Choosing immunomodulating therapies for the treatment of COVID-19: recommendations based on placebo-controlled trial evidence.

BACKGROUND: Immunomodulatory therapy has been extensively studied in randomized clinical trials for the treatment of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with inconsistent findings. Guideline committees, reviewing the same clinical trial data, have generated different recommendations for immunomodulatory therapy. OBJECTIVES: We hypothesize that trial design differences, specifically whether the study utilized an open-label or placebo-controlled design, accounted for the inconsistent mortality effects reported in clinical trials of immunomodulator therapies for COVID-19. SOURCES: We reviewed COVID-19 treatment guidelines (World Health Organization [WHO], Infectious Diseases Society of America [IDSA] and The National Institutes of Health [NIH]) and identified the meta-analyses associated with glucocorticoids, IL-6 inhibitors, JAK kinase inhibitors, and complement C5a inhibitors that were available to the guideline authors at the time recommendations were either made or updated. CONTENT: We identified a meta-analysis for each of the immunomodulator classes that are included in current COVID-19 treatment guidelines: glucocorticoids [WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group; Shankar-Hari M, Vale CL, Godolphin PJ, Fisher D, Higgins JPT, et al. Association between administration of IL-6 antagonists and mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19: A meta-analysis. JAMA. 2021;326:499-518] (cited 419), IL-6 antagonists [WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group; Shankar-Hari M, Vale CL, Godolphin PJ, Fisher D, Higgins JPT, et al. Association between administration of IL-6 antagonists and mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19: A meta-analysis. JAMA. 2021;326:499-518] (cited 419), JAK inhibitors [Kramer A, Prinz C, Fichtner F, Fischer AL, Thieme V, Grundeis F, et al. Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of COVID-19. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;6:CD015209] (cited 34), and complement C5a inhibitors [Tsai CL, Lai CC, Chen CY, Lee HS. The efficacy and safety of complement C5a inhibitors for patients with severe COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2023;21:77-86] (cited 1). Using the same randomized clinical trials, we evaluated the four meta-analyses accounting for trial design: placebo-controlled or open-label. Glucocorticoids (Risk Ratio [RR] 0.91 [95% CI, 0.49-1.69]), IL-6 inhibitors sarilumab (RR 1.17 [95% CI, 0.96-01.43]), and tocilizumab (RR 0.95 [95% CI, 0.76-1.19]) did not reduce mortality in placebo-controlled trials, whereas baricitinib did confer a large survival benefit (RR 0.65 [95% CI, 0.52-0.81]). The complement C5a inhibitor, vilobelimab, also reduced mortality in a single placebo-controlled trial (RR 0.76 [95% CI, 0.57-1.0]). IMPLICATIONS: Placebo-controlled trial evidence indicates that baricitinib should be the first choice immunomodulator for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 who require any form of oxygen support-low- or high-flow oxygen, non-invasive or invasive ventilation. Vilobelimab warrants study in a large placebo-controlled trial. Treatment guidelines for future pandemics should prioritize the results of placebo-controlled trials.

Surging ICU during COVID-19 pandemic: an overview.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed great challenges to intensive care units (ICUs) across the globe. The objective of this review is to provide an overview on how ICU surging was managed during COVID-19 pandemic, with a special focus on papers published in the last 18 months. RECENT FINDINGS: From the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, it was apparent that the biggest challenge was the inequity of access to an adequately equipped and staffed ICU bed. The first wave was overwhelming; large surge of patients required critical care, resources were limited and non-COVID-19 care processes were severely compromised. Various approaches were used to address ICU staffing shortage and to expand the physical ICU space capacity. Because of restrictions to family visitations in most ICUs, the pandemic posed a threat to communication and family-centered ICU care. The pandemic, especially during the first wave, was accompanied by a high level of apprehension in the community, many uncertainties about clinical course and therapy and an influx of speculations and misinformation. SUMMARY: Although healthcare systems learned how to face some of the challenges with subsequent waves, the pandemic had persistent effects on healthcare systems.

