Associations between enteral nutrition and outcomes in the SUP-ICU trial: Results of exploratory post hoc analyses.

BACKGROUND: Enteral nutrition may affect risks of gastrointestinal bleeding, pneumonia and mortality in critically ill patients and may also modify the effects of pharmacological stress ulcer prophylaxis. We undertook post hoc analyses of the stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit trial to assess for any associations and interactions between enteral nutrition and pantoprazole. METHODS: Extended Cox models with time-varying co-variates and competing events were used to assess potential associations, adjusted for baseline severity of illness. Potential interactions between daily enteral nutrition and allocation to pantoprazole on outcomes were similarly assessed. RESULTS: Enteral nutrition was associated with lower risk of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding (cause-specific hazard ratio [HR]: 0.29, 95% confidence interval: [CI] 0.19-0.44, p < .001), higher risk of pneumonia (HR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.14-1.82, p = .003), and lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.18-0.27, p < .001). Enteral nutrition with allocation to pantoprazole was associated with a lower risk of mortality (HR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.21-0.35, p < .001), similar to enteral nutrition with allocation to placebo (HR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.13-0.23, p < .001). Allocation to pantoprazole with no enteral nutrition had little effect on mortality (HR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.63-1.09, p = .179), whilst allocation to pantoprazole and receipt of enteral nutrition was mostly compatible with increased all-cause mortality (HR: 1.27, 95% CI: 0.99-1.64, p = .061). The test of interaction between enteral nutrition and pantoprazole treatment allocation for all-cause mortality was statistically significant (p = .024). CONCLUSIONS: Enteral nutrition was associated with an increased risk of pneumonia and a reduced risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. The interaction between pantoprazole and enteral nutrition suggesting an increased risk of mortality requires further study.

Trends in Lower Extremity Artery Disease Repair Incidence, Comorbidity, and Mortality: A Danish Nationwide Cohort Study, 1996-2018.

Background: The prevalence of occlusive lower extremity artery disease (LEAD) is rising worldwide while European epidemiology data are scarce. We report incidence and mortality of LEAD repair in Denmark from 1996 through 2018, stratified on open aorto-iliac, open peripheral, and endovascular repair. Methods: A nationwide cohort study of prospective data from population-based Danish registers covering 1996 to 2018. Comorbidity was assessed by Charlson's Comorbidity Index (CCI). Incidence rate (IR) ratios and mortality rate ratios (MRR) were estimated by multivariable Poisson and Cox regression, respectively. Results: We identified 41,438 unique patients undergoing 46,236 incident first-time LEAD repairs by either aorto-iliac- (n=5213), peripheral surgery (n=18,665) or percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA, n=22,358). From 1996 to 2018, the age- and sex-standardized IR for primary revascularization declined from 71.8 to 50.2 per 100,000 person-years (IRR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.66-0.75). Following a 2.5-fold IR increase of PTA from 1996 to 2010, all three repair techniques showed a declining trend after 2010. The declining IR was driven by decreasing LEAD repair due to claudication, and by persons aged below 80 years, while the IR increased in persons aged above 80 years (p interaction<0.001). LEAD repair was more frequent in men (IRRfemale vs male, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.77-0.80), which was consistent over calendar time (p interaction=0.41). Crude mortality decreased following open/surgical repair, and increased following PTA, but all three techniques trended towards lower adjusted mortality comparing the start and the end of the study period (MRRaorto-iliac, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54-0.93 vs MRRperipheral, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69-0.83 vs MRRPTA, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.86-1.07). Increasing age and CCI, male sex, smoking, and care dependency associated with increased mortality. Conclusion: The incidence rate of LEAD repair decreased in Denmark from 1996 to 2018, especially in persons younger than 80 years, and primarily due to reduced revascularization for claudication. Adjusted mortality rates decreased following open surgery, but seemed unaltered following PTA.

Trends in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair Incidence, Comorbidity, Treatment, and Mortality: A Danish Nationwide Cohort Study, 1996-2018.

