RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Piperacillin/tazobactam may be associated with less favourable outcomes than carbapenems in patients with severe bacterial infections, but the certainty of evidence is low. METHODS: The Empirical Meropenem versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam for Adult Patients with Sepsis (EMPRESS) trial is an investigator-initiated, international, parallel-group, randomised, open-label, adaptive clinical trial with an integrated feasibility phase. We will randomise adult, critically ill patients with sepsis to empirical treatment with meropenem or piperacillin/tazobactam for up to 30 days. The primary outcome is 30-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes are serious adverse reactions within 30 days; isolation precautions due to resistant bacteria within 30 days; days alive without life support and days alive and out of hospital within 30 and 90 days; 90- and 180-day all-cause mortality and 180-day health-related quality of life. EMPRESS will use Bayesian statistical models with weak to somewhat sceptical neutral priors. Adaptive analyses will be conducted after follow-up of the primary outcome for the first 400 participants concludes and after every 300 subsequent participants, with adaptive stopping for superiority/inferiority and practical equivalence (absolute risk difference <2.5%-points) and response-adaptive randomisation. The expected sample sizes in scenarios with no, small or large differences are 5189, 5859 and 2570 participants, with maximum 14,000 participants and ≥99% probability of conclusiveness across all scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: EMPRESS will compare the effects of empirical meropenem against piperacillin/tazobactam in adult, critically ill patients with sepsis. Due to the pragmatic, adaptive design with high probability of conclusiveness, the trial results are expected to directly inform clinical practice.
Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos , Meropenem , Combinación Piperacilina y Tazobactam , Sepsis , Humanos , Meropenem/uso terapéutico , Meropenem/administración & dosificación , Sepsis/tratamiento farmacológico , Sepsis/mortalidad , Combinación Piperacilina y Tazobactam/uso terapéutico , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Antibacterianos/administración & dosificación , Adulto , Enfermedad Crítica , MasculinoRESUMEN
This population-based study investigated the prevalence of de novo, multitype, post-coronavirus disease (COVID) pain and its associated risk factors in previously hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) survivors. The nationwide, cross-sectional study included a cohort of Danish residents previously hospitalized due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection between March 2020 and December 2021. Demographic data, preexisting medical comorbidities, previous pain-related symptoms, medication use for pain management, pain intensity (4-point scale), and development of de novo, multitype, post-COVID pain were collected by a self-reported survey distributed via e-Boks (a secured national digital mail system used in Denmark to provide public information to residents). The sample comprised 4,712 previously hospitalized COVID-19 survivors (48.6% women, mean age: 60.1 ± 15.6 years). At the time of the study (21 ± 6 months after hospitalization), 18.0% (847) reported the presence of de novo, multitype, post-COVID pain, and 38.6% of any pain. A multivariate analysis revealed that female sex (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.711, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.444-2.023), higher body mass index (OR 1.032, 95% CI 1.019-1.045), intensive care unit admission (OR 1.597, 95% CI 1.324-1.926), previous history of whiplash (OR 2.471, 95% CI 1.004-6.081), anxiety (OR 3.626, 95% CI 1.335-9.708), and younger age (OR .982, 95% CI .976-.987) were factors associated with development of de novo, multitype, post-COVID pain. High income (OR .635, 95% CI .494-.817) and high educational level (OR .774, 95% CI .609-.984) were protective factors. In conclusion, multitype pain as a de novo post-COVID symptom was present in 18.0% of previously hospitalized COVID-19 survivors more than 1 year after hospital discharge and as such can be considered as adding to the global burden of chronic pain. PERSPECTIVE: The study investigates the prevalence of de novo, multitype, post-COVID pain in previously hospitalized COVID-19 survivors. This article presents potential risk factors associated with developing new pain symptoms. The results will contribute to understanding the possibility of predicting postinfectious pain from COVID-19 for future analysis.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction (HPV) can be a challenging clinical problem. It is not fully elucidated where in the circulation the regulation of resistance takes place. It is often referred to as if it is in the arteries, but we hypothesized that it is in the venous side of the pulmonary circulation. METHODS: In an open thorax model, pigs were treated with a veno-venous extra corporeal membrane oxygenator to either oxygenate or deoxygenate blood passing through the pulmonary vessels. At the same time the lungs were ventilated with extreme variations of inspired air from 5% to 100% oxygen, making it possible to make combinations of high and low oxygen content through the pulmonary circulation. A flow probe was inserted around the main pulmonary artery and catheters in the pulmonary artery and in the left atrium were used for pressure monitoring and blood tests. Under different combinations of oxygenation, pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) was calculated. RESULTS: With unchanged level of oxygen in the pulmonary artery and reduced inspired oxygen fraction lowering oxygen tension from 29 to 6.7 kPa in the pulmonary vein, PVR was doubled. With more extreme hypoxia PVR suddenly decreased. Combinations with low oxygenation in the pulmonary artery did not systematic influence PVR if there was enough oxygen in the inspired air and in the pulmonary veins. DISCUSSION: The impact of hypoxia occurs from the alveolar level and forward with the blood flow. The experiments indicated that the regulation of PVR is mediated from the venous side.
