Mortality and HRQoL in ICU patients with delirium : Protocol for 1-year follow-up of AID-ICU trial

Background Intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired delirium is frequent and associated with poor short- and long-term outcomes for patients in ICUs. It therefore constitutes a major healthcare problem. Despite limited evidence, haloperidol is the most frequently used pharmacological intervention against ICU-acquired delirium. Agents intervening against Delirium in the ICU (AID-ICU) is an international, multicentre, randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial investigates benefits and harms of treatment with haloperidol in patients with ICU-acquired delirium. The current pre-planned one-year follow-up study of the AID-ICU trial population aims to explore the effects of haloperidol on one-year mortality and health related quality of life (HRQoL). Methods The AID-ICU trial will include 1000 participants. One-year mortality will be obtained from the trial sites; we will validate the vital status of Danish participants using the Danish National Health Data Registers. Mortality will be analysed by Cox-regression and visualized by Kaplan-Meier curves tested for significance using the log-rank test. We will obtain HRQoL data using the EQ-5D instrument. HRQoL analysis will be performed using a general linear model adjusted for stratification variables. Deceased participants will be designated the worst possible value. Results We expect to publish results of this study in 2022. Conclusion We expect that this one-year follow-up study of participants with ICU-acquired delirium allocated to haloperidol vs. placebo will provide important information on the long-term consequences of delirium including the effects of haloperidol. We expect that our results will improve the care of this vulnerable patient group.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

Induced hypothermia in patients with septic shock and respiratory failure (CASS): a randomised, controlled, open-label trial

BACKGROUND: Animal models of serious infection suggest that 24 h of induced hypothermia improves circulatory and respiratory function and reduces mortality. We tested the hypothesis that a reduction of core temperature to 32-34°C attenuates organ dysfunction and reduces mortality in ventilator-dependent patients with septic shock. METHODS: In this randomised, controlled, open-label trial, we recruited patients from ten intensive care units (ICUs) in three countries in Europe and North America. Inclusion criteria for patients with severe sepsis or septic shock were a mean arterial pressure of less than 70 mm Hg, mechanical ventilation in an ICU, age at least 50 years, predicted length of stay in the ICU at least 24 h, and recruitment into the study within 6 h of fulfilling inclusion criteria. Exclusion criteria were uncontrolled bleeding, clinically important bleeding disorder, recent open surgery, pregnancy or breastfeeding, or involuntary psychiatric admission. We randomly allocated patients 1:1 (with variable block sizes ranging from four to eight; stratified by predictors of mortality, age, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, and study site) to routine thermal management or 24 h of induced hypothermia (target 32-34°C) followed by 48 h of normothermia (36-38°C). The primary endpoint was 30 day all-cause mortality in the modified intention-to-treat population (all randomly allocated patients except those for whom consent was withdrawn or who were discovered to meet an exclusion criterion after randomisation but before receiving the trial intervention). Patients and health-care professionals giving the intervention were not masked to treatment allocation, but assessors of the primary outcome were. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01455116. FINDINGS: Between Nov 1, 2011, and Nov 4, 2016, we screened 5695 patients. After recruitment of 436 of the planned 560 participants, the trial was terminated for futility (220 [50%] randomly allocated to hypothermia and 216 [50%] to routine thermal management). In the hypothermia group, 96 (44·2%) of 217 died within 30 days versus 77 (35·8%) of 215 in the routine thermal management group (difference 8·4% [95% CI -0·8 to 17·6]; relative risk 1·2 [1·0-1·6]; p=0·07]). INTERPRETATION: Among patients with septic shock and ventilator-dependent respiratory failure, induced hypothermia does not reduce mortality. Induced hypothermia should not be used in patients with septic shock. FUNDING: Trygfonden, Lundbeckfonden, and the Danish National Research Foundation

A survey of preferences for respiratory support in the intensive care unit for patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure

Publisher Copyright: © 2023 The Authors. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.Background: When caring for mechanically ventilated adults with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF), clinicians are faced with an uncertain choice between ventilator modes allowing for spontaneous breaths or ventilation fully controlled by the ventilator. The preferences of clinicians managing such patients, and what motivates their choice of ventilator mode, are largely unknown. To better understand how clinicians' preferences may impact the choice of ventilatory support for patients with AHRF, we issued a survey to an international network of intensive care unit (ICU) researchers. Methods: We distributed an online survey with 32 broadly similar and interlinked questions on how clinicians prioritise spontaneous or controlled ventilation in invasively ventilated patients with AHRF of different severity, and which factors determine their choice. Results: The survey was distributed to 1337 recipients in 12 countries. Of these, 415 (31%) completed the survey either fully (52%) or partially (48%). Most respondents were identified as medical specialists (87%) or physicians in training (11%). Modes allowing for spontaneous ventilation were considered preferable in mild AHRF, with controlled ventilation considered as progressively more important in moderate and severe AHRF. Among respondents there was strong support (90%) for a randomised clinical trial comparing spontaneous with controlled ventilation in patients with moderate AHRF. Conclusions: The responses from this international survey suggest that there is clinical equipoise for the preferred ventilator mode in patients with AHRF of moderate severity. We found strong support for a randomised trial comparing modes of ventilation in patients with moderate AHRF.Peer reviewe

Experimental Studies of Atomic Behavior at Crystal Surfaces

Coordinated Science Laboratory was formerly known as Control Systems LaboratoryJoint Services Electronics Program / DAAB-07-67-C-019