Background: Significant changes in Western populations' abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) epidemiology have been reported following the introduction of screening, endovascular AAA repair, and reduced tobacco consumption. We report incidence and mortality of AAA repair in Denmark from 1996 to 2018, where AAA screening was not implemented. Methods: Nationwide cohort study of prospective data from population-based Danish registries covering 1996 to 2018. We identified 15,395 patients undergoing first-time AAA repair using the Danish Vascular Registry. Comorbidity was assessed by Charlson's Comorbidity Index (CCI). Incidence rate (IR) ratios and mortality rate ratios (MRR) were estimated by multivariable Poisson and Cox regression, respectively. Results: Overall AAA repair IR decreased by 24% from 1996 through 2018, mainly reflecting a 53% IR reduction in ruptured AAA repairs in men. Overall, the IR decreased 52-63% in age groups below 70 years and increased 81% among octogenarians. The proportion of intact AAAs repaired endovascularly increased from 2% in 1996-1999 to 42% in 2015-2018. For both ruptured and intact AAAs the CCI score increased by 0.9% annually independently of age and sex. The adjusted five-year MRR in 2016-2018 vs.1996-2000 was 0.46 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.39-0.54) following ruptured and 0.51 (95% CI: 0.44-0.59) following intact AAA repair. Conclusion: In Denmark, overall AAA repair incidence decreased between 1996 and 2018, primarily reflecting a reduction among males and a shift to an older population requiring intervention. These trends mirror changes in tobacco consumption in Denmark. Regardless of age and comorbidity, AAA repair mortality decreased markedly during the study period.

Higher versus lower fractions of inspired oxygen or targets of arterial oxygenation for adults admitted to the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated review concerning 'Higher versus lower fractions of inspired oxygen or targets of arterial oxygenation for adults admitted to the intensive care unit'. Supplementary oxygen is provided to most patients in intensive care units (ICUs) to prevent global and organ hypoxia (inadequate oxygen levels). Oxygen has been administered liberally, resulting in high proportions of patients with hyperoxemia (exposure of tissues to abnormally high concentrations of oxygen). This has been associated with increased mortality and morbidity in some settings, but not in others. Thus far, only limited data have been available to inform clinical practice guidelines, and the optimum oxygenation target for ICU patients is uncertain. Because of the publication of new trial evidence, we have updated this review. OBJECTIVES: To update the assessment of benefits and harms of higher versus lower fractions of inspired oxygen (FiO2) or targets of arterial oxygenation for adults admitted to the ICU. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Previews, and LILACS. We searched for ongoing or unpublished trials in clinical trial registers and scanned the reference lists and citations of included trials. Literature searches for this updated review were conducted in November 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared higher versus lower FiO2 or targets of arterial oxygenation (partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2), peripheral or arterial oxygen saturation (SpO2 or SaO2)) for adults admitted to the ICU. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, and language. We excluded trials randomising participants to hypoxaemia (FiO2 below 0.21, SaO2/SpO2 below 80%, or PaO2 below 6 kPa) or to hyperbaric oxygen, and cross-over trials and quasi-randomised trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors independently, and in pairs, screened the references identified in the literature searches and extracted the data. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, the proportion of participants with one or more serious adverse events (SAEs), and quality of life. We analysed all outcomes at maximum follow-up. Only three trials reported the proportion of participants with one or more SAEs as a composite outcome. However, most trials reported on events categorised as SAEs according to the International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP) criteria. We, therefore, conducted two analyses of the effect of higher versus lower oxygenation strategies using 1) the single SAE with the highest reported proportion in each trial, and 2) the cumulated proportion of participants with an SAE in each trial. Two trials reported on quality of life. Secondary outcomes were lung injury, myocardial infarction, stroke, and sepsis. No trial reported on lung injury as a composite outcome, but four trials reported on the occurrence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and five on pneumonia. We, therefore, conducted two analyses of the effect of higher versus lower oxygenation strategies using 1) the single lung injury event with the highest reported proportion in each trial, and 2) the cumulated proportion of participants with ARDS or pneumonia in each trial. We assessed the risk of systematic errors by evaluating the risk of bias in the included trials using the Risk of Bias 2 tool. We used the GRADEpro tool to assess the overall certainty of the evidence. We also evaluated the risk of publication bias for outcomes reported by 10b or more trials. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 RCTs (10,385 participants), of which 17 reported relevant outcomes for this review (10,248 participants). For all-cause mortality, 10 trials were judged to be at overall low risk of bias, and six at overall high risk of bias. For the reported SAEs, 10 trials were judged to be at overall low risk of bias, and seven at overall high risk of bias. Two trials reported on quality of life, of which one was judged to be at overall low risk of bias and one at high risk of bias for this outcome. Meta-analysis of all trials, regardless of risk of bias, indicated no significant difference from higher or lower oxygenation strategies at maximum follow-up with regard to mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (C)I 0.96 to 1.06; I2 = 14%; 16 trials; 9408 participants; very low-certainty evidence); occurrence of SAEs: the highest proportion of any specific SAE in each trial RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.06; I2 = 36%; 9466 participants; 17 trials; very low-certainty evidence), or quality of life (mean difference (MD) 0.5 points in participants assigned to higher oxygenation strategies (95% CI -2.75 to 1.75; I2 = 34%, 1649 participants; 2 trials; very low-certainty evidence)). Meta-analysis of the cumulated number of SAEs suggested benefit of a lower oxygenation strategy (RR 1.04 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.07; I2 = 74%; 9489 participants; 17 trials; very low certainty evidence)). However, trial sequential analyses, with correction for sparse data and repetitive testing, could reject a relative risk increase or reduction of 10% for mortality and the highest proportion of SAEs, and 20% for both the cumulated number of SAEs and quality of life. Given the very low-certainty of evidence, it is necessary to interpret these findings with caution. Meta-analysis of all trials indicated no statistically significant evidence of a difference between higher or lower oxygenation strategies on the occurrence of lung injuries at maximum follow-up (the highest reported proportion of lung injury RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.38; I2 = 0%; 2048 participants; 8 trials; very low-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis of all trials indicated harm from higher oxygenation strategies as compared with lower on the occurrence of sepsis at maximum follow-up (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.93; I2 = 0%; 752 participants; 3 trials; very low-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis indicated no differences regarding the occurrences of myocardial infarction or stroke. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In adult ICU patients, it is still not possible to draw clear conclusions about the effects of higher versus lower oxygenation strategies on all-cause mortality, SAEs, quality of life, lung injuries, myocardial infarction, stroke, and sepsis at maximum follow-up. This is due to low or very low-certainty evidence.

Haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Haloperidol is frequently used in critically ill patients with delirium, but evidence for its effects has been sparse and inconclusive. By including recent trials, we updated a systematic review assessing effects of haloperidol on mortality and serious adverse events in critically ill patients with delirium. METHODS: This is an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials investigating haloperidol versus placebo or any comparator in critically ill patients with delirium. We adhered to the Cochrane handbook, the PRISMA guidelines and the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation statements. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and proportion of patients with one or more serious adverse events or reactions (SAEs/SARs). Secondary outcomes were days alive without delirium or coma, delirium severity, cognitive function and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: We included 11 RCTs with 15 comparisons (n = 2200); five were placebo-controlled. The relative risk for mortality with haloperidol versus placebo was 0.89; 96.7% CI 0.77 to 1.03; I2 = 0% (moderate-certainty evidence) and for proportion of patients experiencing SAEs/SARs 0.94; 96.7% CI 0.81 to 1.10; I2 = 18% (low-certainty evidence). We found no difference in days alive without delirium or coma (moderate-certainty evidence). We found sparse data for other secondary outcomes and other comparators than placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Haloperidol may reduce mortality and likely result in little to no change in the occurrence of SAEs/SARs compared with placebo in critically ill patients with delirium. However, the results were not statistically significant and more trial data are needed to provide higher certainty for the effects of haloperidol in these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42017081133, date of registration 28 November 2017.

Long-term effects of restriction of intravenous fluid in adult ICU patients with septic shock.

PURPOSE: To assess long-term outcomes of restrictive versus standard intravenous (IV) fluid therapy in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock included in the European Conservative versus Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy in Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial. METHODS: We conducted the pre-planned analyses of mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using EuroQol (EQ)-5D-5L index values and EQ visual analogue scale (VAS), and cognitive function using Mini Montreal Cognitive Assessment (Mini MoCA) test at 1 year. Deceased patients were assigned numerical zero for HRQoL as a state equal to death and zero for cognitive function outcomes as worst possible score, and we used multiple imputation for missing data on HRQoL and cognitive function. RESULTS: Among 1554 randomized patients, we obtained 1-year data on mortality in 97.9% of patients, HRQoL in 91.3%, and cognitive function in 86.3%. One-year mortality was 385/746 (51.3%) in the restrictive-fluid group versus 383/767 (49.9%) in the standard-fluid group, absolute risk difference 1.5%-points [99% confidence interval (CI) - 4.8 to 7.8]. Mean differences were 0.00 (99% CI - 0.06 to 0.05) for EQ-5D-5L index values, - 0.65 for EQ VAS (- 5.40 to 4.08), and - 0.14 for Mini MoCA (- 1.59 to 1.14) for the restrictive-fluid group versus the standard-fluid group. The results for survivors only were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among adult ICU patients with septic shock, restrictive versus standard IV fluid therapy resulted in similar survival, HRQoL, and cognitive function at 1 year, but clinically important differences could not be ruled out.

Eversion technique versus traditional carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty: a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis.

Introduction: The use of an 'eversion' technique is not unequivocally proven to be superior to carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty. An up-to-date systematic review is needed for evaluation of benefits and harms of these two techniques. Methods: RCTs comparing eversion technique versus endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in patients with a symptomatic and significant (≥50 %) stenosis of the internal carotid artery were enrolled. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality rate, health-related quality of life and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes included 30-day stroke and mortality rate, (a) symptomatic arterial occlusion or restenosis, and adverse events not critical for decision making. Results: Four RCTs were included with 1272 surgical procedures for carotid stenosis; eversion technique n = 643 and carotid endarterectomy with patch closure n = 629. Meta-analysis comparing both techniques showed, with a very low certainty of evidence, that eversion technique might decrease the number of patients with serious adverse events (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.64; p ≤ 0.01). However, no difference was found on the other outcomes. TSA demonstrated that the required information sizes were far from being reached for these patient-important outcomes. All patient-relevant outcomes were at low certainty of evidence according to GRADE. Conclusions: This systematic review showed no conclusive evidence of any difference between eversion technique and carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in carotid surgery. These conclusions are based on data obtained in trials with very low certainty according to GRADE and should therefore be interpreted cautiously. Until conclusive evidence is obtained, the standard of care according to ESVS guidelines should not be abandoned.

Lower vs Higher Fluid Volumes in Adult Patients With Sepsis: An Updated Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

BACKGROUND: IV fluids are recommended for adults with sepsis. However, the optimal strategy for IV fluid management in sepsis is unknown, and clinical equipoise exists. RESEARCH QUESTION: Do lower vs higher fluid volumes improve patient-important outcomes in adult patients with sepsis? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We updated a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials assessing lower vs higher IV fluid volumes in adult patients with sepsis. The coprimary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. We followed the recommendations from the Cochrane Handbook and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Primary conclusions were based on trials with low risk of bias if available. RESULTS: We included 13 trials (N = 4,006) with four trials (n = 3,385) added to this update. The meta-analysis of all-cause mortality in eight trials with low risk of bias showed a relative risk of 0.99 (97% CI, 0.89-1.10; moderate certainty evidence). Six trials with predefined definitions of serious adverse events showed a relative risk of 0.95 (97% CI, 0.83-1.07; low certainty evidence). Health-related quality of life was not reported. INTERPRETATION: Among adult patients with sepsis, lower IV fluid volumes probably result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality compared with higher IV fluid volumes, but the interpretation is limited by imprecision in the estimate, which does not exclude potential benefit or harm. Similarly, the evidence suggests lower IV fluid volumes result in little to no difference in serious adverse events. No trials reported on health-related quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO; No.: CRD42022312572; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.

Associations between enteral nutrition and outcomes in the SUP-ICU trial: Protocol for exploratory post hoc analyses.

Critically ill patients are at risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Counter measures to minimise this risk include the use of pharmacological stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP). The effect of enteral nutrition as SUP on GI bleeding event rates is unknown. There are conflicting data describing the effect of co-administration of enteral nutrition with pharmacological SUP, and there is substantial variation in practice. We aim to conduct an exploratory post hoc analysis to evaluate the association of enteral nutrition with clinically important GI bleed rates in ICU patients included in the SUP-ICU trial, and to explore any interactions between enteral nutrition and pharmacologic SUP on patient outcomes. The SUP-ICU trial dataset will be used to assess if enteral nutrition is associated with the outcomes of interest. Extended Cox models will be used considering relevant competing events, including treatment allocation (SUP or placebo) and enteral nutrition as a daily time-varying covariate, with additional adjustment for severity of illness (SAPS II). Results will be presented as adjusted hazard ratios for treatment allocation and enteral nutrition, and for treatment allocation and enteral nutrition considering potential interactions with the other variable, all with 95% confidence intervals and p-values for the tests of interaction. All results will be considered as exploratory only. This post hoc analysis may yield important insights to guide practice and inform the design of future randomised clinical trial investigating the effect of enteral nutrition on GI bleeding.

Dexmedetomidine for the prevention of delirium in adults admitted to the intensive care unit or post-operative care unit: A systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess any benefit or harm, we conducted a systematic review of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) allocating adults to dexmedetomidine versus placebo/no intervention for the prevention of delirium in intensive care or post-operative care units. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline, Embase, CENTRAL and other databases. The last search was 9 April 2022. DATA EXTRACTION: Literature screening, data extraction and risk of bias volume 2 assessments were performed independently and in duplicate. Primary outcomes were occurrences of serious adverse events (SAEs), delirium and all-cause mortality. We used meta-analysis, Trial Sequential Analysis, and GRADE (Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). DATA SYNTHESIS: Eighty-one RCTs (15,745 patients) provided data for our primary outcomes. Results from trials at low risk of bias showed that dexmedetomidine may reduce the occurrence of the most frequently reported SAEs (relative risk [RR] 0.69; 95% CI 0.43-1.09), cumulated SAEs (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.52-0.95) and the occurrence of delirium (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.43-0.89). The certainty of evidence was very low for delirium. Mortality was very low in trials at low risk of bias (0.4% in the dexmedetomidine groups and 1.0% in the control groups) and meta-analysis did not provide conclusive evidence that dexmedetomidine may result in lower or higher all-cause mortality (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.18-1.21). There was a lack of information from trial results at low risk of bias for all primary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Trial results at low risk of bias showed that dexmedetomidine might reduce occurrences of SAEs and delirium, while no conclusive evidence was found for effects on all-cause mortality. The certainty of evidence ranged from very low for occurrence of delirium to low for the remaining outcomes.

Implementation of video laryngoscopes and the development in airway management strategy and prevalence of difficult tracheal intubation: A national cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the development in the use of video laryngoscopy over a 9-year period, and its possible impact on airway planning and management. METHODS: We retrieved 822,259 records of tracheal intubations recorded from 2008 to 2016 in the Danish Anaesthesia Database. The circumstances regarding pre-operative airway assessment, the scheduled airway management plan and the actual airway management concerning video laryngoscopy were reported for each year of observation. Further, the association between year of observation and various airway management related outcomes was evaluated by multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: There was a significant increase in airway management with 'advanced technique successfully used within two attempts' from 2.7% in 2008 to 15.5% in 2016 (p < .0001). This predominantly reflects use of video laryngoscopy. The prevalence of tracheal intubations 'scheduled for video laryngoscopy' increased from 3.5% in 2008 to 10.6% in 2016 (p < .0001). We found a significant increase in the prevalence of anticipated difficulties with intubations by direct laryngoscopy from 1.8% in 2008 to 5.2% in 2016 (p < .0001). The prevalence of failed tracheal intubations decreased from 0.14% in 2008 to 0.05% in 2016 (p < .0001). CONCLUSION: From 2008 to 2016, a period of massive implementation of video laryngoscopes, a significant change in airway management behaviour was recorded. Increasingly, video laryngoscopy is becoming a first-choice device for both acute and routine airway management. Most importantly, the data showed a noticeable reduction in failed intubation over the time of observation.

Haloperidol for the Treatment of Delirium in ICU Patients.

BACKGROUND: Haloperidol is frequently used to treat delirium in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), but evidence of its effect is limited. METHODS: In this multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned adult patients with delirium who had been admitted to the ICU for an acute condition to receive intravenous haloperidol (2.5 mg 3 times daily plus 2.5 mg as needed up to a total maximum daily dose of 20 mg) or placebo. Haloperidol or placebo was administered in the ICU for as long as delirium continued and as needed for recurrences. The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of the hospital at 90 days after randomization. RESULTS: A total of 1000 patients underwent randomization; 510 were assigned to the haloperidol group and 490 to the placebo group. Among these patients, 987 (98.7%) were included in the final analyses (501 in the haloperidol group and 486 in the placebo group). Primary outcome data were available for 963 patients (97.6%). At 90 days, the mean number of days alive and out of the hospital was 35.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 32.9 to 38.6) in the haloperidol group and 32.9 (95% CI, 29.9 to 35.8) in the placebo group, with an adjusted mean difference of 2.9 days (95% CI, -1.2 to 7.0) (P = 0.22). Mortality at 90 days was 36.3% in the haloperidol group and 43.3% in the placebo group (adjusted absolute difference, -6.9 percentage points [95% CI, -13.0 to -0.6]). Serious adverse reactions occurred in 11 patients in the haloperidol group and in 9 patients in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients in the ICU with delirium, treatment with haloperidol did not lead to a significantly greater number of days alive and out of the hospital at 90 days than placebo. (Funded by Innovation Fund Denmark and others; AID-ICU ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03392376; EudraCT number, 2017-003829-15.).

Anticoagulants for thrombosis prophylaxis in acutely ill patients admitted to hospital: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the benefits and harms of different types and doses of anticoagulant drugs for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients who are acutely ill and admitted to hospital. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane CENTRAL, PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, clinical trial registries, and national health authority databases. The search was last updated on 16 November 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials that evaluated low or intermediate dose low-molecular-weight heparin, low or intermediate dose unfractionated heparin, direct oral anticoagulants, pentasaccharides, placebo, or no intervention for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in acutely ill adult patients in hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Random effects, bayesian network meta-analyses used four co-primary outcomes: all cause mortality, symptomatic venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and serious adverse events at or closest timing to 90 days. Risk of bias was also assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2.0 tool. The quality of evidence was graded using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis framework. RESULTS: 44 randomised controlled trials that randomly assigned 90 095 participants were included in the main analysis. Evidence of low to moderate quality suggested none of the interventions reduced all cause mortality compared with placebo. Pentasaccharides (odds ratio 0.32, 95% credible interval 0.08 to 1.07), intermediate dose low-molecular-weight heparin (0.66, 0.46 to 0.93), direct oral anticoagulants (0.68, 0.33 to 1.34), and intermediate dose unfractionated heparin (0.71, 0.43 to 1.19) were most likely to reduce symptomatic venous thromboembolism (very low to low quality evidence). Intermediate dose unfractionated heparin (2.63, 1.00 to 6.21) and direct oral anticoagulants (2.31, 0.82 to 6.47) were most likely to increase major bleeding (low to moderate quality evidence). No conclusive differences were noted between interventions regarding serious adverse events (very low to low quality evidence). When compared with no intervention instead of placebo, all active interventions did more favourably with regard to risk of venous thromboembolism and mortality, and less favourably with regard to risk of major bleeding. The results were robust in prespecified sensitivity and subgroup analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Low-molecular-weight heparin in an intermediate dose appears to confer the best balance of benefits and harms for prevention of venous thromboembolism. Unfractionated heparin, in particular the intermediate dose, and direct oral anticoagulants had the least favourable profile. A systematic discrepancy was noted in intervention effects that depended on whether placebo or no intervention was the reference treatment. Main limitations of this study include the quality of the evidence, which was generally low to moderate due to imprecision and within-study bias, and statistical inconsistency, which was addressed post hoc. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020173088.

