Predictors of bleeding and thrombotic events among patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer: insights from the ACTION randomized clinical trial.

Therapeutic anticoagulation showed inconsistent results in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and selection of the best patients to use this strategy still a challenge balancing the risk of thrombotic and hemorrhagic outcomes. The present post-hoc analysis of the ACTION trial evaluated the variables independently associated with both bleeding events (major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding) and the composite outcomes thrombotic events (venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, or major adverse limb events). Variables were assessed one by one with independent logistic regressions and final models were chosen based on Akaike information criteria. The model for bleeding events showed an area under the curve of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53 to 0.73), while the model for thrombotic events had an area under the curve of 0.72 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.79). Non-invasive respiratory support was associated with thrombotic but not bleeding events, while invasive ventilation was associated with both outcomes (Odds Ratio of 7.03 [95 CI% 1.95 to 25.18] for thrombotic and 3.14 [95% CI 1.11 to 8.84] for bleeding events). Beyond respiratory support, creatinine level (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.01 95% CI 1.00 to 1.02 for every 1.0 mg/dL) and history of coronary disease (OR 3.67; 95% CI 1.32 to 10.29) were also independently associated to the risk of thrombotic events. Non-invasive respiratory support, history of coronary disease, and creatinine level may help to identify hospitalized COVID-19 patients at higher risk of thrombotic complications.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04394377.

The First Brazilian Cardiovascular Registry of Atrial Fibrillation: Primary Results of the RECALL Study.

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that atrial fibrillation (AF) affects approximately 1.5 million people in Brazil; however, epidemiological data are limited. We sought to evaluate the characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes in patients with AF in Brazil by creating the first nationwide prospective registry. METHODS: RECALL was a multicenter, prospective registry that included and followed for 1 year 4,585 patients with AF at 89 sites across Brazil from April 2012 to August 2019. Patient characteristics, concomitant medication use, and clinical outcomes were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multivariable models. RESULTS: Of 4,585 patients enrolled, the median age was 70 (61, 78) years, 46% were women, and 53.8% had permanent AF. Only 4.4% of patients had a history of previous AF ablation and 25.2% had a previous cardioversion. The mean (SD) CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3.2 (1.6); median HAS-BLED score was 2 (2, 3). At baseline, 22% were not on anticoagulants. Of those taking anticoagulants, 62.6% were taking vitamin K antagonists and 37.4% were taking direct oral anticoagulants. The primary reasons for not using an oral anticoagulant were physician judgment (24.6%) and difficulty in controlling (14.7%) or performing (9.9%) INR. Mean (SD) TTR for the study period was 49.5% (27.5). During follow-up, the use of anticoagulants and INR in the therapeutic range increased to 87.1% and 59.1%, respectively. The rates/100 patient-years of death, hospitalization due to AF, AF ablation, cardioversion, stroke, systemic embolism, and major bleeding were 5.76 (5.12-6.47), 15.8 (14.6-17.0), 5.0 (4.4-5.7), 1.8 (1.4-2.2), 2.77 (2.32-3.32), 1.01 (0.75-1.36), and 2.21 (1.81-2.70). Older age, permanent AF, New York Heart Association class III/IV, chronic kidney disease, peripheral arterial disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and dementia were independently associated with increased mortality while the use of anticoagulant was associated with lower risk of death. CONCLUSIONS: RECALL represents the largest prospective registry of patients with AF in Latin America. Our findings highlight important gaps in treatment, which can inform clinical practice and guide future interventions to improve the care of these patients.

Longitudinal study comparing IgG antibodies induced by heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine.

