Long-term outcomes with haloperidol versus placebo in acutely admitted adult ICU patients with delirium.

PURPOSE: We assessed long-term outcomes in acutely admitted adult patients with delirium treated in intensive care unit (ICU) with haloperidol versus placebo. METHODS: We conducted pre-planned analyses of 1-year outcomes in the Agents Intervening against Delirium in the ICU (AID-ICU) trial, including mortality and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessed by Euroqol (EQ) 5-dimension 5-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) index values and EQ visual analogue scale (EQ VAS) (deceased patients were assigned the numeric value zero). Outcomes were analysed using logistic and linear regressions with bootstrapping and G-computation, all with adjustment for the stratification variables (site and delirium motor subtype) and multiple imputations for missing HRQoL values. RESULTS: At 1-year follow-up, we obtained vital status for 96.2% and HRQoL data for 83.3% of the 1000 randomised patients. One-year mortality was 224/501 (44.7%) in the haloperidol group versus 251/486 (51.6%) in the placebo group, with an adjusted absolute risk difference of - 6.4%-points (95% confidence interval [CI] - 12.8%-points to - 0.2%-points; P = 0.045). These results were largely consistent across the secondary analyses. For HRQoL, the adjusted mean differences were 0.04 (95% CI - 0.03 to 0.11; P = 0.091) for EQ-5D-5L-5L index values, and 3.3 (95% CI - 9.3 to 17.5; P = 0.142) for EQ VAS. CONCLUSIONS: In acutely admitted adult ICU patients with delirium, haloperidol treatment reduced mortality at 1-year follow-up, but did not statistically significantly improve HRQoL.

Furosemide versus placebo for fluid overload in intensive care patients-The randomised GODIF trial second version: Statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: Fluid overload is associated with increased mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The GODIF trial aims to assess the benefits and harms of fluid removal with furosemide versus placebo in stable adult patients with moderate to severe fluid overload in the ICU. This article describes the detailed statistical analysis plan for the primary results of the second version of the GODIF trial. METHODS: The GODIF trial is an international, multi-centre, randomised, stratified, blinded, parallel-group, pragmatic clinical trial, allocating 1000 adult ICU patients with moderate to severe fluid overload 1:1 to furosemide versus placebo. The primary outcome is days alive and out of hospital within 90 days post-randomisation. With a power of 90% and an alpha level of 5%, we may reject or detect an improvement of 8%. The primary analyses of all outcomes will be performed in the intention-to-treat population. For the primary outcome, the Kryger Jensen and Lange method will be used to compare the two treatment groups adjusted for stratification variables supplemented with sensitivity analyses in the per-protocol population and with further adjustments for prognostic variables. Secondary outcomes will be analysed with multiple linear regressions, logistic regressions or the Kryger Jensen and Lange method as suitable with adjustment for stratification variables. CONCLUSION: The GODIF trial data will increase the certainty about the effects of fluid removal using furosemide in adult ICU patients with fluid overload. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: EudraCT identifier: 2019-004292-40 and ClinicalTrials.org: NCT04180397.

Haloperidol vs. placebo for the treatment of delirium in ICU patients: a pre-planned, secondary Bayesian analysis of the AID-ICU trial.

PURPOSE: The AID-ICU trial was a randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial investigating effects of haloperidol versus placebo in acutely admitted, adult patients admitted in intensive care unit (ICU) with delirium. This pre-planned Bayesian analysis facilitates probabilistic interpretation of the AID-ICU trial results. METHODS: We used adjusted Bayesian linear and logistic regression models with weakly informative priors to analyse all primary and secondary outcomes reported up to day 90, and with sensitivity analyses using other priors. The probabilities for any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm, and no clinically important differences with haloperidol treatment according to pre-defined thresholds are presented for all outcomes. RESULTS: The mean difference for days alive and out of hospital to day 90 (primary outcome) was 2.9 days (95% credible interval (CrI) - 1.1 to 6.9) with probabilities of 92% for any benefit and 82% for clinically important benefit. The risk difference for mortality was - 6.8 percentage points (95% CrI - 12.8 to - 0.8) with probabilities of 99% for any benefit and 94% for clinically important benefit. The adjusted risk difference for serious adverse reactions was 0.3 percentage points (95% CrI - 1.3 to 1.9) with 98% probability of no clinically important difference. Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses using different priors, with more than 83% probability of benefit and less than 17% probability of harm with haloperidol treatment. CONCLUSIONS: We found high probabilities of benefits and low probabilities of harm with haloperidol treatment compared with placebo in acutely admitted, adult ICU patients with delirium for the primary and most secondary outcomes.

Fecal calprotectin as a biomarker of intestinal inflammation in ICU patients with diarrhea - testing the pipette method against the collection pin and weighing methods.

Fecal calprotectin is an established biomarker in inflammatory bowel disease, but its role in assessment of intestinal inflammation in ICU patients is yet to be explored. ICU patients tend to acquire diarrhea, which complicates the extraction of fecal calprotectin using a collection pin for stool sampling. Pipetting is an alternative sampling method. The aim of the study was to compare the collection pin method with the pipette method for measurement of fecal calprotectin in ICU patients with diarrhea. Stool samples were collected from fecal bags used in the patients and then analyzed for calprotectin using an extraction device and a piston pipette, respectively. In addition, a validation test for the pipette method of extraction was conducted on liquid stool samples. Eleven stool samples were collected from five randomly selected ICU patients. Calprotectin was detectable in all fecal samples. On average the collection pin measured 45% lower than the pipette method with a 95% confidence interval (30 - 59%). The coefficient of variation when using the pipette method was 13% in low calprotectin concentrations and 39% in high concentrations. In conclusion, the pipette method seems to be appropriate for measuring calprotectin in liquid feces, due to practicalities and a greater precision.

