Randomized trial of effect of bariatric surgery on blood pressure after 5 years

BACKGROUND: Obesity represents a major obstacle for controlling hypertension, the leading risk factor for cardiovascular mortality. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the long-term effects of bariatric surgery on hypertension control and remission. METHODS: We conducted a randomized clinical trial with subjects with obesity grade 1 or 2 plus hypertension using at least 2 medications. We excluded subjects with previous cardiovascular events and poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. Subjects were assigned to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) combined with medical therapy (MT) or MT alone. We reassessed the original primary outcome (reduction of at least 30% of the total antihypertensive medications while maintaining blood pressure levels <140/90 mm Hg) at 5 years. The main analysis followed the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: A total of 100 subjects were included (76% women, age 43.8 ± 9.2 years, body mass index: 36.9 ± 2.7 kg/m2). At 5 years, body mass index was 36.40 kg/m2 (95% CI: 35.28-37.52 kg/m2) for MT and 28.01 kg/m2 (95% CI: 26.95-29.08 kg/m2) for RYGB (P < 0.001). Compared with MT, RYGB promoted a significantly higher rate of number of medications reduction (80.7% vs 13.7%; relative risk: 5.91; 95% CI: 2.58-13.52; P < 0.001) and the mean number of antihypertensive medications was 2.97 (95% CI: 2.33-3.60) for MT and 0.80 (95% CI: 0.51-1.09) for RYGB (P < 0.001). The rates of hypertension remission were 2.4% vs 46.9% (relative risk: 19.66; 95% CI: 2.74-141.09; P < 0.001). Sensitivity analysis considering only completed cases revealed consistent results. Interestingly, the rate of apparent resistant hypertension was lower after RYGB (0% vs 15.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Bariatric surgery represents an effective and durable strategy to control hypertension and related polypharmacy in subjects with obesity. (GAstric bypass to Treat obEse Patients With steAdy hYpertension [GATEWAY]; NCT01784848).

Randomized Trial of Effect of Bariatric Surgery on Blood Pressure After 5 Years.

BACKGROUND: Obesity represents a major obstacle for controlling hypertension, the leading risk factor for cardiovascular mortality. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the long-term effects of bariatric surgery on hypertension control and remission. METHODS: We conducted a randomized clinical trial with subjects with obesity grade 1 or 2 plus hypertension using at least 2 medications. We excluded subjects with previous cardiovascular events and poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. Subjects were assigned to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) combined with medical therapy (MT) or MT alone. We reassessed the original primary outcome (reduction of at least 30% of the total antihypertensive medications while maintaining blood pressure levels <140/90 mm Hg) at 5 years. The main analysis followed the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: A total of 100 subjects were included (76% women, age 43.8 ± 9.2 years, body mass index: 36.9 ± 2.7 kg/m2). At 5 years, body mass index was 36.40 kg/m2 (95% CI: 35.28-37.52 kg/m2) for MT and 28.01 kg/m2 (95% CI: 26.95-29.08 kg/m2) for RYGB (P < 0.001). Compared with MT, RYGB promoted a significantly higher rate of number of medications reduction (80.7% vs 13.7%; relative risk: 5.91; 95% CI: 2.58-13.52; P < 0.001) and the mean number of antihypertensive medications was 2.97 (95% CI: 2.33-3.60) for MT and 0.80 (95% CI: 0.51-1.09) for RYGB (P < 0.001). The rates of hypertension remission were 2.4% vs 46.9% (relative risk: 19.66; 95% CI: 2.74-141.09; P < 0.001). Sensitivity analysis considering only completed cases revealed consistent results. Interestingly, the rate of apparent resistant hypertension was lower after RYGB (0% vs 15.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Bariatric surgery represents an effective and durable strategy to control hypertension and related polypharmacy in subjects with obesity. (GAstric bypass to Treat obEse Patients With steAdy hYpertension [GATEWAY]; NCT01784848).

