Efficacy of halopeRIdol to decrease the burden of Delirium In adult Critically ill patiEnts (EuRIDICE): study protocol for a prospective randomised multi-centre double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial in the Netherlands

Introduction Delirium in critically ill adults is associated with prolonged hospital stay, increased mortality and greater cognitive and functional decline. Current practice guideline recommendations advocate the use of nonpharmacological strategies to reduce delirium. The routine use of scheduled haloperidol to treat delirium is not recommended given a lack of evidence regarding its ability to resolve delirium nor improve relevant short-term and longer-term outcomes. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in adult critically ill patients to reduce days spent with coma or delirium. Methods and analysis EuRIDICE is a prospective, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Study population consists of adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients without acute neurological injury who have delirium based on a positive Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) or Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) assessment. Intervention is intravenous haloperidol 2.5mg (or matching placebo) every 8 hours, titrated daily based on ICDSC or CAMICU positivity to a maximum of 5mg every 8 hours, until delirium resolution or ICU discharge. Main study endpoint is delirium and coma-free days (DCFD) up to 14 days after randomisation. Secondary endpoints include (1) 28-day and 1-year mortality, (2) cognitive and functional performance at 3 and 12 months, (3) patient and family delirium and ICU experience, (4) psychological sequelae during and after ICU stay, (4) safety concerns associated with haloperidol use and (5) cost-effectiveness. Differences in DCFDs between haloperidol and placebo group will be analysed using Poisson regression analysis. Study recruitment started in February 2018 and continues. Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Erasmus University Medical Centre Rotterdam (MEC2017-511) and by the Institutional Review Boards of the participating sites. Its results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations

Occurrence and timing of withdrawal of life-sustaining measures in traumatic brain injury patients: a CENTER-TBI study

Funder: National Institute for Health Research (UK)Abstract: Background: In patients with severe brain injury, withdrawal of life-sustaining measures (WLSM) is common in intensive care units (ICU). WLSM constitutes a dilemma: instituting WLSM too early could result in death despite the possibility of an acceptable functional outcome, whereas delaying WLSM could unnecessarily burden patients, families, clinicians, and hospital resources. We aimed to describe the occurrence and timing of WLSM, and factors associated with timing of WLSM in European ICUs in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Methods: The CENTER-TBI Study is a prospective multi-center cohort study. For the current study, patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) admitted to the ICU and aged 16 or older were included. Occurrence and timing of WLSM were documented. For the analyses, we dichotomized timing of WLSM in early (< 72 h after injury) versus later (≥ 72 h after injury) based on recent guideline recommendations. We assessed factors associated with initiating WLSM early versus later, including geographic region, center, patient, injury, and treatment characteristics with univariable and multivariable (mixed effects) logistic regression. Results: A total of 2022 patients aged 16 or older were admitted to the ICU. ICU mortality was 13% (n = 267). Of these, 229 (86%) patients died after WLSM, and were included in the analyses. The occurrence of WLSM varied between regions ranging from 0% in Eastern Europe to 96% in Northern Europe. In 51% of the patients, WLSM was early. Patients in the early WLSM group had a lower maximum therapy intensity level (TIL) score than patients in the later WLSM group (median of 5 versus 10) The strongest independent variables associated with early WLSM were one unreactive pupil (odds ratio (OR) 4.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3–12.4) or two unreactive pupils (OR 5.8, CI 2.6–13.1) compared to two reactive pupils, and an Injury Severity Score (ISS) if over 41 (OR per point above 41 = 1.1, CI 1.0–1.1). Timing of WLSM was not significantly associated with region or center. Conclusion: WLSM occurs early in half of the patients, mostly in patients with severe TBI affecting brainstem reflexes who were severely injured. We found no regional or center influences in timing of WLSM. Whether WLSM is always appropriate or may contribute to a self-fulfilling prophecy requires further research and argues for reluctance to institute WLSM early in case of any doubt on prognosis

Effect of a music intervention on anxiety in adult critically ill patients: a multicenter randomized clinical trial

