Vasodilators for Acute Heart Failure - A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acute heart failure is a public health concern. This study systematically reviewed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate vasodilators in acute heart failure. METHODS: The search was conducted across the databases of Medline, Embase, Latin American and the Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Inclusion criteria consisted of RCTs that compared vasodilators versus standard care, placebo, or cointerventions. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were serious adverse events (SAEs), tracheal intubation, and length of hospital stay. Risk of bias was assessed in all trials. RESULTS: The study included 46 RCTs that enrolled 28,374 patients with acute heart failure. Vasodilators did not reduce the risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.04; I2=9.51%; P=0.26). No evidence of a difference was seen in the risk of SAEs (risk ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.05; I2=0.94%) or length of hospital stay (mean difference, -0.10; 95% CI, -0.28 to 0.08; I2=69.84%). Vasodilator use was associated with a lower risk of tracheal intubation (risk ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.99; I2=51.96%) compared with no receipt of vasodilators. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review with meta-analysis of patients with acute heart failure, vasodilators did not reduce all-cause mortality.

Effect of level of sedation on outcomes in critically ill adult patients: a systematic review of clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

Background: Sedation is routinely administered to critically ill patients to alleviate anxiety, discomfort, and patient-ventilator asynchrony. However, it must be balanced against risks such as delirium and prolonged intensive care stays. This study aimed to investigate the effects of different levels of sedation in critically ill adults. Methods: Systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) of randomised clinical trials including critically ill adults admitted to the intensive care unit. CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Web of Science were searched from their inception to 13 June 2023. Risks of bias were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Aggregate data were synthesised with meta-analyses and TSA, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO: CRD42023386960. Findings: Fifteen trials randomising 4352 patients were included, of which 13 were assessed high risk of bias. Meta-analyses comparing lighter to deeper sedation showed no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-1.06; p = 0.28; 15 trials; moderate certainty evidence), serious adverse events (RR 0.99, CI 0.92-1.06; p = 0.80; 15 trials; moderate certainty evidence), or delirium (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94-1.09; p = 0.78; 11 trials; moderate certainty evidence). TSA showed that when assessing mortality, a relative risk reduction of 16% or more between the compared interventions could be rejected. Interpretation: The level of sedation has not been shown to affect the risks of death, delirium, and other serious adverse events in critically ill adult patients. While TSA suggests that additional trials are unlikely to significantly change the conclusion of the meta-analyses, the certainty of evidence was moderate. This suggests a need for future high-quality studies with higher methodological rigor. Funding: None.

The OPI•AID Zone Tool as a composite outcome for postoperative pain management quality-A protocol for an observational pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Managing postoperative pain while minimizing opioid-related adverse drug events (ORADEs) remains a significant challenge. The OPI•AID Zone Tool is proposed as a novel clinical decision support tool that - both graphically and in a scoring-system - represents the relationship between pain management and the occurrence of ORADEs, aiming to enhance patient outcomes in postoperative care. The OPI•AID Zone Tool places pain score on the x-axis and an ORADE score on the y-axis, and stratifies patients into five zones to reflect the composite impact of pain severity and ORADEs on the quality of postoperative patient care. The study will have two key aims: (1) to explore whether the OPI•AID Zone Tool can function as a composite outcome measure for postoperative pain and ORADEs, and (2) to evaluate the use of the OPI•AID Zone Tool in visual presentations and for evaluation of patients' postoperative pain management quality. METHODS: This prospective observational cohort study will include 200 adults undergoing various surgical procedures in general anesthesia with a subsequent stay in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) at Bispebjerg Hospital, Denmark. Substudy 1 primary outcome: To assess whether a zone score in the OPI•AID Zone Tool is associated with patient-perceived health (EQ VAS), quality of recovery (QoR-PACU), and time to discharge readiness in PACU, and if the zone score has a stronger association than pain and ORADE score in themselves. Substudy 2 primary outcome: To assess how the use of intraoperative non-opioid analgesics impact where patients are placed in the OPI•AID Zone Tool's XY scatterplot right after surgery. To assess if patients who receive more comprehensive non-opioid analgesic basic regimens, generally fall into lower zones. CONCLUSION: The OPI•AID Zone Tool could potentially be a valuable clinical decision-making tool for optimizing postoperative care by simultaneously addressing pain management and the risk of ORADEs. By computing a composite measure of these two critical outcomes, the tool could guide more nuanced and patient-centered analgesic regimens, potentially improving patient satisfaction and operational efficiency in postoperative settings. The tool's applicability will be explored in this observational pilot and followed up in a planned series of studies (opiaid.dk).