Balanced crystalloids versus saline for critically ill patients (BEST-Living): a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The effect of balanced crystalloids compared with that of saline in critically ill patients overall and in specific subgroups is unclear. We aimed to assess whether use of balanced solutions, compared with 0·9% sodium chloride (saline), decreased in-hospital mortality in adult patients in intensive care units (ICUs). METHODS: For this systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases from inception until March 1, 2022 (updated Sept 1, 2023) for individually randomised and cluster-randomised trials comparing balanced solutions with saline for adult patients in the ICU. Eligible trials were those that allocated patients to receive balanced solutions or saline for fluid resuscitation and maintenance fluids, or for maintenance fluids only; and administered the allocated fluid throughout ICU admission or, for trials using landmark mortality as their primary outcome, until the timepoint at which mortality was assessed (if ≥28 days). Authors of eligible trials were contacted to request individual patient data. Data obtained from eligible trials were merged, checked for accuracy, and centrally analysed by use of Bayesian regression models. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Prespecified subgroups included patients with traumatic brain injury. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022299282). FINDINGS: Our search identified 5219 records, yielding six eligible randomised controlled trials. Data obtained for 34 685 participants from the six trials, 17 407 assigned to receive balanced crystalloids and 17 278 to receive saline, were included in the analysis. The mean age of participants was 58·8 years (SD 17·5). Of 34 653 participants with available data, 14 579 (42·1%) were female and 20 074 (57·9%) were male. Among patients who provided consent to report in-hospital mortality, 2907 (16·8%) of 17 313 assigned balanced solutions and 2975 (17·3%) of 17 166 assigned saline died in hospital (odds ratio [OR] 0·962 [95% CrI 0·909 to 1·019], absolute difference -0·4 percentage points [-1·5 to 0·2]). The posterior probability that balanced solutions reduced mortality was 0·895. In patients with traumatic brain injury, 191 (19·1%) of 999 assigned balanced and 141 (14·7%) of 962 assigned saline died (OR 1·424 [1·100 to 1·818], absolute difference 3·2 percentage points [0·7 to 8·7]). The probability that balanced solutions increased mortality in patients with traumatic brain injury was 0·975. In an independent risk of bias assessment, two trials were deemed to be at low risk of bias and four at high risk of bias. INTERPRETATION: The probability that using balanced solutions in the ICU reduces in-hospital mortality is high, although the certainty of the evidence was moderate and the absolute risk reduction was small. In patients with traumatic brain injury, using balanced solutions was associated with increased in-hospital mortality. FUNDING: HCor (Brazil) and The George Institute for Global Health (Australia).

Determinants of fluid use and the association between volume of fluid used and effect of balanced solutions on mortality in critically ill patients: a secondary analysis of the BaSICS trial.

PURPOSE: Fluid use could modulate the effect of balanced solutions (BS) on outcome of intensive care unit (ICU) patients. It is uncertain whether fluid use practices are driven more by patient features or local practices. It is also unclear whether a "dose-response" for the potential benefits of balanced solutions exists. METHODS: The secondary analysis of the Balanced Solution in Intensive Care Study (BaSICS) compared 0.9% saline versus Plasma-Lyte 148® (BS) for fluid therapy in the ICU. The relative contribution of patient features and enrolling site (the random effect) on the volume of fluid used up to day 3 after admission was assessed using different methods, including a Bayesian regression, a frequentist mixed model, and a random forest, all adjusted for relevant patient confounders. Subsequently, a variety of methods were used to assess whether volume of fluid used modulated the effect of BS on 90-day mortality, including a traditional subgroup analysis for patients that remained alive and in the ICU up to 3 days, a Bayesian network accounting for competing risks, and an analysis based on site practices. RESULTS: 10,505 patients were analyzed. Median fluid use in the BS arm and in the 0.9% saline arm were 2500 mL and 2488 mL, respectively. The random effect in the Bayesian regression explained 0.32 (95% credible intervals (CrI) 0.24-0.41) of all model variance (0.33, 95% credible intervals from 0.32-0.35). Frequentist and random forest models produced similar results. In the analysis including only patients alive and in the ICU at 3 days, there was a strong suggestion of interaction between fluid use and the effect of BS, driven mostly by a lower mortality with BS compared to 0.9% saline as fluid use increased for patients with sepsis. These results were consistent in the Bayesian network analysis and in an analysis based on site practices, where septic patients enrolled to BS at high fluid use sites had a lower mortality (absolute risk reduction of - 0.13 [95% credible interval - 0.27 to - 0.01]; 0.98 probability of benefit). CONCLUSION: Baseline patient characteristics collected in the BaSICS trial explain less of the variance of fluid use during the first 3 days than the enrolling site. Volume of fluid used and the effects of BS appear to interact, mostly in the sepsis subgroup where there was a strong association between fluid use after enrollment and the effect of BS on 90-day mortality.

