Piperacillin/tazobactam versus carbapenems in patients with severe bacterial infections: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Piperacillin/tazobactam or meropenem are often used to treat patients with severe bacterial infections. We aimed to compare the desirable and undesirable effects of empirical and/or definitive piperacillin/tazobactam versus carbapenems in patients with severe bacterial infections. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Epistemonikos, and trial registers for randomised clinical trials of empirical and/or definitive piperacillin/tazobactam versus carbapenems in adult patients with severe bacterial infection (i.e., any bacterial infection requiring hospitalisation). The primary outcome was all-cause short-term mortality within 90 days. Secondary outcomes were all-cause long-term mortality, adverse events, quality of life, days alive without or duration of life support, secondary infections, selection of fungi or resistant bacteria, and days alive and out of hospital or hospital length of stay. We calculated relative risks (RRs) using random effects and fixed effect meta-analyses along with trial sequential analyses. RESULTS: We included 31 trials (n = 8790 patients) with overall high risk of bias. The RR for all-cause short-term mortality was 1.16 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94-1.43, low certainty evidence), for adverse events 1.00 (98% CI: 0.96-1.04, moderate certainty evidence), for secondary infections 1.13 (98% CI: 0.76-1.68, very low certainty evidence), and for selection of fungi or resistant bacteria 1.61 (98% CI: 0.89-2.89, very low certainty evidence). There were no or limited data for the remaining outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Based on very low or low certainty evidence, piperacillin/tazobactam may be associated with less favourable outcomes in patients with severe bacterial infections as compared with carbapenems, but the information size for a robust conclusion has not been reached.

Use of crystalloids and colloids in Europe per year from 2010 to 2019: Protocol for an international descriptive study.

INTRODUCTION: Intravenous (IV) fluids are widely used in everyday clinical practice. In the last two decades, several trials and clinical practice guidelines have been published on the use of different types and dosages of IV fluid. This may have led to a change in clinical practice. Thus, we aim to describe the use of IV crystalloids and colloids in Europe over a 10-year period. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will collect national or regional data on the use of IV crystalloids and colloids in European hospitals through companies and/or federal medical agencies that provide pharmaceutical data concerning the type and amount of fluids used from January 1st, 2010 to December 31st, 2019. We will use run charts to describe time trends in the use of fluids. CONCLUSION: This study will provide insight into the use of IV fluids in Europe between 2010 and 2019. It will enable the observation of changes over time and among the different European countries and regions. This will provide information on the extent to which landmark trials and clinical practice guidelines on fluids have affected clinical practice in Europe regarding the use of IV fluids.

Thrombocytopenia in intensive care unit patients: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Thrombocytopenia is frequent in intensive care unit (ICU) patients and may be associated with adverse outcomes. We aimed to assess the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes associated with thrombocytopenia in adult ICU patients. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We included study reports on adult ICU patients with thrombocytopenia and assessed patient-important outcomes, including mortality and health-related quality-of-life. RESULTS: We included a total of 70 studies comprising a total of 215 098 patients; 57 were cohort studies. The incidence of thrombocytopenia varied from 8 to 56 per 100 admissions (very low quality of evidence). We identified several risk factors including age, sepsis, and higher disease severity (low quality of evidence). Thrombocytopenia was associated with bleeding, use of life support, length of stay in the ICU, and increased mortality (low/very low quality of evidence). Data on platelet transfusion before invasive procedures and transfusion thresholds were limited. No studies assessed the benefits and harms of thromboprophylaxis in ICU patients with thrombocytopenia. CONCLUSIONS: Thrombocytopenia is common and associated with increased morbidity and mortality in adult ICU patients. Several risk factors for thrombocytopenia exists, but the evidence-base on management strategies, including transfusion thresholds and thromboprophylaxis in ICU patients is very limited.

Heterogenous treatment effects of transfusion thresholds by patient age: Post-hoc analysis of the TRISS trial.

BACKGROUND: Use of a lower haemoglobin (Hb) threshold to guide red blood cell (RBC) transfusion is now generally recommended in critically ill patients, but uncertainty remains regarding the optimal Hb threshold for RBC transfusion in patients of different ages. METHODS: We conducted a post-hoc analysis of 998 patients with septic shock and anaemia randomised to RBC transfusion at a Hb threshold of 7 g/dl [4.3 mmol/l] vs 9 g/dl [5.6 mmol/l] in the Transfusion Requirements in Septic Shock (TRISS) trial. We assessed if there were heterogeneous effects between the allocated Hb threshold and patient age categorised and on the continuous scale. The primary outcome was 1-year mortality; the secondary outcome was 90-day mortality. Both outcomes were analysed using logistic regression models and in sensitivity analyses with additional adjusting for site of enrolment, presence of haematological malignancy and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score. The secondary analyses were Kaplan-Meier curves with corresponding log-rank tests. RESULTS: We found no heterogeneity between patient age and the allocated Hb thresholds for RBC transfusion for 1-year mortality or 90-day mortality in the primary analyses. The sensitivity analyses suggested heterogeneity between age groups regarding 90-day mortality, however, this was not consistent for 1-year mortality or when assessing age on the continuous scale. CONCLUSION: In this post-hoc study of ICU patients with septic shock, we found no reliable heterogeneous effects of transfusion at a Hb threshold of 7 vs 9 g/dl according to patient age on mortality. However, due to low power, this study should only be considered as hypothesis generating.

Conservative vs liberal fluid therapy in septic shock (CLASSIC) trial-Protocol and statistical analysis plan.

INTRODUCTION: Intravenous (IV) fluid is a key intervention in the management of septic shock. The benefits and harms of lower versus higher fluid volumes are unknown and thus clinical equipoise exists. We describe the protocol and detailed statistical analysis plan for the conservative versus liberal approach to fluid therapy of septic shock in the Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial. The aim of the CLASSIC trial is to assess benefits and harms of IV fluid restriction versus standard care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock. METHODS: CLASSIC trial is an investigator-initiated, international, randomised, stratified, and analyst-blinded trial. We will allocate 1554 adult patients with septic shock, who are planned to be or are admitted to an ICU, to IV fluid restriction versus standard care. The primary outcome is mortality at day 90. Secondary outcomes are serious adverse events (SAEs), serious adverse reactions (SARs), days alive at day 90 without life support, days alive and out of the hospital at day 90 and mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and cognitive function at 1 year. We will conduct the statistical analyses according to a pre-defined statistical analysis plan, including three interim analyses. For the primary analysis, we will use logistic regression adjusted for the stratification variables comparing the two interventions in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. DISCUSSION: The CLASSIC trial results will provide important evidence to guide clinicians' choice regarding the IV fluid therapy in adults with septic shock.

Lower vs higher transfusion threshold in septic shock patients of different ages: A study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Current evidence indicates that it is safe to use a lower haemoglobin (Hb) threshold for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion as compared to a higher Hb-threshold. However, the recent Transfusion Requirements in Cardiac Surgery (TRICS-3) trial reported a significant interaction between patient age and the effect of lower vs higher Hb-thresholds for RBC transfusion. The interaction between patient age and transfusion strategy appears to differ between trials. METHODS: This is the protocol and statistical analysis plan for a post hoc analysis of the Transfusion Requirements in Septic Shock (TRISS) trial. We will assess the effect of a lower vs a higher Hb-threshold for RBC transfusion in patients of different ages with septic shock. The primary and secondary outcomes are 1-year mortality and 90-day mortality respectively. We will assess age divided into six age groups and as a continuous variable and present baseline characteristics and odds ratios derived from both simple and adjusted (for the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, haematological malignancy, age and trial site) logistic regression models and P-values for the test-of-interaction. Furthermore, we will compare outcomes according to Hb-threshold in each age group using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests. DISCUSSION: The outlined study will make a detailed assessment of potential interaction of patient age with transfusion strategy in patients with septic shock. This may inform future trials on the benefits and harms of RBC transfusion.

Use of red blood cells in Danish intensive care units: A population-based register study.