Non-opioid analgesic combinations following total hip arthroplasty (RECIPE): a randomised, placebo-controlled, blinded, multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal postoperative analgesia following total hip arthroplasty is recommended, but the optimal combination of drugs remains uncertain. The aim of the RECIPE trial was to investigate the relative benefit and harm of the different combinations of paracetamol, ibuprofen, and the analgesic adjuvant dexamethasone for treatment of postoperative pain following total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: The RECIPE trial was a randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial conducted at nine Danish hospitals. Adults scheduled for total hip arthroplasty were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) using a computer-generated list with stratification by site to receive combinations of oral paracetamol 1000 mg every 6 h, oral ibuprofen 400 mg every 6 h, or a single-dose of intravenous dexamethasone 24 mg in the following groups: paracetamol plus ibuprofen, ibuprofen plus dexamethasone, paracetamol plus dexamethasone, and paracetamol plus ibuprofen plus dexamethasone. The primary outcome was 24 h intravenous morphine consumption, analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomly assigned participants who underwent total hip arthroplasty. The predefined minimal important difference was 8 mg. Safety outcomes included serious and non-serious adverse events within 90 days and 24 h. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04123873. FINDINGS: Between March 5, 2020, and Nov 15, 2022, we randomly assigned 1060 participants, of whom 1043 (589 [56%] women and 454 [44%] men) were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. 261 were assigned to paracetamol plus ibuprofen, 262 to ibuprofen plus dexamethasone, 262 to paracetamol plus dexamethasone, and 258 to paracetamol plus ibuprofen plus dexamethasone. Median 24 h morphine consumption was 24 mg (IQR 12-38) in the paracetamol plus ibuprofen group, 20 mg (12-32) in the paracetamol plus dexamethasone group, 16 mg (10-30) in the ibuprofen plus dexamethasone group, and 15 mg (8-26) in the paracetamol plus ibuprofen plus dexamethasone group. The paracetamol plus ibuprofen plus dexamethasone group had a significantly reduced 24 h morphine consumption compared with paracetamol plus ibuprofen (Hodges-Lehmann median difference -6 mg [99% CI -10 to -3]; p<0·0001) and paracetamol plus dexamethasone (-4 mg [-8 to -1]; p=0·0013), however, none of the comparisons showed differences reaching the minimal important threshold of 8 mg. 91 (35%) of 258 participants in the paracetamol plus ibuprofen plus dexamethasone group had one or more adverse events, compared with 99 (38%) of 262 in the ibuprofen plus dexamethasone group, 103 (39%) of 262 in the paracetamol plus dexamethasone group, and 165 (63%) of 261 in the paracetamol plus ibuprofen group. INTERPRETATION: In adults undergoing total hip arthroplasty, a combination of paracetamol, ibuprofen, and dexamethasone had the lowest morphine consumption within 24 h following surgery and the most favourable adverse event profile, with a lower incidence of serious and non-serious adverse events (primarily driven by differences in nausea, vomiting, and dizziness) compared with paracetamol plus ibuprofen. FUNDING: The Novo Nordisk Foundation and Næstved-Slagelse-Ringsted Hospitals' Research Fund.

Effect of exercise on functional capacity and body weight for people with hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or cardiovascular disease: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease affect the activities of daily living at varying degree. While the effects of aerobic exercise on functional capacity are well-documented, the extent of change for different types of exercise in these chronic conditions remains unexplored. Additionally, there is conflicting evidence regarding the role of exercise in reducing body weight. METHODS: We conducted systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis and searched various databases from inception to July 2020. We included randomised clinical trials adding any form of trialist defined exercise to usual care versus usual care in people with either hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and/or cardiovascular disease irrespective of setting, publication status, year, and language. The outcomes assessed were i) functional capacity assessed through different scales separately i.e., Maximal Oxygen Uptake (VO2max), 6-min walk test (6MWT), 10-m walk test (10MWT), and ii) body weight. RESULTS: We included 950 studies out of which 444 trials randomising 20,098 participants reported on various functional outcomes (355 trials) and body weight (169 trials). The median follow-up was 3 months (Interquartile ranges (IQR): 2.25 to 6). Exercise added to the usual care, improved VO2max (Mean Difference (MD):2.72 ml/kg/min; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 2.38 to 3.06; p < 0.01; I2 = 96%), 6MWT (MD: 42.5 m; 95%CI 34.95 to 50.06; p < 0.01; I2 = 96%), and 10MWT (MD: 0.06 m/s; 95%CI 0.03 to 0.10; p < 0.01; I2 = 93%). Dynamic aerobic and resistance exercise showed a consistent improvement across various functional outcomes, whereas body-mind therapies (MD: 3.23 ml/kg/min; 95%CI 1.97 to 4.49, p < 0.01) seemed especially beneficial for VO2max and inspiratory muscle training (MD: 59.32 m; 95%CI 33.84 to 84.80; p < 0.01) for 6MWT. Exercise yielded significant reduction in body weight for people with hypertension (MD: -1.45 kg; 95%CI -2.47 to -0.43; p < 0.01), and type 2 diabetes (MD: -1.53 kg; 95%CI -2.19 to -0.87; p < 0.01) but not for cardiovascular disease with most pronounced for combined exercise (MD: -1.73 kg; 95%CI -3.08 to -0.39; p < 0.05). The very low certainty of evidence warrants cautious interpretations of the results. CONCLUSION: Exercise seemed to improve functional capacity for people with hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and/or cardiovascular disease but the effectiveness seems to vary with different forms of exercise. The potentially superior improvement in VO2max and 6MWT by body-mind therapies and inspiratory muscle training calls for further exploration. Additionally, prescribing exercise for the sole purpose of losing weight may be a potential strategy for people with hypertension and type 2 diabetes. The extent of improvement in functional capacity and body weight reduction differed with different exercise regimens hence personalised exercise prescriptions tailored to individual needs may be of importance. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019142313.

