Red blood cell transfusion in septic shock - clinical characteristics and outcome of unselected patients in a prospective, multicentre cohort

BACKGROUND: Treating anaemia with red blood cell (RBC) transfusion is frequent, but controversial, in patients with septic shock. Therefore we assessed characteristics and outcome associated with RBC transfusion in this group of high risk patients. METHODS: We did a prospective cohort study at 7 general intensive care units (ICUs) including all adult patients with septic shock in a 5-month period. RESULTS: Ninety-five of the 213 included patients (45%) received median 3 (interquartile range 2–5) RBC units during shock. The median pre-transfusion haemoglobin level was 8.1 (7.4–8.9) g/dl and independent of shock day and bleeding. Patients with cardiovascular disease were transfused at higher haemoglobin levels. Transfused patients had higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II (56 (45-69) vs. 48 (37-61), p = 0.0005), more bleeding episodes, lower haemoglobin levels days 1 to 5, higher Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores (days 1 and 5), more days in shock (5 (3-10) vs. 2 (2-4), p = 0.0001), more days in ICU (10 (4-19) vs. 4 (2-8), p = 0.0001) and higher 90-day mortality (66 vs. 43%, p = 0.001). The latter association was lost after adjustment for admission category and SAPS II and SOFA-score on day 1. CONCLUSIONS: The decision to transfuse patients with septic shock was likely affected by disease severity and bleeding, but haemoglobin level was the only measure that consistently differed between transfused and non-transfused patients

Agents intervening against delirium in the intensive care unit trial-Protocol for a secondary Bayesian analysis

Background Delirium is highly prevalent in the intensive care unit (ICU) and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. The antipsychotic haloperidol is the most frequently used agent to treat delirium although this is not supported by solid evidence. The agents intervening against delirium in the intensive care unit (AID-ICU) trial investigates the effects of haloperidol versus placebo for the treatment of delirium in adult ICU patients. Methods This protocol describes the secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analyses of the primary and secondary outcomes up to day 90 of the AID-ICU trial. We will use Bayesian linear regression models for all count outcomes and Bayesian logistic regression models for all dichotomous outcomes. We will adjust for stratification variables (site and delirium subtype) and use weakly informative priors supplemented with sensitivity analyses using sceptical priors. We will present results as absolute differences (mean differences and risk differences) and relative differences (ratios of means and relative risks). Posteriors will be summarised using median values as point estimates and percentile-based 95% credibility intervals. Probabilities of any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm and clinically unimportant differences will be presented for all outcomes. Discussion The results of this secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis will complement the primary frequentist analysis of the AID-ICU trial and facilitate a nuanced and probabilistic interpretation of the trial results.Peer reviewe

Agents intervening against delirium in the intensive care unit (AID-ICU) - Protocol for a randomised placebo-controlled trial of haloperidol in patients with delirium in the ICU

Background Delirium among patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is a common condition associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Haloperidol is the most frequently used pharmacologic intervention, but its use is not supported by firm evidence. Therefore, we are conducting Agents Intervening against Delirium in the Intensive Care Unit (AID‐ICU) trial to assess the benefits and harms of haloperidol for the treatment of ICU‐acquired delirium. Methods AID‐ICU is an investigator‐initiated, pragmatic, international, randomised, blinded, parallel‐group, trial allocating adult ICU patients with manifest delirium 1:1 to haloperidol or placebo. Trial participants will receive intravenous 2.5 mg haloperidol three times daily or matching placebo (isotonic saline 0.9%) if they are delirious. If needed, a maximum of 20 mg/daily haloperidol/placebo is given. An escape protocol, not including haloperidol, is part of the trial protocol. The primary outcome is days alive out of the hospital within 90 days post‐randomisation. Secondary outcomes are number of days without delirium or coma, serious adverse reactions to haloperidol, usage of escape medication, number of days alive without mechanical ventilation; mortality, health‐related quality‐of‐life and cognitive function at 1‐year follow‐up. A sample size of 1000 patients is required to detect a 7‐day improvement or worsening of the mean days alive out of the hospital, type 1 error risk of 5% and power 90%. Perspective The AID‐ICU trial is based on gold standard methodology applied to a large sample of clinically representative patients and will provide pivotal high‐quality data on the benefits and harms of haloperidol for the treatment ICU‐acquired delirium