Anti-C5a antibody (vilobelimab) therapy for critically ill, invasively mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 (PANAMO): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Vilobelimab, an anti-C5a monoclonal antibody, was shown to be safe in a phase 2 trial of invasively mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19. Here, we aimed to determine whether vilobelimab in addition to standard of care improves survival outcomes in this patient population. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre phase 3 trial was performed at 46 hospitals in the Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium, Russia, Brazil, Peru, Mexico, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years or older who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, but not more than 48 h after intubation at time of first infusion, had a PaO2/FiO2 ratio of 60-200 mm Hg, and a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with any variant in the past 14 days were eligible for this study. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive standard of care and vilobelimab at a dose of 800 mg intravenously for a maximum of six doses (days 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, and 22) or standard of care and a matching placebo using permuted block randomisation. Treatment was not continued after hospital discharge. Participants, caregivers, and assessors were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was defined as all-cause mortality at 28 days in the full analysis set (defined as all randomly assigned participants regardless of whether a patient started treatment, excluding patients randomly assigned in error) and measured using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Safety analyses included all patients who had received at least one infusion of either vilobelimab or placebo. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04333420. FINDINGS: From Oct 1, 2020, to Oct 4, 2021, we included 368 patients in the ITT analysis (full analysis set; 177 in the vilobelimab group and 191 in the placebo group). One patient in the vilobelimab group was excluded from the primary analysis due to random assignment in error without treatment. At least one dose of study treatment was given to 364 (99%) patients (safety analysis set). 54 patients (31%) of 177 in the vilobelimab group and 77 patients (40%) of 191 in the placebo group died in the first 28 days. The all-cause mortality rate at 28 days was 32% (95% CI 25-39) in the vilobelimab group and 42% (35-49) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·73, 95% CI 0·50-1·06; p=0·094). In the predefined analysis without site-stratification, vilobelimab significantly reduced all-cause mortality at 28 days (HR 0·67, 95% CI 0·48-0·96; p=0·027). The most common TEAEs were acute kidney injury (35 [20%] of 175 in the vilobelimab group vs 40 [21%] of 189 in the placebo), pneumonia (38 [22%] vs 26 [14%]), and septic shock (24 [14%] vs 31 [16%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 103 (59%) of 175 patients in the vilobelimab group versus 120 (63%) of 189 in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: In addition to standard of care, vilobelimab improves survival of invasive mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 and leads to a significant decrease in mortality. Vilobelimab could be considered as an additional therapy for patients in this setting and further research is needed on the role of vilobelimab and C5a in other acute respiratory distress syndrome-causing viral infections. FUNDING: InflaRx and the German Federal Government.

Perceptions of Critical Care Shortages, Resource Use, and Provider Well-being During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey of 1,985 Health Care Providers in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Brazil has been disproportionately affected by COVID-19, placing a high burden on ICUs. RESEARCH QUESTION: Are perceptions of ICU resource availability associated with end-of-life decisions and burnout among health care providers (HCPs) during COVID-19 surges in Brazil? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We electronically administered a survey to multidisciplinary ICU HCPs during two 2-week periods (in June 2020 and March 2021) coinciding with COVID-19 surges. We examined responses across geographical regions and performed multivariate regressions to explore factors associated with reports of: (1) families being allowed less input in decisions about maintaining life-sustaining treatments for patients with COVID-19 and (2) emotional distress and burnout. RESULTS: We included 1,985 respondents (57% physicians, 14% nurses, 12% respiratory therapists, 16% other HCPs). More respondents reported shortages during the second surge compared with the first (P < .05 for all comparisons), including lower availability of intensivists (66% vs 42%), ICU nurses (53% vs 36%), ICU beds (68% vs 22%), and ventilators for patients with COVID-19 (80% vs 70%); shortages were highest in the North. One-quarter of HCPs reported that families were allowed less input in decisions about maintaining life-sustaining treatments for patients with COVID-19, which was associated with lack of intensivists (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.37; 95% CI, 1.05-1.80) and ICU beds (aRR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.16-2.62) during the first surge and lack of N95 masks (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.10-1.85), noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (aRR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.18-2.07), and oxygen concentrators (aRR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.13-2.00) during the second surge. Burnout was higher during the second surge (60% vs 71%; P < .001), associated with witnessing colleagues at one's hospital contract COVID-19 during both surges (aRR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.25-1.93] and 1.31 [95% CI, 1.11-1.55], respectively), as well as worries about finances (aRR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.02-1.61) and lack of ICU nurses (aRR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.02-1.53) during the first surge. INTERPRETATION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, ICU HCPs in Brazil experienced substantial resource shortages, health care disparities between regions, changes in end-of-life care associated with resource shortages, and high proportions of burnout.