Cardiovascular Safety of Azithromycin in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Prespecified Pooled Analysis of the COALITION I and COALITION II Randomized Clinical Trials.

The cardiovascular safety from azithromycin in the treatment of several infectious diseases has been challenged. In this prespecified pooled analysis of 2 multicenter randomized clinical trials, we aimed to assess whether the use of azithromycin might lead to corrected QT (QTc) interval prolongation or clinically relevant ventricular arrhythmias. In the COALITION COVID Brazil I trial, 667 patients admitted with moderate COVID-19 were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine, hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, or standard of care. In the COALITION COVID Brazil II trial, 447 patients with severe COVID-19 were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine alone versus hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin. The principal end point for the present analysis was the composite of death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or ventricular arrhythmias. The addition of azithromycin to hydroxychloroquine did not result in any prolongation of the QTc interval (425.8 ± 3.6 ms vs 427.9 ± 3.9 ms, respectively, mean difference -2.1 ms, 95% confidence interval -12.5 to 8.4 ms, p = 0.70). The combination of azithromycin plus hydroxychloroquine compared with hydroxychloroquine alone did not result in increased risk of the primary end point (proportion of patients with events at 15 days 17.2% vs 16.0%, respectively, hazard ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.49, p = 0.65). In conclusion, in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 already receiving standard-of-care management (including hydroxychloroquine), the addition of azithromycin did not result in the prolongation of the QTc interval or increase in cardiovascular adverse events. Because azithromycin is among the most commonly prescribed antimicrobial agents, our results may inform clinical practice. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04322123, NCT04321278.

Shorter History of Hypertension as a Predictor of Hypertension Remission after 3-years of Bariatric Surgery: Data from the GATEWAY Trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous evidence explored predictors of hypertension (HTN) remission after bariatric but data are limited to observational studies and lack of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). This study was aimed to evaluate the rate of HTN remission after bariatric surgery using ABPM and to define predictors of mid-term HTN remission. METHODS: We included patients enrolled in the surgical arm of the GATEWAY randomized trial. HTN remission was defined as controlled blood pressure (< 130 × 80 mmHg) evaluated by 24-h ABPM while no need of anti-hypertensive medications after 36 months. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to assess the predictors of HTN remission after 36 months. RESULTS: 46 patients submitted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). HTN remission occurred in 39% (n = 14 out of 36 patients with complete data at 36 months). Patients with HTN remission had shorter HTN history than no remission group (5.9 ± 5.5 vs. 12.5 ± 8.1 years; p = 0.01). The baseline insulin levels were lower in patients who presented HTN remission, although not statistically significant (OR: 0.90; CI 95%: 0.80-0.99; p = 0.07). In the multivariate analysis, the HTN history (years) was the only independent predictor of HTN remission (OR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.70-0.97; p = 0.04). Therefore, for each additional year of HTN history, the chance of HTN remission decreases by approximately 15% after RYGB. CONCLUSION: After 3 years of RYGB, HTN remission defined by ABPM was common and independently associated with a shorter HTN history. These data underscore the need of early effective approach of obesity aiming greater impact in its comorbidities.

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.

Antivirals for adult patients hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a randomised, phase II/III, multicentre, placebo-controlled, adaptive study, with multiple arms and stages. COALITION COVID-19 BRAZIL IX - REVOLUTIOn trial.

