Fluid balance control in critically ill patients: results from as-treated analyses of POINCARE-2 randomized trial

International audienceBackground: Intention-to-treat analyses of POINCARE-2 trial led to inconclusive results regarding the effect of a conservative fluid balance strategy on mortality in critically ill patients. The present as-treated analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of actual exposure to POINCARE-2 strategy on 60-day mortality in critically ill patients.Methods: POINCARE‑2 was a stepped wedge randomized controlled trial. Eligible patients were ≥ 18 years old, under mechanical ventilation and had an expected length of stay in ICU > 24 h. POINCARE-2 strategy consisted of daily weighing over 14 days, and subsequent restriction of fluid intake, administration of diuretics, and/or ultrafiltration. We computed a score of exposure to the strategy based on deviations from the strategy algorithm. We considered patients with a score ≥ 75 as exposed to the strategy. We used logistic regression adjusted for confounders (ALR) or for an instrumental variable (IVLR). We handled missing data using multiple imputations.Results A total of 1361 patients were included. Overall, 24.8% of patients in the control group and 69.4% of patients in the strategy group had a score of exposure ≥ 75. Exposure to the POINCARE-2 strategy was not associated with 60-day all-cause mortality (ALR: OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.85–1.55; IVLR: OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.76–1.33).Conclusion Actual exposure to POINCARE-2 conservative strategy was not associated with reduced mortality in critically ill patients. Trial registration POINCARE-2 trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02765009). Registered 29 April 2016

Intracranial pressure monitoring with and without brain tissue oxygen pressure monitoring for severe traumatic brain injury in France (OXY-TC): an open-label, randomised controlled superiority trial

International audienceBackground: Optimisation of brain oxygenation might improve neurological outcome after traumatic brain injury. The OXY-TC trial explored the superiority of a strategy combining intracranial pressure and brain tissue oxygen pressure (PbtO2) monitoring over a strategy of intracranial pressure monitoring only to reduce the proportion of patients with poor neurological outcome at 6 months.Methods: We did an open-label, randomised controlled superiority trial at 25 French tertiary referral centres. Within 16 h of brain injury, patients with severe traumatic brain injury (aged 18-75 years) were randomly assigned via a website to be managed during the first 5 days of admission to the intensive care unit either by intracranial pressure monitoring only or by both intracranial pressure and PbtO2 monitoring. Randomisation was stratified by age and centre. The study was open label due to the visibility of the intervention, but the statisticians and outcome assessors were masked to group allocation. The therapeutic objectives were to maintain intracranial pressure of 20 mm Hg or lower, and to keep PbtO2 (for those in the dual-monitoring group) above 20 mm Hg, at all times. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with an extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) score of 1-4 (death to upper severe disability) at 6 months after injury. The primary analysis was reported in the modified intention-to-treat population, which comprised all randomly assigned patients except those who withdrew consent or had protocol violations. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02754063, and is completed.Findings: Between June 15, 2016, and April 17, 2021, 318 patients were randomly assigned to receive either intracranial pressure monitoring only (n=160) or both intracranial pressure and PbtO2 monitoring (n=158). 27 individuals with protocol violations were not included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Thus, the primary outcome was analysed for 144 patients in the intracranial pressure only group and 147 patients in the intracranial pressure and PbtO2 group. Compared with intracranial pressure monitoring only, intracranial pressure and PbtO2 monitoring did not reduce the proportion of patients with GOSE score 1-4 (51% [95% CI 43-60] in the intracranial pressure monitoring only group vs 52% [43-60] in the intracranial pressure and PbtO2 monitoring group; odds ratio 1·0 [95% CI 0·6-1·7]; p=0·95). Two (1%) of 144 participants in the intracranial pressure only group and 12 (8%) of 147 participants in the intracranial pressure and PbtO2 group had catheter dysfunction (p=0.011). Six patients (4%) in the intracranial pressure and PbtO2 group had an intracrebral haematoma related to the catheter, compared with none in the intracranial pressure only group (p=0.030). No significant difference in deaths was found between the two groups at 12 months after injury. At 12 months, 33 deaths had occurred in the intracranial pressure group: 25 (76%) were attributable to the brain trauma, six (18%) were end-of-life decisions, and two (6%) due to sepsis. 34 deaths had occured in the intracranial pressure and PbtO2 group at 12 months: 25 (74%) were attributable to the brain trauma, six (18%) were end-of-life decisions, one (3%) due to pulmonary embolism, one (3%) due to haemorrhagic shock, and one (3%) due to cardiac arrest.Interpretation: After severe non-penetrating traumatic brain injury, intracranial pressure and PbtO2 monitoring did not reduce the proportion of patients with poor neurological outcome at 6 months. Technical failures related to intracerebral catheter and intracerebral haematoma were more frequent in the intracranial pressure and PbtO2 group. Further research is needed to assess whether a targeted approach to multimodal brain monitoring could be useful in subgroups of patients with severe traumatic brain injury-eg, those with high intracranial pressure on admission

Effect of general anaesthesia on functional outcome in patients with anterior circulation ischaemic stroke having endovascular thrombectomy versus standard care: a meta-analysis of individual patient data

Background: General anaesthesia (GA) during endovascular thrombectomy has been associated with worse patient outcomes in observational studies compared with patients treated without GA. We assessed functional outcome in ischaemic stroke patients with large vessel anterior circulation occlusion undergoing endovascular thrombectomy under GA, versus thrombectomy not under GA (with or without sedation) versus standard care (ie, no thrombectomy), stratified by the use of GA versus standard care. Methods: For this meta-analysis, patient-level data were pooled from all patients included in randomised trials in PuMed published between Jan 1, 2010, and May 31, 2017, that compared endovascular thrombectomy predominantly done with stent retrievers with standard care in anterior circulation ischaemic stroke patients (HERMES Collaboration). The primary outcome was functional outcome assessed by ordinal analysis of the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at 90 days in the GA and non-GA subgroups of patients treated with endovascular therapy versus those patients treated with standard care, adjusted for baseline prognostic variables. To account for between-trial variance we used mixed-effects modelling with a random effect for trials incorporated in all models. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane method. The meta-analysis was prospectively designed, but not registered. Findings: Seven trials were identified by our search; of 1764 patients included in these trials, 871 were allocated to endovascular thrombectomy and 893 were assigned standard care. After exclusion of 74 patients (72 did not undergo the procedure and two had missing data on anaesthetic strategy), 236 (30%) of 797 patients who had endovascular procedures were treated under GA. At baseline, patients receiving GA were younger and had a shorter delay between stroke onset and randomisation but they had similar pre-treatment clinical severity compared with patients who did not have GA. Endovascular thrombectomy improved functional outcome at 3 months both in patients who had GA (adjusted common odds ratio (cOR) 1·52, 95% CI 1·09–2·11, p=0·014) and in those who did not have GA (adjusted cOR 2·33, 95% CI 1·75–3·10, p<0·0001) versus standard care. However, outcomes were significantly better for patients who did not receive GA versus those who received GA (covariate-adjusted cOR 1·53, 95% CI 1·14–2·04, p=0·0044). The risk of bias and variability between studies was assessed to be low. Interpretation: Worse outcomes after endovascular thrombectomy were associated with GA, after adjustment for baseline prognostic variables. These data support avoidance of GA whenever possible. The procedure did, however, remain effective versus standard care in patients treated under GA, indicating that treatment should not be withheld in those who require anaesthesia for medical reasons