RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The Handling Oxygenation Targets in the Intensive Care Unit (HOT-ICU) trial was a multicentre, randomised, parallel-group trial of a lower oxygenation target (arterial partial pressure of oxygen [PaO2 ] = 8 kPa) versus a higher oxygenation target (PaO2 = 12 kPa) in adult ICU patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure; the Handling Oxygenation Targets in coronavirus disease 2019 (HOT-COVID) tested the same oxygenation targets in patients with confirmed COVID-19. In this study, we aim to evaluate the long-term effects of these oxygenation targets on cognitive and pulmonary function. We hypothesise that a lower oxygenation target throughout the ICU stay may result in cognitive impairment, whereas a higher oxygenation target may result in impaired pulmonary function. METHODS: This is the updated protocol and statistical analysis plan of two pre-planned secondary outcomes, the long-term cognitive function, and long-term pulmonary function, in the HOT-ICU and HOT-COVID trials. Patients enrolled in both trials at selected Danish sites and surviving to 1 year after randomisation are eligible to participate. A Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status score and a full-body plethysmography, including diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide, will be obtained. The last patient is expected to be included in the spring of 2024. CONCLUSION: This study will provide important information on the long-term effects of a lower versus a higher oxygenation target on long-term cognitive and pulmonary functions in adult ICU patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Insuficiencia Respiratoria , Adulto , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , Pulmón , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Estudios Multicéntricos como AsuntoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Piperacillin/tazobactam may be associated with less favourable outcomes than carbapenems in patients with severe bacterial infections, but the certainty of evidence is low. METHODS: The Empirical Meropenem versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam for Adult Patients with Sepsis (EMPRESS) trial is an investigator-initiated, international, parallel-group, randomised, open-label, adaptive clinical trial with an integrated feasibility phase. We will randomise adult, critically ill patients with sepsis to empirical treatment with meropenem or piperacillin/tazobactam for up to 30 days. The primary outcome is 30-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes are serious adverse reactions within 30 days; isolation precautions due to resistant bacteria within 30 days; days alive without life support and days alive and out of hospital within 30 and 90 days; 90- and 180-day all-cause mortality and 180-day health-related quality of life. EMPRESS will use Bayesian statistical models with weak to somewhat sceptical neutral priors. Adaptive analyses will be conducted after follow-up of the primary outcome for the first 400 participants concludes and after every 300 subsequent participants, with adaptive stopping for superiority/inferiority and practical equivalence (absolute risk difference <2.5%-points) and response-adaptive randomisation. The expected sample sizes in scenarios with no, small or large differences are 5189, 5859 and 2570 participants, with maximum 14,000 participants and ≥99% probability of conclusiveness across all scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: EMPRESS will compare the effects of empirical meropenem against piperacillin/tazobactam in adult, critically ill patients with sepsis. Due to the pragmatic, adaptive design with high probability of conclusiveness, the trial results are expected to directly inform clinical practice.
Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos , Meropenem , Combinación Piperacilina y Tazobactam , Sepsis , Humanos , Meropenem/uso terapéutico , Meropenem/administración & dosificación , Sepsis/tratamiento farmacológico , Sepsis/mortalidad , Combinación Piperacilina y Tazobactam/uso terapéutico , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Antibacterianos/administración & dosificación , Adulto , Enfermedad Crítica , MasculinoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Supplemental oxygen therapy is central to the treatment of acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, a condition which remains a major driver for morbidity and mortality in intensive care. Despite several large randomised clinical trials comparing a higher versus a lower oxygenation target for these patients, significant differences in study design impede analysis of aggregate data and final clinical recommendations. METHODS: This paper presents the protocol for conducting an individual patient data meta-analysis where full individual patient data according to the intention-to-treat principle will be pooled from the HOT-ICU and HOT-COVID trials in a one-step procedure. The two trials are near-identical in design. We plan to use a hierarchical general linear mixed model that accounts for data clustering at a trial and site level. The primary outcome will be 90-day all-cause mortality while the secondary outcome will be days alive without life-support at 90 days. Further, we outline 14 clinically relevant predefined subgroups which we will analyse for heterogeneity in the intervention effects and interactions, and we present a plan for assessing the credibility of the subgroup analyses. CONCLUSION: The presented individual patient data meta-analysis will synthesise individual level patient data from two of the largest randomised clinical trials on targeted oxygen therapy in intensive care. The results will provide a re-analysis of the intervention effects on the pooled intention-to-treat populations and facilitate subgroup analyses with an increased power to detect clinically important effect modifications.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Insuficiencia Respiratoria , Humanos , Pulmón , Insuficiencia Respiratoria/terapia , Oxígeno , Cuidados Críticos/métodos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Metaanálisis como AsuntoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Trials in critically ill patients increasingly focus on days alive without life support (DAWOLS) or days alive out of hospital (DAOOH) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). DAWOLS and DAOOH convey more information than mortality and are simpler and faster to collect than HRQoL. However, whether these outcomes are associated with HRQoL is uncertain. We thus aimed to assess the associations between DAWOLS and DAOOH and long-term HRQoL. METHODS: Secondary analysis of the COVID STEROID 2 trial including adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia and the Handling Oxygenation Targets in the Intensive Care Unit (HOT-ICU) trial including adult intensive care unit patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. Associations between DAWOLS and DAOOH at day 28 and 90 and long-term HRQoL (after 6 or 12 months) using the EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level survey (EQ VAS and EQ-5D-5L index values) were assessed using flexible models and evaluated using measures of fit and prediction adequacy in both datasets (comprising internal performance and external validation), non-parametric correlation coefficients and graphical presentations. RESULTS: We found no strong associations between DAWOLS or DAOOH and HRQoL in survivors at HRQoL-follow-up (615 and 1476 patients, respectively). There was substantial variability in outcomes, and predictions from the best fitted models were poor both internally and externally in the other trial dataset, which also showed inadequate calibration. Moderate associations were found when including non-survivors, although predictions remained uncertain and calibration inadequate. CONCLUSION: DAWOLS and DAOOH were poorly associated with HRQoL in adult survivors of severe or critical illness included in the COVID STEROID 2 and HOT-ICU trials.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Calidad de Vida , Adulto , Humanos , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Cuidados Críticos , Hipoxia , HospitalesRESUMEN
Evidence in perioperative care is insufficient. There is an urgent need for large perioperative research programmes, including pragmatic randomised trials, testing daily clinical treatments and unanswered question, thereby providing solid evidence for effects of interventions given to a large and growing number of patients undergoing surgery and anaesthesia. This may be achieved through large collaborations. Collaboration for Evidence-based Practice and Research in Anaesthesia (CEPRA) is a novel collaborative research network founded to pursue evidence-based answers to major clinical questions in perioperative medicine. The aims of CEPRA are to (1) improve clinical treatment and outcomes and optimise the use of resources for patients undergoing anaesthesia and perioperative care, and (2) disseminate results and inform caretakers, patients and relatives, and policymakers of evidence-based treatments in anaesthesia and perioperative medicine. CEPRA is inclusive in its concept. We aim to extend our collaboration with all relevant clinical collaborators and patient associations and representatives. Although initiated in Denmark, CEPRA seeks to develop an international network infrastructure, for example, with other Nordic countries. The work of CEPRA will follow the highest methodological standards. The organisation aims to structure and optimise any element of the research collaboration to reduce economic costs and harness benefits from well-functioning research infrastructure. This includes successive continuation of trials, harmonisation of outcomes, and alignment of data management systems. This paper presents the initiation and visions of the CEPRA network. CEPRA aims to be inclusive, patient-focused, methodologically sound, and to optimise all aspects of research logistics. This will translate into faster research conduct, reliable results, and accelerated clinical implementation of results, thereby benefiting millions of patients whilst being cost and labour-saving.
