Effect of Levosimendan on Renal Outcome in Cardiac Surgery Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease and Perioperative Cardiovascular Dysfunction: A Substudy of a Multicenter Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Acute kidney injury (AKI) occurs frequently after cardiac surgery. Levosimendan might reduce the incidence of AKI in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. The authors investigated whether levosimendan administration could reduce AKI incidence in a high-risk cardiac surgical population. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of a multicenter randomized trial. SETTING: Cardiac surgery operating rooms and intensive care units of 14 centers in 3 countries. PARTICIPANTS: The study comprised 90 patients who underwent mitral valve surgery with an estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 and perioperative myocardial dysfunction. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were assigned randomly to receive levosimendan (0.025-0.2 µg/kg/min) or placebo in addition to standard inotropic treatment. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Forty-six patients were assigned to receive levosimendan and 44 to receive placebo. Postoperative AKI occurred in 14 (30%) patients in the levosimendan group versus 23 (52%) in the placebo group (absolute difference -21.8; 95% confidence interval -41.7 to -1.97; p = 0.035). The incidence of major complications also was lower (18 [39%]) in the levosimendan group versus that in the placebo group (29 [66%]) (absolute difference -26.8 [-46.7 to -6.90]; p = 0.011). A trend toward lower serum creatinine at intensive care unit discharge was observed in the levosimendan group (1.18 [0.99-1.49] mg/dL) versus that in the placebo group (1.39 [1.05-1.76] mg/dL) (95% confidence interval -0.23 [-0.49 to 0.01]; p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Levosimendan may improve renal outcome in cardiac surgery patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing mitral valve surgery who develop perioperative myocardial dysfunction. Results of this exploratory analysis should be investigated in future properly designed randomized controlled trials.

Randomized Evidence for Reduction of Perioperative Mortality: An Updated Consensus Process.

OBJECTIVE: Of the 230 million patients undergoing major surgical procedures every year, more than 1 million will die within 30 days. Thus, any nonsurgical interventions that help reduce perioperative mortality might save thousands of lives. The authors have updated a previous consensus process to identify all the nonsurgical interventions, supported by randomized evidence, that may help reduce perioperative mortality. DESIGN AND SETTING: A web-based international consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS: The study comprised 500 clinicians from 61 countries. INTERVENTIONS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify published literature about nonsurgical interventions, supported by randomized evidence, showing a statistically significant impact on mortality. A consensus conference of experts discussed eligible papers. The interventions identified by the conference then were submitted to colleagues worldwide through a web-based survey. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The authors identified 11 interventions contributing to increased survival (perioperative hemodynamic optimization, neuraxial anesthesia, noninvasive ventilation, tranexamic acid, selective decontamination of the gastrointestinal tract, insulin for tight glycemic control, preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump, leuko-depleted red blood cells transfusion, levosimendan, volatile agents, and remote ischemic preconditioning) and 2 interventions showing increased mortality (beta-blocker therapy and aprotinin). Interventions then were voted on by participating clinicians. Percentages of agreement among clinicians in different countries differed significantly for 6 interventions, and a variable gap between evidence and clinical practice was noted. CONCLUSIONS: The authors identified 13 nonsurgical interventions that may decrease or increase perioperative mortality, with variable agreement by clinicians. Such interventions may be optimal candidates for investigation in high-quality trials and discussion in international guidelines to reduce perioperative mortality.

Randomized evidence for reduction of perioperative mortality: an updated consensus process

Objective: Out of the 230 million patients undergoing major surgical procedure every year, morethan 1 million will die within 30 days. Thus, any nonsurgical interventions that help reduce perioperative mortality might save thousands of lives. We decided to update a previous consensus process to identify all the nonsurgical interventions, supported by randomized evidence, that may help reduce perioperative mortality. Design and Setting: A web-based international consensus conference. Participants: 500 hundred clinicians from 61 countries. Interventions: A systematic literature search was performed to identify published literature aboutnonsurgical interventions, supported by randomized evidence showing a statistically significant impact on mortality. Eligible papers were discussed by a Consensus Conference of experts. The interventions identified by the conference were then submitted to colleagues worldwide through aweb-based survey...