Minimal important difference in postoperative morphine consumption after hip and knee arthroplasty using nausea, vomiting, sedation and dizziness as anchors.

BACKGROUND: Morphine-sparing effects are often used to evaluate non-opioid analgesic interventions. The exact effect that would warrant the implementation of these interventions in clinical practice (a minimally important difference) remains unclear. We aimed to determine this with anchor-based methods. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of three studies investigating pain management after hip or knee arthroplasty (PANSAID [NCT02571361], DEX-2-TKA [NCT03506789] and Pain Map [NCT02340052]). The overall population was median aged 70, median ASA 2, 54% female. We examined the correlation between 0 and 24 h postoperative iv morphine equivalent consumption and the severity of nausea, vomiting, sedation and dizziness. The anchor was different severity degrees of these opioid-related adverse events. The primary outcome was the difference in morphine consumption between patients experiencing no versus only mild events. Secondary outcomes included the difference in morphine consumption between patients with mild versus moderate and moderate versus severe events. We used Hodges-Lehmann median differences, exact Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests and quantile regression. RESULTS: The difference in iv morphine consumption was 6 mg (95% confidence interval: 4-8) between patients with no versus only mild events, 5 mg (2-8) between patients with mild versus moderate events and 0 mg (-4 to 4) between patients with moderate versus severe events. CONCLUSIONS: In populations comparable to this post-hoc analysis (orthopaedic surgery, median age 70 and ASA 2), we suggest a minimally important difference of 5 mg for 0-24 h postoperative iv morphine consumption.

The predictive value of highly malignant EEG patterns after cardiac arrest: evaluation of the ERC-ESICM recommendations.

PURPOSE: The 2021 guidelines endorsed by the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) recommend using highly malignant electroencephalogram (EEG) patterns (HMEP; suppression or burst-suppression) at > 24 h after cardiac arrest (CA) in combination with at least one other concordant predictor to prognosticate poor neurological outcome. We evaluated the prognostic accuracy of HMEP in a large multicentre cohort and investigated the added value of absent EEG reactivity. METHODS: This is a pre-planned prognostic substudy of the Targeted Temperature Management trial 2. The presence of HMEP and background reactivity to external stimuli on EEG recorded > 24 h after CA was prospectively reported. Poor outcome was measured at 6 months and defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 4-6. Prognostication was multimodal, and withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy (WLST) was not allowed before 96 h after CA. RESULTS: 845 patients at 59 sites were included. Of these, 579 (69%) had poor outcome, including 304 (36%) with WLST due to poor neurological prognosis. EEG was recorded at a median of 71 h (interquartile range [IQR] 52-93) after CA. HMEP at > 24 h from CA had 50% [95% confidence interval [CI] 46-54] sensitivity and 93% [90-96] specificity to predict poor outcome. Specificity was similar (93%) in 541 patients without WLST. When HMEP were unreactive, specificity improved to 97% [94-99] (p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: The specificity of the ERC-ESICM-recommended EEG patterns for predicting poor outcome after CA exceeds 90% but is lower than in previous studies, suggesting that large-scale implementation may reduce their accuracy. Combining HMEP with an unreactive EEG background significantly improved specificity. As in other prognostication studies, a self-fulfilling prophecy bias may have contributed to observed results.

Prolonged effects of dexamethasone following total knee arthroplasty: A pre-planned sub-study of the DEX-2-TKA trial.