Asunto(s)
Anestesia , Anestesiología , Humanos , Anestesia/efectos adversos , Atención Perioperativa , Práctica Clínica Basada en la Evidencia , Países Escandinavos y NórdicosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement in randomised clinical trials has received increased focus, including in intensive care trials, but the frequency, method and extent is unknown. This meta-epidemiological study investigated patient and public involvement in contemporary, large ICU trials. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed for large (≥225 randomised patients), contemporary trials (published between 1 January 2019 and 31 January 2022) assessing interventions in adult patients in ICU settings. Abstracts and full-text articles were assessed independently and in duplicate. Data were extracted using a pre-defined, pilot-tested data extraction form with details on trials, patient and public involvement including categories and numbers of individuals involved, methods of involvement, and trial stage(s) with involvement. Trials authors were contacted as necessary. RESULTS: We included 100 trials, with 18 using patient and public involvement; these were larger and conducted in more centres than trials without patient and public involvement. Among trials with patient and public involvement, patients (in 14/18 trials), clinicians (13 trials), and family members (12 trials) were primarily involved, mainly in the development of research design (15 trials) and development of research focus (13 trials) stages and mostly by discussion (12 trials) and solo interviews (10 trials). A median of 65 individuals (range 1-6894) were involved. CONCLUSIONS: We found patient and public involvement in a fifth of large, contemporary ICU trials. Primarily patients, families, and clinicians were included, particularly in the trial planning stages and mostly through interviews and discussions. Increased patient and public involvement in ICU trials is warranted.
Asunto(s)
Cuidados Críticos , Adulto , Humanos , Estudios EpidemiológicosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have an increased risk of thromboembolic complications. We describe the occurrence of thromboembolic and bleeding events in all ICU patients with COVID-19 in Denmark during the first and second waves of the pandemic. METHODS: This was a sub-study of the Danish Intensive Care Covid database, in which all patients with SARS-CoV-2 admitted to Danish ICUs from 10th March 2020 to 30th June 2021 were included. We registered coagulation variables at admission, and all thromboembolic and bleeding events, and the use of heparins during ICU stay. Variables associated with thrombosis and bleeding and any association with 90-day mortality were estimated using Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: We included 1369 patients in this sub-study; 158 (12%, 95% confidence interval 10-13) had a thromboembolic event in ICU and 309 (23%, 20-25) had a bleeding event, among whom 81 patients (6%, 4.8-7.3) had major bleeding. We found that mechanical ventilation and increased D-dimer were associated with thrombosis and mechanical ventilation, low platelet count and presence of haematological malignancy were associated with bleeding. Most patients (76%) received increased doses of thromboprophylaxis during their ICU stay. Thromboembolic events were not associated with mortality in adjusted analysis (hazard ratio 1.35 [0.91-2.01, p = .14], whereas bleeding events were 1.55 [1.18-2.05, p = .002]). CONCLUSIONS: Both thromboembolic and bleeding events frequently occurred in ICU patients with COVID-19. Based on these data, it is not apparent that increased doses of thromboprophylaxis were beneficial.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Trombosis , Tromboembolia Venosa , Humanos , COVID-19/complicaciones , SARS-CoV-2 , Anticoagulantes/efectos adversos , Tromboembolia Venosa/epidemiología , Cuidados Críticos , Hemorragia , Unidades de Cuidados IntensivosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Oxygen therapy is a common treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU) with both potentially desirable and undesirable long-term effects. This systematic review aimed to assess the long-term outcomes of lower versus higher oxygenation strategies in adult ICU survivors. METHODS: We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing lower versus higher oxygen supplementation or oxygenation strategies in adults admitted to the ICU. We searched major electronic databases and trial registers. We included all non-mortality long-term outcomes. Prespecified co-primary outcomes were the long-term cognitive function measures, the overall score of any valid health-related quality of life (HRQoL) evaluation, standardised 6-min walk test, and lung diffusion capacity. The protocol was published and prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42021223630). RESULTS: The review included 17 RCTs comprising 6592 patients, and six trials with 825 randomised patients reported one or more outcomes of interest. We observed no difference in cognitive evaluation via Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (one trial, 409 patients) (mean score: 30.6 ± 4.5 in the lower oxygenation group vs. 30.4 ± 4.3 in the higher oxygenation group). The trial was judged at overall high risk of bias and the certainty of evidence was very low. Any difference was neither observed in HRQoL measured via EuroQol 5 dimensions 5 level questionnaire and EQ Visual Analogue Score (one trial, 499 patients) (mean score: 70.1 ± 22 in the lower oxygenation group vs. 67.6 ± 22.4 in the higher oxygenation group). The trial was judged as having high risk of bias, the certainty of evidence was very low. No trial reported neither the standardised 6-min walk test nor lung diffusion test. CONCLUSION: The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of a lower versus a higher oxygenation strategy on both the cognitive function and HRQoL. A lower versus a higher oxygenation strategy may have a little to no effect on both outcomes but the certainty of evidence is very low. No evidence was found for the effects on the standardised 6-min walking test and diffusion capacity test.