Randomized Trial of Molnupiravir or Placebo in Patients Hospitalized with Covid-19.

Molnupiravir or Placebo in Patients with Covid-19 Molnupiravir is an oral agent, a metabolite of which has activity against SARS-CoV-2. In a controlled phase 2 trial in adults hospitalized for Covid-19 who had symptoms for 10 days or less prior to randomization, patients received placebo (n=75) or varying doses of molnupiravir (n=218) administered twice daily for 5 days. There was no impact of treatment on death. Median time to sustained recovery was 9 days in all groups, with day 29 recovery rates ranging from 81.5 to 85.2%. There were no dose-limiting side effects or adverse events.

Tocilizumab and remdesivir in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia: a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: Trials of tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia have demonstrated mixed results, and the role of tocilizumab in combination with other treatments is uncertain. Here we evaluated whether tocilizumab plus remdesivir provides greater benefit than remdesivir alone in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial included patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 pneumonia requiring > 6 L/min supplemental oxygen. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) to receive tocilizumab 8 mg/kg or placebo intravenously plus ≤ 10 days of remdesivir. The primary outcome was time from randomization to hospital discharge or "ready for discharge" (defined as category 1, assessed by the investigator on a 7-category ordinal scale of clinical status) to day 28. Patients were followed for 60 days. RESULTS: Among 649 enrolled patients, 434 were randomly assigned to tocilizumab plus remdesivir and 215 to placebo plus remdesivir. 566 patients (88.2%) received corticosteroids during the trial to day 28. Median time from randomization to hospital discharge or "ready for discharge" was 14 (95% CI 12-15) days with tocilizumab plus remdesivir and 14 (95% CI 11-16) days with placebo plus remdesivir [log-rank P = 0.74; Cox proportional hazards ratio 0.97 (95% CI 0.78-1.19)]. Serious adverse events occurred in 128 (29.8%) tocilizumab plus remdesivir and 72 (33.8%) placebo plus remdesivir patients; 78 (18.2%) and 42 (19.7%) patients, respectively, died by day 28. CONCLUSIONS: Tocilizumab plus remdesivir did not shorten time to hospital discharge or "ready for discharge" to day 28 compared with placebo plus remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

