Search

Purpose: We assessed long-term outcomes in acutely admitted adult patients with delirium treated in intensive care unit (ICU) with haloperidol versus placebo. Methods: We conducted pre-planned analyses of 1-year outcomes in the Agents Intervening against Delirium in the ICU (AID-ICU) trial, including mortality and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessed by Euroqol (EQ) 5-dimension 5-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) index values and EQ visual analogue scale (EQ VAS) (deceased patients were assigned the numeric value zero). Outcomes were analysed using logistic and linear regressions with bootstrapping and G-computation, all with adjustment for the stratification variables (site and delirium motor subtype) and multiple imputations for missing HRQoL values. Results: At 1-year follow-up, we obtained vital status for 96.2% and HRQoL data for 83.3% of the 1000 randomised patients. One-year mortality was 224/501 (44.7%) in the haloperidol group versus 251/486 (51.6%) in the placebo group, with an adjusted absolute risk difference of − 6.4%-points (95% confidence interval [CI] − 12.8%-points to − 0.2%-points; P = 0.045). These results were largely consistent across the secondary analyses. For HRQoL, the adjusted mean differences were 0.04 (95% CI − 0.03 to 0.11; P = 0.091) for EQ-5D-5L-5L index values, and 3.3 (95% CI − 9.3 to 17.5; P = 0.142) for EQ VAS. Conclusions: In acutely admitted adult ICU patients with delirium, haloperidol treatment reduced mortality at 1-year follow-up, but did not statistically significantly improve HRQoL.

Background: Acute or new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in critically ill adult patients, and observational data suggests that NOAF is associated to adverse outcomes. Methods: We prepared this guideline according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. We posed the following clinical questions: (1) what is the better first-line pharmacological agent for the treatment of NOAF in critically ill adult patients?, (2) should we use direct current (DC) cardioversion in critically ill adult patients with NOAF and hemodynamic instability caused by atrial fibrillation?, (3) should we use anticoagulant therapy in critically ill adult patients with NOAF?, and (4) should critically ill adult patients with NOAF receive follow-up after discharge from hospital? We assessed patient-important outcomes, including mortality, thromboembolic events, and adverse events. Patients and relatives were part of the guideline panel. Results: The quantity and quality of evidence on the management of NOAF in critically ill adults was very limited, and we did not identify any relevant direct or indirect evidence from randomized clinical trials for the prespecified PICO questions. We were able to propose one weak recommendation against routine use of therapeutic dose anticoagulant therapy, and one best practice statement for routine follow-up by a cardiologist after hospital discharge. We were not able to propose any recommendations on the better first-line pharmacological agent or whether to use DC cardioversion in critically ill patients with hemodynamic instability induced by NOAF. An electronic version of this guideline in layered and interactive format is available in MAGIC: https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/7197. Conclusions: The body of evidence on the management of NOAF in critically ill adults is very limited and not informed by direct evidence from randomized clinical trials. Practice variation app

Background: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is frequently assessed in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in the intensive care unit (ICU), but data are limited regarding the proportions of patients without responses or not surviving to HRQoL follow-up and the handling of this. We aimed to describe the extent and pattern of missing HRQoL data in intensive care trials and describe how these data and deaths were handled statistically. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following a published protocol. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Library for RCTs involving adult ICU patients reporting HRQoL as an outcome and excluded RCTs unobtainable in full text. We performed risk of bias assessment independently and in duplicate. Results: We included 196 outcomes from 88 RCTs published in the years 2002–2022; the numbers of patients alive and eligible to respond HRQoL were reported in 76% of trials. At follow-up, median 27% (interquartile range 14%–39%) of patients had died, and median 20% (9%–38%) of survivors did not respond across outcomes. Analyses of 80% of outcomes were restricted to complete cases only. The handling of non-survivors in analyses were reported for 46% of outcomes, with 26% of all outcomes reported as including non-survivors (using the value zero or the worst possible score). Conclusion: For HRQoL outcomes in ICU trials, we found that mortality at time of follow-up was high and non-response among survivors frequent. The reporting and statistical handling of these issues were insufficient, which may have biased results.

Background: Patient and public involvement in randomised clinical trials has received increased focus, including in intensive care trials, but the frequency, method and extent is unknown. This meta-epidemiological study investigated patient and public involvement in contemporary, large ICU trials. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed for large (≥225 randomised patients), contemporary trials (published between 1 January 2019 and 31 January 2022) assessing interventions in adult patients in ICU settings. Abstracts and full-text articles were assessed independently and in duplicate. Data were extracted using a pre-defined, pilot-tested data extraction form with details on trials, patient and public involvement including categories and numbers of individuals involved, methods of involvement, and trial stage(s) with involvement. Trials authors were contacted as necessary. Results: We included 100 trials, with 18 using patient and public involvement; these were larger and conducted in more centres than trials without patient and public involvement. Among trials with patient and public involvement, patients (in 14/18 trials), clinicians (13 trials), and family members (12 trials) were primarily involved, mainly in the development of research design (15 trials) and development of research focus (13 trials) stages and mostly by discussion (12 trials) and solo interviews (10 trials). A median of 65 individuals (range 1–6894) were involved. Conclusions: We found patient and public involvement in a fifth of large, contemporary ICU trials. Primarily patients, families, and clinicians were included, particularly in the trial planning stages and mostly through interviews and discussions. Increased patient and public involvement in ICU trials is warranted.