Asunto(s)
Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Calidad de Vida , Adulto , Humanos , Pulmón , Terapia por Inhalación de Oxígeno/efectos adversos , SobrevivientesRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Mortality is often the primary outcome in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in critically ill patients. Due to increased awareness on survivors after critical illness and outcomes other than mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and days alive without life support (DAWOLS) or days alive and out of hospital (DAAOOH) are increasingly being used. DAWOLS and DAAOOH convey more information than mortality, are easier to collect than HRQoL, and are usually assessed at earlier time points, which may be preferable in some situations. However, the associations between DAWOLS-DAAOOH and HRQoL are uncertain. METHODS: We will assess associations between DAWOLS-DAAOOH at day 28 and 90 (independent variables/predictors) and HRQoL assessed using the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L questionnaire (EQ-VAS and EQ-5D-5L index values) at 6 or 12 months (dependent variables) in two RCTs: the COVID STEROID 2 RCT conducted in adult patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia and the Handling Oxygenation Targets in the Intensive Care Unit (HOT-ICU) RCT conducted in adult intensive care patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. We will describe associations using best-fitting fractional polynomial transformations separately in each dataset, with the resulting models presented and assessed in both datasets graphically and using measures of fit and prediction adequacy (i.e., internal performance and external validation). We will use multiple imputation if missingness exceeds 5%. DISCUSSION: The outlined study will provide important knowledge on the associations between DAWOLS-DAAOOH and HRQoL in adult critically ill patients, which may help researchers and clinical trialists prioritise and select outcomes in future RCTs conducted in this population.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Calidad de Vida , Adulto , Hospitales , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Different outcomes are reported in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, and no core outcome set (COS) is available for ICU patients in general. Accordingly, we aim to develop a COS for ICU patients in general. METHODS: The COS will be developed in accordance with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Handbook, using a modified Delphi consensus process and semi-structured interviews involving adults who have survived acute admission to an ICU, family members, clinicians, researchers and other stakeholders. The modified Delphi process will include two steps. Step 1: conduction of a modified Delphi survey, developed and informed by combining the outputs of a literature search of outcomes in previous COSs and semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders. We plan at least two survey rounds to obtain consensus and refine the COS. Step 2: a consensus process regarding instruments or definitions to be recommended for the measurements of the outcomes selected in Step 1. A 'patient and public involvement panel' consisting of a smaller group of patients, family members, clinicians and researchers will be included in the development, analysis and interpretation of the COS. DISCUSSION: The outlined multiple method studies will establish a COS for ICU patients in general, which may be used to increase the standardisation and comparability of results of RCTs conducted in patients in the ICU setting.