Variations in end-of-life practices in intensive care units worldwide (Ethicus-2): a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: End-of-life practices vary among intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide. Differences can result in variable use of disproportionate or non-beneficial life-sustaining interventions across diverse world regions. This study investigated global disparities in end-of-life practices. METHODS: In this prospective, multinational, observational study, consecutive adult ICU patients who died or had a limitation of life-sustaining treatment (withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining therapy and active shortening of the dying process) during a 6-month period between Sept 1, 2015, and Sept 30, 2016, were recruited from 199 ICUs in 36 countries. The primary outcome was the end-of-life practice as defined by the end-of-life categories: withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining therapy, active shortening of the dying process, or failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Patients with brain death were included in a separate predefined end-of-life category. Data collection included patient characteristics, diagnoses, end-of-life decisions and their timing related to admission and discharge, or death, with comparisons across different regions. Patients were studied until death or 2 months from the first limitation decision. FINDINGS: Of 87 951 patients admitted to ICU, 12 850 (14·6%) were included in the study population. The number of patients categorised into each of the different end-of-life categories were significantly different for each region (p<0·001). Limitation of life-sustaining treatment occurred in 10 401 patients (11·8% of 87 951 ICU admissions and 80·9% of 12 850 in the study population). The most common limitation was withholding life-sustaining treatment (5661 [44·1%]), followed by withdrawing life-sustaining treatment (4680 [36·4%]). More treatment withdrawing was observed in Northern Europe (1217 [52·8%] of 2305) and Australia/New Zealand (247 [45·7%] of 541) than in Latin America (33 [5·8%] of 571) and Africa (21 [13·0%] of 162). Shortening of the dying process was uncommon across all regions (60 [0·5%]). One in five patients with treatment limitations survived hospitalisation. Death due to failed CPR occurred in 1799 (14%) of the study population, and brain death occurred in 650 (5·1%). Failure of CPR occurred less frequently in Northern Europe (85 [3·7%] of 2305), Australia/New Zealand (23 [4·3%] of 541), and North America (78 [8·5%] of 918) than in Africa (106 [65·4%] of 162), Latin America (160 [28·0%] of 571), and Southern Europe (590 [22·5%] of 2622). Factors associated with treatment limitations were region, age, and diagnoses (acute and chronic), and country end-of-life legislation. INTERPRETATION: Limitation of life-sustaining therapies is common worldwide with regional variability. Withholding treatment is more common than withdrawing treatment. Variations in type, frequency, and timing of end-of-life decisions were observed. Recognising regional differences and the reasons behind these differences might help improve end-of-life care worldwide. FUNDING: None.

Case Study of Two Post Vaccination SARS-CoV-2 Infections with P1 Variants in CoronaVac Vaccinees in Brazil.

The rapid development of efficacious and safe vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been instrumental in mitigating the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Moreover, the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants raised concerns on the efficacy of these vaccines. Herein, we report two cases of breakthrough infections with the P1 variant in patients vaccinated with CoronaVac, which is one of the two vaccines authorized for emergency use in the Brazilian immunization program. Our observations suggest that the vaccine reduced the severity of the disease and highlight the potential risk of illness following vaccination and subsequent infection with the P1 variant as well as for continued efforts to prevent and diagnose infection in vaccinated persons.

Intra-abdominal hypertension, fluid balance, and adverse outcomes after orthotopic liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) is frequently encountered in critically ill surgical patients. We aimed to evaluate the incidence of IAH after orthotopic liver transplant (OLT) and its impact on organ function, hospital length-of-stay (LOS), and death. METHODS: This prospective, observational, cohort study evaluated consecutive adult patients admitted in the ICU after undergoing OLT. Intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) was measured every 4-6 h for 3 days. Worsening IAP was defined as a gradual increase in IAP over a period of time. Daily fluid balance was the daily sum of all intakes minus the output. RESULTS: IAH was observed in 48% of the patients within the first 3 days after ICU admission, while ACS was diagnosed in 15%. Patients with IAH had a higher positive fluid balance at day 1 (1764 mL [812-2733 mL] vs. 1301 mL [241-1904 mL], p = 0.025). Worsening IAH was associated with fewer days free of organ dysfunction. IAH within 72 h after ICU admission was independently associated with a composite outcome of death or a longer ICU LOS (odds ratio 2.9; CI 95% 1.02-8.25, p = 0.043). CONCLUSION: After OLT, nearly half of the patients presented IAH, that was associated with unfavorable outcomes.

Presentation of fatal stroke due to SARS-CoV-2 and dengue virus coinfection.

Herein, we report a case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and dengue coinfection, presented as a fatal stroke in our hospital, in São José do Rio Preto, São Paulo State, a Brazilian city hyperendemic for dengue viruses and other arthropod-borne viruses (arboviruses) and currently facing a surge of SARS-CoV-2 cases. This case is the first described in the literature and contributes to the better understanding of clinical presentations of two important diseases in a tropical setting.