Vaccines are critical cost-effective tools to control the COVID-19 pandemic. The heterologous prime-boost vaccination has been used by many countries to overcome supply issues, so the effectiveness and safety of this strategy need to be better clarified. This study aims to verify the effect of heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccination on healthcare professionals from Dante Pazzanese Hospital in Brazil. It was performed serological assays of vaccinated individuals after 2-dose of CoronaVac (Sinovac; n = 89) or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca; n = 166) followed by a BNT162b2 booster (Pfizer-BioNTech; n = 255). The serum antibodies anti-S (spike), anti-N (nucleocapsid), and anti-RBD (receptor binding domain) were assessed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The heterologous booster dose induced a 10-fold higher anti-Spike antibody regardless of the 2-dose of a prime vaccine. It was strikingly observed that BNT162b2 enhanced levels of anti-spike antibodies, even in those individuals who did not previously respond to the 2-dose of CoronaVac. In conclusion, the heterologous scheme of vaccination using mRNA as a booster vaccine efficiently enhanced the antibody response against SARS-CoV-2, especially benefiting those elderly who were seronegative with a virus-inactivated vaccine.

Therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration (ACTION): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0·3-0·7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed. FINDINGS: From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34·8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41·3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·59-1·22], p=0·40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3·64 [95% CI 1·61-8·27], p=0·0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group. INTERPRETATION: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagulation. Therefore, use of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these patients in the absence of an evidence-based indication for oral anticoagulation. FUNDING: Coalition COVID-19 Brazil, Bayer SA.

Effect of High-Flow Oxygen Therapy vs Conventional Oxygen Therapy on Invasive Mechanical Ventilation and Clinical Recovery in Patients With Severe COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The effect of high-flow oxygen therapy vs conventional oxygen therapy has not been established in the setting of severe COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of high-flow oxygen therapy through a nasal cannula compared with conventional oxygen therapy on need for endotracheal intubation and clinical recovery in severe COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, open-label clinical trial conducted in emergency and intensive care units in 3 hospitals in Colombia. A total of 220 adults with respiratory distress and a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen of less than 200 due to COVID-19 were randomized from August 2020 to January 2021, with last follow-up on February 10, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive high-flow oxygen through a nasal cannula (n = 109) or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 111). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The co-primary outcomes were need for intubation and time to clinical recovery until day 28 as assessed by a 7-category ordinal scale (range, 1-7, with higher scores indicating a worse condition). Effects of treatments were calculated with a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for hypoxemia severity, age, and comorbidities. RESULTS: Among 220 randomized patients, 199 were included in the analysis (median age, 60 years; n = 65 women [32.7%]). Intubation occurred in 34 (34.3%) randomized to high-flow oxygen therapy and in 51 (51.0%) randomized to conventional oxygen therapy (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-0.96; P = .03). The median time to clinical recovery within 28 days was 11 (IQR, 9-14) days in patients randomized to high-flow oxygen therapy vs 14 (IQR, 11-19) days in those randomized to conventional oxygen therapy (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.00-1.92; P = .047). Suspected bacterial pneumonia occurred in 13 patients (13.1%) randomized to high-flow oxygen and in 17 (17.0%) of those randomized to conventional oxygen therapy, while bacteremia was detected in 7 (7.1%) vs 11 (11.0%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with severe COVID-19, use of high-flow oxygen through a nasal cannula significantly decreased need for mechanical ventilation support and time to clinical recovery compared with conventional low-flow oxygen therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04609462.

Effects of Bariatric Surgery in Obese Patients With Hypertension: The GATEWAY Randomized Trial (Gastric Bypass to Treat Obese Patients With Steady Hypertension).

