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

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

Association between Type of Fluid Received Prior to Enrollment, Type of Admission, and Effect of Balanced Crystalloid in Critically Ill Adults: A Secondary Exploratory Analysis of the BaSICS Clinical Trial.

Rationale: The effects of balanced crystalloid versus saline on clinical outcomes for ICU patients may be modified by the type of fluid that patients received for initial resuscitation and by the type of admission. Objectives: To assess whether the results of a randomized controlled trial could be affected by fluid use before enrollment and admission type. Methods: Secondary post hoc analysis of the BaSICS (Balanced Solution in Intensive Care Study) trial, which compared a balanced solution (Plasma-Lyte 148) with 0.9% saline in the ICU. Patients were categorized according to fluid use in the 24 hours before enrollment in four groups (balanced solutions only, 0.9% saline only, a mix of both, and no fluid before enrollment) and according to admission type (planned, unplanned with sepsis, and unplanned without sepsis). The association between 90-day mortality and the randomization group was assessed using a hierarchical logistic Bayesian model. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 10,520 patients were included. There was a low probability that the balanced solution was associated with improved 90-day mortality in the whole trial population (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; 89% credible interval [CrI], 0.66-10.51; probability of benefit, 0.58); however, probability of benefit was high for patients who received only balanced solutions before enrollment (regardless of admission type, OR, 0.78; 89% CrI, 0.56-1.03; probability of benefit, 0.92), mostly because of a benefit in unplanned admissions due to sepsis (OR, 0.70; 89% CrI, 0.50-0.97; probability of benefit, 0.96) and planned admissions (OR, 0.79; 89% CrI, 0.65-0.97; probability of benefit, 0.97). Conclusions: There is a high probability that balanced solution use in the ICU reduces 90-day mortality in patients who exclusively received balanced fluids before trial enrollment. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02875873).

Convalescent plasma for COVID-19 in hospitalised patients: an open-label, randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The effects of convalescent plasma (CP) therapy in hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain uncertain. This study investigates the effect of CP on clinical improvement in these patients. METHODS: This is an investigator-initiated, randomised, parallel arm, open-label, superiority clinical trial. Patients were randomly (1:1) assigned to two infusions of CP plus standard of care (SOC) or SOC alone. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with clinical improvement 28 days after enrolment. RESULTS: A total of 160 (80 in each arm) patients (66.3% critically ill, 33.7% severely ill) completed the trial. The median (interquartile range (IQR)) age was 60.5 (48-68) years; 58.1% were male and the median (IQR) time from symptom onset to randomisation was 10 (8-12) days. Neutralising antibody titres >1:80 were present in 133 (83.1%) patients at baseline. The proportion of patients with clinical improvement on day 28 was 61.3% in the CP+SOC group and 65.0% in the SOC group (difference -3.7%, 95% CI -18.8-11.3%). The results were similar in the severe and critically ill subgroups. There was no significant difference between CP+SOC and SOC groups in pre-specified secondary outcomes, including 28-day mortality, days alive and free of respiratory support and duration of invasive ventilatory support. Inflammatory and other laboratory marker values on days 3, 7 and 14 were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: CP+SOC did not result in a higher proportion of clinical improvement on day 28 in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 compared to SOC alone.