Abstract Background Previous studies show positive effect of music on reducing anxiety, pain, and medication requirement. Anxiety has become a more pertinent issue in the intensive care unit (ICU) since wakefulness is preferred according to recent guidelines. Nevertheless, evidence on the effect of music in ICU patients is scarce. Therefore, we studied the effect of music intervention on anxiety in ICU patients. Methods A multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted between August 2020 and December 2021 in ICU’s at an academic medical centre and two regional hospitals. Adult critically ill patients were eligible when hemodynamically stable and able to communicate (Richmond agitation-sedation scale (RASS) of at least − 2). Patients in the intervention arm were offered music twice daily during three days for at least 30 min per session. Patients in the control group received standard care. The primary outcome was anxiety level assessed with the visual analogue scale for anxiety [VAS-A; range 0–10] twice daily (morning and evening). Secondary outcomes included; 6-item state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI-6), sleep quality, delirium, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, pain, RASS, medication, ICU length of stay, patients’ memory and experience of ICU stay. Results 94 patients were included in the primary analysis. Music did not significantly reduce anxiety (VAS-A in the intervention group; 2.5 (IQR 1.0–4.5), 1.8 (0.0–3.6), and 2.5 (0.0–3.6) on day 1, 2, and 3 vs. 3.0 (0.6–4.0), 1.5 (0.0–4.0), and 2.0 (0.0–4.0) in the control group; p > 0.92). Overall median daily VAS-A scores ranged from 1.5 to 3.0. Fewer patients required opioids (21 vs. 29, p = 0.03) and sleep quality was lower in the music group on study day one [5.0 (4.0–6.0) vs. 4.5 (3.0–5.0), p = 0.03]. Other outcomes were similar between groups. Conclusions Anxiety levels in this ICU population were low, and music during 3 days did not decrease anxiety. This study indicates that efficacy of music is context and intervention-dependent, given previous evidence showing decreased anxiety. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register: NL8595, Registered, 1 April 2020. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04796389, Registered retrospectively, 12 March 202

Reducing medical device alarms by an order of magnitude: A human factors approach

Contains fulltext : 231622.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access

Optimal Dosing and Timing of High-Dose Corticosteroid Therapy in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: Study Protocol for a Retrospective Observational Multicenter Study (SELECT)

Background: In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the dosing and timing of corticosteroids vary widely. Low-dose dexamethasone therapy reduces mortality in patients requiring respiratory support, but it remains unclear how to treat patients when this therapy fails. In critically ill patients, high-dose corticosteroids are often administered as salvage late in the disease course, whereas earlier administration may be more beneficial in preventing disease progression. Previous research has revealed that increased levels of various biomarkers are associated with mortality, and whole blood transcriptome sequencing has the ability to identify host factors predisposing to critical illness in patients with COVID-19. Objective: Our goal is to determine the most optimal dosing and timing of corticosteroid therapy and to provide a basis for personalized corticosteroid treatment regimens to reduce morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods: This is a retrospective, observational, multicenter study that includes adult patients who were hospitalized due to COVID-19 in the Netherlands. We will use the differences in therapeutic strategies between hospitals (per protocol high-dose corticosteroids or not) over time to determine whether high-dose corticosteroids have an effect on the following outcome measures: mechanical ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula therapy, in-hospital mortality, and 28-day survival. We will also explore biomarker profiles in serum and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and use whole blood transcriptome analysis to determine factors that influence the relationship between high-dose corticosteroids and outcome. Existing databases that contain routinely collected electronic data during ward and intensive care admissions, as well as existing biobanks, will be used. We will apply longitudinal modeling appropriate for each data structure to answer the research questions at hand. Results: As of April 2023, data have been collected for a total of 1500 patients, with data collection anticipated to be completed by December 2023. We expect the first results to be available in early 2024. Conclusions: This study protocol presents a strategy to investigate the effect of high-dose corticosteroids throughout the entire clinical course of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, from hospital admission to the ward or intensive care unit until hospital discharge. Moreover, our exploration of biomarker and gene expression profiles for targeted corticosteroid therapy represents a first step towards personalized COVID-19 corticosteroid treatment

