Continuous passive paracentesis versus large-volume paracentesis in the prevention and treatment of intra-abdominal hypertension in the critically ill cirrhotic patient with ascites (COPPTRIAHL): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients with cirrhosis and ascites are at high risk for intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) which increases mortality. Clinical guidelines recommend maintaining intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) below 16 mmHg; nonetheless, more than three quarters of critically ill patients with cirrhosis develop IAH during their first week of ICU stay. Standard-of-care intermittent large-volume paracentesis (LVP) relieves abdominal wall tension, reduces IAP, optimizes abdominal perfusion pressure, and is associated with short-term improvement in renal and pulmonary dysfunction. However, there is no evidence of the superiority of different paracentesis strategies in the prevention and treatment of IAH in critically ill patients with cirrhosis. This trial aims to compare the outcomes of continuous passive paracentesis versus LVP in the prevention and treatment of IAH in patients with cirrhosis and ascites. METHODS: An investigator-initiated, open label, randomized controlled trial, set in a general ICU specialized in liver disease, was initiated in August 2022, with an expected duration of 36 months. Seventy patients with cirrhosis and ascites will be randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive one of two methods of therapeutic paracentesis. A stratified randomization method, with maximum creatinine and IAP values as strata, will homogenize patient baseline characteristics before trial group allocation, within 24 h of admission. In the control group, LVP will be performed intermittently according to clinical practice, with a maximum duration of 8 h, while, in the intervention group, continuous passive paracentesis will drain ascitic fluid for up to 7 days. The primary endpoint is serum creatinine concentration, and secondary endpoints include IAP, measured creatinine clearance, daily urine output, stage 3 acute kidney injury and multiorgan dysfunction assessed at day 7 after enrollment, as well as 28-day mortality rate and renal replacement therapy-free days, and length-of-stay. Prespecified values will be used in case of renal replacement therapy or, beforehand ICU discharge, liver transplant and death. Safety analysis will include paracentesis-related complication rate and harm. Data will be analyzed with an intention-to-treat approach. DISCUSSION: This is the first trial to compare the impact of different therapeutic paracentesis strategies on organ dysfunction and outcomes in the prevention and treatment of IAH in critically ill patients with cirrhosis and ascites. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04322201 . Registered on 20 December 2019.

Abdominal perfusion pressure in critically ill cirrhotic patients: a prospective observational study.

In critical patients, abdominal perfusion pressure (APP) has been shown to correlate with outcome. However, data from cirrhotic patients is scarce. We aimed to characterize APP in critically ill cirrhotic patients, analyze the prevalence and risk factors of abdominal hypoperfusion (AhP) and outcomes. A prospective cohort study in a general ICU specialized in liver disease at a tertiary hospital center recruited consecutive cirrhotic patients between October 2016 and December 2021. The study included 101 patients, with a mean age of 57.2 (± 10.4) years and a female gender proportion of 23.5%. The most frequent etiology of cirrhosis was alcohol (51.0%), and the precipitant event was infection (37.3%). ACLF grade (1-3) distribution was 8.9%, 26.7% and 52.5%, respectively. A total of 1274 measurements presented a mean APP of 63 (± 15) mmHg. Baseline AhP prevalence was 47%, independently associated with paracentesis (aOR 4.81, CI 95% 1.46-15.8, p = 0.01) and ACLF grade (aOR 2.41, CI 95% 1.20-4.85, p = 0.01). Similarly, AhP during the first week (64%) had baseline ACLF grade (aOR 2.09, CI 95% 1.29-3.39, p = 0.003) as a risk factor. Independent risk factors for 28-day mortality were bilirubin (aOR 1.10, CI 95% 1.04-1.16, p < 0.001) and SAPS II score (aOR 1.07, CI 95% 1.03-1.11, p = 0.001). There was a high prevalence of AhP in critical cirrhotic patients. Abdominal hypoperfusion was independently associated with higher ACLF grade and baseline paracentesis. Risk factors for 28-day mortality included clinical severity and total bilirubin. The prevention and treatment of AhP in the high-risk cirrhotic patient is prudential.