Goal directed fluid removal with furosemide versus placebo in intensive care patients with fluid overload:A trial protocol for a randomised, blinded trial (GODIF trial)

Funding Information: SW has received a grant from Merchant Jakob Ehrenreich and wife Grete Ehrenreich's Foundation to production of trial drug for the GODIF trial. AP has received research funding from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Health Insurance Denmark (Sygeforsikringen Danmark), Fresenius Kabi, Denmark, and Pfizer, Denmark. MO has received research funding from Fresenius Medical Care, Baxter and Biomerieux. MHB has received research funding for the GODIF trial from Novo Nordisk Foundation, Jakob Madsen's and wife Olga Madsen's Foundation, Svend Andersen's Foundation, and Health Insurance Denmark (Sygeforsikringen Danmark). No authors received any financial gain. All other authors declared no conflicts of interest. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Authors. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.Background: Fluid overload is a risk factor for mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Administration of loop diuretics is the predominant treatment of fluid overload, but evidence for its benefit is very uncertain when assessed in a systematic review of randomised clinical trials. The GODIF trial will assess the benefits and harms of goal directed fluid removal with furosemide versus placebo in ICU patients with fluid overload. Methods: An investigator-initiated, international, randomised, stratified, blinded, parallel-group trial allocating 1000 adult ICU patients with fluid overload to infusion of furosemide versus placebo. The goal is to achieve a neutral fluid balance. The primary outcome is days alive and out of hospital 90 days after randomisation. Secondary outcomes are all-cause mortality at day 90 and 1-year after randomisation; days alive at day 90 without life support; number of participants with one or more serious adverse events or reactions; health-related quality of life and cognitive function at 1-year follow-up. A sample size of 1000 participants is required to detect an improvement of 8% in days alive and out of hospital 90 days after randomisation with a power of 90% and a risk of type 1 error of 5%. The conclusion of the trial will be based on the point estimate and 95% confidence interval; dichotomisation will not be used. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04180397. Perspective: The GODIF trial will provide important evidence of possible benefits and harms of fluid removal with furosemide in adult ICU patients with fluid overload.Peer reviewe

Long-term patient-important outcomes after septic shock : A protocol for 1-year follow-up of the CLASSIC trial

BackgroundIn patients with septic shock, mortality is high, and survivors experience long-term physical, mental and social impairments. The ongoing Conservative vs Liberal Approach to fluid therapy of Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial assesses the benefits and harms of a restrictive vs standard-care intravenous (IV) fluid therapy. The hypothesis is that IV fluid restriction improves patient-important long-term outcomes. AimTo assess the predefined patient-important long-term outcomes in patients randomised into the CLASSIC trial. MethodsIn this pre-planned follow-up study of the CLASSIC trial, we will assess all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and cognitive function 1 year after randomisation in the two intervention groups. The 1-year mortality will be collected from electronic patient records or central national registries in most participating countries. We will contact survivors and assess EuroQol 5-Dimension, -5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) and EuroQol-Visual Analogue Scale and Montreal Cognitive Assessment 5-minute protocol score. We will analyse mortality by logistic regression and use general linear models to assess HRQoL and cognitive function. DiscussionWith this pre-planned follow-up study of the CLASSIC trial, we will provide patient-important data on long-term survival, HRQoL and cognitive function of restrictive vs standard-care IV fluid therapy in patients with septic shock.Peer reviewe

Conservative vs liberal fluid therapy in septic shock (CLASSIC) trial-Protocol and statistical analysis plan

Introduction Intravenous (IV) fluid is a key intervention in the management of septic shock. The benefits and harms of lower versus higher fluid volumes are unknown and thus clinical equipoise exists. We describe the protocol and detailed statistical analysis plan for the conservative versus liberal approach to fluid therapy of septic shock in the Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial. The aim of the CLASSIC trial is to assess benefits and harms of IV fluid restriction versus standard care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock. Methods CLASSIC trial is an investigator-initiated, international, randomised, stratified, and analyst-blinded trial. We will allocate 1554 adult patients with septic shock, who are planned to be or are admitted to an ICU, to IV fluid restriction versus standard care. The primary outcome is mortality at day 90. Secondary outcomes are serious adverse events (SAEs), serious adverse reactions (SARs), days alive at day 90 without life support, days alive and out of the hospital at day 90 and mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and cognitive function at 1 year. We will conduct the statistical analyses according to a pre-defined statistical analysis plan, including three interim analyses. For the primary analysis, we will use logistic regression adjusted for the stratification variables comparing the two interventions in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Discussion The CLASSIC trial results will provide important evidence to guide clinicians' choice regarding the IV fluid therapy in adults with septic shock.Peer reviewe

