Protocolized reduction of non-resuscitation fluids versus usual care in septic shock patients (REDUSE): a randomized multicentre feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Non-resuscitation fluids constitute the majority of fluid administered for septic shock patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). This multicentre, randomized, feasibility trial was conducted to test the hypothesis that a restrictive protocol targeting non-resuscitation fluids reduces the overall volume administered compared with usual care. METHODS: Adults with septic shock in six Swedish ICUs were randomized within 12 h of ICU admission to receive either protocolized reduction of non-resuscitation fluids or usual care. The primary outcome was the total volume of fluid administered within three days of inclusion. RESULTS: Median (IQR) total volume of fluid in the first three days, was 6008 ml (interquartile range [IQR] 3960-8123) in the restrictive fluid group (n = 44), and 9765 ml (IQR 6804-12,401) in the control group (n = 48); corresponding to a Hodges-Lehmann median difference of 3560 ml [95% confidence interval 1614-5302]; p < 0.001). Outcome data on all-cause mortality, days alive and free of mechanical ventilation and acute kidney injury or ischemic events in the ICU within 90 days of inclusion were recorded in 98/98 (100%), 95/98 (98%) and 95/98 (98%) of participants respectively. Cognition and health-related quality of life at six months were recorded in 39/52 (75%) and 41/52 (79%) of surviving participants, respectively. Ninety out of 134 patients (67%) of eligible patients were randomized, and 15/98 (15%) of the participants experienced at least one protocol violation. CONCLUSION: Protocolized reduction of non-resuscitation fluids in patients with septic shock resulted in a large decrease in fluid administration compared with usual care. A trial using this design to test if reducing non-resuscitation fluids improves outcomes is feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05249088, 18 February 2022. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05249088.

Intensive care doctors' preferences for arterial oxygen tension levels in mechanically ventilated patients.

BACKGROUND: Oxygen is liberally administered in intensive care units (ICUs). Nevertheless, ICU doctors' preferences for supplementing oxygen are inadequately described. The aim was to identify ICU doctors' preferences for arterial oxygenation levels in mechanically ventilated adult ICU patients. METHODS: In April to August 2016, an online multiple-choice 17-part-questionnaire was distributed to 1080 ICU doctors in seven Northern European countries. Repeated reminder e-mails were sent. The study ended in October 2016. RESULTS: The response rate was 63%. When evaluating oxygenation 52% of respondents rated arterial oxygen tension (PaO2 ) the most important parameter; 24% a combination of PaO2 and arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2 ); and 23% preferred SaO2 . Increasing, decreasing or not changing a default fraction of inspired oxygen of 0.50 showed preferences for a PaO2 around 8 kPa in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a PaO2 around 10 kPa in patients with healthy lungs, acute respiratory distress syndrome or sepsis, and a PaO2 around 12 kPa in patients with cardiac or cerebral ischaemia. Eighty per cent would accept a PaO2 of 8 kPa or lower and 77% would accept a PaO2 of 12 kPa or higher in a clinical trial of oxygenation targets. CONCLUSION: Intensive care unit doctors preferred PaO2 to SaO2 in monitoring oxygen treatment when peripheral oxygen saturation was not included in the question. The identification of PaO2 as the preferred target and the thorough clarification of preferences are important when ascertaining optimal oxygenation targets. In particular when designing future clinical trials of higher vs lower oxygenation targets in ICU patients.

Empirical metronidazole for patients with severe bacterial infection: protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Anaerobic bacteria are believed to be common pathogens in severe infections. Yet, they are difficult to culture and consequently often unrecognised in clinical infections. Metronidazole is often used empirically for potential anaerobic infections, as the resistance to metronidazole is low. However, disadvantages of metronidazole use exist, including drug interactions, side effects and economical expenses. Currently, the balance between the benefits and harms of empirical metronidazole for severe bacterial infections is unknown. We aim to assess patient-important benefits and harms of empirical metronidazole vs. placebo or no treatment in adult patients with severe bacterial infection of any origin in a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol provides details on the planned systematic review, which will be prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, the Cochrane Handbook, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes include adverse events, secondary infections, use of life support, antibiotic resistance and hospital length of stay. We will conduct conventional meta-analyses, including predefined subgroup- and sensitivity analyses. Additionally, we will assess the risk of random errors by trial sequential analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not needed, as the outlined review exclusively will include previously published data. We aim to publish in an international, peer-reviewed journal.

Untargeted antifungal therapy in adult patients with complicated intra-abdominal infection: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews comparing untargeted antifungal treatment with placebo or no treatment in critically ill patients have provided conflicting results. We aimed to assess patient-important benefits and harms of untargeted antifungal therapy vs. placebo or no treatment in adult patients with complicated intra-abdominal infection. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials assessing untargeted antifungal therapy compared to placebo or no treatment in adults with complicated intra-abdominal infection. We used the Cochrane and GRADE methodologies and exclusively assessed patient-important outcomes. Two independent authors screened trials for eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We performed conventional meta-analyses, including sensitivity and subgroup analyses, and trial sequential analysis to assess the risk of random errors and to estimate trial sequential analysis adjusted confidence intervals. RESULTS: We included six trials (1,067 patients) in the review, and four trials reported data on the predefined outcome measures and were included in the meta-analysis. Three of the four trials had high risk of bias. We observed no statistically significant difference in mortality (relative risk 0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.24-1.39) or in any of the other patient-important outcomes between untargeted antifungal treatment and placebo or no treatment (low/very low quality of evidence). Trial sequential analysis demonstrated lack of data and high risk of random errors. CONCLUSIONS: The quantity and quality of evidence supporting untargeted antifungal treatment in adult patients with complicated intra-abdominal infection are low to very low with no firm evidence for benefit or harm.