Impact of perioperative hemodynamic optimization therapies in surgical patients: economic study and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several studies suggest that hemodynamic optimization therapies can reduce complications, the length of hospital stay and costs. However, Brazilian data are scarce. Therefore, the objective of this analysis was to evaluate whether the improvement demonstrated by hemodynamic optimization therapy in surgical patients could result in lower costs from the perspective of the Brazilian public unified health system. METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed comparing surgical patients who underwent hemodynamic optimization therapy (intervention) with patients who underwent standard therapy (control) in terms of complications and hospital costs. The cost-effectiveness analysis evaluated the clinical and financial benefits of hemodynamic optimization protocols for surgical patients. The analysis considered the clinical outcomes of randomized studies published in the last 20 years that involved surgeries and hemodynamic optimization therapy. Indirect costs (equipment depreciation, estate and management activities) were not included in the analysis. RESULTS: A total of 21 clinical trials with a total of 4872 surgical patients were selected. Comparison of the intervention and control groups showed lower rates of infectious (RR = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.58-0.74), renal (RR = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.54-0.87), and cardiovascular (RR = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.76-0.99) complications and a nonstatistically significant lower rate of respiratory complications (RR = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.67-1.02). There was no difference in mortality (RR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.80-1.3) between groups. In the analysis of total costs, the intervention group showed a cost reduction of R$396,024.83-BRL ($90,161.38-USD) for every 1000 patients treated compared to the control group. The patients in the intervention group showed greater effectiveness, with 1.0 fewer days in the intensive care unit and hospital. In addition, there were 333 fewer patients with complications, with a consequent reduction of R$1,630,341.47-BRL ($371,173.27-USD) for every 1000 patients treated. CONCLUSIONS: Hemodynamic optimization therapy is cost-effective and would increase the efficiency of and decrease the burden of the Brazilian public health system.

Perioperative hemodynamic management 4.0.

Postoperative complications within 30 days represent the third leading cause of death in the world. Multiple solutions have been proposed to tackle the clinical and economic burden of postoperative complications. They include the optimal fluid and hemodynamic management of patients undergoing major surgery. Technological innovations and a better understanding of cardiovascular physiology underlie the evolution of perioperative hemodynamic management, ranging from the mere normalization of heart rate, blood pressure, and central venous pressure to oxygen delivery maximization with a pulmonary artery catheter and individualized fluid management with esophageal Doppler or pulse contour methods. The concept of personalized hemodynamic management recently emerged and may soon become a reality, because of new technologies enabling noninvasive measurement of cardiac output, not only during and after but also before surgery. The monitoring of microcirculation and tissue perfusion may help to fine tune this approach. Importantly, mortality within 30 days after surgery is 1000 times higher than intraoperative mortality. Therefore, continuous ward monitoring with wireless and wearable sensors may be the next major opportunity to improve patient safety.

Effect of a Recombinant Human Soluble Thrombomodulin on Mortality in Patients With Sepsis-Associated Coagulopathy: The SCARLET Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Previous research suggested that soluble human recombinant thrombomodulin may reduce mortality among patients with sepsis-associated coagulopathy. Objective: To determine the effect of human recombinant thrombomodulin vs placebo on 28-day all-cause mortality among patients with sepsis-associated coagulopathy. Design, Setting, and Participants: The SCARLET trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational, multicenter phase 3 study conducted in intensive care units at 159 sites in 26 countries. All adult patients admitted to one of the participating intensive care units between October 2012 and March 2018 with sepsis-associated coagulopathy and concomitant cardiovascular and/or respiratory failure, defined as an international normalized ratio greater than 1.40 without other known etiology and a platelet count in the range of 30 to 150 × 109/L or a greater than 30% decrease in platelet count within 24 hours, were considered for inclusion. The final date of follow-up was February 28, 2019. Interventions: Patients with sepsis-associated coagulopathy were randomized and treated with an intravenous bolus or a 15-minute infusion of thrombomodulin (0.06 mg/kg/d [maximum, 6 mg/d]; n = 395) or matching placebo (n = 405) once daily for 6 days. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary end point was 28-day all-cause mortality. Results: Among 816 randomized patients, 800 (mean age, 60.7 years; 437 [54.6%] men) completed the study and were included in the full analysis set. In these patients, the 28-day all-cause mortality rate was not statistically significantly different between the thrombomodulin group and the placebo group (106 of 395 patients [26.8%] vs 119 of 405 patients [29.4%], respectively; P = .32). The absolute risk difference was 2.55% (95% CI, -3.68% to 8.77%). The incidence of serious major bleeding adverse events (defined as any intracranial hemorrhage; life-threatening bleeding; or bleeding event classified as serious by the investigator, with administration of at least 1440 mL [typically 6 units] of packed red blood cells over 2 consecutive days) was 23 of 396 patients (5.8%) in the thrombomodulin group and 16 of 404 (4.0%) in the placebo group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with sepsis-associated coagulopathy, administration of a human recombinant thrombomodulin, compared with placebo, did not significantly reduce 28-day all-cause mortality. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01598831.