Effect of Intravenous Fluid Treatment With a Balanced Solution vs 0.9% Saline Solution on Mortality in Critically Ill Patients: The BaSICS Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Intravenous fluids are used for almost all intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Clinical and laboratory studies have questioned whether specific fluid types result in improved outcomes, including mortality and acute kidney injury. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of a balanced solution vs saline solution (0.9% sodium chloride) on 90-day survival in critically ill patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Double-blind, factorial, randomized clinical trial conducted at 75 ICUs in Brazil. Patients who were admitted to the ICU with at least 1 risk factor for worse outcomes, who required at least 1 fluid expansion, and who were expected to remain in the ICU for more than 24 hours were randomized between May 29, 2017, and March 2, 2020; follow-up concluded on October 29, 2020. Patients were randomized to 2 different fluid types (a balanced solution vs saline solution reported in this article) and 2 different infusion rates (reported separately). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either a balanced solution (n = 5522) or 0.9% saline solution (n = 5530) for all intravenous fluids. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was 90-day survival. RESULTS: Among 11 052 patients who were randomized, 10 520 (95.2%) were available for the analysis (mean age, 61.1 [SD, 17] years; 44.2% were women). There was no significant interaction between the 2 interventions (fluid type and infusion speed; P = .98). Planned surgical admissions represented 48.4% of all patients. Of all the patients, 60.6% had hypotension or vasopressor use and 44.3% required mechanical ventilation at enrollment. Patients in both groups received a median of 1.5 L of fluid during the first day after enrollment. By day 90, 1381 of 5230 patients (26.4%) assigned to a balanced solution died vs 1439 of 5290 patients (27.2%) assigned to saline solution (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.90-1.05]; P = .47). There were no unexpected treatment-related severe adverse events in either group. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Among critically ill patients requiring fluid challenges, use of a balanced solution compared with 0.9% saline solution did not significantly reduce 90-day mortality. The findings do not support the use of this balanced solution. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02875873.

Medical Research Council Scale Predicts Spontaneous Breathing Trial Failure and Difficult or Prolonged Weaning of Critically Ill Individuals.

BACKGROUND: Handgrip strength is an alternative measure to assess peripheral muscle strength and is correlated with the Medical Research Council (MRC) scale, with promising values for diagnosing ICU-acquired weakness (ICUAW). Because ICUAW has been associated with delayed weaning from mechanical ventilation, we hypothesized that ICUAW evaluated with both the MRC scale score and handgrip strength are associated with failure of a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) and duration of mechanical ventilation weaning. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study in 3 general ICUs with a total of 54 beds at 2 academic hospitals. Adult subjects with > 48 h of mechanical ventilation who were eligible for weaning were included in the study. RESULTS: In the evaluation before the first SBT, the MRC score (P < .001) and handgrip strength (P < .001) were significantly different between subjects extubated after a successful first SBT (simple weaning) and those extubated any time after a failed first SBT (difficult weaning). Only the MRC score discriminated between first SBT success or failure (P < .001); in multivariate analysis, the MRC score was significantly associated with first SBT failure (odds ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.88-0.97, P < .001) and difficult weaning (odds ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.87-0.96, P < .001). Handgrip strength exhibited good accuracy in identifying ICUAW. CONCLUSIONS: MRC score was independently associated with SBT failure and difficult or prolonged weaning.

Effect of tocilizumab on clinical outcomes at 15 days in patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether tocilizumab improves clinical outcomes for patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Randomised, open label trial. SETTING: Nine hospitals in Brazil, 8 May to 17 July 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with confirmed covid-19 who were receiving supplemental oxygen or mechanical ventilation and had abnormal levels of at least two serum biomarkers (C reactive protein, D dimer, lactate dehydrogenase, or ferritin). The data monitoring committee recommended stopping the trial early, after 129 patients had been enrolled, because of an increased number of deaths at 15 days in the tocilizumab group. INTERVENTIONS: Tocilizumab (single intravenous infusion of 8 mg/kg) plus standard care (n=65) versus standard care alone (n=64). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome, clinical status measured at 15 days using a seven level ordinal scale, was analysed as a composite of death or mechanical ventilation because the assumption of odds proportionality was not met. RESULTS: A total of 129 patients were enrolled (mean age 57 (SD 14) years; 68% men) and all completed follow-up. All patients in the tocilizumab group and two in the standard care group received tocilizumab. 18 of 65 (28%) patients in the tocilizumab group and 13 of 64 (20%) in the standard care group were receiving mechanical ventilation or died at day 15 (odds ratio 1.54, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 3.66; P=0.32). Death at 15 days occurred in 11 (17%) patients in the tocilizumab group compared with 2 (3%) in the standard care group (odds ratio 6.42, 95% confidence interval 1.59 to 43.2). Adverse events were reported in 29 of 67 (43%) patients who received tocilizumab and 21 of 62 (34%) who did not receive tocilizumab. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe or critical covid-19, tocilizumab plus standard care was not superior to standard care alone in improving clinical outcomes at 15 days, and it might increase mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04403685.