OBJECTIVES: The DEX-2-TKA trial demonstrated that one and two doses of 24 mg intravenous dexamethasone reduced opioid consumption and pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We aimed to investigate the prolonged effects of dexamethasone after the 48-h intervention period. DESIGN: This was a prospective, pre-planned questionnaire follow-up on postoperative days 3-7 of patients in the DEX-2-TKA trial that randomly received: DX1 (dexamethasone 24 mg + placebo), DX2 (dexamethasone 24 mg + dexamethasone 24 mg), and placebo (placebo + placebo) perioperatively and 24 h later. SETTING: A multicenter trial performed at five Danish hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed 434 of 485 adult participants enrolled in the DEX-2-TKA trial. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was difference between groups in average of all numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores reported in the morning, at bedtime, and the daily average pain on postoperative days 3-7. Secondary outcomes were sleep quality and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) pain intensity levels for postoperative days 3-7 were: DX2 3.2 (2.1-4.3); DX1 3.3 (2.3-4.1); and placebo 3.3 (2.5-4.7). Hodges-Lehmann median differences between groups were: 0 (95% confidence interval - 0.54 to 0.2), P = 0.38 between DX1 and placebo; 0.1 (-0.47 to 0.33), p = .87 between DX1 and DX2; and 0.1 (-0.6 to 0.13), p = .20 between DX2 and placebo. We found no relevant differences between groups on sleep quality on postoperative days 3-7 nor for patient satisfaction with the analgesic treatment. CONCLUSIONS: We found that neither one nor two doses of 24 mg intravenous dexamethasone demonstrated prolonged effects on overall pain or sleep quality on postoperative days 3-7 after total knee arthroplasty. We also found that dexamethasone had no effect on patient satisfaction. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03506789 (main result trial).

Intravenous MELAtonin for prevention of Postoperative Agitation and Emergence Delirium in children (MELA-PAED): A protocol and statistical analysis plan for a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Emergence agitation and delirium in children remain a common clinical challenge in the post-anesthetic care unit. Preoperative oral melatonin has been suggested as an effective preventive drug with a favorable safety profile. The oral bioavailability of melatonin, however, is low. Therefore, the MELA-PAED trial aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of intraoperative intravenous melatonin for the prevention of emergence agitation in pediatric surgical patients. METHODS: MELA-PAED is a randomized, double-blind, parallel two-arm, multi-center, superiority trial comparing intravenous melatonin with placebo. Four hundred participants aged 1-6 years will be randomized 1:1 to either the intervention or placebo. The intervention consists of intravenous melatonin 0.15 mg/kg administered approximately 30 min before the end of surgery. Participants will be monitored in the post-anesthetic care unit (PACU), and the Post Hospitalization Behavior Questionnaire for Ambulatory Surgery (PHBQ-AS) will be performed on days 1, 7, and 14 after the intervention. Serious Adverse Events (SAE) will be assessed up to 30 days after the intervention. RESULTS: The primary outcome is the incidence of emergence agitation, assessed dichotomously as any Watcha score >2 during the participant's stay in the post-anesthetic care unit. Secondary outcomes are opioid consumption in the post-anesthetic care unit and adverse events. Exploratory outcomes include SAEs, postoperative pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and time to awakening, to first oral intake, and to discharge readiness. CONCLUSION: The MELA-PAED trial investigates the efficacy of intravenous intraoperative melatonin for the prevention of emergence agitation in pediatric surgical patients. Results may provide further knowledge concerning the use of melatonin in pediatric perioperative care.

Hypothermia vs Normothermia in Patients With Cardiac Arrest and Nonshockable Rhythm: A Meta-Analysis.

Importance: International guidelines recommend body temperature control below 37.8 °C in unconscious patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA); however, a target temperature of 33 °C might lead to better outcomes when the initial rhythm is nonshockable. Objective: To assess whether hypothermia at 33 °C increases survival and improves function when compared with controlled normothermia in unconscious adults resuscitated from OHCA with initial nonshockable rhythm. Data Sources: Individual patient data meta-analysis of 2 multicenter, randomized clinical trials (Targeted Normothermia after Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest [TTM2; NCT02908308] and HYPERION [NCT01994772]) with blinded outcome assessors. Unconscious patients with OHCA and an initial nonshockable rhythm were eligible for the final analysis. Study Selection: The study cohorts had similar inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients were randomized to hypothermia (target temperature 33 °C) or normothermia (target temperature 36.5 to 37.7 °C), according to different study protocols, for at least 24 hours. Additional analyses of mortality and unfavorable functional outcome were performed according to age, sex, initial rhythm, presence or absence of shock on admission, time to return of spontaneous circulation, lactate levels on admission, and the cardiac arrest hospital prognosis score. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Only patients who experienced OHCA and had a nonshockable rhythm with all causes of cardiac arrest were included. Variables from the 2 studies were available from the original data sets and pooled into a unique database and analyzed. Clinical outcomes were harmonized into a single file, which was checked for accuracy of numbers, distributions, and categories. The last day of follow-up from arrest was recorded for each patient. Adjustment for primary outcome and functional outcome was performed using age, gender, time to return of spontaneous circulation, and bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was mortality at 3 months; secondary outcomes included unfavorable functional outcome at 3 to 6 months, defined as a Cerebral Performance Category score of 3 to 5. Results: A total of 912 patients were included, 490 from the TTM2 trial and 422 from the HYPERION trial. Of those, 442 had been assigned to hypothermia (48.4%; mean age, 65.5 years; 287 males [64.9%]) and 470 to normothermia (51.6%; mean age, 65.6 years; 327 males [69.6%]); 571 patients had a first monitored rhythm of asystole (62.6%) and 503 a presumed noncardiac cause of arrest (55.2%). At 3 months, 354 of 442 patients in the hypothermia group (80.1%) and 386 of 470 patients in the normothermia group (82.1%) had died (relative risk [RR] with hypothermia, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.89-1.20; P = .63). On the last day of follow-up, 386 of 429 in the hypothermia group (90.0%) and 413 of 463 in the normothermia group (89.2%) had an unfavorable functional outcome (RR with hypothermia, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.87-1.15; P = .97). The association of hypothermia with death and functional outcome was consistent across the prespecified subgroups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this individual patient data meta-analysis, including unconscious survivors from OHCA with an initial nonshockable rhythm, hypothermia at 33 °C did not significantly improve survival or functional outcome.