A method to measure the resonance transitions between the gravitationally bound quantum states of neutrons in the GRANIT spectrometer

We present a method to measure the resonance transitions between the gravitationally bound quantum states of neutrons in the GRANIT spectrometer. The purpose of GRANIT is to improve the accuracy of measurement of the quantum states parameters by several orders of magnitude, taking advantage of long storage of Ultracold neutrons at specula trajectories. The transitions could be excited using a periodic spatial variation of a magnetic field gradient. If the frequency of such a perturbation (in the frame of a moving neutron) coincides with a resonance frequency defined by the energy difference of two quantum states, the transition probability will sharply increase. The GRANIT experiment is motivated by searches for short-range interactions (in particular spin-dependent interactions), by studying the interaction of a quantum system with a gravitational field, by searches for extensions of the Standard model, by the unique possibility to check the equivalence principle for an object in a quantum state and by studying various quantum optics phenomena

Goal directed fluid removal with furosemide versus placebo in intensive care patients with fluid overload: a trial protocol for a randomised, blinded trial (GODIF Trial)

BACKGROUNDFluid overload is a risk factor for mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Administration of loop diuretics is the predominant treatment of fluid overload, but evidence for its benefit is very uncertain when assessed in a systematic review of randomised clinical trials. The GODIF trial will assess the benefits and harms of goal directed fluid removal with furosemide versus placebo in ICU patients with fluid overload.METHODSAn investigator-initiated, international, randomised, stratified, blinded, parallel-group trial allocating 1000 adult ICU patients with fluid overload to infusion of furosemide versus placebo. The goal is to achieve a neutral fluid balance. The primary outcome is days alive and out of hospital 90 days after randomisation. Secondary outcomes are all-cause mortality at day 90 and 1-year after randomisation; days alive at day 90 without life support; number of participants with one or more serious adverse events or reactions; health-related quality of life; and cognitive function at 1-year follow-up. A sample size of 1000 participants is required to detect an improvement of 8% in days alive and out of hospital 90 days after randomisation with a power of 90% and a risk of type 1 error of 5%. The conclusion of the trial will be based on the point estimate and 95% confidence interval; dichotomisation will not be used.\ngov identifier: NCT04180397.PERSPECTIVEThe GODIF trial will provide important evidence of possible benefits and harms of fluid removal with furosemide in adult ICU patients with fluid overload. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.</p

Thrombocytopenia and platelet transfusions in ICU patients: an international inception cohort study (PLOT-ICU)

Purpose Thrombocytopenia (platelet count < 150 × 109/L) is common in intensive care unit (ICU) patients and is likely associated with worse outcomes. In this study we present international contemporary data on thrombocytopenia in ICU patients. Methods We conducted a prospective cohort study in adult ICU patients in 52 ICUs across 10 countries. We assessed frequencies of thrombocytopenia, use of platelet transfusions and clinical outcomes including mortality. We evaluated pre-selected potential risk factors for the development of thrombocytopenia during ICU stay and associations between thrombocytopenia at ICU admission and 90-day mortality using pre-specified logistic regression analyses. Results We analysed 1166 ICU patients; the median age was 63 years and 39.5% were female. Overall, 43.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 40.4–46.1) had thrombocytopenia; 23.4% (20–26) had thrombocytopenia at ICU admission, and 19.8% (17.6–22.2) developed thrombocytopenia during their ICU stay. Non-AIDS-, non-cancer-related immune deficiency, liver failure, male sex, septic shock, and bleeding at ICU admission were associated with the development of thrombocytopenia during ICU stay. Among patients with thrombocytopenia, 22.6% received platelet transfusion(s), and 64.3% of in-ICU transfusions were prophylactic. Patients with thrombocytopenia had higher occurrences of bleeding and death, fewer days alive without the use of life-support, and fewer days alive and out of hospital. Thrombocytopenia at ICU admission was associated with 90-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio 1.7; 95% CI 1.19–2.42). Conclusion Thrombocytopenia occurred in 43% of critically ill patients and was associated with worse outcomes including increased mortality. Platelet transfusions were given to 23% of patients with thrombocytopenia and most were prophylactic.publishedVersio