Study protocol for the Balanced Solution versus Saline in Intensive Care Study (BaSICS): a factorial randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness and safety of balanced crystalloid fluids compared with saline (0.9% sodium chloride) as a fluid of choice in critically ill patients remain unclear. The effects of different fluid infusion rates on outcomes are also unknown. OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that a balanced crystalloid solution, compared with saline, decreases 90-day all-cause mortality among critically ill patients; and to test the hypothesis that slow, compared with rapid, infusion rate decreases 90-day mortality in this population of patients. METHODS: The Balanced Solution versus Saline in Intensive Care Study (BaSICS) is a pragmatic, 2 ??2 factorial, randomised controlled trial. A total of 11 000 patients will be recruited from at least 100 Brazilian intensive care units. Patients will be randomised to receive Plasma-Lyte 148 or saline, and to rapid infusion (999 mL/h) or slow infusion (333 mL/h). Study fluids will be used for resuscitation episodes (at rapid or slow infusion rates), dilution of compatible medications and maintenance solutions. Patients, health care providers and investigators will be blinded to the solutions being tested. The rate of bolus infusion will not be blinded. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is 90-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes are: incidence of renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy within 90 days, incidence of acute kidney injury (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes stages 2 and 3), incidence of non-renal organ dysfunction assessed by Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment score at Days 3 and 7, and number of mechanical ventilationfree days within the first 28 days after randomisation. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The BaSICS trial will provide robust evidence on whether a balanced crystalloid, compared with saline, improves important patient outcomes in critically ill patients. BaSICS will also provide relevant information on whether bolus infusion rate affects outcomes in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02875873.

Current research priorities in perioperative intensive care medicine.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical treatments are offered to more patients than ever before, and increasingly to older patients with chronic disease. High-risk patients frequently require critical care either in the immediate postoperative period or after developing complications. The purpose of this review was to identify and prioritise themes for future research in perioperative intensive care medicine. METHODS: We undertook a priority setting process (PSP). A panel was convened, drawn from experts representing a wide geographical area, plus a patient representative. The panel was asked to suggest and prioritise key uncertainties and future research questions in the field of perioperative intensive care through a modified Delphi process. Clinical trial registries were searched for on-going research. A proposed "Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome" (PICO) structure for each question was provided. RESULTS: Ten key uncertainties and future areas of research were identified as priorities and ranked. Appropriate intravenous fluid and blood component therapy, use of critical care resources, prevention of delirium and respiratory management featured prominently. CONCLUSION: Admissions following surgery contribute a substantial proportion of critical care workload. Studies aimed at improving care in this group could have a large impact on patient-centred outcomes and optimum use of healthcare resources. In particular, the optimum use of critical care resources in this group is an area that requires urgent research.