Azithromycin in addition to standard of care versus standard of care alone in the treatment of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19 in Brazil (COALITION II): a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of azithromycin in the treatment of COVID-19 remain uncertain. We assessed whether adding azithromycin to standard of care, which included hydroxychloroquine, would improve clinical outcomes of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised clinical trial at 57 centres in Brazil. We enrolled patients admitted to hospital with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and at least one additional severity criteria as follows: use of oxygen supplementation of more than 4 L/min flow; use of high-flow nasal cannula; use of non-invasive mechanical ventilation; or use of invasive mechanical ventilation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to azithromycin (500 mg via oral, nasogastric, or intravenous administration once daily for 10 days) plus standard of care or to standard of care without macrolides. All patients received hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice daily for 10 days) because that was part of standard of care treatment in Brazil for patients with severe COVID-19. The primary outcome, assessed by an independent adjudication committee masked to treatment allocation, was clinical status at day 15 after randomisation, assessed by a six-point ordinal scale, with levels ranging from 1 to 6 and higher scores indicating a worse condition (with odds ratio [OR] greater than 1·00 favouring the control group). The primary outcome was assessed in all patients in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population who had severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection confirmed by molecular or serological testing before randomisation (ie, modified ITT [mITT] population). Safety was assessed in all patients according to which treatment they received, regardless of original group assignment. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04321278. FINDINGS: 447 patients were enrolled from March 28 to May 19, 2020. COVID-19 was confirmed in 397 patients who constituted the mITT population, of whom 214 were assigned to the azithromycin group and 183 to the control group. In the mITT population, the primary endpoint was not significantly different between the azithromycin and control groups (OR 1·36 [95% CI 0·94-1·97], p=0·11). Rates of adverse events, including clinically relevant ventricular arrhythmias, resuscitated cardiac arrest, acute kidney failure, and corrected QT interval prolongation, were not significantly different between groups. INTERPRETATION: In patients with severe COVID-19, adding azithromycin to standard of care treatment (which included hydroxychloroquine) did not improve clinical outcomes. Our findings do not support the routine use of azithromycin in combination with hydroxychloroquine in patients with severe COVID-19. FUNDING: COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and EMS.

Early antiretroviral therapy for HIV-infected patients admitted to an intensive care unit (EARTH-ICU): A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) has reduced HIV-related morbidity and mortality at all stages of infection and reduced transmission of HIV. Currently, the immediate start of HAART is recommended for all HIV patients, regardless of the CD4 count. There are several concerns, however, about starting treatment in critically ill patients. Unpredictable absorption of medication by the gastrointestinal tract, drug toxicity, drug interactions, limited reserve to tolerate the dysfunction of other organs resulting from hypersensitivity to drugs or immune reconstitution syndrome, and the possibility that subtherapeutic levels of drug may lead to viral resistance are the main concerns. The objective of our study was to compare the early onset (up to 5 days) with late onset (after discharge from the ICU) of HAART in HIV-infected patients admitted to the ICU. METHODS: This was a randomized, open-label clinical trial enrolling HIV-infected patients admitted to the ICU of a public hospital in southern Brazil. Patients randomized to the intervention group had to start treatment with HAART within 5 days of ICU admission. For patients in the control group, treatment should begin after discharge from the ICU. The patients were followed up to determine mortality in the ICU, in the hospital and at 6 months. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. The secondary outcome was mortality at 6 months. RESULTS: The calculated sample size was 344 patients. Unfortunately, we decided to discontinue the study due to a progressively slower recruitment rate. A total of 115 patients were randomized. The majority of admissions were for AIDS-defining illnesses and low CD4. The main cause of admission was respiratory failure. Regarding the early and late study groups, there was no difference in hospital (66.7% and 63.8%, p = 0.75) or 6-month (68.4% and 79.2%, p = 0.20) mortality. After multivariate analysis, the only independent predictors of in-hospital mortality were shock and dialysis during the ICU stay. For the mortality outcome at 6 months, the independent variables were shock and dialysis during the ICU stay and tuberculosis at ICU admission. CONCLUSIONS: Although the early termination of the study precludes definitive conclusions being made, early HAART administration for HIV-infected patients admitted to the ICU compared to late administration did not show benefit in hospital mortality or 6-month mortality. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01455688. Registered 20 October 2011, https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01455688.