Asunto(s)
Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud , Proyectos de Investigación , Consenso , Técnica Delphi , Humanos , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
Carbon monoxide (CO) is the leading cause of death by poisoning worldwide. The aim was to explore the effects of mild and severe poisoning on blood gas parameters and metabolites. Eleven pigs were exposed to CO intoxication and had blood collected before and during poisoning. Mild CO poisoning (carboxyhaemoglobin, COHb 35.2 ± 7.9%) was achieved at 32 ± 13 minutes, and severe poisoning (69.3 ± 10.2% COHb) at 64 ± 23 minutes from baseline (2.9 ± 0.5% COHb). Blood gas parameters and metabolites were measured on a blood gas analyser and nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometer, respectively. Unsupervised principal component, analysis of variance and Pearson's correlation tests were applied. A P-value ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant. Mild poisoning resulted in a 28.4% drop in oxyhaemoglobin (OHb) and 12-fold increase in COHb, while severe poisoning in a 65% drop in OHb and 24-fold increase in COHb. Among others, metabolites implicated in regulation of metabolic acidosis (lactate, P < .0001), energy balance (pyruvate, P < .0001; 3-hydroxybutyrc acid, P = .01), respiration (citrate, P = .007; succinate, P = .0003; fumarate, P < .0001), lipid metabolism (glycerol, P = .002; choline, P = .0002) and antioxidant-oxidant balance (glutathione, P = .03; hypoxanthine, P < .0001) were altered, especially during severe poisoning. Our study adds new insights into the deranged metabolism of CO poisoning and leads the way for further investigation.
Asunto(s)
Intoxicación por Monóxido de Carbono/diagnóstico , Monóxido de Carbono/análisis , Metaboloma , Animales , Intoxicación por Monóxido de Carbono/metabolismo , Femenino , PorcinosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) has increased in recent years but remains the exception rather than the rule. We aim to assess the frequency and extent of PPI in large, contemporary RCTs conducted in an intensive care setting. METHODS AND DESIGN: We will conduct a meta-epidemiological study of RCTs conducted in intensive care settings published since 2019 and assess their use of PPI. We will extract trial characteristics and verify the use of PPI with trial authors unless specifically stated in the published paper. The primary outcome will be the proportion of trials that use PPI. Secondary outcomes will explore which groups are consulted, at which stage of the trial process this occurs, and by what means these opinions are collected and implemented. DISCUSSION: This meta-epidemiological study will provide an important insight into the use of PPI in large, contemporary intensive care trials. We wish to reveal ways in which patient involvement could be incorporated more broadly and purposefully here and help to empower clinicians, researchers and patients to collaborate further on future research processes and goals.
Asunto(s)
Participación del Paciente , Investigadores , Cuidados Críticos , Estudios Epidemiológicos , HumanosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Most data on intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID-19 originate in selected populations from stressed healthcare systems with shorter term follow-up. We present characteristics, interventions and longer term outcomes of the entire, unselected cohort of all ICU patients with COVID-19 in Denmark where the ICU capacity was not exceeded. METHODS: We identified all patients with SARS-CoV-2 admitted to any Danish ICU from 10 March to 19 May 2020 and registered demographics, chronic comorbidities, use of organ support, length of stay, and vital status from patient files. Risk factors for death were analyzed using adjusted Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: There were 323 ICU patients with confirmed COVID-19. Median age was 68 years, 74% were men, 50% had hypertension, 21% diabetes, and 20% chronic pulmonary disease; 29% had no chronic comorbidity. Invasive mechanical ventilation was used in 82%, vasopressors in 83%, renal replacement therapy in 26%, and extra corporeal membrane oxygenation in 8%. ICU stay was median 13 days (IQR 6-22) and hospital stay 19 days (11-30). Median follow-up was 79 days. At end of follow-up, 118 had died (37%), 15 (4%) were still in hospital hereof 4 in ICU as of 16 June 2020. Risk factors for mortality included male gender, age, chronic pulmonary disease, active cancer, and number of co-morbidities. CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide, population-based cohort of ICU patients with COVID-19, longer term survival was high despite high age and substantial use of organ support. Male gender, age, and chronic co-morbidities, in particular chronic pulmonary disease, were associated with increased risk of death.