: 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-1.11; I2 = 0%; 21 studies; low certainty) and other clinical outcomes. In 2 small studies, higher protein combined with early physical rehabilitation showed a trend towards improved self-reported quality-of-life physical function measurements at day-90 (standardized mean difference 0.40, 95% CI - 0.04 to 0.84; I2 = 30%). In the AKI subgroup, higher protein delivery significantly increased mortality (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.11-1.82; I2 = 0%; 3 studies; confirmed by TSA with high certainty, and the number needed to harm is 7). Higher protein delivery also significantly increased serum urea (mean difference 2.31 mmol/L, 95% CI 1.64-2.97; I2 = 0%; 7 studies). CONCLUSION: Higher, compared with lower protein delivery, does not appear to affect clinical outcomes in general critically ill patients but may increase mortality rates in patients with AKI. Further investigation of the combined early physical rehabilitation intervention in non-AKI patients is warranted. PROSPERO ID: CRD42023441059.

Association between urea trajectory and protein dose in critically ill adults: a secondary exploratory analysis of the effort protein trial (RE-EFFORT).

BACKGROUND: Delivering higher doses of protein to mechanically ventilated critically ill patients did not improve patient outcomes and may have caused harm. Longitudinal urea measurements could provide additional information about the treatment effect of higher protein doses. We hypothesised that higher urea values over time could explain the potential harmful treatment effects of higher doses of protein. METHODS: We conducted a reanalysis of a randomised controlled trial of higher protein doses in critical illness (EFFORT Protein). We applied Bayesian joint models to estimate the strength of association of urea with 30-day survival and understand the treatment effect of higher protein doses. RESULTS: Of the 1301 patients included in EFFORT Protein, 1277 were included in this analysis. There were 344 deaths at 30 days post-randomisation. By day 6, median urea was 2.1 mmol/L higher in the high protein group (95% CI 1.1-3.2), increasing to 3.0 mmol/L (95% CI 1.3-4.7) by day 12. A twofold rise in urea was associated with an increased risk of death at 30 days (hazard ratio 1.34, 95% credible interval 1.21-1.48), following adjustment of baseline characteristics including age, illness severity, renal replacement therapy, and presence of AKI. This association persisted over the duration of 30-day follow-up and in models adjusting for evolution of organ failure over time. CONCLUSIONS: The increased risk of death in patients randomised to a higher protein dose in the EFFORT Protein trial was estimated to be mediated by increased urea cycle activity, of which serum urea is a biological signature. Serum urea should be taken into consideration when initiating and continuing protein delivery in critically ill patients. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT03160547 (2017-05-17).

Enhanced exclusive enteral nutrition delivery during the first 7 days is associated with decreased 28-day mortality in critically ill patients with normal lactate level: a post hoc analysis of a multicenter randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Exclusive enteral nutrition (EN) is often observed during the first week of ICU admission because of the extra costs and safety considerations for early parenteral nutrition. This study aimed to assess the association between nutrition intake and 28-day mortality in critically ill patients receiving exclusive EN. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a cluster-randomized clinical trial that assesses the effect of implementing a feeding protocol on mortality in critically ill patients. Patients who stayed in the ICUs for at least 7 days and received exclusive EN were included in this analysis. Multivariable Cox hazard regression models and restricted cubic spline models were used to assess the relationship between the different doses of EN delivery and 28-day mortality. Subgroups with varying lactate levels at enrollment were additionally analyzed to address the potential confounding effect brought in by the presence of shock-related hypoperfusion. RESULTS: Overall, 1322 patients were included in the analysis. The median (interquartile range) daily energy and protein delivery during the first week of enrollment were 14.6 (10.3-19.6) kcal/kg and 0.6 (0.4-0.8) g/kg, respectively. An increase of 5 kcal/kg energy delivery was associated with a significant reduction (approximately 14%) in 28-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.865, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.768-0.974, P = 0.016). For protein intake, a 0.2 g/kg increase was associated with a similar mortality reduction with an adjusted HR of 0.868 (95% CI 0.770-0.979). However, the benefits associated with enhanced nutrition delivery could be observed in patients with lactate concentration ≤ 2 mmol/L (adjusted HR = 0.804 (95% CI 0.674-0.960) for energy delivery and adjusted HR = 0.804 (95% CI 0.672-0.962) for protein delivery, respectively), but not in those > 2 mmol/L. CONCLUSIONS: During the first week of critical illness, enhanced nutrition delivery is associated with reduced mortality in critically ill patients receiving exclusive EN, only for those with lactate concentration ≤ 2 mmol/L. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN12233792, registered on November 24, 2017.