BACKGROUND: Recent research efforts on bariatric surgery have focused on metabolic and diabetes mellitus resolution. Randomized trials designed to assess the impact of bariatric surgery in patients with obesity and hypertension are needed. METHODS: In this randomized, single-center, nonblinded trial, we included patients with hypertension (using ≥2 medications at maximum doses or >2 at moderate doses) and a body mass index between 30.0 and 39.9 kg/m2. Patients were randomized to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass plus medical therapy or medical therapy alone. The primary end point was reduction of ≥30% of the total number of antihypertensive medications while maintaining systolic and diastolic blood pressure <140 mm Hg and 90 mm Hg, respectively, at 12 months. RESULTS: We included 100 patients (70% female, mean age 43.8±9.2 years, mean body mass index 36.9±2.7 kg/m2), and 96% completed follow-up. Reduction of ≥30% of the total number of antihypertensive medications while maintaining controlled blood pressure occurred in 41 of 49 patients from the gastric bypass group (83.7%) compared with 6 of 47 patients (12.8%) from the control group with a rate ratio of 6.6 (95% confidence interval, 3.1-14.0; P<0.001). Remission of hypertension was present in 25 of 49 (51%) and 22 of 48 (45.8%) patients randomized to gastric bypass, considering office and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, respectively, whereas no patient submitted to medical therapy was free of antihypertensive drugs at 12 months. A post hoc analysis for the primary end point considering the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) target reached consistent results, with a rate ratio of 3.8 (95% confidence interval, 1.4-10.6; P=0.005). Eleven patients (22.4%) from the gastric bypass group and none in the control group were able to achieve SPRINT levels without antihypertensives. Waist circumference, body mass index, fasting plasma glucose, glycohemoglobin, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and 10-year Framingham risk score were lower in the gastric bypass than in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Bariatric surgery represents an effective strategy for blood pressure control in a broad population of patients with obesity and hypertension. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01784848.

Rationale and design for a cluster randomized quality-improvement trial to increase the uptake of evidence-based therapies for patients at high cardiovascular risk: The BRIDGE-Cardiovascular Prevention trial.

BACKGROUND: Translating evidence into clinical practice in the management of high cardiovascular risk patients is challenging. Few quality improvement interventions have rigorously evaluated their impact on both patient care and clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The main objectives are to evaluate the impact of a multifaceted educational intervention on adherence to local guidelines for the prescription of statins, antiplatelets and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers for high cardiovascular risk patients, as well as on the incidence of major cardiovascular events. DESIGN: We designed a pragmatic two arm cluster randomized trial involving 40 clusters. Clusters are randomized to receive a multifaceted quality improvement intervention or to routine practice (control). The multifaceted intervention includes: reminders, care algorithms, training of a case manager, audit and feedback reports, and distribution of educational materials to health care providers. The primary endpoint is the adherence to combined evidence-based therapies (statins, antiplatelet therapy and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers) at 12 months after the intervention period in patients without contra-indications for these medications. All analyses follow the intention-to-treat principle and take the cluster design into account using linear mixed logistic regression modeling. SUMMARY: If proven effective, this multifaceted intervention would have wide utility as a means of promoting optimal usage of evidence-based interventions for the management of high cardiovascular risk patients.

An international cluster-randomized quality improvement trial to increase the adherence to evidence-based therapies for acute ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack patients: Rationale and design of the BRIDGE STROKE Trial.

BACKGROUND: Translating evidence into clinical practice in the management of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and transient ischemic attack (TIA) is challenging especially in low- and middle-income countries. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to assess the effect of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention on adherence to evidence-based therapies for AIS and TIA patients care. DESIGN: We designed a pragmatic, 2-arm cluster-randomized trial involving 36 clusters and 1624 patients from Brazil, Argentina, and Peru. Hospitals are randomized to receive a multifaceted quality improvement intervention (intervention group) or to routine care (control group). The BRIDGE Stroke multifaceted quality improvement intervention includes case management, reminders, health care providers' educational materials (including treatment algorithms), interactive workshops, and audit and feedback reports. Primary outcome is a composite adherence score to AIS and TIA performance measures. Secondary outcomes include an "all or none" composite end point to performance measures, the individual components of the composite end points, and clinical outcomes at 90 days following admission (stroke recurrence, death, and disability measured by the modified Rankin scale). SUMMARY: The BRIDGE Stroke Trial is an international pragmatic evaluation of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention. If effective, this intervention could be potentially extended widely to improve the quality of care and outcomes of patients with AIS or TIA.

Effect of a Resuscitation Strategy Targeting Peripheral Perfusion Status vs Serum Lactate Levels on 28-Day Mortality Among Patients With Septic Shock: The ANDROMEDA-SHOCK Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Abnormal peripheral perfusion after septic shock resuscitation has been associated with organ dysfunction and mortality. The potential role of the clinical assessment of peripheral perfusion as a target during resuscitation in early septic shock has not been established. Objective: To determine if a peripheral perfusion-targeted resuscitation during early septic shock in adults is more effective than a lactate level-targeted resuscitation for reducing mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized trial conducted at 28 intensive care units in 5 countries. Four-hundred twenty-four patients with septic shock were included between March 2017 and March 2018. The last date of follow-up was June 12, 2018. Interventions: Patients were randomized to a step-by-step resuscitation protocol aimed at either normalizing capillary refill time (n = 212) or normalizing or decreasing lactate levels at rates greater than 20% per 2 hours (n = 212), during an 8-hour intervention period. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 28 days. Secondary outcomes were organ dysfunction at 72 hours after randomization, as assessed by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (range, 0 [best] to 24 [worst]); death within 90 days; mechanical ventilation-, renal replacement therapy-, and vasopressor-free days within 28 days; intensive care unit and hospital length of stay. Results: Among 424 patients randomized (mean age, 63 years; 226 [53%] women), 416 (98%) completed the trial. By day 28, 74 patients (34.9%) in the peripheral perfusion group and 92 patients (43.4%) in the lactate group had died (hazard ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.55 to 1.02]; P = .06; risk difference, -8.5% [95% CI, -18.2% to 1.2%]). Peripheral perfusion-targeted resuscitation was associated with less organ dysfunction at 72 hours (mean SOFA score, 5.6 [SD, 4.3] vs 6.6 [SD, 4.7]; mean difference, -1.00 [95% CI, -1.97 to -0.02]; P = .045). There were no significant differences in the other 6 secondary outcomes. No protocol-related serious adverse reactions were confirmed. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with septic shock, a resuscitation strategy targeting normalization of capillary refill time, compared with a strategy targeting serum lactate levels, did not reduce all-cause 28-day mortality. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03078712.

Rationale and design of the Statins Evaluation in Coronary procedUres and REvascularization: The SECURE-PCI Trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous evidence suggests that acute treatment with statins reduce atherosclerotic complications, including periprocedural myocardial infarction, but currently, there are no large, adequately powered studies to define the effects of early, high-dose statins in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and planned invasive management. OBJECTIVES: The main goal of Statins Evaluation in Coronary procedUres and REvascularization (SECURE-PCI) Trial is to determine whether the early use of a loading dose of 80 mg of atorvastatin before an intended percutaneous coronary intervention followed by an additional dose of 80 mg 24 hours after the procedure will be able to reduce the rates of major cardiovascular events at 30 days in patients with an ACS. DESIGN: The SECURE-PCI study is a pragmatic, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial planned to enroll around 4,200 patients in 58 different sites in Brazil. The primary outcome is the rate of major cardiovascular events at 30 days defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, nonfatal acute myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and coronary revascularization. SUMMARY: The SECURE PCI is a large randomized trial testing a strategy of early, high-dose statin in patients with ACS and will provide important information about the acute treatment of this patient population.

Effect of Loading Dose of Atorvastatin Prior to Planned Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Acute Coronary Syndrome: The SECURE-PCI Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effects of loading doses of statins on clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and planned invasive management remain uncertain. Objective: To determine if periprocedural loading doses of atorvastatin decrease 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with ACS and planned invasive management. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial conducted at 53 sites in Brazil among 4191 patients with ACS evaluated with coronary angiography to proceed with a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) if anatomically feasible. Enrollment occurred between April 18, 2012, and October 6, 2017. Final follow-up for 30-day outcomes was on November 6, 2017. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive 2 loading doses of 80 mg of atorvastatin (n = 2087) or matching placebo (n = 2104) before and 24 hours after a planned PCI. All patients received 40 mg of atorvastatin for 30 days starting 24 hours after the second dose of study medication. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was MACE, defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and unplanned coronary revascularization through 30 days. Results: Among the 4191 patients (mean age, 61.8 [SD, 11.5] years; 1085 women [25.9%]) enrolled, 4163 (99.3%) completed 30-day follow-up. A total of 2710 (64.7%) underwent PCI, 333 (8%) underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and 1144 (27.3%) had exclusively medical management. At 30 days, 130 patients in the atorvastatin group (6.2%) and 149 in the placebo group (7.1%) had a MACE (absolute difference, 0.85% [95% CI, -0.70% to 2.41%]; hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.69-1.11; P = .27). No cases of hepatic failure were reported; 3 cases of rhabdomyolysis were reported in the placebo group (0.1%) and 0 in the atorvastatin group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with ACS and planned invasive management with PCI, periprocedural loading doses of atorvastatin did not reduce the rate of MACE at 30 days. These findings do not support the routine use of loading doses of atorvastatin among unselected patients with ACS and intended invasive management. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01448642.