Asunto(s)
Hipoxia , Oxígeno , Arteria Pulmonar , Venas Pulmonares , Resistencia Vascular , Animales , Arteria Pulmonar/fisiopatología , Hipoxia/fisiopatología , Oxígeno/metabolismo , Oxígeno/sangre , Porcinos , Circulación Pulmonar , VasoconstricciónRESUMEN
PURPOSE: We assessed long-term outcomes in acutely admitted adult patients with delirium treated in intensive care unit (ICU) with haloperidol versus placebo. METHODS: We conducted pre-planned analyses of 1-year outcomes in the Agents Intervening against Delirium in the ICU (AID-ICU) trial, including mortality and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessed by Euroqol (EQ) 5-dimension 5-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) index values and EQ visual analogue scale (EQ VAS) (deceased patients were assigned the numeric value zero). Outcomes were analysed using logistic and linear regressions with bootstrapping and G-computation, all with adjustment for the stratification variables (site and delirium motor subtype) and multiple imputations for missing HRQoL values. RESULTS: At 1-year follow-up, we obtained vital status for 96.2% and HRQoL data for 83.3% of the 1000 randomised patients. One-year mortality was 224/501 (44.7%) in the haloperidol group versus 251/486 (51.6%) in the placebo group, with an adjusted absolute risk difference of - 6.4%-points (95% confidence interval [CI] - 12.8%-points to - 0.2%-points; P = 0.045). These results were largely consistent across the secondary analyses. For HRQoL, the adjusted mean differences were 0.04 (95% CI - 0.03 to 0.11; P = 0.091) for EQ-5D-5L-5L index values, and 3.3 (95% CI - 9.3 to 17.5; P = 0.142) for EQ VAS. CONCLUSIONS: In acutely admitted adult ICU patients with delirium, haloperidol treatment reduced mortality at 1-year follow-up, but did not statistically significantly improve HRQoL.
Asunto(s)
Delirio , Haloperidol , Adulto , Humanos , Delirio/tratamiento farmacológico , Haloperidol/uso terapéutico , Hospitalización , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Calidad de VidaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The Handling Oxygenation Targets in the Intensive Care Unit (HOT-ICU) trial was a multicentre, randomised, parallel-group trial of a lower oxygenation target (arterial partial pressure of oxygen [PaO2 ] = 8 kPa) versus a higher oxygenation target (PaO2 = 12 kPa) in adult ICU patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure; the Handling Oxygenation Targets in coronavirus disease 2019 (HOT-COVID) tested the same oxygenation targets in patients with confirmed COVID-19. In this study, we aim to evaluate the long-term effects of these oxygenation targets on cognitive and pulmonary function. We hypothesise that a lower oxygenation target throughout the ICU stay may result in cognitive impairment, whereas a higher oxygenation target may result in impaired pulmonary function. METHODS: This is the updated protocol and statistical analysis plan of two pre-planned secondary outcomes, the long-term cognitive function, and long-term pulmonary function, in the HOT-ICU and HOT-COVID trials. Patients enrolled in both trials at selected Danish sites and surviving to 1 year after randomisation are eligible to participate. A Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status score and a full-body plethysmography, including diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide, will be obtained. The last patient is expected to be included in the spring of 2024. CONCLUSION: This study will provide important information on the long-term effects of a lower versus a higher oxygenation target on long-term cognitive and pulmonary functions in adult ICU patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Insuficiencia Respiratoria , Adulto , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , Pulmón , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Estudios Multicéntricos como AsuntoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Trials in critically ill