CO-FLOW: COvid-19 Follow-up care paths and Long-term Outcomes Within the Dutch health care system: study protocol of a multicenter prospective cohort study following patients 2 years after hospital discharge

Background: First studies indicate that up to 6 months after hospital discharge, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) causes severe physical, cognitive, and psychological impairments, which may affect participation and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). After hospitalization for COVID-19, a number of patients are referred to medical rehabilitation centers or skilled nursing facilities for further treatment, while others go home with or without aftercare. The aftercare paths include 1] community-based rehabilitation; 2] in- and outpatient medical rehabilitation; 3] inpatient rehabilitation in skilled nursing facilities; and 4] sheltered care (inpatient). These aftercare paths and the trajectories of recovery after COVID-19 urgently need long-term in-depth evaluation to optimize and personalize treatment. CO-FLOW aims, by following the outcomes and aftercare paths of all COVID-19 patients after hospital discharge, to systematically study over a 2-year period: 1] trajectories of physical, cognitive, and psychological recovery; 2] patient flows, healthcare utilization, patient satisfaction with aftercare, and barriers/facilitators regarding aftercare as experienced by healthcare professionals; 3] effects of physical, cognitive, and psychological outcomes on participation and HRQoL; and 4] predictors for long-term recovery, health care utilization, and patient satisfaction with aftercare. Methods: CO-FLOW is a multicenter prospective cohort study in the mid-west of the Netherlands with a 2-year follow-up period. Measurements comprise non-invasive clinical tests and patient reported outcome measures from a combined rehabilitation, pulmonary, and intensive care perspective. Measurements are performed at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after hospital discharge and, if applicable, at rehabilitation discharge. CO-FLOW aims to include at least 500 patients who survived hospitalization for COVID-19, aged ≥18 years. Discussion: CO-FLOW will provide in-depth knowledge on the long-term sequelae of COVID-19 and the quality of current aftercare paths for patients who survived hospitalization. This knowledge is a prerequisite to facilitate the right care in the right place for COVID-19 and comparable future infectious diseases. Trial registration: The Netherlands Trial Register (NTR), https://www.trialregister.nl. Registered: 12-06-2020, CO-FLOW trialregister no. NL8710

Model-informed precision dosing of beta-lactam antibiotics and ciprofloxacin in critically ill patients: a multicentre randomised clinical trial

PURPOSE: Individualising drug dosing using model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) of beta-lactam antibiotics and ciprofloxacin has been proposed as an alternative to standard dosing to optimise antibiotic efficacy in critically ill patients. However, randomised clinical trials (RCT) on clinical outcomes have been lacking. METHODS: This multicentre RCT, including patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) who were treated with antibiotics, was conducted in eight hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were randomised to MIPD with dose and interval adjustments based on monitoring serum drug levels (therapeutic drug monitoring) combined with pharmacometric modelling of beta-lactam antibiotics and ciprofloxacin. The primary outcome was ICU length of stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes were ICU mortality, hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, 6-month mortality, delta sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, adverse events and target attainment. RESULTS: In total, 388 (MIPD n = 189; standard dosing n = 199) patients were analysed (median age 64 [IQR 55-71]). We found no significant differences in ICU LOS between MIPD compared to standard dosing (10 MIPD vs 8 standard dosing; IRR = 1.16; 95% CI 0.96-1.41; p = 0.13). There was no significant difference in target attainment before intervention at day 1 (T1) (55.6% MIPD vs 60.9% standard dosing; p = 0.24) or at day 3 (T3) (59.5% vs 60.4%; p = 0.84). There were no significant differences in other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We could not show a beneficial effect of MIPD of beta-lactam antibiotics and ciprofloxacin on ICU LOS in critically ill patients. Our data highlight the need to identify other approaches to dose optimisation