Role of organisational factors on the 'weekend effect' in critically ill patients in Brazil: a retrospective cohort analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Higher mortality for patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) during the weekends has been occasionally reported with conflicting results that could be related to organisational factors. We investigated the effects of ICU organisational and staffing patterns on the potential association between weekend admission and outcomes in critically ill patients. METHODS: We included 59 614 patients admitted to 78 ICUs participating during 2013. We defined 'weekend admission' as any ICU admission from Friday 19:00 until Monday 07:00. We assessed the association between weekend admission with hospital mortality using a mixed logistic regression model controlling for both patient-level (illness severity, age, comorbidities, performance status and admission type) and ICU-level (decrease in nurse/bed ratio on weekend, full-time intensivist coverage, use of checklists on weekends and number of institutional protocols) confounders. We performed secondary analyses in the subgroup of scheduled surgical admissions. RESULTS: A total of 41 894 patients (70.3%) were admitted on weekdays and 17 720 patients (29.7%) on weekends. In univariable analysis, weekend admitted patients had higher ICU (10.9% vs 9.0%, P<0.001) and hospital (16.5% vs 13.5%, P<0.001) mortality. After adjusting for confounders, weekend admission was not associated with higher hospital mortality (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.12, P=0.095). However, a 'weekend effect' was still observed in scheduled surgical admissions, as well as in ICUs not using checklists during the weekends. For unscheduled admissions, no 'weekend effect' was observed regardless of ICU's characteristics. For scheduled surgical admissions, a 'weekend effect' was present only in ICUs with a low number of implemented protocols and those with a reduction in the nurse/bed ratio and not applying checklists during weekends. CONCLUSIONS: ICU organisational factors, such as decreased nurse-to-patient ratio, absence of checklists and fewer standardised protocols, may explain, in part, increases in mortality in patients admitted to the ICU mortality on weekends.

Decreases in procalcitonin and C-reactive protein are strong predictors of survival in ventilator-associated pneumonia.

INTRODUCTION: This study sought to assess the prognostic value of the kinetics of procalcitonin (PCT), C-reactive protein (CRP) and clinical scores (clinical pulmonary infection score (CPIS), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA)) in the outcome of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) at an early time point, when adequacy of antimicrobial treatment is evaluated. METHODS: This prospective observational cohort study was conducted in a teaching hospital. The subjects were 75 patients consecutively admitted to the intensive care unit from October 2003 to August 2005 who developed VAP. Patients were followed for 28 days after the diagnosis, when they were considered survivors. Patients who died before the 28th day were non-survivors. There were no interventions. RESULTS: PCT, CRP and SOFA score were determined on day 0 and day 4. Variables included in the univariable logistic regression model for survival were age, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, decreasing DeltaSOFA, decreasing DeltaPCT and decreasing DeltaCRP. Survival was directly related to decreasing DeltaPCT with odds ratio (OR) = 5.67 (95% confidence interval 1.78 to 18.03), decreasing DeltaCRP with OR = 3.78 (1.24 to 11.50), decreasing DeltaSOFA with OR = 3.08 (1.02 to 9.26) and APACHE II score with OR = 0.92 (0.86 to 0.99). In a multivariable logistic regression model for survival, only decreasing DeltaPCT with OR = 4.43 (1.08 to 18.18) and decreasing DeltaCRP with OR = 7.40 (1.58 to 34.73) remained significant. Decreasing DeltaCPIS was not related to survival (p = 0.59). There was a trend to correlate adequacy to survival. Fifty percent of the 20 patients treated with inadequate antibiotics and 65.5% of the 55 patients on adequate antibiotics survived (p = 0.29). CONCLUSION: Measurement of PCT and CRP at onset and on the fourth day of treatment can predict survival of VAP patients. A decrease in either one of these marker values predicts survival.