Effect of early vasopressin vs norepinephrine on kidney failure in patients with septic shock. The VANISH Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE: Norepinephrine is currently recommended as the first-line vasopressor in septic shock; however, early vasopressin use has been proposed as an alternative. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of early vasopressin vs norepinephrine on kidney failure in patients with septic shock. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A factorial (2×2), double-blind, randomized clinical trial conducted in 18 general adult intensive care units in the United Kingdom between February 2013 and May 2015, enrolling adult patients who had septic shock requiring vasopressors despite fluid resuscitation within a maximum of 6 hours after the onset of shock. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly allocated to vasopressin (titrated up to 0.06 U/min) and hydrocortisone (n = 101), vasopressin and placebo (n = 104), norepinephrine and hydrocortisone (n = 101), or norepinephrine and placebo (n = 103). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was kidney failure-free days during the 28-day period after randomization, measured as (1) the proportion of patients who never developed kidney failure and (2) median number of days alive and free of kidney failure for patients who did not survive, who experienced kidney failure, or both. Rates of renal replacement therapy, mortality, and serious adverse events were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 409 patients (median age, 66 years; men, 58.2%) were included in the study, with a median time to study drug administration of 3.5 hours after diagnosis of shock. The number of survivors who never developed kidney failure was 94 of 165 patients (57.0%) in the vasopressin group and 93 of 157 patients (59.2%) in the norepinephrine group (difference, -2.3% [95% CI, -13.0% to 8.5%]). The median number of kidney failure-free days for patients who did not survive, who experienced kidney failure, or both was 9 days (interquartile range [IQR], 1 to -24) in the vasopressin group and 13 days (IQR, 1 to -25) in the norepinephrine group (difference, -4 days [95% CI, -11 to 5]). There was less use of renal replacement therapy in the vasopressin group than in the norepinephrine group (25.4% for vasopressin vs 35.3% for norepinephrine; difference, -9.9% [95% CI, -19.3% to -0.6%]). There was no significant difference in mortality rates between groups. In total, 22 of 205 patients (10.7%) had a serious adverse event in the vasopressin group vs 17 of 204 patients (8.3%) in the norepinephrine group (difference, 2.5% [95% CI, -3.3% to 8.2%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among adults with septic shock, the early use of vasopressin compared with norepinephrine did not improve the number of kidney failure-free days. Although these findings do not support the use of vasopressin to replace norepinephrine as initial treatment in this situation, the confidence interval included a potential clinically important benefit for vasopressin, and larger trials may be warranted to assess this further. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: ISRCTN 20769191

Epidemiology, practice of ventilation and outcome for patients at increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications

BACKGROUND Limited information exists about the epidemiology and outcome of surgical patients at increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs), and how intraoperative ventilation was managed in these patients. OBJECTIVES To determine the incidence of surgical patients at increased risk of PPCs, and to compare the intraoperative ventilation management and postoperative outcomes with patients at low risk of PPCs. DESIGN This was a prospective international 1-week observational study using the ‘Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia risk score’ (ARISCAT score) for PPC for risk stratification. PATIENTS AND SETTING Adult patients requiring intraoperative ventilation during general anaesthesia for surgery in 146 hospitals across 29 countries. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was the incidence of patients at increased risk of PPCs based on the ARISCAT score. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative ventilatory management and clinical outcomes. RESULTS A total of 9864 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The incidence of patients at increased risk was 28.4%. The most frequently chosen tidal volume (VT) size was 500 ml, or 7 to 9 ml kg1 predicted body weight, slightly lower in patients at increased risk of PPCs. Levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) were slightly higher in patients at increased risk of PPCs, with 14.3% receiving more than 5 cmH2O PEEP compared with 7.6% in patients at low risk of PPCs (P < 0.001). Patients with a predicted preoperative increased risk of PPCs developed PPCs more frequently: 19 versus 7%, relative risk (RR) 3.16 (95% confidence interval 2.76 to 3.61), P < 0.001) and had longer hospital stays. The only ventilatory factor associated with the occurrence of PPCs was the peak pressure. CONCLUSION The incidence of patients with a predicted increased risk of PPCs is high. A large proportion of patients receive high VT and low PEEP levels. PPCs occur frequently in patients at increased risk, with worse clinical outcome

Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, ventilation management, and outcomes in invasively ventilated intensive care unit patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a pooled analysis of four observational studies