Effect of Lung Recruitment and Titrated Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) vs Low PEEP on Mortality in Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effects of recruitment maneuvers and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration on clinical outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain uncertain. Objective: To determine if lung recruitment associated with PEEP titration according to the best respiratory-system compliance decreases 28-day mortality of patients with moderate to severe ARDS compared with a conventional low-PEEP strategy. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized trial conducted at 120 intensive care units (ICUs) from 9 countries from November 17, 2011, through April 25, 2017, enrolling adults with moderate to severe ARDS. Interventions: An experimental strategy with a lung recruitment maneuver and PEEP titration according to the best respiratory-system compliance (n = 501; experimental group) or a control strategy of low PEEP (n = 509). All patients received volume-assist control mode until weaning. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality until 28 days. Secondary outcomes were length of ICU and hospital stay; ventilator-free days through day 28; pneumothorax requiring drainage within 7 days; barotrauma within 7 days; and ICU, in-hospital, and 6-month mortality. Results: A total of 1010 patients (37.5% female; mean [SD] age, 50.9 [17.4] years) were enrolled and followed up. At 28 days, 277 of 501 patients (55.3%) in the experimental group and 251 of 509 patients (49.3%) in the control group had died (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.42; P = .041). Compared with the control group, the experimental group strategy increased 6-month mortality (65.3% vs 59.9%; HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.38; P = .04), decreased the number of mean ventilator-free days (5.3 vs 6.4; difference, -1.1; 95% CI, -2.1 to -0.1; P = .03), increased the risk of pneumothorax requiring drainage (3.2% vs 1.2%; difference, 2.0%; 95% CI, 0.0% to 4.0%; P = .03), and the risk of barotrauma (5.6% vs 1.6%; difference, 4.0%; 95% CI, 1.5% to 6.5%; P = .001). There were no significant differences in the length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, ICU mortality, and in-hospital mortality. Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with moderate to severe ARDS, a strategy with lung recruitment and titrated PEEP compared with low PEEP increased 28-day all-cause mortality. These findings do not support the routine use of lung recruitment maneuver and PEEP titration in these patients. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01374022.

Effect of a Quality Improvement Intervention With Daily Round Checklists, Goal Setting, and Clinician Prompting on Mortality of Critically Ill Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The effectiveness of checklists, daily goal assessments, and clinician prompts as quality improvement interventions in intensive care units (ICUs) is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a multifaceted quality improvement intervention reduces the mortality of critically ill adults. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This study had 2 phases. Phase 1 was an observational study to assess baseline data on work climate, care processes, and clinical outcomes, conducted between August 2013 and March 2014 in 118 Brazilian ICUs. Phase 2 was a cluster randomized trial conducted between April and November 2014 with the same ICUs. The first 60 admissions of longer than 48 hours per ICU were enrolled in each phase. INTERVENTIONS: Intensive care units were randomized to a quality improvement intervention, including a daily checklist and goal setting during multidisciplinary rounds with follow-up clinician prompting for 11 care processes, or to routine care. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: In-hospital mortality truncated at 60 days (primary outcome) was analyzed using a random-effects logistic regression model, adjusted for patients' severity and the ICU's baseline standardized mortality ratio. Exploratory secondary outcomes included adherence to care processes, safety climate, and clinical events. RESULTS: A total of 6877 patients (mean age, 59.7 years; 3218 [46.8%] women) were enrolled in the baseline (observational) phase and 6761 (mean age, 59.6 years; 3098 [45.8%] women) in the randomized phase, with 3327 patients enrolled in ICUs (n = 59) assigned to the intervention group and 3434 patients in ICUs (n = 59) assigned to routine care. There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between the intervention group and the usual care group, with 1096 deaths (32.9%) and 1196 deaths (34.8%), respectively (odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.82-1.26; P = .88). Among 20 prespecified secondary outcomes not adjusted for multiple comparisons, 6 were significantly improved in the intervention group (use of low tidal volumes, avoidance of heavy sedation, use of central venous catheters, use of urinary catheters, perception of team work, and perception of patient safety climate), whereas there were no significant differences between the intervention group and the control group for 14 outcomes (ICU mortality, central line-associated bloodstream infection, ventilator-associated pneumonia, urinary tract infection, mean ventilator-free days, mean ICU length of stay, mean hospital length of stay, bed elevation to ≥30°, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, diet administration, job satisfaction, stress reduction, perception of management, and perception of working conditions). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among critically ill patients treated in ICUs in Brazil, implementation of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention with daily checklists, goal setting, and clinician prompting did not reduce in-hospital mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01785966.