Background: Repurposed drugs for treatment of new onset disease may be an effective therapeutic shortcut. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of repurposed antivirals compared to placebo in lowering SARS-CoV2 viral load of COVID-19 patients. Methods: REVOLUTIOn is a randomised, parallel, blinded, multistage, superiority and placebo controlled randomised trial conducted in 35 centres in Brazil. We include patients aged 18 years or older admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptoms onset 9 days or less and SpO2 94% or lower at room air were eligible. All participants were randomly allocated to receive either atazanavir, daclatasvir or sofosbuvir/daclatasvir or placebo for 10 days. The primary outcome was the decay rate (slope) of the SARS-CoV-2 viral load logarithm assessed in the modified intention to-treat population. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04468087. Findings: Between February 09, 2021, and August 04, 2021, 255 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to atazanavir (n = 64), daclatasvir (n = 66), sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (n = 67) or placebo (n = 58). Compared to placebo group, the change from baseline to day 10 in log viral load was not significantly different for any of the treatment groups (0.05 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.12], -0.02 [95% CI, -0.09 to 0.06], and -0.03 [95% CI, -0.11 to 0.04] for atazanavir, daclatasvir and sofosbuvir/daclatasvir groups respectively). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events between treatment groups. Interpretation: No significant reduction in viral load was observed from the use of atazanavir, daclatasvir or sofosbuvir/daclatasvir compared to placebo in hospitalised COVID-19 patients who need oxygen support with symptoms onset 9 days or less. Funding: Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (MCTI) - Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPQ); Cia Latino-Americana de Medicamentos (Clamed); Cia Industrial H. Carlos Schneider (Ciser); Hospital Research Foundation Incorporation, Australia, HCor São Paulo; Blanver Farmoquímica; Instituto de Tecnologia em Fármacos (Farmanguinhos) da Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (Fiocruz); Coordenação Geral de Planejamento Estratégico (Cogeplan)/Fiocruz; and Fundação de apoio a Fiocruz (Fiotec, VPGDI-054-FIO-20-2-13).

Conditional Treatment Effect Analysis of Two Infusion Rates for Fluid Challenges in Critically Ill Patients: A Secondary Analysis of Balanced Solution versus Saline in Intensive Care Study (BaSICS) Trial.

Rationale: Optimal infusion rate for fluid challenges in critically ill patients is unknown. A large clinical trial comparing two different infusion rates yielded neutral results. Conditional average treatment effect (CATE) assessment may aid in tailoring therapy. Objectives: To estimate CATE in patients enrolled in the BaSICS trial and to assess the effects of receiving CATE model-recommended treatment in terms of hospital mortality. Methods: Post hoc analysis of the BaSICS trial assessing the effect of two infusion rates for the fluid challenge (fast, 999 ml/h, control group; vs. slow, 333 ml/h, intervention group) on hospital mortality. CATE was estimated as the difference in outcome for treatment arms in counterfactuals obtained from a Bayesian model trained in the first half of the trial adjusted for predictors hypothesized to interact with the intervention. The model recommended slow or fast infusion or made no recommendation in the second half. A threshold greater than 0.90 probability of benefit was considered. Results: A total of 10,465 patients were analyzed. The model was trained in 5,230 patients and tested in 5,235 patients. A recommendation could be made in the test set in 19% of patients (14% were recommended the control group and 5% the treatment group); for 81% of patients, no recommendation could be made. Slow infusion was more frequently recommended in cases of planned admissions in younger patients; fast infusion was recommended for older patients with sepsis. Slow infusion rate in the subgroup of patients in the test set in which slow infusion was recommended by the model was associated with an odds ratio of 0.58 (95% credible interval of 0.32-0.90; 0.99 posterior probability of benefit) for hospital mortality. Fast infusion in the subgroup in which the model recommended fast infusion was associated with an odds ratio of 0.72 (credible intervals from 0.54 to 0.91; probability of benefit >0.99). Conclusions: Estimation of CATEs from counterfactual probabilities in data from BaSICS provided additional information on trial data. Agreement between treatment recommendation and actual treatment was associated with lower hospital mortality. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02875873).

Sirolimus-Coated Balloon With a Microsphere-Based Technology for the Treatment of De Novo or Restenotic Coronary Lesions.

BACKGROUND: Non stent-based local drug delivery with drug-coated balloon (DCB) is an alternative to drug-eluting stent with favorable clinical applicability in the treatment of selected coronary lesions. Our purpose was to report the initial performance, safety and efficacy evaluations of a novel sirolimus-coated balloon in the treatment of coronary lesions. METHODS: This was a phase I (first-in-man), prospective, multicenter, single-arm trial evaluating the novel SELUTION SLR™ DCB (M.A. Med Alliance SA, Nyon, Switzerland), which incorporates a polymeric microsphere-based technology for controlled and continuous release of sirolimus, in the treatment of de novo or restenotic lesions. RESULTS: A total of 56 patients/lesions were enrolled between November/2018 and March/2019. Diabetes was found in 46.6 %, and de novo lesions represented 79.6 % of cases. Device and procedural/clinical success were 100 % and 96.4 %, respectively. There was only one major adverse cardiac event (target lesion revascularization) reported at late follow-up. By quantitative coronary angiography analysis, mean % diameter stenosis was 30.5 ± 16.7 %, late lumen loss was 0.26 ± 0.45 mm and angiographic binary restenosis occurred in 4 of 45 cases at 6-month angiographic follow-up. CONCLUSION: The novel SELUTION sirolimus-coated balloon demonstrated safety and efficacy in the treatment of diseased coronary vessels, including absence of mortality and relatively low late lumen loss at late follow-up.