BACKGROUND: Red blood cell (RBC) transfusion is common in the intensive care unit (ICU). Recent trials have shown that a restrictive transfusion strategy is safe in most patients, and recent guidelines recommend such a strategy in most ICU patients. It is unknown if this has translated into a change in clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted a population-based register study of RBC transfusions in ICUs in the Danish Capital Region between 1st of January 2011 and 31st of December 2016 by linking data from the regional blood bank and the Danish Intensive Care Database. We used crude data and run- and control-charts to analyse changes in the number of RBC transfusions. RESULTS: We included 27 835 ICU admissions of which 6936 received 40 889 RBC units. The crude use was 36.2 RBC units per one-hundred patient bed-days in 2011 vs 29.8 in 2016. The run-chart analysis did not confirm a change in the total use of RBC units in all ICUs combined, and we observed no change in the proportion of transfused patients or in the use of RBCs among transfused patients. Sensitivity analyses showed decreased use of RBC units in two general ICUs, and a reduced use of RBC units among medical ICU patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based register study, we did not with certainty observe changes over time in the use of RBC transfusions in all patients in all ICUs in the Danish Capital Region. A reduction in RBC use may have occurred in some general ICUs and in medical ICU patients.

Piperacillin/tazobactam vs carbapenems for patients with bacterial infection: Protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Early empirical broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy is recommended for patients with severe infections, including sepsis. ß-lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitor combinations or carbapenems are often used to ensure coverage of likely pathogens. Piperacillin/tazobactam is proposed as a carbapenem-sparing agent to reduce the incidence of multidrug-resistant bacteria and superinfections. In the recently published MERINO trial, increased mortality from piperacillin/tazobactam was suggested in patients with bacteraemia with resistant Escherichia coli or Klebsiella species. Whether these findings also apply to empirical piperacillin/tazobactam in patients with other severe infections, including sepsis, is unknown. We aim to assess the benefits and harms of empirical and definitive piperacillin/tazobactam vs carbapenems for patients with severe bacterial infections. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol has been prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols statement, the Cochrane Handbook and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We will include randomised clinical trials assessing piperacillin/tazobactam vs carbapenems in patients with severe bacterial infections of any origin. The primary outcome will be all-cause short-term mortality ≤ 90 days. Secondary outcomes will include all-cause long-term mortality > 90 days, adverse events, quality of life, use of life support, secondary infections, antibiotic resistance, and length of stay. We will conduct meta-analyses, including pre-planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses for all assessed outcomes. The risk of random errors in the meta-analyses will be assessed by trial sequential analysis.

Empirical metronidazole for patients with severe bacterial infection: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Metronidazole is the preferred empirical anti-anaerobic agent for patients with suspected anaerobic infection. The balance between benefits and harms of empirical metronidazole is unclear. We aimed to assess patient-important benefits and harms of empirical metronidazole vs placebo/no treatment in adult patients with severe bacterial infection of any origin. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials assessing empirical metronidazole vs placebo/no treatment in adult hospitalized patients with severe bacterial infection. The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, the Cochrane Handbook and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. A protocol and statistical analysis plan was published prior to conducting the review. RESULTS: We included a total of nine trials (n = 1753 patients), all of which were adjudicated as having high risk of bias. We found no difference in the primary outcome mortality within 90 days (relative risk 1.56, 95% confidence interval 0.39-6.25). Fewer patients receiving metronidazole had secondary infections (relative risk 0.43, 95% CI: 0.27-0.68). Trial sequential analysis indicated high risk of random errors due to lack of data, and the quality of evidence was very low for all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There is low quantity and quality of evidence supporting the use of empirical metronidazole in adult patients with severe bacterial infections of any origin, and no firm evidence for benefit or harm.

Bleeding and thrombosis in intensive care patients with thrombocytopenia-Protocol for a topical systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Thrombocytopenia is a common condition in critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). It is associated with prolonged stay in the ICU, increased transfusion requirements, risk of bleeding and mortality. The evidence regarding the use of prophylactic platelet transfusion and thrombosis prophylaxis in patients with thrombocytopenia in the ICU is unknown. To direct future research, we aim to assess the current evidence regarding prophylactic platelet transfusion and thrombosis prophylaxis on patient-important benefits and harms in the ICU population. METHODS: We will conduct a topical systematic review of all study designs (ie no study design will per se be excluded from the proposed review) in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statements. We will include studies on adult patients in the ICU where the incidence of thrombocytopenia and the predefined outcome measures, including mortality, quality-of-life, thrombotic events and haemorrhagic events are reported. We will provide descriptive analyses of the included studies/trials, ie no meta-analyses will be conducted, and the quality of evidence will be assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. CONCLUSION: The outlined topical systematic review will provide important data on the benefits and harms of prophylactic platelet transfusion and thrombosis prophylaxis in ICU patients with thrombocytopenia and provide estimates on the rate of thrombocytopenia in this vulnerable population.