Self-efficacy and fear avoidance beliefs in chronic low back pain patients: coexistence and associated factors.

A cross sectional study was conducted with the objective to assess the coexistence of self-efficacy and fear avoidance beliefs and establish the associated factors. Data collection was performed (215 individuals with lower back pain at three health services and two industries). The following instruments were used: Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, Beck's Depression Inventory, Piper's Fatigue Scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and the Chronic Pain Self-Efficacy Scale. Wilks' lambda test was performed, followed by MANOVA model to assess the effect of self-efficacy beliefs and fear avoidance on independent variables. Most subjects were women (65.1%), 45 years of age or younger (50.7%), with a family income between $450 and $1,350 per month (49.3%). Depression was present in 21.4%, fatigue in 29.3%, and disability in 68%. The average (standard deviation) of self-efficacy was 180.8 (60.4), and fear avoidance was 42.0 (11.5). A significant negative correlation was observed between the total score of both beliefs. The Wilks' lambda test showed that gender, income, depression, disability, and fatigue were significant and were included in the model. In the Manova analysis, low self-efficacy was associated with lower income, fatigue, depression, and level of disability (p < .001). High fear avoidance was associated to the male gender, lower income, depression, and level of disability (p < .001). The analysis of the confidence areas showed that a reduced self-efficacy and increased fear avoidance are related to an increased level of disability (p < .001). Specific intervention strategies must be implemented change these beliefs.

Real-World Evidence of Ribociclib Plus Aromatase Inhibitors as First-Line Treatment in Advanced Breast Cancer: The BrasiLEEira Study.

PURPOSE: Cyclin inhibitors plus endocrine therapy represent the reference standard for hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (ABC). Efficacy results on hard end points such as overall survival come from well-designed randomized clinical trials (RCTs). However, a limitation of RCTs is the low external results validity, and their extrapolation to a broader population may not be appropriate. Real-world studies can overcome these limitations, also increasing the reliability of RCTs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The BrasiLEEira was an observational, longitudinal, retrospective, multicenter study to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ribociclib plus nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors in Brazilian women age 18 years or older with HR+/HER2- ABC. The study was approved by the institutional review boards of all 11 hospitals. Data were collected anonymously from medical records using an electronic case report form designed by an independent academic research organization, which conducted the study considering all recommendations of international guidelines. The primary end point was 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate. Secondary end points included mortality, dose reduction, and safety. RESULTS: The mean age of 76 patients was 57 years, and 28.9% were Black/Brown. The most prevalent comorbidity was arterial hypertension (34.7%). About 26.0% had endocrine-resistant disease, and 54.1% had more than three metastatic sites. The PFS rate was 77.6%. Three patients died (3.9%). Dose reductions occurred in 37.7% of patients. The most common adverse event was neutropenia (68.4%). CONCLUSION: The high-quality evidence from the BrasiLEEira study corroborates the RCTs' findings, expanding its validity to a broader spectrum and underrepresented population who may benefit from ribociclib treatment.