Background: Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, the practice of ventilation, and outcome in invasively ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain unexplored. In this analysis we aim to address these gaps using individual patient data of four large observational studies. Methods: In this pooled analysis we harmonised individual patient data from the ERICC, LUNG SAFE, PRoVENT, and PRoVENT-iMiC prospective observational studies, which were conducted from June, 2011, to December, 2018, in 534 ICUs in 54 countries. We used the 2016 World Bank classification to define two geoeconomic regions: middle-income countries (MICs) and high-income countries (HICs). ARDS was defined according to the Berlin criteria. Descriptive statistics were used to compare patients in MICs versus HICs. The primary outcome was the use of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) for the first 3 days of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were key ventilation parameters (tidal volume size, positive end-expiratory pressure, fraction of inspired oxygen, peak pressure, plateau pressure, driving pressure, and respiratory rate), patient characteristics, the risk for and actual development of acute respiratory distress syndrome after the first day of ventilation, duration of ventilation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality. Findings: Of the 7608 patients included in the original studies, this analysis included 3852 patients without ARDS, of whom 2345 were from MICs and 1507 were from HICs. Patients in MICs were younger, shorter and with a slightly lower body-mass index, more often had diabetes and active cancer, but less often chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure than patients from HICs. Sequential organ failure assessment scores were similar in MICs and HICs. Use of LTVV in MICs and HICs was comparable (42\ub74% vs 44\ub72%; absolute difference \u20131\ub769 [\u20139\ub758 to 6\ub711] p=0\ub767; data available in 3174 [82%] of 3852 patients). The median applied positive end expiratory pressure was lower in MICs than in HICs (5 [IQR 5\u20138] vs 6 [5\u20138] cm H2O; p=0\ub70011). ICU mortality was higher in MICs than in HICs (30\ub75% vs 19\ub79%; p=0\ub70004; adjusted effect 16\ub741% [95% CI 9\ub752\u201323\ub752]; p&lt;0\ub70001) and was inversely associated with gross domestic product (adjusted odds ratio for a US$10 000 increase per capita 0\ub780 [95% CI 0\ub775\u20130\ub786]; p&lt;0\ub70001). Interpretation: Despite similar disease severity and ventilation management, ICU mortality in patients without ARDS is higher in MICs than in HICs, with a strong association with country-level economic status. Funding: No funding

Epidemiology, practice of ventilation and outcome for patients at increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications: LAS VEGAS - An observational study in 29 countries

BACKGROUND Limited information exists about the epidemiology and outcome of surgical patients at increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs), and how intraoperative ventilation was managed in these patients. OBJECTIVES To determine the incidence of surgical patients at increased risk of PPCs, and to compare the intraoperative ventilation management and postoperative outcomes with patients at low risk of PPCs. DESIGN This was a prospective international 1-week observational study using the ‘Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia risk score’ (ARISCAT score) for PPC for risk stratification. PATIENTS AND SETTING Adult patients requiring intraoperative ventilation during general anaesthesia for surgery in 146 hospitals across 29 countries. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was the incidence of patients at increased risk of PPCs based on the ARISCAT score. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative ventilatory management and clinical outcomes. RESULTS A total of 9864 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The incidence of patients at increased risk was 28.4%. The most frequently chosen tidal volume (V T) size was 500 ml, or 7 to 9 ml kg−1 predicted body weight, slightly lower in patients at increased risk of PPCs. Levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) were slightly higher in patients at increased risk of PPCs, with 14.3% receiving more than 5 cmH2O PEEP compared with 7.6% in patients at low risk of PPCs (P ˂ 0.001). Patients with a predicted preoperative increased risk of PPCs developed PPCs more frequently: 19 versus 7%, relative risk (RR) 3.16 (95% confidence interval 2.76 to 3.61), P ˂ 0.001) and had longer hospital stays. The only ventilatory factor associated with the occurrence of PPCs was the peak pressure. CONCLUSION The incidence of patients with a predicted increased risk of PPCs is high. A large proportion of patients receive high V T and low PEEP levels. PPCs occur frequently in patients at increased risk, with worse clinical outcome.</p

