Differential Effect of PEEP Strategies in ARDS Patients: A Bayesian Analysis of Clinical Subphenotypes.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a heterogeneous condition with two subphenotypes identified by different methodologies. Our group similarly identified two ARDS subphenotypes using nine routinely available clinical variables. However, whether these are associated with differential response to treatment has yet to be explored. RESEARCH QUESTION: Are there differential responses to positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) strategies on 28-day mortality according to subphenotypes in adult patients with ARDS? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We evaluated data from two prior ARDS trials (ALVEOLI and ART) that compared different PEEP strategies. We classified patients into one of two subphenotypes as previously described. We assessed the differential effect of PEEP with a Bayesian hierarchical logistic model for the primary outcome of 28-day mortality. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 1559 ARDS patients. Compared to lower PEEP, a higher PEEP strategy resulted in higher 28-day mortality in subphenotype A patients in ALVEOLI (OR, 1.61 [95% CrI 0.90 to 2.94]) and ART (OR 1.73 [ 95% CrI 1.01 to 2.98]), with a probability of harm from higher PEEP in this subphenotype of 94.3% and 97.7% in ALVEOLI and ART, respectively. Higher PEEP was not associated with mortality in subphenotype B patients in each trial (OR, 0.95 [95% CrI, 0.51 to 1.73]) and (OR, 1.00 [95% CrI 0.63 to 1.55]); probability of benefit of 56.4% and 50.7% in ALVEOLI and ART, respectively. These effects were not modified by PaO2/FiO2 ratio, driving pressure, or the severity of illness for the cohorts. INTERPRETATION: We found evidence of differential response to PEEP strategies across two ARDS subphenotypes, suggesting possible harm with a higher PEEP strategy in one subphenotype. These observations may assist with predictive enrichment in future clinical trials.

European Society of Intensive Care Medicine clinical practice guideline on fluid therapy in adult critically ill patients. Part 1: the choice of resuscitation fluids.

PURPOSE: This is the first of three parts of the clinical practice guideline from the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) on resuscitation fluids in adult critically ill patients. This part addresses fluid choice and the other two will separately address fluid amount and fluid removal. METHODS: This guideline was formulated by an international panel of clinical experts and methodologists. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was applied to evaluate the certainty of evidence and to move from evidence to decision. RESULTS: For volume expansion, the guideline provides conditional recommendations for using crystalloids rather than albumin in critically ill patients in general (moderate certainty of evidence), in patients with sepsis (moderate certainty of evidence), in patients with acute respiratory failure (very low certainty of evidence) and in patients in the perioperative period and patients at risk for bleeding (very low certainty of evidence). There is a conditional recommendation for using isotonic saline rather than albumin in patients with traumatic brain injury (very low certainty of evidence). There is a conditional recommendation for using albumin rather than crystalloids in patients with cirrhosis (very low certainty of evidence). The guideline provides conditional recommendations for using balanced crystalloids rather than isotonic saline in critically ill patients in general (low certainty of evidence), in patients with sepsis (low certainty of evidence) and in patients with kidney injury (very low certainty of evidence). There is a conditional recommendation for using isotonic saline rather than balanced crystalloids in patients with traumatic brain injury (very low certainty of evidence). There is a conditional recommendation for using isotonic crystalloids rather than small-volume hypertonic crystalloids in critically ill patients in general (very low certainty of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: This guideline provides eleven recommendations to inform clinicians on resuscitation fluid choice in critically ill patients.

Sepsis-associated acute kidney injury: recent advances in enrichment strategies, sub-phenotyping and clinical trials.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) often complicates sepsis and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, several important clinical trials have improved our understanding of sepsis-associated AKI (SA-AKI) and impacted clinical care. Advances in sub-phenotyping of sepsis and AKI and clinical trial design offer unprecedented opportunities to fill gaps in knowledge and generate better evidence for improving the outcome of critically ill patients with SA-AKI. In this manuscript, we review the recent literature of clinical trials in sepsis with focus on studies that explore SA-AKI as a primary or secondary outcome. We discuss lessons learned and potential opportunities to improve the design of clinical trials and generate actionable evidence in future research. We specifically discuss the role of enrichment strategies to target populations that are most likely to derive benefit and the importance of patient-centered clinical trial endpoints and appropriate trial designs with the aim to provide guidance in designing future trials.

Hierarchical endpoints in critical care: A post-hoc exploratory analysis of the standard versus accelerated initiation of renal-replacement therapy in acute kidney injury and the intensity of continuous renal-replacement therapy in critically ill patients trials.

PURPOSE: To perform a post-hoc reanalysis of the Standard versus Accelerated Initiation of Renal-Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) and the Intensity of Continuous Renal-Replacement Therapy in Critically Ill Patients (RENAL) trials through hierarchical composite endpoint analysis using win ratio (WR). MATERIAL AND METHODS: All patients with complete information from the STARRT-AKI (which compared accelerated versus standard approaches for renal replacement therapy - RRT initiation) and RENAL (which compared two different RRT doses in critically ill patients) trials were selected. WR was defined as a hierarchical composite endpoint using 90-day mortality, RRT dependency at 90-days, intensive care unit (ICU) length-of-stay (LOS), and hospital LOS (primary analysis); values above the unit represent a benefit of the intervention for the hierarchical composite endpoint. A secondary analysis replacing LOS by days alive and free of RRT was performed. Stratified analyses were performed according to illness severity score, surgical status, and the presence of sepsis. RESULTS: The WR analysis produced 2,141,830 pairs for the STARRT-AKI trial and 536,446 pairs for the RENAL trial, respectively. The WR results for STARRT-AKI and RENAL were 1.04 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96-1.13; p = 0.33) and 1.02 (95% CI; 0.90-1.15; p = 0.75) for the primary analysis, and 0.88 (95% CI; 0.79-0.99; p = 0.03) and 1.02 (95% CI; 0.87-1.21; p = 0.77) for the secondary analysis, respectively. The stratified analysis of the primary suggested possible benefit of the accelerated-strategy in the STARRT-AKI trial for non-surgical patients with sepsis, while the secondary analysis suggested possible harm of the accelerated-strategy for surgical patients without sepsis. There was no evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effects in stratified analyses in the RENAL trial. CONCLUSION: WR approach using a hierarchical composite endpoint is feasible for trials in critical care nephrology. The primary re-analyses of the STARRT-AKI and RENAL trials both yielded neutral results; however, there was suggestion of heterogeneity in treatment effect in stratified analyses of the STARRT-AKI trial by surgical status and sepsis. Selection of the endpoints and hierarchical ordering before trial design using the WR approach can have important implications for trial interpretation. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02568722 (STARRT-AKI) and NCT00076219 (RENAL).

The Association Between Prepandemic ICU Performance and Mortality Variation in COVID-19: A Multicenter Cohort Study of 35,619 Critically Ill Patients.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, ICUs remained under stress and observed elevated mortality rates and high variations of outcomes. A knowledge gap exists regarding whether an ICU performing best during nonpandemic times would still perform better when under high pressure compared with the least performing ICUs. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does prepandemic ICU performance explain the risk-adjusted mortality variability for critically ill patients with COVID-19? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This study examined a cohort of adults with real-time polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 admitted to 156 ICUs in 35 hospitals from February 16, 2020, through December 31, 2021, in Brazil. We evaluated crude and adjusted in-hospital mortality variability of patients with COVID-19 in the ICU during the pandemic. Association of baseline (prepandemic) ICU performance and in-hospital mortality was examined using a variable life-adjusted display (VLAD) during the pandemic and a multivariable mixed regression model adjusted by clinical characteristics, interaction of performance with the year of admission, and mechanical ventilation at admission. RESULTS: Thirty-five thousand six hundred nineteen patients with confirmed COVID-19 were evaluated. The median age was 52 years, median Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 was 42, and 18% underwent invasive mechanical ventilation. In-hospital mortality was 13% and 54% for those receiving invasive mechanical ventilation. Adjusted in-hospital mortality ranged from 3.6% to 63.2%. VLAD in the most efficient ICUs was higher than the overall median in 18% of weeks, whereas VLAD was 62% and 84% in the underachieving and least efficient groups, respectively. The least efficient baseline ICU performance group was associated independently with increased mortality (OR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.45-3.62) after adjusting for patient characteristics, disease severity, and pandemic surge. INTERPRETATION: ICUs caring for patients with COVID-19 presented substantial variation in risk-adjusted mortality. ICUs with better baseline (prepandemic) performance showed reduced mortality and less variability. Our findings suggest that achieving ICU efficiency by targeting improvement in organizational aspects of ICUs may impact outcomes, and therefore should be a part of the preparedness for future pandemics.

Balanced crystalloids versus saline for critically ill patients (BEST-Living): a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The effect of balanced crystalloids compared with that of saline in critically ill patients overall and in specific subgroups is unclear. We aimed to assess whether use of balanced solutions, compared with 0·9% sodium chloride (saline), decreased in-hospital mortality in adult patients in intensive care units (ICUs). METHODS: For this systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases from inception until March 1, 2022 (updated Sept 1, 2023) for individually randomised and cluster-randomised trials comparing balanced solutions with saline for adult patients in the ICU. Eligible trials were those that allocated patients to receive balanced solutions or saline for fluid resuscitation and maintenance fluids, or for maintenance fluids only; and administered the allocated fluid throughout ICU admission or, for trials using landmark mortality as their primary outcome, until the timepoint at which mortality was assessed (if ≥28 days). Authors of eligible trials were contacted to request individual patient data. Data obtained from eligible trials were merged, checked for accuracy, and centrally analysed by use of Bayesian regression models. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Prespecified subgroups included patients with traumatic brain injury. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022299282). FINDINGS: Our search identified 5219 records, yielding six eligible randomised controlled trials. Data obtained for 34 685 participants from the six trials, 17 407 assigned to receive balanced crystalloids and 17 278 to receive saline, were included in the analysis. The mean age of participants was 58·8 years (SD 17·5). Of 34 653 participants with available data, 14 579 (42·1%) were female and 20 074 (57·9%) were male. Among patients who provided consent to report in-hospital mortality, 2907 (16·8%) of 17 313 assigned balanced solutions and 2975 (17·3%) of 17 166 assigned saline died in hospital (odds ratio [OR] 0·962 [95% CrI 0·909 to 1·019], absolute difference -0·4 percentage points [-1·5 to 0·2]). The posterior probability that balanced solutions reduced mortality was 0·895. In patients with traumatic brain injury, 191 (19·1%) of 999 assigned balanced and 141 (14·7%) of 962 assigned saline died (OR 1·424 [1·100 to 1·818], absolute difference 3·2 percentage points [0·7 to 8·7]). The probability that balanced solutions increased mortality in patients with traumatic brain injury was 0·975. In an independent risk of bias assessment, two trials were deemed to be at low risk of bias and four at high risk of bias. INTERPRETATION: The probability that using balanced solutions in the ICU reduces in-hospital mortality is high, although the certainty of the evidence was moderate and the absolute risk reduction was small. In patients with traumatic brain injury, using balanced solutions was associated with increased in-hospital mortality. FUNDING: HCor (Brazil) and The George Institute for Global Health (Australia).

Determinants of fluid use and the association between volume of fluid used and effect of balanced solutions on mortality in critically ill patients: a secondary analysis of the BaSICS trial.

PURPOSE: Fluid use could modulate the effect of balanced solutions (BS) on outcome of intensive care unit (ICU) patients. It is uncertain whether fluid use practices are driven more by patient features or local practices. It is also unclear whether a "dose-response" for the potential benefits of balanced solutions exists. METHODS: The secondary analysis of the Balanced Solution in Intensive Care Study (BaSICS) compared 0.9% saline versus Plasma-Lyte 148® (BS) for fluid therapy in the ICU. The relative contribution of patient features and enrolling site (the random effect) on the volume of fluid used up to day 3 after admission was assessed using different methods, including a Bayesian regression, a frequentist mixed model, and a random forest, all adjusted for relevant patient confounders. Subsequently, a variety of methods were used to assess whether volume of fluid used modulated the effect of BS on 90-day mortality, including a traditional subgroup analysis for patients that remained alive and in the ICU up to 3 days, a Bayesian network accounting for competing risks, and an analysis based on site practices. RESULTS: 10,505 patients were analyzed. Median fluid use in the BS arm and in the 0.9% saline arm were 2500 mL and 2488 mL, respectively. The random effect in the Bayesian regression explained 0.32 (95% credible intervals (CrI) 0.24-0.41) of all model variance (0.33, 95% credible intervals from 0.32-0.35). Frequentist and random forest models produced similar results. In the analysis including only patients alive and in the ICU at 3 days, there was a strong suggestion of interaction between fluid use and the effect of BS, driven mostly by a lower mortality with BS compared to 0.9% saline as fluid use increased for patients with sepsis. These results were consistent in the Bayesian network analysis and in an analysis based on site practices, where septic patients enrolled to BS at high fluid use sites had a lower mortality (absolute risk reduction of - 0.13 [95% credible interval - 0.27 to - 0.01]; 0.98 probability of benefit). CONCLUSION: Baseline patient characteristics collected in the BaSICS trial explain less of the variance of fluid use during the first 3 days than the enrolling site. Volume of fluid used and the effects of BS appear to interact, mostly in the sepsis subgroup where there was a strong association between fluid use after enrollment and the effect of BS on 90-day mortality.

Cardiovascular Safety of Azithromycin in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Prespecified Pooled Analysis of the COALITION I and COALITION II Randomized Clinical Trials.

The cardiovascular safety from azithromycin in the treatment of several infectious diseases has been challenged. In this prespecified pooled analysis of 2 multicenter randomized clinical trials, we aimed to assess whether the use of azithromycin might lead to corrected QT (QTc) interval prolongation or clinically relevant ventricular arrhythmias. In the COALITION COVID Brazil I trial, 667 patients admitted with moderate COVID-19 were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine, hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, or standard of care. In the COALITION COVID Brazil II trial, 447 patients with severe COVID-19 were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine alone versus hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin. The principal end point for the present analysis was the composite of death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or ventricular arrhythmias. The addition of azithromycin to hydroxychloroquine did not result in any prolongation of the QTc interval (425.8 ± 3.6 ms vs 427.9 ± 3.9 ms, respectively, mean difference -2.1 ms, 95% confidence interval -12.5 to 8.4 ms, p = 0.70). The combination of azithromycin plus hydroxychloroquine compared with hydroxychloroquine alone did not result in increased risk of the primary end point (proportion of patients with events at 15 days 17.2% vs 16.0%, respectively, hazard ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.49, p = 0.65). In conclusion, in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 already receiving standard-of-care management (including hydroxychloroquine), the addition of azithromycin did not result in the prolongation of the QTc interval or increase in cardiovascular adverse events. Because azithromycin is among the most commonly prescribed antimicrobial agents, our results may inform clinical practice. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04322123, NCT04321278.

Higher versus lower oxygenation targets in adult ICU patients: A rapid practice guideline.

The aim of this Intensive Care Medicine Rapid Practice Guideline (ICM-RPG) was to provide evidence-based clinical guidance about the use of higher versus lower oxygenation targets for adult patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). The guideline panel comprised 27 international panelists, including content experts, ICU clinicians, methodologists, and patient representatives. We adhered to the methodology for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines, including the use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of evidence, and used the Evidence-to-Decision framework to generate recommendations. A recently published updated systematic review and meta-analysis constituted the evidence base. Through teleconferences and web-based discussions, the panel provided input on the balance and magnitude of the desirable and undesirable effects, the certainty of evidence, patients' values and preferences, costs and resources, equity, feasibility, acceptability, and research priorities. The updated systematic review and meta-analysis included data from 17 randomized clinical trials with 10,248 participants. There was little to no difference between the use of higher versus lower oxygenation targets for all outcomes with available data, including all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, stroke, functional outcomes, cognition, and health-related quality of life (very low certainty of evidence). The panel felt that values and preferences, costs and resources, and equity favored the use of lower oxygenation targets. The ICM-RPG panel issued one conditional recommendation against the use of higher oxygenation targets: "We suggest against the routine use of higher oxygenation targets in adult ICU patients (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). Remark: an oxygenation target of SpO2 88%-92% or PaO2 8 kPa/60 mmHg is relevant and safe for most adult ICU patients."

Systemic Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatories for Analgesia in Postoperative Critical Care Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials.

While opioids are part of usual care for analgesia in the ICU, there are concerns regarding excess use. This is a systematic review of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) use in postoperative critical care adult patients. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library, trial registries, Google Scholar, and relevant systematic reviews through March 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Titles, abstracts, and full texts were reviewed independently and induplicate by two investigators to identify eligible studies. We included randomized control trials (RCTs) that compared NSAIDs alone or as an adjunct to opioids for systemic analgesia. The primary outcome was opioid utilization. DATA EXTRACTION: In duplicate, investigators independently extracted study characteristics, patient demographics, intervention details, and outcomes of interest using predefined abstraction forms. Statistical analyses were conducted using Review Manager software Version 5.4. (The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 15 RCTs (n = 1,621 patients) for admission to the ICU for postoperative management after elective procedures. Adjunctive NSAID therapy to opioids reduced 24-hour oral morphine equivalent consumption by 21.4 mg (95% CI, 11.8-31.0 mg reduction; high certainty) and probably reduced pain scores (measured by Visual Analog Scale) by 6.1 mm (95% CI, 12.2 decrease to 0.1 increase; moderate certainty). Adjunctive NSAID therapy probably had no impact on the duration of mechanical ventilation (1.6 hr reduction; 95% CI, 0.4 hr to 2.7 reduction; moderate certainty) and may have no impact on ICU length of stay (2.1 hr reduction; 95% CI, 6.1 hr reduction to 2.0 hr increase; low certainty). Variability in reporting adverse outcomes (e.g., gastrointestinal bleeding, acute kidney injury) precluded their meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In postoperative critical care adult patients, systemic NSAIDs reduced opioid use and probably reduced pain scores. However, the evidence is uncertain for the duration of mechanical ventilation or ICU length of stay. Further research is required to characterize the prevalence of NSAID-related adverse outcomes.

Use of days alive without life support and similar count outcomes in randomised clinical trials - an overview and comparison of methodological choices and analysis methods.

BACKGROUND: Days alive without life support (DAWOLS) and similar outcomes that seek to summarise mortality and non-mortality experiences are increasingly used in critical care research. The use of these outcomes is challenged by different definitions and non-normal outcome distributions that complicate statistical analysis decisions. METHODS: We scrutinized the central methodological considerations when using DAWOLS and similar outcomes and provide a description and overview of the pros and cons of various statistical methods for analysis supplemented with a comparison of these methods using data from the COVID STEROID 2 randomised clinical trial. We focused on readily available regression models of increasing complexity (linear, hurdle-negative binomial, zero-one-inflated beta, and cumulative logistic regression models) that allow comparison of multiple treatment arms, adjustment for covariates and interaction terms to assess treatment effect heterogeneity. RESULTS: In general, the simpler models adequately estimated group means despite not fitting the data well enough to mimic the input data. The more complex models better fitted and thus better replicated the input data, although this came with increased complexity and uncertainty of estimates. While the more complex models can model separate components of the outcome distributions (i.e., the probability of having zero DAWOLS), this complexity means that the specification of interpretable priors in a Bayesian setting is difficult. Finally, we present multiple examples of how these outcomes may be visualised to aid assessment and interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: This summary of central methodological considerations when using, defining, and analysing DAWOLS and similar outcomes may help researchers choose the definition and analysis method that best fits their planned studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: COVID STEROID 2 trial, ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04509973, ctri.nic.in: CTRI/2020/10/028731.

Fluid Therapy for Critically Ill Adults With Sepsis: A Review.

Importance: Approximately 20% to 30% of patients admitted to an intensive care unit have sepsis. While fluid therapy typically begins in the emergency department, intravenous fluids in the intensive care unit are an essential component of therapy for sepsis. Observations: For patients with sepsis, intravenous fluid can increase cardiac output and blood pressure, maintain or increase intravascular fluid volume, and deliver medications. Fluid therapy can be conceptualized as 4 overlapping phases from early illness through resolution of sepsis: resuscitation (rapid fluid administered to restore perfusion); optimization (the risks and benefits of additional fluids to treat shock and ensure organ perfusion are evaluated); stabilization (fluid therapy is used only when there is a signal of fluid responsiveness); and evacuation (excess fluid accumulated during treatment of critical illness is eliminated). Among 3723 patients with sepsis who received 1 to 2 L of fluid, 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) reported that goal-directed therapy administering fluid boluses to attain a central venous pressure of 8 to 12 mm Hg, vasopressors to attain a mean arterial blood pressure of 65 to 90 mm Hg, and red blood cell transfusions or inotropes to attain a central venous oxygen saturation of at least 70% did not decrease mortality compared with unstructured clinical care (24.9% vs 25.4%; P = .68). Among 1563 patients with sepsis and hypotension who received 1 L of fluid, an RCT reported that favoring vasopressor treatment did not improve mortality compared with further fluid administration (14.0% vs 14.9%; P = .61). Another RCT reported that among 1554 patients in the intensive care unit with septic shock treated with at least 1 L of fluid compared with more liberal fluid administration, restricting fluid administration in the absence of severe hypoperfusion did not reduce mortality (42.3% vs 42.1%; P = .96). An RCT of 1000 patients with acute respiratory distress during the evacuation phase reported that limiting fluid administration and administering diuretics improved the number of days alive without mechanical ventilation compared with fluid treatment to attain higher intracardiac pressure (14.6 vs 12.1 days; P < .001), and it reported that hydroxyethyl starch significantly increased the incidence of kidney replacement therapy compared with saline (7.0% vs 5.8%; P = .04), Ringer lactate, or Ringer acetate. Conclusions and Relevance: Fluids are an important component of treating patients who are critically ill with sepsis. Although optimal fluid management in patients with sepsis remains uncertain, clinicians should consider the risks and benefits of fluid administration in each phase of critical illness, avoid use of hydroxyethyl starch, and facilitate fluid removal for patients recovering from acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Attributable mortality due to nosocomial sepsis in Brazilian hospitals: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Nosocomial sepsis is a major healthcare issue, but there are few data on estimates of its attributable mortality. We aimed to estimate attributable mortality fraction (AF) due to nosocomial sepsis. METHODS: Matched 1:1 case-control study in 37 hospitals in Brazil. Hospitalized patients in participating hospitals were included. Cases were hospital non-survivors and controls were hospital survivors, which were matched by admission type and date of discharge. Exposure was defined as occurrence of nosocomial sepsis, defined as antibiotic prescription plus presence of organ dysfunction attributed to sepsis without an alternative reason for organ failure; alternative definitions were explored. Main outcome measurement was nosocomial sepsis-attributable fractions, estimated using inversed-weight probabilities methods using generalized mixed model considering time-dependency of sepsis occurrence. RESULTS: 3588 patients from 37 hospitals were included. Mean age was 63 years and 48.8% were female at birth. 470 sepsis episodes occurred in 388 patients (311 in cases and 77 in control group), with pneumonia being the most common source of infection (44.3%). Average AF for sepsis mortality was 0.076 (95% CI 0.068-0.084) for medical admissions; 0.043 (95% CI 0.032-0.055) for elective surgical admissions; and 0.036 (95% CI 0.017-0.055) for emergency surgeries. In a time-dependent analysis, AF for sepsis rose linearly for medical admissions, reaching close to 0.12 on day 28; AF plateaued earlier for other admission types (0.04 for elective surgery and 0.07 for urgent surgery). Alternative sepsis definitions yield different estimates. CONCLUSION: The impact of nosocomial sepsis on outcome is more pronounced in medical admissions and tends to increase over time. The results, however, are sensitive to sepsis definitions.