Sirolimus-coated balloon with a microsphere-based technology for the treatment of de novo or restenotic coronary lesions

BACKGROUND: Non stent-based local drug delivery with drug-coated balloon (DCB) is an alternative to drug-eluting stent with favorable clinical applicability in the treatment of selected coronary lesions. Our purpose was to report the initial performance, safety and efficacy evaluations of a novel sirolimus-coated balloon in the treatment of coronary lesions. METHODS: This was a phase I (first-in-man), prospective, multicenter, single-arm trial evaluating the novel SELUTION SLR™ DCB (M.A. Med Alliance SA, Nyon, Switzerland), which incorporates a polymeric microsphere-based technology for controlled and continuous release of sirolimus, in the treatment of de novo or restenotic lesions. RESULTS: A total of 56 patients/lesions were enrolled between November/2018 and March/2019. Diabetes was found in 46.6 %, and de novo lesions represented 79.6 % of cases. Device and procedural/clinical success were 100 % and 96.4 %, respectively. There was only one major adverse cardiac event (target lesion revascularization) reported at late follow-up. By quantitative coronary angiography analysis, mean % diameter stenosis was 30.5 ± 16.7 %, late lumen loss was 0.26 ± 0.45 mm and angiographic binary restenosis occurred in 4 of 45 cases at 6-month angiographic follow-up. CONCLUSION: The novel SELUTION sirolimus-coated balloon demonstrated safety and efficacy in the treatment of diseased coronary vessels, including absence of mortality and relatively low late lumen loss at late follow-up.

Influenza vaccination strategy in acute coronary syndromes: the VIP-ACS trial.

AIMS: To evaluate whether a strategy of double-dose influenza vaccination during hospitalization for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) compared with standard-dose outpatient vaccination (as recommended by current guidelines) would further reduce the risk of major cardiopulmonary events. METHODS AND RESULTS: Vaccination against Influenza to Prevent cardiovascular events after Acute Coronary Syndromes (VIP-ACS) was a pragmatic, randomized, multicentre, active-comparator, open-label trial with blinded outcome adjudication comparing two strategies of influenza vaccination following an ACS: double-dose quadrivalent inactivated vaccine before hospital discharge vs. standard-dose quadrivalent inactivated vaccine administered in the outpatient setting 30 days after randomization. The primary outcome was a hierarchical composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, unstable angina, hospitalization for heart failure, urgent coronary revascularization, and hospitalization for respiratory causes, analysed by the win ratio method. Patients were followed for 12 months. During two influenza seasons, 1801 participants were included at 25 centres in Brazil. The primary outcome was not different between groups, with 12.7% wins in-hospital double-dose vaccine group and 12.3% wins in the standard-dose vaccine group {win ratio: 1.02 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.79-1.32], P = 0.84}. Results were consistent for the key secondary outcome, a hierarchical composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and stroke [win ratio: 0.94 (95% CI: 0.66-1.33), P = 0.72]. Time-to-first event analysis for the primary outcome showed results similar to those of the main analysis [hazard ratio 0.97 (95% CI: 0.75-1.24), P = 0.79]. Adverse events were infrequent and did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: Among patients hospitalized with an ACS, double-dose influenza vaccination before discharge did not reduce cardiopulmonary outcomes compared with standard-dose vaccination in the outpatient setting. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04001504.

Hierarchical endpoint analysis using win ratio in critical care: An exploration using the balanced solutions in intensive care study (BaSICS).