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19/terapia , Cuidados Críticos , Anciano , COVID-19/mortalidad , Estudios de Cohortes , Comorbilidad , Revisión Concurrente , Demografía , Dinamarca , Femenino , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Humanos , Tiempo de Internación , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Factores de Riesgo , Resultado del Tratamiento , Signos VitalesRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to severe hypoxic respiratory failure and death. Corticosteroids decrease mortality in severely or critically ill patients with COVID-19. However, the optimal dose remains unresolved. The ongoing randomised COVID STEROID 2 trial investigates the effects of higher vs lower doses of dexamethasone (12 vs 6 mg intravenously daily for up to 10 days) in 1,000 adult patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia. METHODS: This protocol outlines the rationale and statistical methods for a secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis of the primary outcome (days alive without life support at day 28) and all secondary outcomes registered up to day 90. We will use hurdle-negative binomial models to estimate the mean number of days alive without life support in each group and present results as mean differences and incidence rate ratios with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). Additional count outcomes will be analysed similarly and binary outcomes will be analysed using logistic regression models with results presented as probabilities, relative risks and risk differences with 95% CrIs. We will present probabilities of any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm and probabilities of effects smaller than pre-defined clinically minimally important differences for all outcomes analysed. Analyses will be adjusted for stratification variables and conducted using weakly informative priors supplemented by sensitivity analyses using sceptic priors. DISCUSSION: This secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis will supplement the primary, conventional analysis and may help clinicians, researchers and policymakers interpret the results of the COVID STEROID 2 trial while avoiding arbitrarily dichotomised interpretations of the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04509973; EudraCT: 2020-003363-25.
Asunto(s)
Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19 , Dexametasona/administración & dosificación , Hipoxia/tratamiento farmacológico , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , SARS-CoV-2 , Teorema de Bayes , HumanosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In the early phase of the pandemic, some guidelines recommended the use of corticosteroids for critically ill patients with COVID-19, whereas others recommended against the use despite lack of firm evidence of either benefit or harm. In the COVID STEROID trial, we aimed to assess the effects of low-dose hydrocortisone on patient-centred outcomes in adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia. METHODS: In this multicentre, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, blinded, centrally randomised, stratified clinical trial, we randomly assigned adults with confirmed COVID-19 and severe hypoxia (use of mechanical ventilation or supplementary oxygen with a flow of at least 10 L/min) to either hydrocortisone (200 mg/d) vs a matching placebo for 7 days or until hospital discharge. The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support at day 28 after randomisation. RESULTS: The trial was terminated early when 30 out of 1000 participants had been enrolled because of external evidence indicating benefit from corticosteroids in severe COVID-19. At day 28, the median number of days alive without life support in the hydrocortisone vs placebo group were 7 vs 10 (adjusted mean difference: -1.1 days, 95% CI -9.5 to 7.3, P = .79); mortality was 6/16 vs 2/14; and the number of serious adverse reactions 1/16 vs 0/14. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial of adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia, we were unable to provide precise estimates of the benefits and harms of hydrocortisone as compared with placebo as only 3% of the planned sample size were enrolled. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04348305. European Union Drug Regulation Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT) Database: 2020-001395-15.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Hidrocortisona , Adulto , Humanos , Hipoxia , SARS-CoV-2 , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 has caused a pandemic of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) with many patients developing hypoxic respiratory failure. Corticosteroids reduce the time on mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit and potentially also mortality in similar patient populations. However, corticosteroids have undesirable effects, including longer time to viral clearance. Clinical equipoise on the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 exists. METHODS: The COVID STEROID trial is an international, randomised, stratified, blinded clinical trial. We will allocate 1000 adult patients with COVID-19 receiving ≥10 L/min of oxygen or on mechanical ventilation to intravenous hydrocortisone 200 mg daily vs placebo (0.9% saline) for 7 days. The primary outcome is days alive without life support (ie mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, and renal replacement therapy) at day 28. Secondary outcomes are serious adverse reactions at day 14; days alive without life support at day 90; days alive and out of hospital at day 90; all-cause mortality at day 28, day 90, and 1 year; and health-related quality of life at 1 year. We will conduct the statistical analyses according to this protocol, including interim analyses for every 250 patients followed for 28 days. The primary outcome will be compared using the Kryger Jensen and Lange test in the intention to treat population and reported as differences in means and medians with 95% confidence intervals. DISCUSSION: The COVID STEROID trial will provide important evidence to guide the use of corticosteroids in COVID-19 and severe hypoxia.