What changed between the peak and plateau periods of the first COVID-19 pandemic wave? A multicentric Portuguese cohort study in intensive care. / O que mudou entre os períodos de pico e de platô durante a primeira onda do SARS-CoV-2? Estudo multicêntrico português em unidades de cuidados intensivos.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze and compare COVID-19 patient characteristics, clinical management and outcomes between the peak and plateau periods of the first pandemic wave in Portugal. METHODS: This was a multicentric ambispective cohort study including consecutive severe COVID-19 patients between March and August 2020 from 16 Portuguese intensive care units. The peak and plateau periods, respectively, weeks 10 - 16 and 17 - 34, were defined. RESULTS: Five hundred forty-one adult patients with a median age of 65 [57 - 74] years, mostly male (71.2%), were included. There were no significant differences in median age (p = 0.3), Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (40 versus 39; p = 0.8), partial arterial oxygen pressure/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (139 versus 136; p = 0.6), antibiotic therapy (57% versus 64%; p = 0.2) at admission, or 28-day mortality (24.4% versus 22.8%; p = 0.7) between the peak and plateau periods. During the peak period, patients had fewer comorbidities (1 [0 - 3] versus 2 [0 - 5]; p = 0.002) and presented a higher use of vasopressors (47% versus 36%; p < 0.001) and invasive mechanical ventilation (58.1 versus 49.2%; p < 0.001) at admission, prone positioning (45% versus 36%; p = 0.04), and hydroxychloroquine (59% versus 10%; p < 0.001) and lopinavir/ritonavir (41% versus 10%; p < 0.001) prescriptions. However, a greater use of high-flow nasal cannulas (5% versus 16%, p < 0.001) on admission, remdesivir (0.3% versus 15%; p < 0.001) and corticosteroid (29% versus 52%, p < 0.001) therapy, and a shorter ICU length of stay (12 days versus 8, p < 0.001) were observed during the plateau. CONCLUSION: There were significant changes in patient comorbidities, intensive care unit therapies and length of stay between the peak and plateau periods of the first COVID-19 wave.

OBJETIVO: Analisar e comparar as características de pacientes críticos com a COVID-19, a abordagem clínica e os resultados entre os períodos de pico e de platô na primeira onda pandêmica em Portugal. MÉTODOS: Este foi um estudo de coorte multicêntrico ambispectivo, que incluiu pacientes consecutivos com a forma grave da COVID-19 entre março e agosto de 2020 de 16 unidades de terapia intensiva portuguesas. Definiram-se as semanas 10 - 16 e 17 - 34 como os períodos de pico e platô. RESULTADOS: Incluíram-se 541 pacientes adultos com mediana de idade de 65 [57 - 74] anos, a maioria do sexo masculino (71,2%). Não houve diferenças significativas na mediana de idade (p = 0,3), no Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (40 versus 39; p = 0,8), na pressão parcial de oxigênio/fração inspirada de oxigênio (139 versus 136; p = 0,6), na terapia com antibióticos na admissão (57% versus 64%; p = 0,2) ou na mortalidade aos 28 dias (24,4% versus 22,8%; p = 0,7) entre o período de pico e platô. Durante o período de pico, os pacientes tiveram menos comorbidades (1 [0 - 3] versus 2 [0 - 5]; p = 0,002); fizeram mais uso de vasopressores (47% versus 36%; p < 0,001) e ventilação mecânica invasiva na admissão (58,1% versus 49,2%; p < 0,001), e tiveram mais prescrição de hidroxicloroquina (59% versus 10%; p < 0,001), lopinavir/ritonavir (41% versus 10%; p < 0,001) e posição prona (45% versus 36%; p = 0,04). Entretanto, durante o platô, observou-se maior uso de cânulas nasais de alto fluxo (5% versus 16%; p < 0,001) na admissão, remdesivir (0,3% versus 15%; p < 0,001) e corticosteroides (29% versus 52%; p < 0,001), além de menor tempo de internação na unidade de terapia intensiva (12 versus 8 dias; p < 0,001). CONCLUSÃO: Houve mudanças significativas nas comorbidades dos pacientes, nos tratamentos da unidade de terapia intensiva e no tempo de internação entre os períodos de pico e platô na primeira onda da COVID-19.

