In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute ARDS Clinical Trials Network recommends a target partial pressure of arterial oxygen (Pao
) ...between 55 and 80 mm Hg. Prospective validation of this range in patients with ARDS is lacking. We hypothesized that targeting the lower limit of this range would improve outcomes in patients with ARDS.
In this multicenter, randomized trial, we assigned patients with ARDS to receive either conservative oxygen therapy (target Pao
, 55 to 70 mm Hg; oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry Spo
, 88 to 92%) or liberal oxygen therapy (target Pao
, 90 to 105 mm Hg; Spo
, ≥96%) for 7 days. The same mechanical-ventilation strategies were used in both groups. The primary outcome was death from any cause at 28 days.
After the enrollment of 205 patients, the trial was prematurely stopped by the data and safety monitoring board because of safety concerns and a low likelihood of a significant difference between the two groups in the primary outcome. Four patients who did not meet the eligibility criteria were excluded. At day 28, a total of 34 of 99 patients (34.3%) in the conservative-oxygen group and 27 of 102 patients (26.5%) in the liberal-oxygen group had died (difference, 7.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval CI, -4.8 to 20.6). At day 90, 44.4% of the patients in the conservative-oxygen group and 30.4% of the patients in the liberal-oxygen group had died (difference, 14.0 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.7 to 27.2). Five mesenteric ischemic events occurred in the conservative-oxygen group.
Among patients with ARDS, early exposure to a conservative-oxygenation strategy with a Pao
between 55 and 70 mm Hg did not increase survival at 28 days. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health; LOCO
ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02713451.).
To provide up-to-date information on the prognostic factors associated with 28-day mortality in a cohort of septic shock patients in intensive care units (ICUs).
Prospective, multicenter, ...observational cohort study in ICUs from 14 French general (non-academic) and university teaching hospitals. All consecutive patients with septic shock admitted between November 2009 and March 2011 were eligible for inclusion. We prospectively recorded data regarding patient characteristics, infection, severity of illness, life support therapy, and discharge.
Among 10,941 patients admitted to participating ICUs between October 2009 and September 2011, 1,495 (13.7%) patients presented inclusion criteria for septic shock and were included. Invasive mechanical ventilation was needed in 83.9% (n=1248), inotropes in 27.7% (n=412), continuous renal replacement therapy in 32.5% (n=484), and hemodialysis in 19.6% (n=291). Mortality at 28 days was 42% (n=625). Variables associated with time to mortality, right-censored at day 28: age (for each additional 10 years) (hazard ratio (HR)=1.29; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.20-1.38), immunosuppression (HR=1.63; 95%CI: 1.37-1.96), Knaus class C/D score versus class A/B score (HR=1.36; 95%CI:1.14-1.62) and Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (HR=1.24 for each additional point; 95%CI: 1.21-1.27). Patients with septic shock and renal/urinary tract infection had a significantly longer time to mortality (HR=0.56; 95%CI: 0.42-0.75).
Our observational data of consecutive patients from real-life practice confirm that septic shock is common and carries high mortality in general ICU populations. Our results are in contrast with the clinical trial setting, and could be useful for healthcare planning and clinical study design.
Intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) are the two main RRT modalities in patients with severe acute kidney injury (AKI). Meta-analyses conducted more than ...10 years ago did not show survival difference between these two modalities. As the quality of RRT delivery has improved since then, we aimed to reassess whether the choice of IHD or CRRT as first modality affects survival of patients with severe AKI.
This is a secondary analysis of two multicenter randomized controlled trials (AKIKI and IDEAL-ICU) that compared an early RRT initiation strategy with a delayed one. We included patients allocated to the early strategy in order to emulate a trial where patients would have been randomized to receive either IHD or CRRT within twelve hours after the documentation of severe AKI. We determined each patient's modality group as the first RRT modality they received. The primary outcome was 60-day overall survival. We used two propensity score methods to balance the differences in baseline characteristics between groups and the primary analysis relied on inverse probability of treatment weighting.
