Vitamin C May Improve Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction : A Meta-Analysis

Background: Vitamin C deprivation can lead to fatigue, dyspnea, oedema and chest pain, which are also symptoms of heart failure (HF). In animal studies vitamin C has improved contractility and mechanical efficiency of the heart. Compared with healthy people, patients with HF have lower vitamin C levels, which are not explained by differences in dietary intake levels, and more severe HF seems to be associated with lower plasma vitamin C levels. This meta-analysis looks at the effect of vitamin C on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).Methods: We searched for trials reporting the effects of vitamin C on LVEF. We assessed the quality of the trials, and pooled selected trials using the inverse variance, fixed effect options. We used meta-regression to examine the association between the effect of vitamin C on LVEF level and the baseline LVEF level.Results: We identified 15 trials, three of which were excluded from our meta-analysis. In six cardiac trials with 246 patients, vitamin C increased LVEF on average by 12.0% (95% CI 8.1-15.9%; P < 0.001). In six non-cardiac trials including 177 participants, vitamin C increased LVEF on average by 5.3% (95% CI 2.0-8.5%; P = 0.001). In meta-regression analysis we found that the effect of vitamin C was larger in trials with the lowest baseline LVEF levels with P = 0.001 for the test of slope. The meta-regression line crossed the null effect level at a baseline LVEF level close to 70%, with progressively greater benefit from vitamin C with lower LVEF levels. Some of the included trials had methodological limitations. In a sensitivity analysis including only the four most methodologically sound cardiac trials, the effect of vitamin C was not substantially changed.Conclusions: In this meta-analysis, vitamin C increased LVEF in both cardiac and non-cardiac patients, with a strong negative association between the size of the vitamin C effect and the baseline LVEF. Further research on vitamin C and HF should be carried out, particularly in patients who have low LVEF together with low vitamin C intake or low plasma levels. Different dosages and different routes of administration should be compared.Peer reviewe

Association Between an Increase in Serum Sodium and In-Hospital Mortality in Critically Ill Patients*

OBJECTIVES: In critically ill patients, dysnatremia is common, and in these patients, in-hospital mortality is higher. It remains unknown whether changes of serum sodium after ICU admission affect mortality, especially whether normalization of mild hyponatremia improves survival. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Ten Dutch ICUs between January 2011 and April 2017. PATIENTS: Adult patients were included if at least one serum sodium measurement within 24 hours of ICU admission and at least one serum sodium measurement 24-48 hours after ICU admission were available. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A logistic regression model adjusted for age, sex, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-IV-predicted mortality was used to assess the difference between mean of sodium measurements 24-48 hours after ICU admission and first serum sodium measurement at ICU admission (Δ48 hr-[Na]) and in-hospital mortality. In total, 36,660 patients were included for analysis. An increase in serum sodium was independently associated with a higher risk of in-hospital mortality in patients admitted with normonatremia (Δ48 hr-[Na] 5-10 mmol/L odds ratio: 1.61 [1.44-1.79], Δ48 hr-[Na] > 10 mmol/L odds ratio: 4.10 [3.20-5.24]) and hypernatremia (Δ48 hr-[Na] 5-10 mmol/L odds ratio: 1.47 [1.02-2.14], Δ48 hr-[Na] > 10 mmol/L odds ratio: 8.46 [3.31-21.64]). In patients admitted with mild hyponatremia and Δ48 hr-[Na] greater than 5 mmol/L, no significant difference in hospital mortality was found (odds ratio, 1.11 [0.99-1.25]). CONCLUSIONS: An increase in serum sodium in the first 48 hours of ICU admission was associated with higher in-hospital mortality in patients admitted with normonatremia and in patients admitted with hypernatremia

Core outcome set of daily monitoring of gastrointestinal function in adult critically ill patients: a modified Delphi consensus process (COSMOGI)