PURPOSE: To reanalyze the results of the Balanced Solutions in Intensive Care Study (BaSICS) through hierarchical endpoint analysis with win ratio. METHODS: All patients with full data in BaSICS trial were elected for the analysis. BaSICS compared balanced solutions (Plasma Lye 148) versus 0.9% saline in critically ill patients requiring fluid challenge. The win ratio was defined as a hierarchical endpoint of 90-day mortality, recepit of kidney replacement therapy, hospital length-of-stay (LOS), and intensive care unit (ICU) LOS. Both unstratified and stratified (by admission type: planned admission, unplanned admission with sepsis, and unplanned admission without sepsis) approaches were used. A subgroup analysis was performed in patients with traumatic brain injury. RESULTS: A total of 10,490 patients were included in the analysis, resulting in 27,587,566 unique combinations for unstratified WR. Unstratified Win ratio was 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.97; 1.07), which was similar to stratified WR. No stratum in the stratified analysis resulted in significant results. Subgroup analysis confirmed the possible harm of balanced solutions in traumatic brain injury patients (WR 0.80; 95% confidence interval 0.64; 0.99). CONCLUSION: In this reanalysis of BaSICS, a win ratio analysis largely replicated the results of the main trial, yielding neutral results except for the subgroup of patients with traumatic brain injury where a signal of harm was found.

Morphine and clinical outcomes in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with fibrinolytic and antiplatelet therapy: Insights from the TREAT trial.

BACKGROUND: Morphine is commonly used to relieve pain, anxiety and dyspnea in STEMI but it lowers blood pressure and delays the activity of oral antiplatelet agents. The impact of morphine on clinical outcomes remains unknown. This analysis was performed to determine if morphine use was associated with increased risk of adverse clinical events among STEMI patients treated with fibrinolytic therapy and clopidogrel or ticagrelor. METHODS: In the Ticagrelor in Patients with ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Treated with Pharmacological Thrombolysis (TREAT) study, 3799 STEMI patients treated with fibrinolysis were randomized to receive clopidogrel or ticagrelor. Morphine use was left to the discretion of the treating physicians. In this pre-specified analysis, we evaluated clinical outcomes based on the use and timing of morphine administration. Outcomes were stratified by randomized treatment group. Multivariable analysis was performed using Inverse Probability Treatment Weighting (IPTW) weighting. RESULTS: Morphine was used in 53% of patients. After adjustment using IPTW weighting, morphine use was associated with higher hazard of reinfarction at 7 days (HR 4.9, P = .0006) and 30 days (HR 1.7, P = .04), and lower hazard of major bleeding (HR 0.37, P = .006). There was no significant difference in mortality at any time point. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with STEMI treated with fibrinolytic therapy, morphine use was associated with a higher risk of early reinfarction and a lower risk of major bleeding but no difference in mortality. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02298088.

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).

Protocol for balanced versus saline trialists: living systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (BEST-Living study).

Objective: It remains unclear whether balanced solutions improve patient-centred outcomes in critically ill patients overall and whether the treatment effect is heterogeneous, with evidence that some populations of patients may be helped and others harmed. To provide the most up-to-date and comprehensive assessment of the totality of the evidence, we will perform an ongoing living systematic review with aggregated and individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) comparing the use of balanced solutions with saline in critically ill adults. Design: Living systematic review using aggregated and individual patient data from randomised controlled trials. Data sources: We will conduct annual searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials. gov, the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), Japan's University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Center, and the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC). The first search was completed on 1 March 2022 and will be repeated annually. Authors of eligible trials will be invited to provide individual data for the IPDMA. The initial analysis will use all data received up to 30 June 2022. Review methods: We will include randomised controlled trials in adults treated in an intensive care unit that allocated individuals or clusters of patients to a balanced crystalloid solution or 0.9% saline for intravenous fluid therapy. Studies that used colloids as part of the intervention or that recruited only elective surgical patients will be excluded. The primary endpoint will be in-hospital mortality. The key secondary endpoint will be survival at longest follow-up for each trial. Data will be synthesised using both a random effect Bayesian meta-analysis and using hierarchical Bayesian models for individual patient data. Discussion: The use of balanced crystalloid solutions may reduce mortality and improve other outcomes in some critically ill patients. We will assess the totality of current and future evidence by performing an ongoing living systematic review with aggregated data and IPDMA. Protocol registration: CRD42022299282.

High flow nasal catheter therapy versus non-invasive positive pressure ventilation in acute respiratory failure (RENOVATE trial): protocol and statistical analysis plan.