Goal directed fluid removal with furosemide versus placebo in intensive care patients with fluid overload: A trial protocol for a randomised, blinded trial (GODIF trial).

BACKGROUND: Fluid overload is a risk factor for mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Administration of loop diuretics is the predominant treatment of fluid overload, but evidence for its benefit is very uncertain when assessed in a systematic review of randomised clinical trials. The GODIF trial will assess the benefits and harms of goal directed fluid removal with furosemide versus placebo in ICU patients with fluid overload. METHODS: An investigator-initiated, international, randomised, stratified, blinded, parallel-group trial allocating 1000 adult ICU patients with fluid overload to infusion of furosemide versus placebo. The goal is to achieve a neutral fluid balance. The primary outcome is days alive and out of hospital 90 days after randomisation. Secondary outcomes are all-cause mortality at day 90 and 1-year after randomisation; days alive at day 90 without life support; number of participants with one or more serious adverse events or reactions; health-related quality of life and cognitive function at 1-year follow-up. A sample size of 1000 participants is required to detect an improvement of 8% in days alive and out of hospital 90 days after randomisation with a power of 90% and a risk of type 1 error of 5%. The conclusion of the trial will be based on the point estimate and 95% confidence interval; dichotomisation will not be used. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT04180397. PERSPECTIVE: The GODIF trial will provide important evidence of possible benefits and harms of fluid removal with furosemide in adult ICU patients with fluid overload.

Agents intervening against delirium in the intensive care unit trial-Protocol for a secondary Bayesian analysis.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is highly prevalent in the intensive care unit (ICU) and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. The antipsychotic haloperidol is the most frequently used agent to treat delirium although this is not supported by solid evidence. The agents intervening against delirium in the intensive care unit (AID-ICU) trial investigates the effects of haloperidol versus placebo for the treatment of delirium in adult ICU patients. METHODS: This protocol describes the secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analyses of the primary and secondary outcomes up to day 90 of the AID-ICU trial. We will use Bayesian linear regression models for all count outcomes and Bayesian logistic regression models for all dichotomous outcomes. We will adjust for stratification variables (site and delirium subtype) and use weakly informative priors supplemented with sensitivity analyses using sceptical priors. We will present results as absolute differences (mean differences and risk differences) and relative differences (ratios of means and relative risks). Posteriors will be summarised using median values as point estimates and percentile-based 95% credibility intervals. Probabilities of any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm and clinically unimportant differences will be presented for all outcomes. DISCUSSION: The results of this secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis will complement the primary frequentist analysis of the AID-ICU trial and facilitate a nuanced and probabilistic interpretation of the trial results.

How Does Tube Size Affect Patients' Experiences of Postoperative Sore Throat and Hoarseness? A Randomised Controlled Blinded Study.

Sore throat (POST) and hoarseness (PH) are common complaints after endotracheal intubation (EI). The aim of this study was to investigate whether tube size impacts the experiences of POST and PH after EI in patients undergoing elective surgery, as well as to document a possible role of gender. This randomised, controlled, blinded study was conducted at Aalborg University Hospital, Thisted, Denmark or North Denmark Regional Hospital, Denmark. A total of 236 patients (53.4% female, mean age 50.9 years (SD 14.0)) were enrolled from the departments of gynaecology, parenchyma and orthopaedics. The patients were randomised to a tube size of 8.0 or 7.0 for males and 7.0 or 6.0 for females. Tube sizes were known to the anaesthesia staff but blinded for patients, researchers and staff at the postoperative care unit. POST and/or PH was reported 30-60 min before anaesthesia, at 30 min and at 2, 5, 12, 24, 48, 72 and 96 h after anaesthesia. Both female and male patients experienced significantly lower levels of POST and PH after intubation with the smallest tube size. This study demonstrates that a smaller size of tube results in a reduction in POST and PH after EI for both male and female patients.

Correction to: Mathematical arterialisation of peripheral venous blood gas for obtainment of arterial blood gas values: a methodological validation study in the clinical setting.

The corresponding author has identified a calculation mistake in the original publication of the article. The corrected value is given in this Correction. Under the Results section, the median (range) age of the patients in the methodological study should read 76 (26-86) years instead of 56 (26-86) years.

Mathematical arterialisation of peripheral venous blood gas for obtainment of arterial blood gas values: a methodological validation study in the clinical setting.

Arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis is an essential tool in the clinical assessment of acutely ill patients. Venous to arterial conversion (v-TAC), a mathematical method, has been developed recently to convert peripheral venous blood gas (VBG) values to arterialized VBG (aVBG) values. The aim of this study was to test the validity of aVBG compared to ABG in an emergency department (ED) setting. Twenty ED patients were included in this study. ABG and three aVBG samples were collected from each patient. The aVBG samples were processed in three different ways to investigate appropriate sample handling. All VBG samples were arterialized using the v-TAC method. ABG and aVBG samples were compared using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), Bland-Altman plots and misclassification analysis. Clinical acceptable threshold of aVBG value deviance from ABG values were ± 0.05 pH units, ± 0.88 kPa pCO2 and ± 0.88 kPa pO2. CCC revealed an agreement in pH and pCO2 parameters for both aVBG in comparison to ABG. In all aVBG samples, an overestimation of pO2 compared to ABG was observed. Bland-Altman plot revealed clinically acceptable mean difference and limits-of-agreement intervals between ABG and aVBG pH and pCO2, but not between ABG and aVBG pO2. Arterialization of VBG using v-TAC is a valid method for measuring pH and pCO2, but not for pO2. Larger clinical studies are required to evaluate the applicability of v-TAC in different patient subpopulations.