patients increasingly focus on days alive without life support (DAWOLS) or days alive out of hospital (DAOOH) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). DAWOLS and DAOOH convey more information than mortality and are simpler and faster to collect than HRQoL. However, whether these outcomes are associated with HRQoL is uncertain. We thus aimed to assess the associations between DAWOLS and DAOOH and long-term HRQoL. METHODS: Secondary analysis of the COVID STEROID 2 trial including adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia and the Handling Oxygenation Targets in the Intensive Care Unit (HOT-ICU) trial including adult intensive care unit patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. Associations between DAWOLS and DAOOH at day 28 and 90 and long-term HRQoL (after 6 or 12 months) using the EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level survey (EQ VAS and EQ-5D-5L index values) were assessed using flexible models and evaluated using measures of fit and prediction adequacy in both datasets (comprising internal performance and external validation), non-parametric correlation coefficients and graphical presentations. RESULTS: We found no strong associations between DAWOLS or DAOOH and HRQoL in survivors at HRQoL-follow-up (615 and 1476 patients, respectively). There was substantial variability in outcomes, and predictions from the best fitted models were poor both internally and externally in the other trial dataset, which also showed inadequate calibration. Moderate associations were found when including non-survivors, although predictions remained uncertain and calibration inadequate. CONCLUSION: DAWOLS and DAOOH were poorly associated with HRQoL in adult survivors of severe or critical illness included in the COVID STEROID 2 and HOT-ICU trials.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Calidad de Vida , Adulto , Humanos , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Cuidados Críticos , Hipoxia , HospitalesRESUMEN
Evidence in perioperative care is insufficient. There is an urgent need for large perioperative research programmes, including pragmatic randomised trials, testing daily clinical treatments and unanswered question, thereby providing solid evidence for effects of interventions given to a large and growing number of patients undergoing surgery and anaesthesia. This may be achieved through large collaborations. Collaboration for Evidence-based Practice and Research in Anaesthesia (CEPRA) is a novel collaborative research network founded to pursue evidence-based answers to major clinical questions in perioperative medicine. The aims of CEPRA are to (1) improve clinical treatment and outcomes and optimise the use of resources for patients undergoing anaesthesia and perioperative care, and (2) disseminate results and inform caretakers, patients and relatives, and policymakers of evidence-based treatments in anaesthesia and perioperative medicine. CEPRA is inclusive in its concept. We aim to extend our collaboration with all relevant clinical collaborators and patient associations and representatives. Although initiated in Denmark, CEPRA seeks to develop an international network infrastructure, for example, with other Nordic countries. The work of CEPRA will follow the highest methodological standards. The organisation aims to structure and optimise any element of the research collaboration to reduce economic costs and harness benefits from well-functioning research infrastructure. This includes successive continuation of trials, harmonisation of outcomes, and alignment of data management systems. This paper presents the initiation and visions of the CEPRA network. CEPRA aims to be inclusive, patient-focused, methodologically sound, and to optimise all aspects of research logistics. This will translate into faster research conduct, reliable results, and accelerated clinical implementation of results, thereby benefiting millions of patients whilst being cost and labour-saving.