Asunto(s)
Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19 , COVID-19/complicaciones , Hidrocortisona/uso terapéutico , Hipoxia/complicaciones , Hipoxia/tratamiento farmacológico , Proyectos de Investigación , Adulto , Antiinflamatorios/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
Background and Purpose- After pneumonectomy or lobectomy, at least 1 blind pulmonary vein is left with potential risk of postoperative thromboembolic incidents. We investigated the risk of stroke within this population compared with background and pulmonary wedge resections controls. Methods- We identified 12 965 patients with pneumonectomy or lobectomy and 6400 patients with wedge resection using data from Danish nationwide registries from 1996 to 2016. In multivariate Poisson regression analysis, we estimated incidence rate ratios of stroke for patients undergoing lobectomy or pneumonectomy versus background population controls and patients who underwent wedge resection. We stratified our analysis by days: 0 to 30, 31 to 90, 91 to 180, and 180 to 365 after surgery and performed a subgroup analysis in patients with lung cancer. Results- The incidence rate of stroke was 10.6 per 1000 person-years for time exposed for pneumonectomy or lobectomy and 2.3 per 1000 person-years for patients not exposed for pneumonectomy or lobectomy. In the 0- to 30-day multivariate Poisson regression analysis, compared with the background population, pneumonectomy or lobectomy was associated with an increased risk of stroke both patients with and without atrial fibrillation (incidence rate ratios [IRR]) of 4.66 (95% CI, 2.04-7.12) and 5.43 (95% CI, 3.99-7.41), respectively. Similarly, in patients with lung cancer, the first 30 days after pneumonectomy or lobectomy remained a risk factor for stroke for patients with (IRR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.39-6.25) and for patients without atrial fibrillation (IRR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.86-3.59).When compared with wedge resection, 0 to 30 days after lobectomy or pneumonectomy was also associated with increased risk of stroke (IRR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.19-5.81); however, this association was insignificant in patients with lung cancer (IRR, 2.98; 95% CI, 0.72-12.29). Conclusions- Patients undergoing pneumonectomy or lobectomy had an increased 30 days risk of stroke. Whether the pulmonary vein stump is a risk factor for stroke and whether preventive strategies are relevant require further investigation.
Asunto(s)
Neumonectomía/efectos adversos , Neumonectomía/tendencias , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/diagnóstico , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Accidente Cerebrovascular/diagnóstico , Accidente Cerebrovascular/epidemiología , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Dinamarca/epidemiología , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Incidencia , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Sistema de Registros , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Intravenous (IV) fluid is a key intervention in the management of septic shock. The benefits and harms of lower versus higher fluid volumes are unknown and thus clinical equipoise exists. We describe the protocol and detailed statistical analysis plan for the conservative versus liberal approach to fluid therapy of septic shock in the Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial. The aim of the CLASSIC trial is to assess benefits and harms of IV fluid restriction versus standard care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock. METHODS: CLASSIC trial is an investigator-initiated, international, randomised, stratified, and analyst-blinded trial. We will allocate 1554 adult patients with septic shock, who are planned to be or are admitted to an ICU, to IV fluid restriction versus standard care. The primary outcome is mortality at day 90. Secondary outcomes are serious adverse events (SAEs), serious adverse reactions (SARs), days alive at day 90 without life support, days alive and out of the hospital at day 90 and mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and cognitive function at 1 year. We will conduct the statistical analyses according to a pre-defined statistical analysis plan, including three interim analyses. For the primary analysis, we will use logistic regression adjusted for the stratification variables comparing the two interventions in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. DISCUSSION: The CLASSIC trial results will provide important evidence to guide clinicians' choice regarding the IV fluid therapy in adults with septic shock.