Worldwide Opinion on Multicenter Randomized Interventions Showing Mortality Reduction in Critically Ill Patients: A Democracy-Based Medicine Approach.

OBJECTIVES: Democracy-based medicine is a combination of evidence-based medicine (systematic review), expert assessment, and worldwide voting by physicians to express their opinions and self-reported practice via the Internet. The authors applied democracy-based medicine to key trials in critical care medicine. DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review of literature followed by web-based voting on findings of a consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 555 clinicians from 61 countries. INTERVENTIONS: The authors performed a systematic literature review (via searching MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Embase) and selected all multicenter randomized clinical trials in critical care that reported a significant effect on survival and were endorsed by expert clinicians. Then they solicited voting and self-reported practice on such evidence via an interactive Internet questionnaire. Relationships among trial sample size, design, and respondents' agreement were investigated. The gap between agreement and use/avoidance and the influence of country origin on physicians' approach to interventions also were investigated. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: According to 24 multicenter randomized controlled trials, 15 interventions affecting mortality were identified. Wide variabilities in both the level of agreement and reported practice among different interventions and countries were found. Moreover, agreement and reported practice often did not coincide. Finally, a positive correlation among agreement, trial sample size, and number of included centers was found. On the contrary, trial design did not influence clinicians' agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians' clinical practice and agreement with the literature vary among different interventions and countries. The role of these interventions in affecting survival should be further investigated to reduce both the gap between evidence and clinical practice and transnational differences.

Mortality in Multicenter Critical Care Trials: An Analysis of Interventions With a Significant Effect.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify all treatments that affect mortality in adult critically ill patients in multicenter randomized controlled trials. We also evaluated the methodological aspects of these studies, and we surveyed clinicians' opinion and usual practice for the selected interventions. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were searched. Further articles were suggested for inclusion from experts and cross-check of references. STUDY SELECTION: We selected the articles that fulfilled the following criteria: publication in a peer-reviewed journal; multicenter randomized controlled trial design; dealing with nonsurgical interventions in adult critically ill patients; and statistically significant effect in unadjusted landmark mortality. A consensus conference assessed all interventions and excluded those with lack of reproducibility, lack of generalizability, high probability of type I error, major baseline imbalances between intervention and control groups, major design flaws, contradiction by subsequent larger higher quality trials, modified intention to treat analysis, effect found only after adjustments, and lack of biological plausibility. DATA EXTRACTION: For all selected studies, we recorded the intervention and its comparator, the setting, the sample size, whether enrollment was completed or interrupted, the presence of blinding, the effect size, and the duration of follow-up. DATA SYNTHESIS: We found 15 interventions that affected mortality in 24 multicenter randomized controlled trials. Median sample size was small (199 patients) as was median centers number (10). Blinded trials enrolled significantly more patients and involved more centers. Multicenter randomized controlled trials showing harm also involved significantly more centers and more patients (p = 0.016 and p = 0.04, respectively). Five hundred fifty-five clinicians from 61 countries showed variable agreement on perceived validity of such interventions. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 15 treatments that decreased/increased mortality in critically ill patients in 24 multicenter randomized controlled trials. However, design affected trial size and larger trials were more likely to show harm. Finally, clinicians view of such trials and their translation into practice varied.