A total of 543 patients were included. Continuous RRT was the first modality in 269 patients and IHD in 274. Patients receiving CRRT had higher cardiovascular and total-SOFA scores. Inverse probability weighting allowed to adequately balance groups on all predefined confounders. The weighted Kaplan-Meier death rate at day 60 was 54·4% in the CRRT group and 46·5% in the IHD group (weighted HR 1·26, 95% CI 1·01-1·60). In a complementary analysis of less severely ill patients (SOFA score: 3-10), receiving IHD was associated with better day 60 survival compared to CRRT (weighted HR 1.82, 95% CI 1·01-3·28; p < 0.01). We found no evidence of a survival difference between the two RRT modalities in more severe patients.
Compared to IHD, CRRT as first modality seemed to convey no benefit in terms of survival or of kidney recovery and might even have been associated with less favorable outcome in patients with lesser severity of disease. A prospective randomized non-inferiority trial should be implemented to solve the persistent conundrum of the optimal RRT technique.
In critically ill patients, positive fluid balance is associated with excessive mortality. The POINCARE-2 trial aimed to assess the effectiveness of a fluid balance control strategy on mortality in ...critically ill patients.
POINCARE-2 was a stepped wedge cluster open-label randomized controlled trial. We recruited critically ill patients in twelve volunteering intensive care units from nine French hospitals. Eligible patients were ≥ 18 years old, under mechanical ventilation, admitted to one of the 12 recruiting units for > 48 and ≤ 72 h, and had an expected length of stay after inclusion > 24 h. Recruitment started on May 2016 and ended on May 2019. Of 10,272 patients screened, 1361 met the inclusion criteria and 1353 completed follow-up. The POINCARE-2 strategy consisted of a daily weight-driven restriction of fluid intake, diuretics administration, and ultrafiltration in case of renal replacement therapy between Day 2 and Day 14 after admission. The primary outcome was 60-day all-cause mortality. We considered intention-to-treat analyses in cluster-randomized analyses (CRA) and in randomized before-and-after analyses (RBAA).
A total of 433 (643) patients in the strategy group and 472 (718) in the control group were included in the CRA (RBAA). In the CRA, mean (SD) age was 63.7 (14.1) versus 65.7 (14.3) years, and mean (SD) weight at admission was 78.5 (20.0) versus 79.4 (23.5) kg. A total of 129 (160) patients died in the strategy (control) group. Sixty-day mortality did not differ between groups 30.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 26.2-34.8 vs. 33.9%, 95% CI 29.6-38.2, p = 0.26. Among safety outcomes, only hypernatremia was more frequent in the strategy group (5.3% vs. 2.3%, p = 0.01). The RBAA led to similar results.
The POINCARE-2 conservative strategy did not reduce mortality in critically ill patients. However, due to open-label and stepped wedge design, intention-to-treat analyses might not reflect actual exposure to this strategy, and further analyses might be required before completely discarding it. Trial registration POINCARE-2 trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02765009). Registered 29 April 2016.
La figura 1 pertenece a una paciente de 77 años con antecedentes de trastornos psiquiátricos y neurocognitivos, múltiples consultas al servicio de urgencias e internaciones por causas sociales más ...que médicas. A ellos se suma la colocación de un marcapasos en marzo de 2018 por bradicardia en el contexto de un bloqueo auriculoventricular 2:1.
We determined reliability of cardiac output (CO) measured by pulse wave transit time cardiac output system (esCCO system; COesCCO) vs transthoracic echocardiography (COTTE) in mechanically ventilated ...patients in the early phase of septic shock. A secondary objective was to assess ability of esCCO to detect change in CO after fluid infusion.
Mechanically ventilated patients admitted to the ICU, aged >18 years, in sinus rhythm, in the early phase of septic shock were prospectively included. We performed fluid infusion of 500 ml of crystalloid solution over 20 minutes and recorded CO by EsCCO and TTE immediately before (T0) and 5 minutes after (T1) fluid administration. Patients were divided into 2 groups (responders and non-responders) according to a threshold of 15% increase in COTTE in response to volume expansion.
In total, 25 patients were included, average 64±15 years, 15 (60%) were men. Average SAPSII and SOFA scores were 55±21.3 and 13±2, respectively. ICU mortality was 36%. Mean cardiac output at T0 was 5.8±1.35 L/min by esCCO and 5.27±1.17 L/min by COTTE. At T1, respective values were 6.63 ± 1.57 L/min for esCCO and 6.10±1.29 L/min for COTTE. Overall, 12 patients were classified as responders, 13 as non-responders by the reference method. A threshold of 11% increase in COesCCO was found to discriminate responders from non-responders with a sensitivity of 83% (95% CI, 0.52-0.98) and a specificity of 77% (95% CI, 0.46-0.95).
We show strong correlation esCCO and echocardiography for measuring CO, and change in CO after fluid infusion in ICU patients.
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with severe lung damage. Corticosteroids are a possible therapeutic option.
To determine the effect of hydrocortisone on treatment failure on day 21 ...in critically ill patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and acute respiratory failure.
Multicenter randomized double-blind sequential trial conducted in France, with interim analyses planned every 50 patients. Patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure were enrolled from March 7 to June 1, 2020, with last follow-up on June 29, 2020. The study intended to enroll 290 patients but was stopped early following the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board.
Patients were randomized to receive low-dose hydrocortisone (n = 76) or placebo (n = 73).
The primary outcome, treatment failure on day 21, was defined as death or persistent dependency on mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen therapy. Prespecified secondary outcomes included the need for tracheal intubation (among patients not intubated at baseline); cumulative incidences (until day 21) of prone position sessions, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and inhaled nitric oxide; Pao2:Fio2 ratio measured daily from day 1 to day 7, then on days 14 and 21; and the proportion of patients with secondary infections during their ICU stay.
The study was stopped after 149 patients (mean age, 62.2 years; 30.2% women; 81.2% mechanically ventilated) were enrolled. One hundred forty-eight patients (99.3%) completed the study, and there were 69 treatment failure events, including 11 deaths in the hydrocortisone group and 20 deaths in the placebo group. The primary outcome, treatment failure on day 21, occurred in 32 of 76 patients (42.1%) in the hydrocortisone group compared with 37 of 73 (50.7%) in the placebo group (difference of proportions, -8.6% 95.48% CI, -24.9% to 7.7%; P = .29). Of the 4 prespecified secondary outcomes, none showed a significant difference. No serious adverse events were related to the study treatment.
In this study of critically ill patients with COVID-19 and acute respiratory failure, low-dose hydrocortisone, compared with placebo, did not significantly reduce treatment failure (defined as death or persistent respiratory support) at day 21. However, the study was stopped early and likely was underpowered to find a statistically and clinically important difference in the primary outcome.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02517489.
Introduction
Refractory septic shock (RSS) is characterized by high vasopressor requirements, as a consequence of vasopressor resistance, which may be caused or enhanced by sympathetic ...hyperactivation. Experimental models and clinical trials show a reduction in vasopressor requirements and improved microcirculation compared to conventional sedation. Dexmedetomidine did not reduce mortality in clinical trials, but few septic shock patients were enrolled. This pilot trial aims to evaluate vasopressor re-sensitization with dexmedetomidine and assess the effect size, in order to design a larger trial.