Asunto(s)
Anestesia , Anestesiología , Humanos , Anestesia/efectos adversos , Atención Perioperativa , Práctica Clínica Basada en la Evidencia , Países Escandinavos y NórdicosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Supplemental oxygen therapy is central to the treatment of acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, a condition which remains a major driver for morbidity and mortality in intensive care. Despite several large randomised clinical trials comparing a higher versus a lower oxygenation target for these patients, significant differences in study design impede analysis of aggregate data and final clinical recommendations. METHODS: This paper presents the protocol for conducting an individual patient data meta-analysis where full individual patient data according to the intention-to-treat principle will be pooled from the HOT-ICU and HOT-COVID trials in a one-step procedure. The two trials are near-identical in design. We plan to use a hierarchical general linear mixed model that accounts for data clustering at a trial and site level. The primary outcome will be 90-day all-cause mortality while the secondary outcome will be days alive without life-support at 90 days. Further, we outline 14 clinically relevant predefined subgroups which we will analyse for heterogeneity in the intervention effects and interactions, and we present a plan for assessing the credibility of the subgroup analyses. CONCLUSION: The presented individual patient data meta-analysis will synthesise individual level patient data from two of the largest randomised clinical trials on targeted oxygen therapy in intensive care. The results will provide a re-analysis of the intervention effects on the pooled intention-to-treat populations and facilitate subgroup analyses with an increased power to detect clinically important effect modifications.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Insuficiencia Respiratoria , Humanos , Pulmón , Insuficiencia Respiratoria/terapia , Oxígeno , Cuidados Críticos/métodos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Metaanálisis como AsuntoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have an increased risk of thromboembolic complications. We describe the occurrence of thromboembolic and bleeding events in all ICU patients with COVID-19 in Denmark during the first and second waves of the pandemic. METHODS: This was a sub-study of the Danish Intensive Care Covid database, in which all patients with SARS-CoV-2 admitted to Danish ICUs from 10th March 2020 to 30th June 2021 were included. We registered coagulation variables at admission, and all thromboembolic and bleeding events, and the use of heparins during ICU stay. Variables associated with thrombosis and bleeding and any association with 90-day mortality were estimated using Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: We included 1369 patients in this sub-study; 158 (12%, 95% confidence interval 10-13) had a thromboembolic event in ICU and 309 (23%, 20-25) had a bleeding event, among whom 81 patients (6%, 4.8-7.3) had major bleeding. We found that mechanical ventilation and increased D-dimer were associated with thrombosis and mechanical ventilation, low platelet count and presence of haematological malignancy were associated with bleeding. Most patients (76%) received increased doses of thromboprophylaxis during their ICU stay. Thromboembolic events were not associated with mortality in adjusted analysis (hazard ratio 1.35 [0.91-2.01, p = .14], whereas bleeding events were 1.55 [1.18-2.05, p = .002]). CONCLUSIONS: Both thromboembolic and bleeding events frequently occurred in ICU patients with COVID-19. Based on these data, it is not apparent that increased doses of thromboprophylaxis were beneficial.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Trombosis , Tromboembolia Venosa , Humanos , COVID-19/complicaciones , SARS-CoV-2 , Anticoagulantes/efectos adversos , Tromboembolia Venosa/epidemiología , Cuidados Críticos , Hemorragia , Unidades de Cuidados IntensivosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement in randomised clinical trials has received increased focus, including in intensive care trials, but the frequency, method and extent is unknown. This meta-epidemiological study investigated patient and public involvement in contemporary, large ICU trials. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed for large (≥225 randomised patients), contemporary trials (published between 1 January 2019 and 31 January 2022) assessing interventions in adult patients in ICU settings. Abstracts and full-text articles were assessed independently and in duplicate. Data were extracted using a pre-defined, pilot-tested data extraction form with details on trials, patient and public involvement including categories and numbers of individuals involved, methods of involvement, and trial stage(s) with involvement. Trials authors were contacted as necessary. RESULTS: We included 100 trials, with 18 using patient and public involvement; these were larger and conducted in more centres than trials without patient and public involvement. Among trials with patient and public involvement, patients (in 14/18 trials), clinicians (13 trials), and family members (12 trials) were primarily involved, mainly in the development of research design (15 trials) and development of research focus (13 trials) stages and mostly by discussion (12 trials) and solo interviews (10 trials). A median of 65 individuals (range 1-6894) were involved. CONCLUSIONS: We found patient and public involvement in a fifth of large, contemporary ICU trials. Primarily patients, families, and clinicians were included, particularly in the trial planning stages and mostly through interviews and discussions. Increased patient and public involvement in ICU trials is warranted.