Effects of adding exercise to usual care on blood pressure in patients with hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or cardiovascular disease: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Exercise is the most recommended lifestyle intervention in managing hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and/or cardiovascular disease; however, evidence in lowering blood pressure is still inconsistent and often underpowered. METHOD: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials adding any form of trialist defined exercise to usual care versus usual care and its effect on systolic blood pressure (SBP) or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in participants with hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or cardiovascular disease searched in different databases from inception to July 2020. Our methodology was based on PRISMA and Cochrane Risk of Bias-version1. Five independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias in pairs. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-nine trials randomizing 15 023 participants reported our predefined outcomes. The majority of exercise reported in the review was dynamic aerobic exercise (61%), dynamic resistance (11%), and combined aerobic and resistance exercise (15%). The trials included participants with hypertension (33%), type 2 diabetes (28%), or cardiovascular disease (37%). Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses reported that adding exercise to usual care reduced SBP [mean difference (MD) MD: -4.1 mmHg; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) -4.99 to -3.14; P  < 0.01; I2  = 95.3%] and DBP (MD: -2.6 mmHg; 95% CI -3.22 to -2.07, P  < 0.01; I2  = 94%). Test of interaction showed that the reduction of SBP and DBP was almost two times higher among trials from low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) as compared to high-income countries (HICs). The exercise induced SBP reduction was also higher among participants with hypertension and type 2 diabetes compared to participants with cardiovascular disease. The very low certainty of evidence warrants a cautious interpretation of the present results. CONCLUSION: Adding any type of exercise to usual care may be a potential complementary strategy for optimal management of blood pressure for patients with hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or cardiovascular disease, especially, in LMICs.PROSPERO registration number CRD42019142313.

Detailed statistical analysis plan for a secondary Bayesian analysis of the SafeBoosC-III trial: a multinational, randomised clinical trial assessing treatment guided by cerebral oximetry monitoring versus usual care in extremely preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Extremely preterm infants have a high mortality and morbidity. Here, we present a statistical analysis plan for secondary Bayesian analyses of the pragmatic, sufficiently powered multinational, trial-SafeBoosC III-evaluating the benefits and harms of cerebral oximetry monitoring plus a treatment guideline versus usual care for such infants. METHODS: The SafeBoosC-III trial is an investigator-initiated, open-label, randomised, multinational, pragmatic, phase III clinical trial with a parallel-group design. The trial randomised 1601 infants, and the frequentist analyses were published in April 2023. The primary outcome is a dichotomous composite outcome of death or severe brain injury. The exploratory outcomes are major neonatal morbidities associated with neurodevelopmental impairment later in life: (1) bronchopulmonary dysplasia; (2) retinopathy of prematurity; (3) late-onset sepsis; (4) necrotising enterocolitis; and (5) number of major neonatal morbidities (count of bronchopulmonary dysplasia, retinopathy of prematurity, and severe brain injury). The primary Bayesian analyses will use non-informed priors including all plausible effects. The models will use a Hamiltonian Monte Carlo sampler with 1 chain, a sampling of 10,000, and at least 25,000 iterations for the burn-in period. In Bayesian statistics, such analyses are referred to as 'posteriors' and will be presented as point estimates with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs), encompassing the most probable results based on the data, model, and priors selected. The results will be presented as probability of any benefit or any harm, Bayes factor, and the probability of clinical important benefit or harm. Two statisticians will analyse the blinded data independently following this protocol. DISCUSSION: This statistical analysis plan presents a secondary Bayesian analysis of the SafeBoosC-III trial. The analysis and the final manuscript will be carried out and written after we publicise the primary frequentist trial report. Thus, we can interpret the findings from both the frequentists and Bayesian perspective. This approach should provide a better foundation for interpreting of our findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.org, NCT03770741. Registered on 10 December 2018.

Short-Term versus Long-Term Mentalization-Based Therapy for Borderline Personality Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial (MBT-RCT).