A Comparison of High and Usual Protein Dosing in Critically Ill Patients With Obesity: A Post Hoc Analysis of an International, Pragmatic, Single-Blinded, Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Across guidelines, protein dosing for critically ill patients with obesity varies considerably. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate whether this population would benefit from higher doses of protein. DESIGN: A post hoc subgroup analysis of the effect of higher protein dosing in critically ill patients with high nutritional risk (EFFORT Protein): an international, multicenter, pragmatic, registry-based randomized trial. SETTING: Eighty-five adult ICUs across 16 countries. PATIENTS: Patients with obesity defined as a body mass index (BMI) greater than or equal to 30 kg/m 2 ( n = 425). INTERVENTIONS: In the primary study, patients were randomized into a high-dose (≥ 2.2 g/kg/d) or usual-dose protein group (≤ 1.2 g/kg/d). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Protein intake was monitored for up to 28 days, and outcomes (time to discharge alive [TTDA], 60-d mortality, days of mechanical ventilation [MV], hospital, and ICU length of stay [LOS]) were recorded until 60 days post-randomization. Of the 1301 patients in the primary study, 425 had a BMI greater than or equal to 30 kg/m 2 . After adjusting for sites and covariates, we observed a nonsignificant slower rate of TTDA with higher protein that ruled out a clinically important benefit (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58-1.05; p = 0.10). We found no evidence of difference in TTDA between protein groups when subgroups with different classes of obesity or patients with and without various nutritional and frailty risk variables were examined, even after the removal of patients with baseline acute kidney injury. Overall, 60-day mortality rates were 31.5% and 28.2% in the high protein and usual protein groups, respectively (risk difference, 3.3%; 95% CI, -5.4 to 12.1; p = 0.46). Duration of MV and LOS in hospital and ICU were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with obesity, higher protein doses did not improve clinical outcomes, including those with higher nutritional and frailty risk.

Newspaper coverage of advance care planning during the COVID-19 pandemic: Content analysis.

COVID-19 may cause sudden serious illness, and relatives having to act on patients' behalf, emphasizing the relevance of advance care planning (ACP). We explored how ACP was portrayed in newspapers during year one of the pandemic. In 'LexisNexis Uni', we identified English-language newspaper articles about ACP and COVID-19, published January-November 2020. We applied content analysis; unitizing, sampling, recording or coding, reducing, inferring, and narrating the data. We identified 131 articles, published in UK (n = 59), Canada (n = 32), US (n = 15), Australia (n = 14), Ireland (n = 6), and one each from Israel, Uganda, India, New-Zealand, and France. Forty articles (31%) included definitions of ACP. Most mentioned exploring (93%), discussing (71%), and recording (72%) treatment preferences; 28% described exploration of values/goals, 66% encouraged engaging in ACP. No false or sensationalist information about ACP was provided. ACP was often not fully described. Public campaigns about ACP might improve the full picture of ACP to the public.

Identifying a target group for selenium supplementation in high-risk cardiac surgery: a secondary analysis of the SUSTAIN CSX trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent data from the randomized SUSTAIN CSX trial could not confirm clinical benefits from perioperative selenium treatment in high-risk cardiac surgery patients. Underlying reasons may involve inadequate biosynthesis of glutathione peroxidase (GPx3), which is a key mediator of selenium's antioxidant effects. This secondary analysis aimed to identify patients with an increase in GPx3 activity following selenium treatment. We hypothesize that these responders might benefit from perioperative selenium treatment. METHODS: Patients were selected based on the availability of selenium biomarker information. Four subgroups were defined according to the patient's baseline status, including those with normal kidney function, reduced kidney function, selenium deficiency, and submaximal GPx3 activity. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-four patients were included in this analysis. Overall, higher serum concentrations of selenium, selenoprotein P (SELENOP) and GPx3 were correlated with less organ injury. GPx3 activity at baseline was predictive of 6-month survival (AUC 0.73; p = 0.03). While selenium treatment elevated serum selenium and SELENOP concentrations but not GPx3 activity in the full patient cohort, subgroup analyses revealed that GPx3 activity increased in patients with reduced kidney function, selenium deficiency and low to moderate GPx3 activity. Clinical outcomes did not vary between selenium treatment and placebo in any of these subgroups, though the study was not powered to conclusively detect differences in outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The identification of GPx3 responders encourages further refined investigations into the treatment effects of selenium in high-risk cardiac surgery patients.