Asunto(s)
Cuidados Críticos , Adulto , Humanos , Estudios EpidemiológicosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Oxygen therapy is a common treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU) with both potentially desirable and undesirable long-term effects. This systematic review aimed to assess the long-term outcomes of lower versus higher oxygenation strategies in adult ICU survivors. METHODS: We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing lower versus higher oxygen supplementation or oxygenation strategies in adults admitted to the ICU. We searched major electronic databases and trial registers. We included all non-mortality long-term outcomes. Prespecified co-primary outcomes were the long-term cognitive function measures, the overall score of any valid health-related quality of life (HRQoL) evaluation, standardised 6-min walk test, and lung diffusion capacity. The protocol was published and prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42021223630). RESULTS: The review included 17 RCTs comprising 6592 patients, and six trials with 825 randomised patients reported one or more outcomes of interest. We observed no difference in cognitive evaluation via Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (one trial, 409 patients) (mean score: 30.6 ± 4.5 in the lower oxygenation group vs. 30.4 ± 4.3 in the higher oxygenation group). The trial was judged at overall high risk of bias and the certainty of evidence was very low. Any difference was neither observed in HRQoL measured via EuroQol 5 dimensions 5 level questionnaire and EQ Visual Analogue Score (one trial, 499 patients) (mean score: 70.1 ± 22 in the lower oxygenation group vs. 67.6 ± 22.4 in the higher oxygenation group). The trial was judged as having high risk of bias, the certainty of evidence was very low. No trial reported neither the standardised 6-min walk test nor lung diffusion test. CONCLUSION: The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of a lower versus a higher oxygenation strategy on both the cognitive function and HRQoL. A lower versus a higher oxygenation strategy may have a little to no effect on both outcomes but the certainty of evidence is very low. No evidence was found for the effects on the standardised 6-min walking test and diffusion capacity test.
Asunto(s)
Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Calidad de Vida , Adulto , Humanos , Pulmón , Terapia por Inhalación de Oxígeno/efectos adversos , SobrevivientesRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In many animal experiments, it is vital to detect sudden changes in cardiac output (CO). This porcine study compared CO that was measured with a Swan-Ganz pulmonary catheter with the gold standard (which was a transit-time flow probe around the pulmonary artery) during interventions that caused hemodynamic instability. METHODS: In one series, 7 pigs were exposed to sudden changes in CO. In another series, 9 pigs experienced more prolonged changes in CO. All the pigs had a Swan-Ganz catheter placed into the pulmonary artery and a flow probe around the pulmonary artery. Adrenaline infusion and controlled hemorrhage were used to increase and decrease CO, respectively. The measurements of CO before and after each intervention were compared for correlation, agreement, and the time delay that it took each method to detect at least a 30% change in CO. A Bland-Altman test was used to identify correlations and agreements between the methods. RESULTS: In the first series, there was a delay of 5-7 min for the Swan Ganz catheter to register a 30% change in cardiac output, compared with the flow probe. However, during prolonged changes in CO in the second series, there was a good correlation between the 2 methods. Mixed venous oxygen saturation reacted faster to changes than did CO; both were measured via the Swan-Ganz catheter. CONCLUSIONS: In many animal studies, the use of Swan-Ganz catheters is suitable; however, in experiments with sudden hemodynamic instability, the flow probe is the most advantageous method for measuring CO.
Asunto(s)
Experimentación Animal , Choque , Animales , Gasto Cardíaco , Cateterismo de Swan-Ganz/métodos , Catéteres , PorcinosRESUMEN
PURPOSE: We assessed long-term outcomes of dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg given daily for up to 10 days in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and severe hypoxaemia. METHODS: We assessed 180-day mortality and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using EuroQoL (EQ)-5D-5L index values and EQ visual analogue scale (VAS) in the international, stratified, blinded COVID STEROID 2 trial, which randomised 1000 adults with confirmed COVID-19 receiving at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation in 26 hospitals in Europe and India. In the HRQoL analyses, higher values indicated better outcomes, and deceased patients were given a score of zero. RESULTS: We obtained vital status at 180 days for 963 of 982 patients (98.1%) in the intention-to-treat population, EQ-5D-5L index value data for 922 (93.9%) and EQ VAS data for 924 (94.1%). At 180 days, 164 of 486 patients (33.7%) had died in the 12 mg group versus 184 of 477 (38.6%) in the 6 mg group [adjusted risk difference - 4.3%; 99% confidence interval (CI) - 11.7-3.0; relative risk 0.89; 0.72-1.09; P = 0.13]. The adjusted mean differences between the 12 mg and the 6 mg groups in EQ-5D-5L index values were 0.06 (99% CI - 0.01 to 0.12; P = 0.10) and in EQ VAS scores 4 (- 3 to 10; P = 0.22). CONCLUSION: Among patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia, dexamethasone 12 mg compared with 6 mg did not result in statistically significant improvements in mortality or HRQoL at 180 days, but the results were most compatible with benefit from the higher dose.