INTRODUCTION: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a severe and prevalent psychiatric disorder. Mentalization-based therapy (MBT) is an evidence-based intervention for BPD, and several countries offer treatment programs for BPD lasting for years, which is resource demanding. No previous trial has compared short-term with long-term MBT. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of short-term versus long-term MBT for outpatients with BPD. METHODS: Adult outpatients (≥18 years) with subthreshold or diagnosed BPD were randomly assigned (1:1) to short-term MBT (5 months) or long-term MBT (14 months). The primary outcome was BPD symptoms assessed with the Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder. Secondary outcomes were functional impairment, quality of life, global functioning, and severe self-harm. All outcomes were primarily assessed at 16 months after randomization. This trial was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03677037. RESULTS: Between October 4, 2018, and December 3, 2020, we randomly assigned 166 participants to short-term MBT (n = 84) or long-term MBT (n = 82). Regression analyses showed no evidence of a difference when assessing BPD symptoms (MD 0.99; 95% CI: -1.06 to 3.03; p = 0.341), level of functioning (MD 1.44; 95% CI: -1.43 to 4.32; p = 0.321), quality of life (MD -0.91; 95% CI: -4.62 to 2.79; p = 0.626), global functioning (MD -2.25; 95% CI: -6.70 to 2.20; p = 0.318), or severe self-harm (RR 1.37; 95% CI: 0.70-2.84; p = 0.335). More participants in the long-term MBT group had a serious adverse event compared with short-term MBT (RR 1.63; 95% CI: 0.94-3.07; p = 0.088), primarily driven by a difference in psychiatric hospitalizations (RR 2.03; 95% CI: 0.99-5.09; p = 0.056). CONCLUSION: Long-term MBT did not lead to lower levels of BPD symptoms, nor did it influence any of the secondary outcomes compared with short-term MBT.

The effects of cerebral oximetry in mechanically ventilated newborns: a protocol for the SafeBoosC-IIIv randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The SafeBoosC project aims to test the clinical value of non-invasive cerebral oximetry by near-infrared spectroscopy in newborn infants. The purpose is to establish whether cerebral oximetry can be used to save newborn infants' lives and brains or not. Newborns contribute heavily to total childhood mortality and neonatal brain damage is the cause of a large part of handicaps such as cerebral palsy. The objective of the SafeBoosC-IIIv trial is to evaluate the benefits and harms of cerebral oximetry added to usual care versus usual care in mechanically ventilated newborns. METHODS/DESIGN: SafeBoosC-IIIv is an investigator-initiated, multinational, randomised, pragmatic phase-III clinical trial. The inclusion criteria will be newborns with a gestational age more than 28 + 0 weeks, postnatal age less than 28 days, predicted to require mechanical ventilation for at least 24 h, and prior informed consent from the parents or deferred consent or absence of opt-out. The exclusion criteria will be no available cerebral oximeter, suspicion of or confirmed brain injury or disorder, or congenital heart disease likely to require surgery. A total of 3000 participants will be randomised in 60 neonatal intensive care units from 16 countries, in a 1:1 allocation ratio to cerebral oximetry versus usual care. Participants in the cerebral oximetry group will undergo cerebral oximetry monitoring during mechanical ventilation in the neonatal intensive care unit for as long as deemed useful by the treating physician or until 28 days of life. The participants in the cerebral oximetry group will be treated according to the SafeBoosC treatment guideline. Participants in the usual care group will not receive cerebral oximetry and will receive usual care. We use two co-primary outcomes: (1) a composite of death from any cause or moderate to severe neurodevelopmental disability at 2 years of corrected age and (2) the non-verbal cognitive score of the Parent Report of Children's Abilities-Revised (PARCA-R) at 2 years of corrected age. DISCUSSION: There is need for a randomised clinical trial to evaluate cerebral oximetry added to usual care versus usual care in mechanically ventilated newborns. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol is registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (NCT05907317; registered 18 June 2023).

Cerebral oximetry monitoring versus usual care for extremely preterm infants: a study protocol for the 2-year follow-up of the SafeBoosC-III randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: In the SafeBoosC-III trial, treatment guided by cerebral oximetry monitoring for the first 72 hours after birth did not reduce the incidence of death or severe brain injury in extremely preterm infants at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age, as compared with usual care. Despite an association between severe brain injury diagnosed in the neonatal period and later neurodevelopmental disability, this relationship is not always strong. The objective of the SafeBoosC-III follow-up study is to assess mortality, neurodevelopmental disability, or any harm in trial participants at 2 years of corrected age. One important challenge is the lack of funding for local costs for a trial-specific assessment. METHODS: Of the 1601 infants randomised in the SafeBoosC-III trial, 1276 infants were alive at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age and will potentially be available for the 2-year follow-up. Inclusion criteria will be enrollment in a neonatal intensive care unit taking part in the follow-up study and parental consent if required by local regulations. We aim to collect data from routine follow-up programmes between the ages of 18 and 30 months of corrected age. If no routine follow-up has been conducted, we will collect informal assessments from other health care records from the age of at least 12 months. A local co-investigator blinded to group allocation will classify outcomes based on these records. We will supplement this with parental questionnaires including the Parent Report of Children's Abilities-Revised. There will be two co-primary outcomes: the composite of death or moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability and mean Bayley-III/IV cognitive score. We will use a 3-tier model for prioritisation, based on the quality of data. This approach has been chosen to minimise loss to follow-up assuming that little data is better than no data at all. DISCUSSION: Follow-up at the age of 2 years is important for intervention trials in the newborn period as only time can show real benefits and harms later in childhood. To decrease the risk of generalisation and data-driven biased conclusions, we present a detailed description of the methodology for the SafeBoosC-III follow-up study. As funding is limited, a pragmatic approach is necessary. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05134116 . Registered on 24 November 2021.

Self-determination theory interventions versus usual care in people with diabetes: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Autonomy-supporting interventions, such as self-determination theory and guided self-determination interventions, may improve self-management and clinical and psychosocial outcomes in people with diabetes. Such interventions have never been systematically reviewed assessing both benefits and harms and concurrently controlling the risks of random errors using trial sequential analysis methodology. This systematic review investigates the benefits and harms of self-determination theory-based interventions compared to usual care in people with diabetes. METHODS: We used the Cochrane methodology. Randomized clinical trials assessing interventions theoretically based on guided self-determination or self-determination theory in any setting were eligible. A comprehensive search (latest search April 2022) was undertaken in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, PsycINFO, SCI-EXPANDED, CINAHL, SSCI, CPCI-S, and CPCI-SSH to identify relevant trials. Two authors independently screened, extracted data, and performed risk-of-bias assessment of included trials using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 1.0. Our primary outcomes were quality of life, all-cause mortality, and serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were diabetes distress, depressive symptoms, and nonserious adverse events not considered serious. Exploratory outcomes were glycated hemoglobin and motivation (autonomy, controlled, amotivation). Outcomes were assessed at the end of the intervention (primary time point) and at maximum follow-up. The analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.4 and Trial Sequential Analysis 0.9.5.10. Certainty of the evidence was assessed by GRADE. RESULTS: Our search identified 5578 potentially eligible studies of which 11 randomized trials (6059 participants) were included. All trials were assessed at overall high risk of bias. We found no effect of self-determination theory-based interventions compared with usual care on quality of life (mean difference 0.00 points, 95% CI -4.85, 4.86, I2 = 0%; 225 participants, 3 trials, TSA-adjusted CI -11.83, 11.83), all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, diabetes distress, depressive symptoms, adverse events, glycated hemoglobulin A1c, or motivation (controlled). The certainty of the evidence was low to very low for all outcomes. We found beneficial effect on motivation (autonomous and amotivation; low certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS: We found no effect of self-determination-based interventions on our primary or secondary outcomes. The evidence was of very low certainty. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020181144.

Effects of Hypothermia vs Normothermia on Societal Participation and Cognitive Function at 6 Months in Survivors After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Predefined Analysis of the TTM2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The Targeted Hypothermia vs Targeted Normothermia After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (TTM2) trial reported no difference in mortality or poor functional outcome at 6 months after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). This predefined exploratory analysis provides more detailed estimation of brain dysfunction for the comparison of the 2 intervention regimens. Objectives: To investigate the effects of targeted hypothermia vs targeted normothermia on functional outcome with focus on societal participation and cognitive function in survivors 6 months after OHCA. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a predefined analysis of an international multicenter, randomized clinical trial that took place from November 2017 to January 2020 and included participants at 61 hospitals in 14 countries. A structured follow-up for survivors performed at 6 months was by masked outcome assessors. The last follow-up took place in October 2020. Participants included 1861 adult (older than 18 years) patients with OHCA who were comatose at hospital admission. At 6 months, 939 of 1861 were alive and invited to a follow-up, of which 103 of 939 declined or were missing. Interventions: Randomization 1:1 to temperature control with targeted hypothermia at 33 °C or targeted normothermia and early treatment of fever (37.8 °C or higher). Main outcomes and measures: Functional outcome focusing on societal participation assessed by the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended ([GOSE] 1 to 8) and cognitive function assessed by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment ([MoCA] 0 to 30) and the Symbol Digit Modalities Test ([SDMT] z scores). Higher scores represent better outcomes. Results: At 6 months, 836 of 939 survivors with a mean age of 60 (SD, 13) (range, 18 to 88) years (700 of 836 male [84%]) participated in the follow-up. There were no differences between the 2 intervention groups in functional outcome focusing on societal participation (GOSE score, odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.71-1.17; P = .46) or in cognitive function by MoCA (mean difference, 0.36; 95% CI,-0.33 to 1.05; P = .37) and SDMT (mean difference, 0.06; 95% CI,-0.16 to 0.27; P = .62). Limitations in societal participation (GOSE score less than 7) were common regardless of intervention (hypothermia, 178 of 415 [43%]; normothermia, 168 of 419 [40%]). Cognitive impairment was identified in 353 of 599 survivors (59%). Conclusions: In this predefined analysis of comatose patients after OHCA, hypothermia did not lead to better functional outcome assessed with a focus on societal participation and cognitive function than management with normothermia. At 6 months, many survivors had not regained their pre-arrest activities and roles, and mild cognitive dysfunction was common. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02908308.