Background: The best way to offer non-invasive respiratory support across several aetiologies of acute respiratory failure (ARF) is presently unclear. Both high flow nasal catheter (HFNC) therapy and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) may improve outcomes in critically ill patients by avoiding the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Objective: Describe the details of the protocol and statistical analysis plan designed to test whether HFNC therapy is non-inferior or even superior to NIPPV in patients with ARF due to different aetiologies. Methods: RENOVATE is a multicentre adaptive randomised controlled trial that is recruiting patients from adult emergency departments, wards and intensive care units (ICUs). It takes advantage of an adaptive Bayesian framework to assess the effectiveness of HFNC therapy versus NIPPV in four subgroups of ARF (hypoxaemic non-immunocompromised, hypoxaemic immunocompromised, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations, and acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema). The study will report the posterior probabilities of non-inferiority, superiority or futility for the comparison between HFNC therapy and NIPPV. The study assumes neutral priors and the final sample size is not fixed. The final sample size will be determined by a priori determined stopping rules for non-inferiority, superiority and futility for each subgroup or by reaching the maximum of 2000 patients. Outcomes: The primary endpoint is endotracheal intubation or death within 7 days. Secondary outcomes are 28-day and 90-day mortality, and ICU-free and IMV-free days in the first 28 days. Results and conclusions: RENOVATE is designed to provide evidence on whether HFNC therapy improves, compared with NIPPV, important patient-centred outcomes in different aetiologies of ARF. Here, we describe the rationale, design and status of the trial. Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03643939.

High risk coronavirus disease 2019: The primary results of the CoronaHeart multi-center cohort study

BACKGROUND: Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) may present high risk features during hospitalization, including cardiovascular manifestations. However, less is known about the factors that may further increase the risk of death in these patients. METHODS: We included patients with COVID-19 and high risk features according to clinical and/or laboratory criteria at 21 sites in Brazil from June 10th to October 23rd of 2020. All variables were collected until hospital discharge or in-hospital death. RESULTS: A total of 2546 participants were included (mean age 65 years; 60.3% male). Overall, 70.8% were admitted to intensive care units and 54.2% had elevated troponin levels. In-hospital mortality was 41.7%. An interaction among sex, age and mortality was found (p = 0.007). Younger women presented higher rates of death than men (30.0% vs 22.9%), while older men presented higher rates of death than women (57.6% vs 49.2%). The strongest factors associated with in-hospital mortality were need for mechanical ventilation (odds ratio [OR] 8.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.4­12.7), elevated C-reactive protein (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.7­2.9), cancer (OR 1.8, 95 %CI 1.2­2.9), and elevated troponin levels (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.4­2.3). A risk score was developed for risk assessment of in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This cohort showed that patients with COVID-19 and high risk features have an elevated rate of in-hospital mortality with differences according to age and sex. These results highlight unique aspects of this population and might help identifying patients who may benefit from more careful initial surveillance and potential subsequent interventional therapies

Effect of Slower vs Faster Intravenous Fluid Bolus Rates on Mortality in Critically Ill Patients: The BaSICS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Slower intravenous fluid infusion rates could reduce the formation of tissue edema and organ dysfunction in critically ill patients; however, there are no data to support different infusion rates during fluid challenges for important outcomes such as mortality. Objective: To determine the effect of a slower infusion rate vs control infusion rate on 90-day survival in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Design, Setting, and Participants: Unblinded randomized factorial clinical trial in 75 ICUs in Brazil, involving 11 052 patients requiring at least 1 fluid challenge and with 1 risk factor for worse outcomes were randomized from May 29, 2017, to March 2, 2020. Follow-up was concluded on October 29, 2020. Patients were randomized to 2 different infusion rates (reported in this article) and 2 different fluid types (balanced fluids or saline, reported separately). Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive fluid challenges at 2 different infusion rates; 5538 to the slower rate (333 mL/h) and 5514 to the control group (999 mL/h). Patients were also randomized to receive balanced solution or 0.9% saline using a factorial design. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was 90-day survival. Results: Of all randomized patients, 10 520 (95.2%) were analyzed (mean age, 61.1 years [SD, 17.0 years]; 44.2% were women) after excluding duplicates and consent withdrawals. Patients assigned to the slower rate received a mean of 1162 mL on the first day vs 1252 mL for the control group. By day 90, 1406 of 5276 patients (26.6%) in the slower rate group had died vs 1414 of 5244 (27.0%) in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.96-1.11; P = .46). There was no significant interaction between fluid type and infusion rate (P = .98). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients in the intensive care unit requiring fluid challenges, infusing at a slower rate compared with a faster rate did not reduce 90-day mortality. These findings do not support the use of a slower infusion rate. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02875873.