Asunto(s)
Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Dexametasona , Hipoxia , Adulto , COVID-19/complicaciones , Dexametasona/administración & dosificación , Relación Dosis-Respuesta a Droga , Humanos , Hipoxia/complicaciones , Hipoxia/tratamiento farmacológico , Gravedad del Paciente , Calidad de Vida , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
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).
Asunto(s)
Cuidados Críticos , Calidad de Vida , Adulto , Humanos , Hipoxia , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Mortality is often the primary outcome in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in critically ill patients. Due to increased awareness on survivors after critical illness and outcomes other than mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and days alive without life support (DAWOLS) or days alive and out of hospital (DAAOOH) are increasingly being used. DAWOLS and DAAOOH convey more information than mortality, are easier to collect than HRQoL, and are usually assessed at earlier time points, which may be preferable in some situations. However, the associations between DAWOLS-DAAOOH and HRQoL are uncertain. METHODS: We will assess associations between DAWOLS-DAAOOH at day 28 and 90 (independent variables/predictors) and HRQoL assessed using the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L questionnaire (EQ-VAS and EQ-5D-5L index values) at 6 or 12 months (dependent variables) in two RCTs: the COVID STEROID 2 RCT conducted in adult patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia and the Handling Oxygenation Targets in the Intensive Care Unit (HOT-ICU) RCT conducted in adult intensive care patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. We will describe associations using best-fitting fractional polynomial transformations separately in each dataset, with the resulting models presented and assessed in both datasets graphically and using measures of fit and prediction adequacy (i.e., internal performance and external validation). We will use multiple imputation if missingness exceeds 5%. DISCUSSION: The outlined study will provide important knowledge on the associations between DAWOLS-DAAOOH and HRQoL in adult critically ill patients, which may help researchers and clinical trialists prioritise and select outcomes in future RCTs conducted in this population.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Calidad de Vida , Adulto , Hospitales , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Different outcomes are reported in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, and no core outcome set (COS) is available for ICU patients in general. Accordingly, we aim to develop a COS for ICU patients in general. METHODS: The COS will be developed in accordance with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Handbook, using a modified Delphi consensus process and semi-structured interviews involving adults who have survived acute admission to an ICU, family members, clinicians, researchers and other stakeholders. The modified Delphi process will include two steps. Step 1: conduction of a modified Delphi survey, developed and informed by combining the outputs of a literature search of outcomes in previous COSs and semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders. We plan at least two survey rounds to obtain consensus and refine the COS. Step 2: a consensus process regarding instruments or definitions to be recommended for the measurements of the outcomes selected in Step 1. A 'patient and public involvement panel' consisting of a smaller group of patients, family members, clinicians and researchers will be included in the development, analysis and interpretation of the COS. DISCUSSION: The outlined multiple method studies will establish a COS for ICU patients in general, which may be used to increase the standardisation and comparability of results of RCTs conducted in patients in the ICU setting.
Asunto(s)
Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud , Proyectos de Investigación , Consenso , Técnica Delphi , Humanos , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
PURPOSE: We compared dexamethasone 12 versus 6 mg daily for up to 10 days in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and severe hypoxaemia in the international, randomised, blinded COVID STEROID 2 trial. In the primary, conventional analyses, the predefined statistical significance thresholds were not reached. We conducted a pre-planned Bayesian analysis to facilitate probabilistic interpretation. METHODS: We analysed outcome data within 90 days in the intention-to-treat population (data available in 967 to 982 patients) using Bayesian models with various sensitivity analyses. Results are presented as median posterior probabilities with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) and probabilities of different effect sizes with 12 mg dexamethasone. RESULTS: The adjusted mean difference on days alive without life support at day 28 (primary outcome) was 1.3 days (95% CrI -0.3 to 2.9; 94.2% probability of benefit). Adjusted relative risks and probabilities of benefit on serious adverse reactions was 0.85 (0.63 to 1.16; 84.1%) and on mortality 0.87 (0.73 to 1.03; 94.8%) at day 28 and 0.88 (0.75 to 1.02; 95.1%) at day 90. Probabilities of benefit on days alive without life support and days alive out of hospital at day 90 were 85 and 95.7%, respectively. Results were largely consistent across sensitivity analyses, with relatively low probabilities of clinically important harm with 12 mg on all outcomes in all analyses. CONCLUSION: We found high probabilities of benefit and low probabilities of clinically important harm with dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg daily in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia on all outcomes up to 90 days.