O que mudou entre os períodos de pico e de platô durante a primeira onda do SARS-CoV-2? Estudo multicêntrico português em unidades de cuidados intensivos / What changed between the peak and plateau periods of the first COVID-19 pandemic wave? A multicentric Portuguese cohort study in intensive care

RESUMO Objetivo: Analisar e comparar as características de pacientes críticos com a COVID-19, a abordagem clínica e os resultados entre os períodos de pico e de platô na primeira onda pandêmica em Portugal. Métodos: Este foi um estudo de coorte multicêntrico ambispectivo, que incluiu pacientes consecutivos com a forma grave da COVID-19 entre março e agosto de 2020 de 16 unidades de terapia intensiva portuguesas. Definiram-se as semanas 10 - 16 e 17 - 34 como os períodos de pico e platô. Resultados: Incluíram-se 541 pacientes adultos com mediana de idade de 65 [57 - 74] anos, a maioria do sexo masculino (71,2%). Não houve diferenças significativas na mediana de idade (p = 0,3), no Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (40 versus 39; p = 0,8), na pressão parcial de oxigênio/fração inspirada de oxigênio (139 versus 136; p = 0,6), na terapia com antibióticos na admissão (57% versus 64%; p = 0,2) ou na mortalidade aos 28 dias (24,4% versus 22,8%; p = 0,7) entre o período de pico e platô. Durante o período de pico, os pacientes tiveram menos comorbidades (1 [0 - 3] versus 2 [0 - 5]; p = 0,002); fizeram mais uso de vasopressores (47% versus 36%; p < 0,001) e ventilação mecânica invasiva na admissão (58,1% versus 49,2%; p < 0,001), e tiveram mais prescrição de hidroxicloroquina (59% versus 10%; p < 0,001), lopinavir/ritonavir (41% versus 10%; p < 0,001) e posição prona (45% versus 36%; p = 0,04). Entretanto, durante o platô, observou-se maior uso de cânulas nasais de alto fluxo (5% versus 16%; p < 0,001) na admissão, remdesivir (0,3% versus 15%; p < 0,001) e corticosteroides (29% versus 52%; p < 0,001), além de menor tempo de internação na unidade de terapia intensiva (12 versus 8 dias; p < 0,001). Conclusão: Houve mudanças significativas nas comorbidades dos pacientes, nos tratamentos da unidade de terapia intensiva e no tempo de internação entre os períodos de pico e platô na primeira onda da COVID-19.

ABSTRACT Objective: To analyze and compare COVID-19 patient characteristics, clinical management and outcomes between the peak and plateau periods of the first pandemic wave in Portugal. Methods: This was a multicentric ambispective cohort study including consecutive severe COVID-19 patients between March and August 2020 from 16 Portuguese intensive care units. The peak and plateau periods, respectively, weeks 10 - 16 and 17 - 34, were defined. Results: Five hundred forty-one adult patients with a median age of 65 [57 - 74] years, mostly male (71.2%), were included. There were no significant differences in median age (p = 0.3), Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (40 versus 39; p = 0.8), partial arterial oxygen pressure/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (139 versus 136; p = 0.6), antibiotic therapy (57% versus 64%; p = 0.2) at admission, or 28-day mortality (24.4% versus 22.8%; p = 0.7) between the peak and plateau periods. During the peak period, patients had fewer comorbidities (1 [0 - 3] versus 2 [0 - 5]; p = 0.002) and presented a higher use of vasopressors (47% versus 36%; p < 0.001) and invasive mechanical ventilation (58.1 versus 49.2%; p < 0.001) at admission, prone positioning (45% versus 36%; p = 0.04), and hydroxychloroquine (59% versus 10%; p < 0.001) and lopinavir/ritonavir (41% versus 10%; p < 0.001) prescriptions. However, a greater use of high-flow nasal cannulas (5% versus 16%, p < 0.001) on admission, remdesivir (0.3% versus 15%; p < 0.001) and corticosteroid (29% versus 52%, p < 0.001) therapy, and a shorter ICU length of stay (12 days versus 8, p < 0.001) were observed during the plateau. Conclusion: There were significant changes in patient comorbidities, intensive care unit therapies and length of stay between the peak and plateau periods of the first COVID-19 wave.