Prospective, randomized, controlled trial assessing the effects of a driving pressure-limiting strategy for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia (STAMINA trial): protocol and statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: Driving pressure has been suggested to be the main driver of ventilator-induced lung injury and mortality in observational studies of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy can improve clinical outcomes is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To describe the protocol and statistical analysis plan that will be used to test whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy including positive end-expiratory pressure titration according to the best respiratory compliance and reduction in tidal volume is superior to a standard strategy involving the use of the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table in terms of increasing the number of ventilator-free days in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia. METHODS: The ventilator STrAtegy for coMmunIty acquired pNeumoniA (STAMINA) study is a randomized, multicenter, open-label trial that compares a driving pressure-limiting strategy to the ARDSnet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table in patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia admitted to intensive care units. We expect to recruit 500 patients from 20 Brazilian and 2 Colombian intensive care units. They will be randomized to a driving pressure-limiting strategy group or to a standard strategy using the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table. In the driving pressure-limiting strategy group, positive end-expiratory pressure will be titrated according to the best respiratory system compliance. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is the number of ventilator-free days within 28 days. The secondary outcomes are in-hospital and intensive care unit mortality and the need for rescue therapies such as extracorporeal life support, recruitment maneuvers and inhaled nitric oxide. CONCLUSION: STAMINA is designed to provide evidence on whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy is superior to the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table strategy for increasing the number of ventilator-free days within 28 days in patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Here, we describe the rationale, design and status of the trial.

Standardized Brazilian green propolis extract (EPP-AF®) in COVID-19 outcomes: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial.

SARS-CoV-2 and its different variants caused a "wave and wave" pandemic pattern. During the first wave we demonstrated that standardized Brazilian green propolis extract (EPP-AF®) reduces length of hospital stay in adult patients with COVID-19. Afterwards, we decided to evaluate the impact of EPP-AF in hospitalized patients during the third wave of the pandemic. BeeCovid2 was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial in hospitalized COVID-19 adult patients. Patients were allocated to receive an oral dose of 900 mg/day of EPP-AF® or placebo for 10 days. The primary outcome was length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes included safety, secondary infection rate, duration of oxygen therapy dependency, acute kidney injury and need for intensive care. Patients were followed up for 28 days after admission. We enrolled 188 patients; 98 were assigned to the propolis group and 90 to the placebo group. The post-intervention length of hospital stay was of 6.5 ± 6.0 days in the propolis group versus 7.7 ± 7.1 days in the control group (95% CI - 0.74 [- 1.94 to 0.42]; p = 0.22). Propolis did not have significant impact on the need for oxygen supplementation or frequency of AKI. There was a significant difference in the incidence of secondary infection between groups, with 6.1% in the propolis group versus 18.9% in the control group (95% CI - 0.28 [0.1-0.76], p = 0.01). The use of EPP-AF was considered safe and associated with a decrease in secondary infections. The drug was not associated with a significant reduction in length of hospital stay. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04800224).

Dapagliflozin in patients with critical illness: rationale and design of the DEFENDER study.

BACKGROUND: Critical illness is a major ongoing health care burden worldwide and is associated with high mortality rates. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors have consistently shown benefits in cardiovascular and renal outcomes. The effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors in acute illness have not been properly investigated. METHODS: DEFENDER is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in 500 adult participants with acute organ dysfunction who are hospitalized in the intensive care unit. Eligible participants will be randomized 1:1 to receive dapagliflozin 10mg plus standard of care for up to 14 days or standard of care alone. The primary outcome is a hierarchical composite of hospital mortality, initiation of kidney replacement therapy, and intensive care unit length of stay, up to 28 days. Safety will be strictly monitored throughout the study. CONCLUSION: DEFENDER is the first study designed to investigate the use of a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor in general intensive care unit patients with acute organ dysfunction. It will provide relevant information on the use of drugs of this promising class in critically ill patients. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV REGISTRY: NCT05558098.