The difference between shorter- versus longer-term psychotherapy for adult mental health disorders: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal psychotherapy duration for mental health disorders is unclear. Our aim was to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of shorter- versus longer-term psychotherapy for adult mental health disorders. METHOD: We searched relevant databases and websites for published and unpublished randomised clinical trials assessing different durations of the same psychotherapy type before June 27, 2022. Our methodology was based on Cochrane and an eight-step procedure. Primary outcomes were quality of life, serious adverse events, and symptom severity. Secondary outcomes were suicide or suicide-attempts, self-harm, and level of functioning. RESULTS: We included 19 trials randomising 3,447 participants. All trials were at high risk of bias. Three single trials met the required information size needed to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. One single trial showed no evidence of a difference between 6 versus 12 months dialectical behavioral therapy for borderline personality when assessing quality of life, symptom severity, and level of functioning. One single trial showed evidence of a beneficial effect of adding booster sessions to 8 and 12 weeks of internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for depression and anxiety when assessing symptom severity and level of functioning. One single trial showed no evidence of a difference between 20 weeks versus 3 years of psychodynamic psychotherapy for mood- or anxiety disorders when assessing symptom severity and level of functioning. It was only possible to conduct two pre-planned meta-analyses. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between shorter- and longer-term cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders on anxiety symptoms at end of treatment (SMD: 0.08; 95% CI: -0.47 to 0.63; p = 0.77; I2 = 73%; four trials; very low certainty). Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between shorter and longer-term psychodynamic psychotherapy for mood- and anxiety disorders on level of functioning (SMD 0.16; 95% CI -0.08 to 0.40; p = 0.20; I2 = 21%; two trials; very low certainty). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for shorter versus longer-term psychotherapy for adult mental health disorders is currently unclear. We only identified 19 randomised clinical trials. More trials at low risk of bias and at low risk of random errors assessing participants at different levels of psychopathological severity are urgently needed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019128535.

Observed intervention effects for mortality in randomised clinical trials: a methodological study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: It is essential to choose a realistic anticipated intervention effect when calculating a sample size for a randomised clinical trial. Unfortunately, anticipated intervention effects are often inflated, when compared with the 'true' intervention effects. This is documented for mortality in critical care trials. A similar pattern might exist across different medical specialties. This study aims to estimate the range of observed intervention effects for all-cause mortality in trials included in Cochrane Reviews, within each Cochrane Review Group. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will include randomised clinical trials assessing all-cause mortality as an outcome. Trials will be identified from Cochrane Reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Cochrane Reviews will be clustered according to the registered Cochrane Review Group (eg, Anaesthesia, Emergency and Critical Care) and the statistical analyses will be conducted for each Cochrane Review Group and overall. The median relative risk and IQR for all-cause mortality and the proportion of trials with a relative all-cause mortality risk within seven different ranges will be reported (relative risk below 0.70, 0.70-0.79, 0.80-0.89, 0.90-1.09, 1.10-1.19, 1.20-1.30 and above 1.30). Subgroup analyses will explore the effects of original design, sample size, risk of bias, disease, intervention type, follow-up length, participating centres, funding type, information size and outcome hierarchy. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Since we will use summary data from trials already approved by relevant ethical committees, this study does not require ethical approval. Regardless of our findings, the results will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal.

Telemedicine Support for Primary Care Providers versus Usual Care in Patients with Heart Failure: Protocol of a Pragmatic Cluster Randomised Trial within the Brazilian Heart Insufficiency with Telemedicine (BRAHIT) Study.

Heart failure is a prevalent condition and a frequent cause of hospital readmissions and poor quality of life. Teleconsultation support from cardiologists to primary care physicians managing patients with heart failure may improve care, but the effect on patient-relevant outcomes is unclear. We aim to evaluate whether collaboration through a novel teleconsultation platform in the Brazilian Heart Insufficiency with Telemedicine (BRAHIT) project, tested on a previous feasibility study, can improve patient-relevant outcomes. We will conduct a parallel-group, two-arm, cluster-randomised superiority trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio, with primary care practices from Rio de Janeiro as clusters. Physicians from the intervention group practices will receive teleconsultation support from a cardiologist to assist patients discharged from hospitals after admission for heart failure. In contrast, physicians from the control group practices will perform usual care. We will include 10 patients per each of the 80 enrolled practices (n = 800). The primary outcome will be a composite of mortality and hospital admissions after six months. Secondary outcomes will be adverse events, symptoms frequency, quality of life, and primary care physicians' compliance with treatment guidelines. We hypothesise that teleconsulting support will improve patient outcomes.