The impact of higher protein dosing on outcomes in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury: a post hoc analysis of the EFFORT protein trial.

BACKGROUND: Based on low-quality evidence, current nutrition guidelines recommend the delivery of high-dose protein in critically ill patients. The EFFORT Protein trial showed that higher protein dose is not associated with improved outcomes, whereas the effects in critically ill patients who developed acute kidney injury (AKI) need further evaluation. The overall aim is to evaluate the effects of high-dose protein in critically ill patients who developed different stages of AKI. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of the EFFORT Protein trial, we investigated the effect of high versus usual protein dose (≥ 2.2 vs. ≤ 1.2 g/kg body weight/day) on time-to-discharge alive from the hospital (TTDA) and 60-day mortality and in different subgroups in critically ill patients with AKI as defined by the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria within 7 days of ICU admission. The associations of protein dose with incidence and duration of kidney replacement therapy (KRT) were also investigated. RESULTS: Of the 1329 randomized patients, 312 developed AKI and were included in this analysis (163 in the high and 149 in the usual protein dose group). High protein was associated with a slower time-to-discharge alive from the hospital (TTDA) (hazard ratio 0.5, 95% CI 0.4-0.8) and higher 60-day mortality (relative risk 1.4 (95% CI 1.1-1.8). Effect modification was not statistically significant for any subgroup, and no subgroups suggested a beneficial effect of higher protein, although the harmful effect of higher protein target appeared to disappear in patients who received kidney replacement therapy (KRT). Protein dose was not significantly associated with the incidence of AKI and KRT or duration of KRT. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with AKI, high protein may be associated with worse outcomes in all AKI stages. Recommendation of higher protein dosing in AKI patients should be carefully re-evaluated to avoid potential harmful effects especially in patients who were not treated with KRT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03160547) on May 17th 2017.

Intravenous Vitamin C for Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: Two Harmonized Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: The efficacy of vitamin C for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether vitamin C improves outcomes for patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two prospectively harmonized randomized clinical trials enrolled critically ill patients receiving organ support in intensive care units (90 sites) and patients who were not critically ill (40 sites) between July 23, 2020, and July 15, 2022, on 4 continents. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive vitamin C administered intravenously or control (placebo or no vitamin C) every 6 hours for 96 hours (maximum of 16 doses). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of organ support-free days defined as days alive and free of respiratory and cardiovascular organ support in the intensive care unit up to day 21 and survival to hospital discharge. Values ranged from -1 organ support-free days for patients experiencing in-hospital death to 22 organ support-free days for those who survived without needing organ support. The primary analysis used a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented efficacy (improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both), an OR less than 1 represented harm, and an OR less than 1.2 represented futility. Results: Enrollment was terminated after statistical triggers for harm and futility were met. The trials had primary outcome data for 1568 critically ill patients (1037 in the vitamin C group and 531 in the control group; median age, 60 years [IQR, 50-70 years]; 35.9% were female) and 1022 patients who were not critically ill (456 in the vitamin C group and 566 in the control group; median age, 62 years [IQR, 51-72 years]; 39.6% were female). Among critically ill patients, the median number of organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the vitamin C group vs 10 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.88 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.73 to 1.06]) and the posterior probabilities were 8.6% (efficacy), 91.4% (harm), and 99.9% (futility). Among patients who were not critically ill, the median number of organ support-free days was 22 (IQR, 18 to 22 days) for the vitamin C group vs 22 (IQR, 21 to 22 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.80 [95% CrI, 0.60 to 1.01]) and the posterior probabilities were 2.9% (efficacy), 97.1% (harm), and greater than 99.9% (futility). Among critically ill patients, survival to hospital discharge was 61.9% (642/1037) for the vitamin C group vs 64.6% (343/531) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.92 [95% CrI, 0.73 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 24.0% for efficacy. Among patients who were not critically ill, survival to hospital discharge was 85.1% (388/456) for the vitamin C group vs 86.6% (490/566) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.86 [95% CrI, 0.61 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 17.8% for efficacy. Conclusions and Relevance: In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, vitamin C had low probability of improving the primary composite outcome of organ support-free days and hospital survival. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT04401150 (LOVIT-COVID) and NCT02735707 (REMAP-CAP).