Physiological and clinical effects of different infusion rates of intravenous fluids for volume expansion: A scoping review.

PURPOSE: To assess the physiological and clinical effects of different rates of intravenous fluids for volume expansion of critically ill and perioperative patients. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies comparing intravenous infusion rates both in animals and studies involving healthy subjects, critically ill, and perioperative care patients of all ages. RESULTS: Seven animal studies, eleven clinical studies and three studies including healthy volunteers were identified. Slower infusion led to lower mortality in two studies, lower blood loss in one study, better or more sustained expansion of plasma volume and less edema in three studies, but slower restoration of blood pressure in one study. Three healthy volunteer studies suggested more effective plasma expansion with slower infusion, whereas one trial with postoperative patients did not show plasma volume differences between different infusion rates. One randomized trial found increased mortality with faster infusion in septic children, whereas a randomized trial found no significant differences in critically ill adults. CONCLUSIONS: In this scoping review, most studies showed that slower intravenous infusion rates result in a more efficient intravascular expansion, with a longer effect, and less edema than faster rates. Effects on clinical outcomes were inconsistent.

Antivirals for adult patients hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a randomised, phase II/III, multicentre, placebo-controlled, adaptive study, with multiple arms and stages. COALITION COVID-19 BRAZIL IX - REVOLUTIOn trial.

Background: Repurposed drugs for treatment of new onset disease may be an effective therapeutic shortcut. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of repurposed antivirals compared to placebo in lowering SARS-CoV2 viral load of COVID-19 patients. Methods: REVOLUTIOn is a randomised, parallel, blinded, multistage, superiority and placebo controlled randomised trial conducted in 35 centres in Brazil. We include patients aged 18 years or older admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptoms onset 9 days or less and SpO2 94% or lower at room air were eligible. All participants were randomly allocated to receive either atazanavir, daclatasvir or sofosbuvir/daclatasvir or placebo for 10 days. The primary outcome was the decay rate (slope) of the SARS-CoV-2 viral load logarithm assessed in the modified intention to-treat population. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04468087. Findings: Between February 09, 2021, and August 04, 2021, 255 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to atazanavir (n = 64), daclatasvir (n = 66), sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (n = 67) or placebo (n = 58). Compared to placebo group, the change from baseline to day 10 in log viral load was not significantly different for any of the treatment groups (0.05 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.12], -0.02 [95% CI, -0.09 to 0.06], and -0.03 [95% CI, -0.11 to 0.04] for atazanavir, daclatasvir and sofosbuvir/daclatasvir groups respectively). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events between treatment groups. Interpretation: No significant reduction in viral load was observed from the use of atazanavir, daclatasvir or sofosbuvir/daclatasvir compared to placebo in hospitalised COVID-19 patients who need oxygen support with symptoms onset 9 days or less. Funding: Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (MCTI) - Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPQ); Cia Latino-Americana de Medicamentos (Clamed); Cia Industrial H. Carlos Schneider (Ciser); Hospital Research Foundation Incorporation, Australia, HCor São Paulo; Blanver Farmoquímica; Instituto de Tecnologia em Fármacos (Farmanguinhos) da Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (Fiocruz); Coordenação Geral de Planejamento Estratégico (Cogeplan)/Fiocruz; and Fundação de apoio a Fiocruz (Fiotec, VPGDI-054-FIO-20-2-13).