Purpose: Gastrointestinal (GI) dysfunction is common in critically ill patients and associated with poor outcomes. There is a lack of standardised methods for daily monitoring of GI function. COSMOGI aimed to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for daily monitoring of GI function to improve consistency and comparability in future studies in critically ill patients. Methods: A modified Delphi consensus process engaging healthcare providers, clinical researchers, and patient representatives was performed. A systematic review identified existing parameters to monitor GI function, informing the development of potential outcomes. In Stage 1, participants rated outcomes (i.e., variables used for daily monitoring). In Stage 2, they refined and agreed on the definitions for the selected outcomes. The COS was ratified through consensus meetings. Results: 368 individuals registered for the Delphi process. 285 participants (77.4%) completed Stage 1, and 181 participants (63.5%) completed Stage 2. From 77 potential outcomes, 13 essential outcomes for daily monitoring of GI function in studies, each with an agreed-upon definition, were established: abdominal distension, bowel dilatation, intra-abdominal pressure, abdominal pain, stool passage, vomiting, GI bleeding (upper and lower), use of parenteral nutrition due to intolerance of enteral nutrition, prokinetics, postpyloric feeding due to gastroparesis, lower GI paralysis, gastroparesis, intolerance to enteral nutrition. Conclusions: Using a modified Delphi consensus process, COSMOGI established a COS for monitoring GI function in critically ill patients in research. This COS and definitions provide a framework to guide future research, enabling comparability across studies and allowing for future definitions of GI dysfunction. Trial registration: This project was registered at ( www.comet-initiative.org ) on 27.03.2023 (number 2609) and was an ESICM-endorsed research project

Diagnosis and outcome of acute respiratory failure in immunocompromised patients after bronchoscopy

Objective: We wished to explore the use, diagnostic capability and outcomes of bronchoscopy added to noninvasive testing in immunocompromised patients. In this setting, an inability to identify the cause of acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure is associated with worse outcome. Every effort should be made to obtain a diagnosis, either with noninvasive testing alone or combined with bronchoscopy. However, our understanding of the risks and benefits of bronchoscopy remains uncertain. Patients and methods: This was a pre-planned secondary analysis of Efraim, a prospective, multinational, observational study of 1611 immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). We compared patients with noninvasive testing only to those who had also received bronchoscopy by bivariate analysis and after propensity score matching. Results: Bronchoscopy was performed in 618 (39%) patients who were more likely to have haematological malignancy and a higher severity of illness score. Bronchoscopy alone achieved a diagnosis in 165 patients (27% adjusted diagnostic yield). Bronchoscopy resulted in a management change in 236 patients (38% therapeutic yield). Bronchoscopy was associated with worsening of respiratory status in 69 (11%) patients. Bronchoscopy was associated with higher ICU (40% versus 28%; p<0.0001) and hospital mortality (49% versus 41%; p=0.003). The overall rate of undiagnosed causes was 13%. After propensity score matching, bronchoscopy remained associated with increased risk of hospital mortality (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.08-1.81). Conclusions: Bronchoscopy was associated with improved diagnosis and changes in management, but also increased hospital mortality. Balancing risk and benefit in individualised cases should be investigated further

Transfusion of fresh frozen plasma in non-bleeding ICU patients -TOPIC TRIAL: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Fresh frozen plasma (FFP) is an effective therapy to correct for a deficiency of multiple coagulation factors during bleeding. In past years, use of FFP has increased, in particular in patients on the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), and has expanded to include prophylactic use in patients with a coagulopathy prior to undergoing an invasive procedure. Retrospective studies suggest that prophylactic use of FFP does not prevent bleeding, but carries the risk of transfusion-related morbidity. However, up to 50% of FFP is administered to non-bleeding ICU patients. With the aim to investigate whether prophylactic FFP transfusions to critically ill patients can be safely omitted, a multi-center randomized clinical trial is conducted in ICU patients with a coagulopathy undergoing an invasive procedure.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A non-inferiority, prospective, multicenter randomized open-label, blinded end point evaluation (PROBE) trial. In the intervention group, a prophylactic transfusion of FFP prior to an invasive procedure is omitted compared to transfusion of a fixed dose of 12 ml/kg in the control group. Primary outcome measure is relevant bleeding. Secondary outcome measures are minor bleeding, correction of International Normalized Ratio, onset of acute lung injury, length of ventilation days and length of Intensive Care Unit stay.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The Transfusion of Fresh Frozen Plasma in non-bleeding ICU patients (TOPIC) trial is the first multi-center randomized controlled trial powered to investigate whether it is safe to withhold FFP transfusion to coagulopathic critically ill patients undergoing an invasive procedure.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Trial registration: Dutch Trial Register NTR2262 and ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01143909">NCT01143909</a></p

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707