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

Estimating required information size by quantifying diversity in random-effects model meta-analyses

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is increasing awareness that meta-analyses require a sufficiently large information size to detect or reject an anticipated intervention effect. The required information size in a meta-analysis may be calculated from an anticipated <it>a priori </it>intervention effect or from an intervention effect suggested by trials with low-risk of bias.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Information size calculations need to consider the total model variance in a meta-analysis to control type I and type II errors. Here, we derive an adjusting factor for the required information size under any random-effects model meta-analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We devise a measure of diversity (<it>D</it>²) in a meta-analysis, which is the relative variance reduction when the meta-analysis model is changed from a random-effects into a fixed-effect model. <it>D</it>²is the percentage that the between-trial variability constitutes of the sum of the between-trial variability and a sampling error estimate considering the required information size. <it>D</it>²is different from the intuitively obvious adjusting factor based on the common quantification of heterogeneity, the inconsistency (<it>I</it>²), which may underestimate the required information size. Thus, <it>D</it>²and <it>I</it>²are compared and interpreted using several simulations and clinical examples. In addition we show mathematically that diversity is equal to or greater than inconsistency, that is <it>D</it>²≥ <it>I</it>², for all meta-analyses.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We conclude that <it>D</it>²seems a better alternative than <it>I</it>²to consider model variation in any random-effects meta-analysis despite the choice of the between trial variance estimator that constitutes the model. Furthermore, <it>D</it>²can readily adjust the required information size in any random-effects model meta-analysis.</p

Influenza and associated co-infections in critically ill immunosuppressed patients

Background: It is unclear whether influenza infection and associated co-infection are associated with patient-important outcomes in critically ill immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure. Methods: Preplanned secondary analysis of EFRAIM, a prospective cohort study of 68 hospitals in 16 countries. We included 1611 patients aged 18 years or older with non-AIDS-related immunocompromise, who were admitted to the ICU with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The main exposure of interest was influenza infection status. The primary outcome of interest was all-cause hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes ICU length of stay (LOS) and 90-day mortality. Results: Influenza infection status was categorized into four groups: patients with influenza alone (n = 95, 5.8%), patients with influenza plus pulmonary co-infection (n = 58, 3.6%), patients with non-influenza pulmonary infection (n = 820, 50.9%), and patients without pulmonary infection (n = 638, 39.6%). Influenza infection status was associated with a requirement for intubation and with LOS in ICU (P &lt; 0.001). Patients with influenza plus co-infection had the highest rates of intubation and longest ICU LOS. On crude analysis, influenza infection status was associated with ICU mortality (P &lt; 0.001) but not hospital mortality (P = 0.09). Patients with influenza plus co-infection and patients with non-influenza infection alone had similar ICU mortality (41% and 37% respectively) that was higher than patients with influenza alone or those without infection (33% and 26% respectively). A propensity score-matched analysis did not show a difference in hospital mortality attributable to influenza infection (OR = 1.01, 95%CI 0.90-1.13, P = 0.85). Age, severity scores, ARDS, and performance status were all associated with ICU, hospital, and 90-day mortality. Conclusions: Category of infectious etiology of respiratory failure (influenza, non-influenza, influenza plus co-infection, and non-infectious) was associated with ICU but not hospital mortality. In a propensity score-matched analysis, influenza infection was not associated with the primary outcome of hospital mortality. Overall, influenza infection alone may not be an independent risk factor for hospital mortality in immunosuppressed patients

A new tool to assess Clinical Diversity In Meta‐analyses (CDIM) of interventions

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM), a new tool for assessing clinical diversity between trials in meta-analyses of interventions.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The development of CDIM was based on consensus work informed by empirical literature and expertise. We drafted the CDIM tool, refined it, and validated CDIM for interrater scale reliability and agreement in three groups.RESULTS: CDIM measures clinical diversity on a scale that includes four domains with 11 items overall: setting (time of conduct/country development status/units type); population (age, sex, patient inclusion criteria/baseline disease severity, comorbidities); interventions (intervention intensity/strength/duration of intervention, timing, control intervention, cointerventions); and outcome (definition of outcome, timing of outcome assessment). The CDIM is completed in two steps: first two authors independently assess clinical diversity in the four domains. Second, after agreeing upon scores of individual items a consensus score is achieved. Interrater scale reliability and agreement ranged from moderate to almost perfect depending on the type of raters.CONCLUSION: CDIM is the first tool developed for assessing clinical diversity in meta-analyses of interventions. We found CDIM to be a reliable tool for assessing clinical diversity among trials in meta-analysis.</p

Perioperative oxygen fraction – effect on surgical site infection and pulmonary complications after abdominal surgery: a randomized clinical trial. Rationale and design of the PROXI-Trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A high perioperative inspiratory oxygen fraction may reduce the risk of surgical site infections, as bacterial eradication by neutrophils depends on wound oxygen tension. Two trials have shown that a high perioperative inspiratory oxygen fraction (Fi<smcaps>O</smcaps>₂= 0.80) significantly reduced risk of surgical site infections after elective colorectal surgery, but a third trial was stopped early because the frequency of surgical site infections was more than doubled in the group receiving Fi<smcaps>O</smcaps>₂= 0.80. It has not been settled if a high inspiratory oxygen fraction increases the risk of pulmonary complications, such as atelectasis, pneumonia and respiratory failure. The aim of our trial is to assess the potential benefits and harms of a high perioperative oxygen fraction in patients undergoing abdominal surgery.</p> <p>Methods and design</p> <p>The PROXI-Trial is a randomized, patient- and assessor blinded trial of perioperative supplemental oxygen in 1400 patients undergoing acute or elective laparotomy in 14 Danish hospitals. Patients are randomized to receive either 80% oxygen (Fi<smcaps>O</smcaps>₂= 0.80) or 30% oxygen (Fi<smcaps>O</smcaps>₂= 0.30) during surgery and for the first 2 postoperative hours. The primary outcome is surgical site infection within 14 days. The secondary outcomes are: atelectasis, pneumonia, respiratory failure, re-operation, mortality, duration of postoperative hospitalization, and admission to intensive care unit. The sample size allows detection of a 33% relative risk reduction in the primary outcome with 80% power.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This trial assesses benefits and harms of a high inspiratory oxygen fraction, and the trial may be generalizable to a general surgical population undergoing laparotomy.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00364741.</p

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

Nurses' perceptions of aids and obstacles to the provision of optimal end of life care in ICU

Contains fulltext : 172380.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access