Transfusion of fresh frozen plasma in non-bleeding ICU patients -TOPIC TRIAL: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Fresh frozen plasma (FFP) is an effective therapy to correct for a deficiency of multiple coagulation factors during bleeding. In past years, use of FFP has increased, in particular in patients on the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), and has expanded to include prophylactic use in patients with a coagulopathy prior to undergoing an invasive procedure. Retrospective studies suggest that prophylactic use of FFP does not prevent bleeding, but carries the risk of transfusion-related morbidity. However, up to 50% of FFP is administered to non-bleeding ICU patients. With the aim to investigate whether prophylactic FFP transfusions to critically ill patients can be safely omitted, a multi-center randomized clinical trial is conducted in ICU patients with a coagulopathy undergoing an invasive procedure.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A non-inferiority, prospective, multicenter randomized open-label, blinded end point evaluation (PROBE) trial. In the intervention group, a prophylactic transfusion of FFP prior to an invasive procedure is omitted compared to transfusion of a fixed dose of 12 ml/kg in the control group. Primary outcome measure is relevant bleeding. Secondary outcome measures are minor bleeding, correction of International Normalized Ratio, onset of acute lung injury, length of ventilation days and length of Intensive Care Unit stay.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The Transfusion of Fresh Frozen Plasma in non-bleeding ICU patients (TOPIC) trial is the first multi-center randomized controlled trial powered to investigate whether it is safe to withhold FFP transfusion to coagulopathic critically ill patients undergoing an invasive procedure.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Trial registration: Dutch Trial Register NTR2262 and ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01143909">NCT01143909</a></p

Diagnosis and outcome of acute respiratory failure in immunocompromised patients after bronchoscopy

Objective: We wished to explore the use, diagnostic capability and outcomes of bronchoscopy added to noninvasive testing in immunocompromised patients. In this setting, an inability to identify the cause of acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure is associated with worse outcome. Every effort should be made to obtain a diagnosis, either with noninvasive testing alone or combined with bronchoscopy. However, our understanding of the risks and benefits of bronchoscopy remains uncertain. Patients and methods: This was a pre-planned secondary analysis of Efraim, a prospective, multinational, observational study of 1611 immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). We compared patients with noninvasive testing only to those who had also received bronchoscopy by bivariate analysis and after propensity score matching. Results: Bronchoscopy was performed in 618 (39%) patients who were more likely to have haematological malignancy and a higher severity of illness score. Bronchoscopy alone achieved a diagnosis in 165 patients (27% adjusted diagnostic yield). Bronchoscopy resulted in a management change in 236 patients (38% therapeutic yield). Bronchoscopy was associated with worsening of respiratory status in 69 (11%) patients. Bronchoscopy was associated with higher ICU (40% versus 28%; p<0.0001) and hospital mortality (49% versus 41%; p=0.003). The overall rate of undiagnosed causes was 13%. After propensity score matching, bronchoscopy remained associated with increased risk of hospital mortality (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.08-1.81). Conclusions: Bronchoscopy was associated with improved diagnosis and changes in management, but also increased hospital mortality. Balancing risk and benefit in individualised cases should be investigated further

Making sense of early high-dose intravenous vitamin C in ischemia/reperfusion injury

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2018. Other selected articles can be found online at https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/annualupdate2018 . Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from http://www.springer.com/series/8901

Prevention or treatment of ARDS with aspirin: A review of preclinical models and meta-analysis of clinical studies

Background: The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threating disorder that contributes significantly to critical illness. No specific pharmacological interventions directed at lung injury itself have proven effective in improving outcome of patients with ARDS. Platelet activation was identified as a key component in ARDS pathophysiology and may provide an opportunity for preventive and therapeutic strategies. We hypothesize that use of acetyl salicylic acid (ASA) may prevent and/or attenuate lung injury. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of preclinical studies and meta-analysis of clinical studies investigating the efficacy of ASA in the setting of lung injury. Medline, embase, and cochrane databases were searched. Results: The literature search yielded 1,314 unique articles. Fifteen preclinical studies and eight clinical studies fulfilled the in-and exclusion criteria. In the animal studies, the overall effect of ASA was positive, e.g., ASA improved survival and attenuated inflammation and pulmonary edema. Mechanisms of actions involved, among others, are interference with the neutrophil-platelets interaction, reduction of leukotrienes, neutrophil extracellular traps, and prostaglandins. High-dose ASA may be the drug of choice. A meta-analysis of three clinical studies showed an association between ASA use and a reduced incidence of ARDS (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.36-0.98), albeit with substantial between-study heterogeneity. All studies had their own shortcomings in methodological quality. Conclusion: This systematic review of preclinical studies and meta-analysis of clinical studies suggests a beneficial role for ASA in ARDS prevention and treatment. However, the currently available data is insufficient to justify an indication for ASA in ARDS. The body of literature does support further studies in humans. We suggest clinical trials in which the mechanisms of action of ASA in lung injury models are being evaluated to guide optimal timing and dose, before prospective randomized trials