Restriction of Intravenous Fluid in ICU Patients with Septic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous fluids are recommended for the treatment of patients who are in septic shock, but higher fluid volumes have been associated with harm in patients who are in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: In this international, randomized trial, we assigned patients with septic shock in the ICU who had received at least 1 liter of intravenous fluid to receive restricted intravenous fluid or standard intravenous fluid therapy; patients were included if the onset of shock had been within 12 hours before screening. The primary outcome was death from any cause within 90 days after randomization. RESULTS: We enrolled 1554 patients; 770 were assigned to the restrictive-fluid group and 784 to the standard-fluid group. Primary outcome data were available for 1545 patients (99.4%). In the ICU, the restrictive-fluid group received a median of 1798 ml of intravenous fluid (interquartile range, 500 to 4366); the standard-fluid group received a median of 3811 ml (interquartile range, 1861 to 6762). At 90 days, death had occurred in 323 of 764 patients (42.3%) in the restrictive-fluid group, as compared with 329 of 781 patients (42.1%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.7 to 4.9; P = 0.96). In the ICU, serious adverse events occurred at least once in 221 of 751 patients (29.4%) in the restrictive-fluid group and in 238 of 772 patients (30.8%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, -1.7 percentage points; 99% CI, -7.7 to 4.3). At 90 days after randomization, the numbers of days alive without life support and days alive and out of the hospital were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among adult patients with septic shock in the ICU, intravenous fluid restriction did not result in fewer deaths at 90 days than standard intravenous fluid therapy. (Funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and others; CLASSIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03668236.).

Long-term mortality and health-related quality of life of lower versus higher oxygenation targets in ICU patients with severe hypoxaemia.

PURPOSE: We assessed outcomes after 1 year of lower versus higher oxygenation targets in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with severe hypoxaemia. METHODS: Pre-planned analyses evaluating 1-year mortality and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) outcomes in the previously published Handling Oxygenation Targets in the ICU trial which randomised 2928 adults with acute hypoxaemia to targets of arterial oxygen of 8 kPa or 12 kPa throughout the ICU stay up to 90 days. One-year all-cause mortality was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. HRQoL was assessed using EuroQol 5 dimensions 5 levels (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire and EQ visual analogue scale score (EQ-VAS), and analyses were conducted in both survivors only and the intention-to-treat population with assignment of the worst scores to deceased patients. RESULTS: We obtained 1-year vital status for 2887/2928 (98.6%), and HRQoL for 2600/2928 (88.8%) of the trial population. One year after randomisation, 707/1442 patients (49%) in the lower oxygenation group vs. 704/1445 (48.7%) in the higher oxygenation group had died (adjusted risk ratio 1.00; 95% confidence interval 0.93-1.08, p = 0.92). In total, 1189/1476 (80.4%) 1-year survivors participated in HRQoL interviews: median EQ-VAS scores were 65 (interquartile range 50-80) in the lower oxygenation group versus 67 (50-80) in the higher oxygenation group (p = 0.98). None of the five EQ-5D-5L dimensions differed between groups. CONCLUSION: Among adult ICU patients with severe hypoxaemia, a lower oxygenation target (8 kPa) did not improve survival or HRQoL at 1 year as compared to a higher oxygenation target (12 kPa).