Asunto(s)
Protocolos Clínicos , Fluidoterapia/métodos , Choque Séptico/terapia , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Cognición , Cuidados Críticos , Interpretación Estadística de Datos , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Fluidoterapia/efectos adversos , Humanos , Modelos Logísticos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Ensayos Clínicos Pragmáticos como Asunto , Calidad de Vida , Proyectos de Investigación , Choque Séptico/mortalidad , Choque Séptico/psicología , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In surgical teams, health professionals are highly interdependent and work under time pressure. It is of particular importance that teamwork is well-functioning in order to achieve quality treatment and patient safety. Relational coordination, defined as "communicating and relating for the purpose of task integration," has been found to contribute to quality treatment and patient safety. Relational coordination has also been found to contribute to psychological safety and the ability to learn from mistakes. Although extensive research has been carried out regarding relational coordination in many contexts including surgery, no study has explored how relational coordination works at the micro level. The purpose of this study was to explore communication and relationship dynamics in interdisciplinary surgical teams at the micro level in contexts of variable complexity using the theory of relational coordination. METHODS: An ethnographic study was conducted involving participant observations of 39 surgical teams and 15 semi-structured interviews during a 10-month period in 2014 in 2 orthopedic operating units in a university hospital in Denmark. A deductively directed content analysis was carried out based on the theory of relational coordination. RESULTS: Four different types of collaboration in interdisciplinary surgical teams in contexts of variable complexity were identified representing different communication and relationship patterns: 1) proactive and intuitive communication, 2) silent and ordinary communication, 3) inattentive and ambiguous communication, 4) contradictory and highly dynamic communication. The findings suggest a connection between communication and relationship dynamics in surgical teams and the level of complexity of the surgical procedures performed. CONCLUSION: The findings complement previous research on interdisciplinary teamwork in surgical teams and contribute to the theory of relational coordination. The findings offer a new typology of teams that goes beyond weak or strong relational coordination to capture four distinct patterns of relational coordination. In particular, the study highlights the central role of mutual respect and presents proposals for improving relational coordination in surgical teams.
Asunto(s)
Comunicación Interdisciplinaria , Quirófanos , Grupo de Atención al Paciente , Antropología Cultural , Conducta Cooperativa , Dinamarca , Hospitales Universitarios , Humanos , Quirófanos/organización & administración , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos OperativosRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: In massive pulmonary embolism (PE) with circulatory collapse or with cardiac arrest, treatment can be difficult. Often, the diagnosis is unclear, and the time to treatment is crucial. Our institution has had an out-of-hospital team intended for the treatment of accidental hypothermia with extra corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) since 2004. The team has occasionally been involved in patients suffering massive PE. METHODS: We were called to 38 patients with PE, but two were assessed as untreatable. Seventeen were treated with cardiopulmonary resuscitation followed by veno-arterial ECMO. Nineteen were prepared for ECMO with sheaths in the femoral vessels and were intensively observed during diagnosis and treatment. Five of these patients later progressed to ECMO due to cardiac arrest during treatment with thrombolytic medication. Most of the patients were treated with heparin and thrombolytic medication, but if the medications were contraindicated, they were treated with either surgical thrombectomy or only with heparin awaiting spontaneous thrombolysis. RESULTS: Of the 36 patients we intended to treat, 25 (69%) survived one month and 20 survived one year (56%). Of the 22 patients treated with ECMO, 11 survived one month (50%) and 10 survived one year (45%). DISCUSSION: The treatment could have been more uniform. It seems reasonable to build up a PE alert team with ECMO capability to take care of patients with massive PE. CONCLUSION: The treatment of thrombolytic medications in massive PE is risky, but if the patient is treated or prepared for ECMO, it can be lifesaving.