Decision-Making on Withholding or Withdrawing Life Support in the ICU: A Worldwide Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Many critically ill patients who die will do so after a decision has been made to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining therapy. The objective of this study was to document the characteristics of ICU patients with a decision to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining treatment, including the types of supportive treatments used, patterns of organ dysfunction, and international differences, including gross national income (GNI). METHODS: In this observational cohort study conducted in 730 ICUs in 84 countries, all adult patients admitted between May 8, 2012, and May 18, 2012 (except admissions for routine postoperative surveillance), were included. RESULTS: The analysis included 9,524 patients, with a hospital mortality of 24%. A decision to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining treatment was reported during the ICU stay in 1,259 patients (13%), including 820 (40%) nonsurvivors and 439 (5%) survivors. Hospital mortality in patients with a decision to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining treatment was 69%. The proportion of deaths in patients with a decision to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining treatment ranged from 10% in South Asia to 67% in Oceania. Decisions to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining treatment were less frequent in low/lower-middle GNI countries than in high GNI countries (6% vs 14%; P < .001). Greater disease severity, presence of ≥ 2 organ failures, severe comorbidities, medical and trauma admissions, and admission from the ED or hospital floor were independent predictors of a decision to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining treatment. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable worldwide variability in decisions to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining treatments. Interestingly, almost one-third of patients with a decision to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining treatment left the hospital alive.

Outcomes for patients with cancer admitted to the ICU requiring ventilatory support: results from a prospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: This study was undertaken to evaluate the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with cancer requiring nonpalliative ventilatory support. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study conducted in 28 Brazilian ICUs evaluating adult patients with cancer requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) during the first 48 h of their ICU stay. We used logistic regression to identify the variables associated with hospital mortality. RESULTS: Of 717 patients, 263 (37%) (solid tumors = 227; hematologic malignancies = 36) received ventilatory support. NIV was initially used in 85 patients (32%), and 178 (68%) received MV. Additionally, NIV followed by MV occurred in 45 patients (53%). Hospital mortality rates were 67% in all patients, 40% in patients receiving NIV only, 69% when NIV was followed by MV, and 73% in patients receiving MV only (P < .001). Adjusting for the type of admission, newly diagnosed malignancy (OR, 3.59; 95% CI, 1.28-10.10), recurrent or progressive malignancy (OR, 3.67; 95% CI, 1.25-10.81), tumoral airway involvement (OR, 4.04; 95% CI, 1.30-12.56), performance status (PS) 2 to 4 (OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.24-4.59), NIV followed by MV (OR, 3.00; 95% CI, 1.09-8.18), MV as initial ventilatory strategy (OR, 3.53; 95% CI, 1.45-8.60), and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (each point except the respiratory domain) (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.29) were associated with hospital mortality. Hospital survival in patients with good PS and nonprogressive malignancy and without tumoral airway involvement was 53%. Conversely, patients with poor functional capacity and cancer progression had unfavorable outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cancer with good PS and nonprogressive disease requiring ventilatory support should receive full intensive care, because one-half of these patients survive. On the other hand, provision of palliative care should be considered the main goal for patients with poor PS and progressive underlying malignancy.

Optimizing perioperative hemodynamics: what is new?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Using perioperative goal-directed therapy (GDT) or peroperative hemodynamic optimization significantly reduces postoperative complications and risk of death in patients undergoing noncardiac major surgeries. In this review, we discuss the main changes in the field of perioperative optimization over the last few years. RECENT FINDINGS: One of the key aspects that has changed in the last decade is the shift from invasive monitoring with pulmonary artery catheters (PACs) to less or minimally invasive monitoring systems. The evaluation of intravascular fluid volume deficits has also changed dramatically from the use of static indices to the assessment of fluid responsiveness using either dynamic indices or functional hemodynamic. Finally, attention has been directed toward more restrictive strategies of crystalloids as maintenance fluids. SUMMARY: GDT is safe and more likely to tailor the amount of fluids given to the amount of fluids actually needed. This approach includes assessment of fluid responsiveness and, if necessary, the use of inotropes; moreover, this approach can be coupled with a restrictive strategy for maintenance fluids. These strategies have been increasingly incorporated into protocols for perioperative hemodynamic optimization in high-risk patients undergoing major surgery, resulting in more appropriate use of fluids, vasopressors, and inotropes.