A randomised controlled trial of a nutrition and a decision support intervention to enable partnerships with families of critically ill patients.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of supporting family members to partner with health professionals on nutrition intakes and decision-making and to evaluate intervention and study feasibility. BACKGROUND: Family partnerships can improve outcomes for critically ill patients and family members. Interventions that support families to engage with health professionals require evaluation. DESIGN: A multi-centre, randomised, parallel group superiority Phase II randomised controlled trial. METHODS: In nine intensive care units (ICUs) across three countries, critically ill patients ≥60 years, or those 55-59 years with advanced chronic diseases and expected ICU length of stay >72 h and their family member were enrolled between 9 May 2017 and 31 March 2020. Participants were randomised (1:1:1) to either a decision support or nutrition optimisation family-centred intervention, or usual care. Primary outcomes included protein and energy intake during ICU and hospital stay (nutrition intervention) and family satisfaction (decision support). Study feasibility was assessed as a composite of consent rate, intervention adherence, contamination and physician awareness of intervention assignment. RESULTS: We randomised 135 patients/family members (consent rate 51.7%). The average rate of randomisation was 0.5 (0.13-1.53) per month. Unavailability (staff/family) was the major contributor to families not being approached for consent. Declined consent was attributed to families feeling overwhelmed (58/126, 46%). Pandemic visitor restrictions contributed to early study cessation. Intervention adherence for the decision support intervention was 76.9%-100.0% and for the nutrition intervention was 44.8%-100.0%. Nutritional adequacy, decisional conflict, satisfaction with decision-making and overall family satisfaction with ICU were similar for all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Active partnerships between family members and health professionals are important but can be challenging to achieve in critical care contexts. We were unable to demonstrate the efficacy of either intervention. Feasibility outcomes suggest further refinement of interventions and study protocol may be warranted. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Interventions to promote family partnerships in critical illness are needed but require a greater understanding of the extent to which families want and are able to engage and the activities in which they have most impact. REPORTING METHOD: This study has been reported following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) guidelines. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients and caregivers were engaged in and contributed to the development and subsequent iterations of the two family-centred interventions use in this study. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Trial registration. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, ID: NCT02920086. Registered on 30 September 2016. First patient enrolled on 9 May 2017 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=NCT02920086&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=.

The Clinical Frailty Scale for mortality prediction of old acutely admitted intensive care patients: a meta-analysis of individual patient-level data.

BACKGROUND: This large-scale analysis pools individual data about the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) to predict outcome in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: A systematic search identified all clinical trials that used the CFS in the ICU (PubMed searched until 24th June 2020). All patients who were electively admitted were excluded. The primary outcome was ICU mortality. Regression models were estimated on the complete data set, and for missing data, multiple imputations were utilised. Cox models were adjusted for age, sex, and illness acuity score (SOFA, SAPS II or APACHE II). RESULTS: 12 studies from 30 countries with anonymised individualised patient data were included (n = 23,989 patients). In the univariate analysis for all patients, being frail (CFS ≥ 5) was associated with an increased risk of ICU mortality, but not after adjustment. In older patients (≥ 65 years) there was an independent association with ICU mortality both in the complete case analysis (HR 1.34 (95% CI 1.25-1.44), p < 0.0001) and in the multiple imputation analysis (HR 1.35 (95% CI 1.26-1.45), p < 0.0001, adjusted for SOFA). In older patients, being vulnerable (CFS 4) alone did not significantly differ from being frail. After adjustment, a CFS of 4-5, 6, and ≥ 7 was associated with a significantly worse outcome compared to CFS of 1-3. CONCLUSIONS: Being frail is associated with a significantly increased risk for ICU mortality in older patients, while being vulnerable alone did not significantly differ. New Frailty categories might reflect its "continuum" better and predict ICU outcome more accurately. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (OSF: https://osf.io/8buwk/ ).