Methods
This is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, comparing dexmedetomidine versus placebo in RSS patients with norepinephrine dose ≥0.5μg/kg/min. The primary outcome is blood pressure response to phenylephrine challenge, 6 hours after completion of a first challenge, after study treatment initiation. Secondary outcomes include feasibility and safety outcomes (bradycardia), mortality, vasopressor requirements, heart rate variability, plasma and urine catecholamines levels. The sample size is estimated at 32 patients to show a 20% improvement in blood pressure response to phenylephrine. Randomization (1:1) will be stratified by center, sedation type and presence of liver cirrhosis. Blood pressure and ECG will be continuously recorded for the first 24 h, enabling high-quality data collection for the primary and secondary endpoints. The study was approved by the ethics committee “Sud-Est VI” (2019-000726-22) and patients will be included after informed consent.
Discussion
The present study will be the first randomized trial to specifically address the hemodynamic effects of dexmedetomidine in patients with septic shock. We implement a high-quality process for data acquisition and recording in the first 24 h, ensuring maximal quality for the evaluation of both efficacy and safety outcomes, as well as transparency of results. The results of the study will be used to elaborate a full-scale randomized controlled trial with mortality as primary outcome in RSS patients.
Trial registration
Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03953677). Registered 16 May 2019,
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03953677
.
Background
Non-tunneled hemodialysis catheters are currently used for critically ill patients with acute kidney injury requiring extracorporeal renal replacement therapy. Strategies to prevent ...catheter dysfunction and infection with catheter locks remain controversial.
Methods
In a multicenter, randomized, controlled, double-blind trial, we compared two strategies for catheter locking of non-tunneled hemodialysis catheters, namely trisodium citrate at 4% (intervention group) versus unfractionated heparin (control group), in patients aged 18 years or older admitted to the intensive care unit and in whom a first non-tunneled hemodialysis catheter was to be inserted by the jugular or femoral vein. The primary endpoint was length of event-free survival of the first non-tunneled hemodialysis catheter. Secondary endpoints were: rate of fibrinolysis, incidence of catheter dysfunction and incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), all per 1000 catheter-days; number of hemorrhagic events requiring transfusion, length of stay in intensive care and in hospital; 28-day mortality.
Results
Overall, 396 randomized patients completed the trial: 199 in the citrate group and 197 in the heparin group. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between groups. The duration of event-free survival of the first non-tunneled hemodialysis catheter was not significantly different between groups: 7 days (IQR 3–10) in the citrate group and 5 days (IQR 3–11) in the heparin group (
p
= 0.51). Rates of catheter thrombosis, CRBSI, and adverse events were not statistically different between groups.
Conclusions
In critically ill patients, there was no significant difference in the duration of event-free survival of the first non-tunneled hemodialysis catheter between trisodium citrate 4% and heparin as a locking solution. Catheter thrombosis, catheter-related infection, and adverse events were not statistically different between the two groups.
Trial registration
Registered with Clinicaltrials.gov under the number NCT01962116. Registered 14 October 2013.
Abstract Purpose Feasibility study examining whether plethysmographic variability index (PVI) can predict fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients in the early phase of septic shock ...in the emergency department. Materials and Methods Monocentric, prospective, observational study that included 31 mechanically ventilated and sedated patients with septic shock in whom volume expansion was planned. The patients were equipped with a pulse oximeter that automatically calculated and displayed PVI. The intervention consisted in infusing 8 mL/kg of hydroxylethyl starch over a 20-minute period. Before and after intervention, we recorded PVI and measured the aortic velocity-time integral (VTIao) using transthoracic echocardiography. Responders were defined as patients who increased their VTIao by 15% or higher after fluid infusion. Results Sixteen patients were classified as responders, and 15 as nonresponders. Mean PVI values before intervention were significantly higher in responders vs nonresponders (30% ± 9% vs 8% ± 5%, P < .001). Plethysmographic variability index values before intervention were correlated with percent changes in VTIao induced by intervention ( R2 = 0.67; P < .001). A PVI threshold value of 19% discriminates responders from nonresponders with a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 87% (area under the curve, 0.97; P < .001). Conclusion Our study suggests that PVI is a feasible and interesting method to predict fluid responsiveness in early phase septic shock patients in the emergency department.
PDF