Hyperoxia and Antioxidants for Myocardial Injury in Noncardiac Surgery: A 2 × 2 Factorial, Blinded, Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Hyperoxia and oxidative stress may be associated with increased risk of myocardial injury. The authors hypothesized that a perioperative inspiratory oxygen fraction of 0.80 versus 0.30 would increase the degree of myocardial injury within the first 3 days of surgery, and that an antioxidant intervention would reduce degree of myocardial injury versus placebo. METHODS: A 2 × 2 factorial, randomized, blinded, multicenter trial enrolled patients older than 45 yr who had cardiovascular risk factors undergoing major noncardiac surgery. Factorial randomization allocated patients to one of two oxygen interventions from intubation and at 2 h after surgery, as well as antioxidant intervention or matching placebo. Antioxidants were 3 g IV vitamin C and 100 mg/kg N-acetylcysteine. The primary outcome was the degree of myocardial injury assessed by the area under the curve for high-sensitive troponin within the first 3 postoperative days. RESULTS: The authors randomized 600 participants from April 2018 to January 2020 and analyzed 576 patients for the primary outcome. Baseline and intraoperative characteristics did not differ between groups. The primary outcome was 35 ng · day/l (19 to 58) in the 80% oxygen group; 35 ng · day/l (17 to 56) in the 30% oxygen group; 35 ng · day/l (19 to 54) in the antioxidants group; and 33 ng · day/l (18 to 57) in the placebo group. The median difference between oxygen groups was 1.5 ng · day/l (95% CI, -2.5 to 5.3; P = 0.202) and -0.5 ng · day/l (95% CI, -4.5 to 3.0; P = 0.228) between antioxidant groups. Mortality at 30 days occurred in 9 of 576 patients (1.6%; odds ratio, 2.01 [95% CI, 0.50 to 8.1]; P = 0.329 for the 80% vs. 30% oxygen groups; and odds ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.214 to 2.99]; P = 0.732 for the antioxidants vs. placebo groups). CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative interventions with high inspiratory oxygen fraction and antioxidants did not change the degree of myocardial injury within the first 3 days of surgery. This implies safety with 80% oxygen and no cardiovascular benefits of vitamin C and N-acetylcysteine in major noncardiac surgery.

Oxygenation targets in ICU patients with COVID-19: A post hoc subgroup analysis of the HOT-ICU trial.

BACKGROUND: Supplemental oxygen is the key intervention for severe and critical COVID-19 patients. With the unstable supplies of oxygen in many countries, it is important to define the lowest safe dosage. METHODS: In spring 2020, 110 COVID-19 patients were enrolled as part of the Handling Oxygenation Targets in the ICU trial (HOT-ICU). Patients were allocated within 12 h of ICU admission. Oxygen therapy was titrated to a partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2 ) of 8 kPa (lower oxygenation group) or a PaO2 of 12 kPa (higher oxygenation group) during ICU stay up to 90 days. We report key outcomes at 90 days for the subgroup of COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: At 90 days, 22 of 54 patients (40.7%) in the lower oxygenation group and 23 of 55 patients (41.8%) in the higher oxygenation group had died (adjusted risk ratio: 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.32). The percentage of days alive without life support was significantly higher in the lower oxygenation group (p = 0.03). The numbers of severe ischemic events were low with no difference between the two groups. Proning and inhaled vasodilators were used more frequently, and the positive end-expiratory pressure was higher in the higher oxygenation group. Tests for interactions with the results of the remaining HOT-ICU population were insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: Targeting a PaO2 of 8 kPa may be beneficial in ICU patients with COVID-19. These results come with uncertainty due to the low number of patients in this unplanned subgroup analysis, and insignificant tests for interaction with the main HOT-ICU trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03174002. Date of registration: June 2, 2017.

Letter the editor: serious methodological concerns about a recently published meta-analysis on oxygen therapy.

In a recent paper, Chen et al. report the findings of a systematic review with meta-analysis concerning conservative versus conventional oxygen therapy for critically ill patients. We wish to commend the authors for their interest in the matter. However, the authors appear to misquote findings, fail to report results for all specified analyses, do not identify all relevant trials, have post hoc changed the eligibility criteria, and have seemingly switched directions of effects in analyses of secondary outcomes. These issues have led to incorrect conclusions concerning the effects of targeted oxygen therapy in critically ill patients.