Asunto(s)
Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19 , Teorema de Bayes , Dexametasona , Humanos , Hipoxia , SARS-CoV-2 , EsteroidesRESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
AIMS: Most cardiogenic shock (CS) studies focus on acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Contemporary data on temporal trends in patient characteristics, presumed causes, treatments, and outcomes of ACS- and in particular non-ACS-related CS patients are sparse. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using nationwide medical registries, we identified patients with first-time CS between 2005 and 2017. Cochrane-Armitage trend tests were used to examine temporal changes in presumed causes of CS, treatments, and outcomes. Among 14â363 CS patients, characteristics remained largely stable over time. As presumed causes of CS, ACS (37.1% in 2005 to 21.4% in 2017), heart failure (16.3% in 2005 to 12.0% in 2017), and arrhythmias (13.0% in 2005 to 10.9% in 2017) decreased significantly over time; cardiac arrest increased significantly (11.3% in 2005 to 24.5% in 2017); and changes in valvular heart disease were insignificant (11.5% in 2005 and 11.6% in 2017). Temporary left ventricular assist device, non-invasive ventilation, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use increased significantly over time; intra-aortic balloon pump and mechanical ventilation use decreased significantly. Over time, 30-day and 1-year mortality were relatively stable. Significant decreases in 30-day and 1-year mortality for patients presenting with ACS and arrhythmias and a significant increase in 1-year mortality in patients presenting with heart failure were seen. CONCLUSION: Between 2005 and 2017, we observed significant temporal decreases in ACS, heart failure, and arrhythmias as presumed causes of first-time CS, whereas cardiac arrest significantly increased. Although overall 30-day and 1-year mortality were stable, significant decreases in mortality for ACS and arrhythmias as presumed causes of CS were seen.
Asunto(s)
Contrapulsador Intraaórtico , Choque Cardiogénico , Estudios de Cohortes , Dinamarca/epidemiología , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Humanos , Sistema de Registros , Choque Cardiogénico/epidemiología , Choque Cardiogénico/etiología , Choque Cardiogénico/terapiaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Acute and persistent pain after surgery is well described. However, no large-scale studies on immediate postoperative pain in the operating room (OR) exist, hindering potential areas of research to improve clinical outcomes. Thus, we aimed to describe the occurrence and severity of immediate postoperative pain in a large, unselected cohort. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study, encompassing all procedures in 31 public hospitals in the Danish Realm, during a 5-day period including the weekend. Data on procedures and anesthesia were collected and the main outcome was occurrence of moderate or severe pain in the OR. Secondary outcomes included pain, sedation and nausea in the OR or during the first 15 min in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) including relevant risk factors. Descriptive and logistic regression statistics were used. RESULTS: A total of 3675 procedures were included for analysis (87% inclusion rate). Moderate or severe pain occurred in 7.4% (95% CI 6.5% to 8.3%) of cases in the OR immediately after awakening, rising to 20.2% in the OR and/or PACU. Large intraprocedure and interprocedure variations occurred (0.0%-37.5%), and in 20% of cases with epidural-general anesthesia patients experienced moderate or severe pain. Independent risk factors were female sex, younger age, preoperative pain, daily opioid use and major surgical procedures. CONCLUSION: Moderate or severe pain in the immediate postoperative phase occurred in 20% of all cases with procedure and anesthesiological technique variations, suggesting a need for identification of relevant procedure-specific risk factors and development of preventive treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: RoPR ID 43191.