Effect of fenoldopam on use of renal replacement therapy among patients with acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: No effective pharmaceutical agents have yet been identified to treat acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether fenoldopam reduces the need for renal replacement therapy in critically ill cardiac surgery patients with acute kidney injury. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study from March 2008 to April 2013 in 19 cardiovascular intensive care units in Italy. We randomly assigned 667 patients admitted to intensive care units after cardiac surgery with early acute kidney injury (≥50% increase of serum creatinine level from baseline or oliguria for ≥6 hours) to receive fenoldopam (338 patients) or placebo (329 patients). We used a computer-generated permuted block randomization sequence for treatment allocation. All patients completed their follow-up 30 days after surgery, and data were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. INTERVENTIONS: Continuous infusion of fenoldopam or placebo for up to 4 days with a starting dose of 0.1 µg/kg/min (range, 0.025-0.3 µg/kg/min). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was the rate of renal replacement therapy. Secondary end points included mortality (intensive care unit and 30-day mortality) and the rate of hypotension during study drug infusion. RESULTS: The study was stopped for futility as recommended by the safety committee after a planned interim analysis. Sixty-nine of 338 patients (20%) allocated to the fenoldopam group and 60 of 329 patients (18%) allocated to the placebo group received renal replacement therapy (P = .47). Mortality at 30 days was 78 of 338 (23%) in the fenoldopam group and 74 of 329 (22%) in the placebo group (P = .86). Hypotension occurred in 85 (26%) patients in the fenoldopam group and in 49 (15%) patients in the placebo group (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery, fenoldopam infusion, compared with placebo, did not reduce the need for renal replacement therapy or risk of 30-day mortality but was associated with an increased rate of hypotension. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00621790.

Reducing mortality in acute kidney injury patients: systematic review and international web-based survey.

OBJECTIVE: To identify all interventions that increase or reduce mortality in patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) and to establish the agreement between stated beliefs and actual practice in this setting. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic literature review and international web-based survey. PARTICIPANTS: More than 300 physicians from 62 countries. INTERVENTIONS: Several databases, including MEDLINE/PubMed, were searched with no time limits (updated February 14, 2012) to identify all the drugs/techniques/strategies that fulfilled all the following criteria: (a) published in a peer-reviewed journal, (b) dealing with critically ill adult patients with or at risk for acute kidney injury, and (c) reporting a statistically significant reduction or increase in mortality. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the 18 identified interventions, 15 reduced mortality and 3 increased mortality. Perioperative hemodynamic optimization, albumin in cirrhotic patients, terlipressin for hepatorenal syndrome type 1, human immunoglobulin, peri-angiography hemofiltration, fenoldopam, plasma exchange in multiple-myeloma-associated AKI, increased intensity of renal replacement therapy (RRT), CVVH in severely burned patients, vasopressin in septic shock, furosemide by continuous infusion, citrate in continuous RRT, N-acetylcysteine, continuous and early RRT might reduce mortality in critically ill patients with or at risk for AKI; positive fluid balance, hydroxyethyl starch and loop diuretics might increase mortality in critically ill patients with or at risk for AKI. Web-based opinion differed from consensus opinion for 30% of interventions and self-reported practice for 3 interventions. CONCLUSION: The authors identified all interventions with at least 1 study suggesting a significant effect on mortality in patients with or at risk of AKI and found that there is discordance between participant stated beliefs and actual practice regarding these topics.

Randomized evidence for reduction of perioperative mortality.

OBJECTIVE: With more than 220 million major surgical procedures performed annually, perioperative interventions leading to even minor mortality reductions would save thousands of lives per year. This international consensus conference aimed to identify all nonsurgical interventions that increase or reduce perioperative mortality as suggested by randomized evidence. DESIGN AND SETTING: A web-based international consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS: More than 1,000 physicians from 77 countries participated in this web-based consensus conference. INTERVENTIONS: Systematic literature searches (MEDLINE/PubMed, June 8, 2011) were used to identify the papers with a statistically significant effect on mortality together with contacts with experts. Interventions were considered eligible for evaluation if they (1) were published in peer-reviewed journals, (2) dealt with a nonsurgical intervention (drug/technique/strategy) in adult patients undergoing surgery, and (3) provided a statistically significant mortality increase or reduction as suggested by a randomized trial or meta-analysis of randomized trials. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen interventions that might change perioperative mortality in adult surgery were identified. Interventions that might reduce mortality include chlorhexidine oral rinse, clonidine, insulin, intra-aortic balloon pump, leukodepletion, levosimendan, neuraxial anesthesia, noninvasive respiratory support, hemodynamic optimization, oxygen, selective decontamination of the digestive tract, and volatile anesthetics. In contrast, aprotinin and extended-release metoprolol might increase mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Future research and health care funding should be directed toward studying and evaluating these interventions.