Global patient outcomes after elective surgery: prospective cohort study in 27 low-, middle- and high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: As global initiatives increase patient access to surgical treatments, there remains a need to understand the adverse effects of surgery and define appropriate levels of perioperative care. METHODS: We designed a prospective international 7-day cohort study of outcomes following elective adult inpatient surgery in 27 countries. The primary outcome was in-hospital complications. Secondary outcomes were death following a complication (failure to rescue) and death in hospital. Process measures were admission to critical care immediately after surgery or to treat a complication and duration of hospital stay. A single definition of critical care was used for all countries. RESULTS: A total of 474 hospitals in 19 high-, 7 middle- and 1 low-income country were included in the primary analysis. Data included 44 814 patients with a median hospital stay of 4 (range 2-7) days. A total of 7508 patients (16.8%) developed one or more postoperative complication and 207 died (0.5%). The overall mortality among patients who developed complications was 2.8%. Mortality following complications ranged from 2.4% for pulmonary embolism to 43.9% for cardiac arrest. A total of 4360 (9.7%) patients were admitted to a critical care unit as routine immediately after surgery, of whom 2198 (50.4%) developed a complication, with 105 (2.4%) deaths. A total of 1233 patients (16.4%) were admitted to a critical care unit to treat complications, with 119 (9.7%) deaths. Despite lower baseline risk, outcomes were similar in low- and middle-income compared with high-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Poor patient outcomes are common after inpatient surgery. Global initiatives to increase access to surgical treatments should also address the need for safe perioperative care. STUDY REGISTRATION: ISRCTN5181700

Sex difference and intra-operative tidal volume: Insights from the LAS VEGAS study

BACKGROUND: One key element of lung-protective ventilation is the use of a low tidal volume (VT). A sex difference in use of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) has been described in critically ill ICU patients.OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether a sex difference in use of LTVV also exists in operating room patients, and if present what factors drive this difference.DESIGN, PATIENTS AND SETTING: This is a posthoc analysis of LAS VEGAS, a 1-week worldwide observational study in adults requiring intra-operative ventilation during general anaesthesia for surgery in 146 hospitals in 29 countries.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Women and men were compared with respect to use of LTVV, defined as VT of 8 ml kg-1 or less predicted bodyweight (PBW). A VT was deemed 'default' if the set VT was a round number. A mediation analysis assessed which factors may explain the sex difference in use of LTVV during intra-operative ventilation.RESULTS: This analysis includes 9864 patients, of whom 5425 (55%) were women. A default VT was often set, both in women and men; mode VT was 500 ml. Median [IQR] VT was higher in women than in men (8.6 [7.7 to 9.6] vs. 7.6 [6.8 to 8.4] ml kg-1 PBW, P &lt; 0.001). Compared with men, women were twice as likely not to receive LTVV [68.8 vs. 36.0%; relative risk ratio 2.1 (95% CI 1.9 to 2.1), P &lt; 0.001]. In the mediation analysis, patients' height and actual body weight (ABW) explained 81 and 18% of the sex difference in use of LTVV, respectively; it was not explained by the use of a default VT.CONCLUSION: In this worldwide cohort of patients receiving intra-operative ventilation during general anaesthesia for surgery, women received a higher VT than men during intra-operative ventilation. The risk for a female not to receive LTVV during surgery was double that of males. Height and ABW were the two mediators of the sex difference in use of LTVV.TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01601223

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with poor patient outcomes. We studied the effectiveness of a national quality improvement (QI) programme to implement a care pathway to improve survival for these patients. METHODS: We did a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial of patients aged 40 years or older undergoing emergency open major abdominal surgery. Eligible UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals (those that had an emergency general surgical service, a substantial volume of emergency abdominal surgery cases, and contributed data to the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit) were organised into 15 geographical clusters and commenced the QI programme in a random order, based on a computer-generated random sequence, over an 85-week period with one geographical cluster commencing the intervention every 5 weeks from the second to the 16th time period. Patients were masked to the study group, but it was not possible to mask hospital staff or investigators. The primary outcome measure was mortality within 90 days of surgery. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN80682973. FINDINGS: Treatment took place between March 3, 2014, and Oct 19, 2015. 22 754 patients were assessed for elegibility. Of 15 873 eligible patients from 93 NHS hospitals, primary outcome data were analysed for 8482 patients in the usual care group and 7374 in the QI group. Eight patients in the usual care group and nine patients in the QI group were not included in the analysis because of missing primary outcome data. The primary outcome of 90-day mortality occurred in 1210 (16%) patients in the QI group compared with 1393 (16%) patients in the usual care group (HR 1·11, 0·96-1·28). INTERPRETATION: No survival benefit was observed from this QI programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. Future QI programmes should ensure that teams have both the time and resources needed to improve patient care. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme