Albumin administration in septic shock-Protocol for post-hoc analyses of data from a multicentre RCT.

BACKGROUND Intravenous (IV) albumin is suggested for patients with septic shock who have received large amounts of IV crystalloids; a conditional recommendation based on moderate certainty of evidence. Clinical variation in the administration of IV albumin in septic shock may exist according to patient characteristics and location. METHODS This is a protocol and statistical analysis plan for a post-hoc secondary study of the Conservative versus Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy of Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC) RCT of 1554 adult ICU patients with septic shock. We will assess if specific baseline characteristics or trial site are associated with the administration of IV albumin during ICU stay using Cox models with competing events. All models will be adjusted for the treatment allocation in CLASSIC (restrictive vs. standard IV fluid), and all analyses will consider competing events (death, ICU discharge and loss-to-follow-up). We will present results as hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals and p-values for the associations of baseline characteristics or site with IV albumin administration. Between-group differences (interactions) will be assessed using p-values from likelihood ratio tests. All results will be considered exploratory only. DISCUSSION This secondary study of the CLASSIC RCT may yield important insight into potential practice variation in the administration of albumin in septic shock

Implementation of recommendations on the use of corticosteroids in severe COVID-19

Importance Research diversity and representativeness are paramount in building trust, generating valid biomedical knowledge, and possibly in implementing clinical guidelines. Objectives To compare variations over time and across World Health Organization (WHO) geographic regions of corticosteroid use for treatment of severe COVID-19; secondary objectives were to evaluate the association between the timing of publication of the RECOVERY (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy) trial (June 2020) and the WHO guidelines for corticosteroids (September 2020) and the temporal trends observed in corticosteroid use by region and to describe the geographic distribution of the recruitment in clinical trials that informed the WHO recommendation. Design, Setting, and Participants This prospective cohort study of 434 851 patients was conducted between January 31, 2020, and September 2, 2022, in 63 countries worldwide. The data were collected under the auspices of the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC)–WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol for Severe Emerging Infections. Analyses were restricted to patients hospitalized for severe COVID-19 (a subset of the ISARIC data set). Exposure Corticosteroid use as reported to the ISARIC-WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol for Severe Emerging Infections. Main Outcomes and Measures Number and percentage of patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 who received corticosteroids by time period and by WHO geographic region. Results Among 434 851 patients with confirmed severe or critical COVID-19 for whom receipt of corticosteroids could be ascertained (median [IQR] age, 61.0 [48.0-74.0] years; 53.0% male), 174 307 (40.1%) received corticosteroids during the study period. Of the participants in clinical trials that informed the guideline, 91.6% were recruited from the United Kingdom. In all regions, corticosteroid use for severe COVID-19 increased, but this increase corresponded to the timing of the RECOVERY trial (time-interruption coefficient 1.0 [95% CI, 0.9-1.2]) and WHO guideline (time-interruption coefficient 1.9 [95% CI, 1.7-2.0]) publications only in Europe. At the end of the study period, corticosteroid use for treatment of severe COVID-19 was highest in the Americas (5421 of 6095 [88.9%]; 95% CI, 87.7-90.2) and lowest in Africa (31 588 of 185 191 [17.1%]; 95% CI, 16.8-17.3). Conclusions and Relevance The results of this cohort study showed that implementation of the guidelines for use of corticosteroids in the treatment of severe COVID-19 varied geographically. Uptake of corticosteroid treatment was lower in regions with limited clinical trial involvement. Improving research diversity and representativeness may facilitate timely knowledge uptake and guideline implementation

A descriptive study of the surge response and outcomes of ICU patients with COVID-19 during first wave in Nordic countries

Abstract Background We sought to provide a description of surge response strategies and characteristics, clinical management and outcomes of patients with severe COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU) during the first wave of the pandemic in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. Methods Representatives from the national ICU registries for each of the five countries provided clinical data and a description of the strategies to allocate ICU resources and increase the ICU capacity during the pandemic. All adult patients admitted to the ICU for COVID-19 disease during the first wave of COVID-19 were included. The clinical characteristics, ICU management and outcomes of individual countries were described with descriptive statistics. Results Most countries more than doubled their ICU capacity during the pandemic. For patients positive for SARS-CoV-2, the ratio of requiring ICU admission for COVID-19 varied substantially (1.6-6.7%). Apart from age (proportion of patients aged 65 years or over between 29-62%), baseline characteristics, chronic comorbidity burden and acute presentations of COVID-19 disease were similar among the five countries. While utilization of invasive mechanical ventilation was high (59-85%) in all countries, the proportion of patients receiving renal replacement therapy (7-26%) and various experimental therapies for COVID-19 disease varied substantially (e.g. use of hydroxychloroquine 0-85%). Crude ICU mortality ranged from 11% to 33%. Conclusion There was substantial variability in the critical care response in Nordic ICUs to the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, including usage of experimental medications. While ICU mortality was low in all countries, the observed variability warrants further attention.Peer reviewe

Restrictive versus standard IV fluid therapy in adult ICU patients with septic shock-Bayesian analyses of the CLASSIC trial.

BACKGROUND The CLASSIC trial assessed the effects of restrictive versus standard intravenous (IV) fluid therapy in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock. This pre-planned study provides a probabilistic interpretation and evaluates heterogeneity in treatment effects (HTE). METHODS We analysed mortality, serious adverse events (SAEs), serious adverse reactions (SARs) and days alive without life-support within 90 days using Bayesian models with weakly informative priors. HTE on mortality was assessed according to five baseline variables: disease severity, vasopressor dose, lactate levels, creatinine values and IV fluid volumes given before randomisation. RESULTS The absolute difference in mortality was 0.2%-points (95% credible interval: -5.0 to 5.4; 47% posterior probability of benefit [risk difference <0.0%-points]) with restrictive IV fluid. The posterior probabilities of benefits with restrictive IV fluid were 72% for SAEs, 52% for SARs and 61% for days alive without life-support. The posterior probabilities of no clinically important differences (absolute risk difference ≤2%-points) between the groups were 56% for mortality, 49% for SAEs, 90% for SARs and 38% for days alive without life-support. There was 97% probability of HTE for previous IV fluid volumes analysed continuously, that is, potentially relatively lower mortality of restrictive IV fluids with higher previous IV fluids. No substantial evidence of HTE was found in the other analyses. CONCLUSION We could not rule out clinically important effects of restrictive IV fluid therapy on mortality, SAEs or days alive without life-support, but substantial effects on SARs were unlikely. IV fluids given before randomisation might interact with IV fluid strategy

Family centeredness of care:a cross-sectional study in intensive care units part of the European society of intensive care medicine

Purpose: To identify key components and variations in family-centered care practices. Methods: A cross-sectional study, conducted across ESICM members. Participating ICUs completed a questionnaire covering general ICU characteristics, visitation policies, team-family interactions, and end-of-life decision-making. The primary outcome, self-rated family-centeredness, was assessed using a visual analog scale. Additionally, respondents completed the Maslach Burnout Inventory and the Ethical Decision Making Climate Questionnaire to capture burnout dimensions and assess the ethical decision-making climate. Results: The response rate was 53% (respondents from 359/683 invited ICUs who actually open the email); participating healthcare professionals (HCPs) were from Europe (62%), Asia (9%), South America (6%), North America (5%), Middle East (4%), and Australia/New Zealand (4%). The importance of family-centeredness was ranked high, median 7 (IQR 6–8) of 10 on VAS. Significant differences were observed across quartiles of family centeredness, including in visitation policies availability of a waiting rooms, family rooms, family information leaflet, visiting hours, night visits, sleep in the ICU, and in team-family interactions, including daily information, routine day-3 conference, and willingness to empower nurses and relatives. Higher family centeredness correlated with family involvement in rounds, participation in patient care and end-of-life practices. Burnout symptoms (41% of respondents) were negatively associated with family-centeredness. Ethical climate and willingness to empower nurses were independent predictors of family centeredness. Conclusions: This study emphasizes the need to prioritize healthcare providers’ mental health for enhanced family-centered care. Further research is warranted to assess the impact of improving the ethical climate on family-centeredness.</p

Atraumatic (pencil-point) versus conventional needles for lumbar puncture:a clinical practice guideline

Is the needle tip configuration important when performing a lumbar puncture for any indication? A systematic review published in the Lancet in December 2017 suggests that it is. The review found that using atraumatic (pencil-point) lumbar puncture needles instead of conventional lumbar puncture needles reduced the risk of post-dural-puncture headache and of return to hospital for additional pain control.1 This guideline recommendation aims to promptly and transparently translate this evidence to a clinical recommendation, following standards for GRADE methodology and trustworthy guidelines.2 The BMJ Rapid Recommendations panel makes a strong recommendation for the use of atraumatic needles for lumbar puncture in all patients regardless of age (adults and children) or indication instead of conventional needles.3 4 Box 1 shows the article and evidence linked to this Rapid Recommendation. The main infographic provides an overview of the absolute benefits and harms (although none were present here) of atraumatic needles. Table 1 below shows any evidence that has emerged since the publication of this guideline.publishedVersio

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

Epidemiology and patterns of tracheostomy practice in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in ICUs across 50 countries

Background: To better understand the epidemiology and patterns of tracheostomy practice for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), we investigated the current usage of tracheostomy in patients with ARDS recruited into the Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG-SAFE) study. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of LUNG-SAFE, an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients receiving invasive or noninvasive ventilation in 50 countries spanning 5 continents. The study was carried out over 4 weeks consecutively in the winter of 2014, and 459 ICUs participated. We evaluated the clinical characteristics, management and outcomes of patients that received tracheostomy, in the cohort of patients that developed ARDS on day 1-2 of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, and in a subsequent propensity-matched cohort. Results: Of the 2377 patients with ARDS that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 309 (13.0%) underwent tracheostomy during their ICU stay. Patients from high-income European countries (n = 198/1263) more frequently underwent tracheostomy compared to patients from non-European high-income countries (n = 63/649) or patients from middle-income countries (n = 48/465). Only 86/309 (27.8%) underwent tracheostomy on or before day 7, while the median timing of tracheostomy was 14 (Q1-Q3, 7-21) days after onset of ARDS. In the subsample matched by propensity score, ICU and hospital stay were longer in patients with tracheostomy. While patients with tracheostomy had the highest survival probability, there was no difference in 60-day or 90-day mortality in either the patient subgroup that survived for at least 5 days in ICU, or in the propensity-matched subsample. Conclusions: Most patients that receive tracheostomy do so after the first week of critical illness. Tracheostomy may prolong patient survival but does not reduce 60-day or 90-day mortality