Purpose: To assess long-term outcomes of restrictive versus standard intravenous (IV) fluid therapy in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock included in the European Conservative versus Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy in Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial. Methods: We conducted the pre-planned analyses of mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using EuroQol (EQ)-5D-5L index values and EQ visual analogue scale (VAS), and cognitive function using Mini Montreal Cognitive Assessment (Mini MoCA) test at 1 year. Deceased patients were assigned numerical zero for HRQoL as a state equal to death and zero for cognitive function outcomes as worst possible score, and we used multiple imputation for missing data on HRQoL and cognitive function. Results: Among 1554 randomized patients, we obtained 1-year data on mortality in 97.9% of patients, HRQoL in 91.3%, and cognitive function in 86.3%. One-year mortality was 385/746 (51.3%) in the restrictive-fluid group versus 383/767 (49.9%) in the standard-fluid group, absolute risk difference 1.5%-points [99% confidence interval (CI) − 4.8 to 7.8]. Mean differences were 0.00 (99% CI − 0.06 to 0.05) for EQ-5D-5L index values, − 0.65 for EQ VAS (− 5.40 to 4.08), and − 0.14 for Mini MoCA (− 1.59 to 1.14) for the restrictive-fluid group versus the standard-fluid group. The results for survivors only were similar in both groups. Conclusions: Among adult ICU patients with septic shock, restrictive versus standard IV fluid therapy resulted in similar survival, HRQoL, and cognitive function at 1 year, but clinically important differences could not be ruled out.

Background Long-term cognitive impairment occurs in up to 60% of intensive care unit (ICU) survivors. Early use of functional and cognitive rehabilitation interventions, while patients are still in ICU, may reduce cognitive decline. We aim to describe the functional and cognitive interventions used during the ICU stay, the healthcare professionals providing interventions, and the potential impact on functional and cognitive rehabilitation. Method In this integrative systematic review, we will include empirical qualitative, quantitative, mixed- and multiple-methods studies assessing the use of functional and cognitive rehabilitation provided in ICU. We will identify studies in relevant electronic databases from 2012 to 2022, which will be screened for eligibility by at least two reviewers. Literature reported as narrative reviews and editorials will be excluded. We will assess the impact of interventions evaluating a cognitive and functional function, quality of life, and all-cause mortality at 6–12 months after ICU discharge. The Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias Tool will be used for assessing risk of bias in clinical trials. For observational studies, we will use the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Furthermore, we will use the critical appraisal skills programme for qualitative studies and the mixed methods appraisal tool for mixed methods studies. We will construct four matrices, including results describing which ICU patients and healthcare professionals were engaged in rehabilitation, which interventions were included in early rehabilitation in ICU, the potential impact on patient outcomes of rehabilitation interventions provided in ICU and a narrative synthesis of themes. A summary of the main results will be reported using modified GRADE methodology. Impact This integrative review will inform the feasibility randomised clinical trial testing the development o, Background: Long-term cognitive impairment occurs in up to 60% of intensive care unit (ICU) survivors. Early use of functional and cognitive rehabilitation interventions, while patients are still in ICU, may reduce cognitive decline. We aim to describe the functional and cognitive interventions used during the ICU stay, the healthcare professionals providing interventions, and the potential impact on functional and cognitive rehabilitation. Method: In this integrative systematic review, we will include empirical qualitative, quantitative, mixed- and multiple-methods studies assessing the use of functional and cognitive rehabilitation provided in ICU. We will identify studies in relevant electronic databases from 2012 to 2022, which will be screened for eligibility by at least two reviewers. Literature reported as narrative reviews and editorials will be excluded. We will assess the impact of interventions evaluating a cognitive and functional function, quality of life, and all-cause mortality at 6–12 months after ICU discharge. The Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias Tool will be used for assessing risk of bias in clinical trials. For observational studies, we will use the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Furthermore, we will use the critical appraisal skills programme for qualitative studies and the mixed methods appraisal tool for mixed methods studies. We will construct four matrices, including results describing which ICU patients and healthcare professionals were engaged in rehabilitation, which interventions were included in early rehabilitation in ICU, the potential impact on patient outcomes of rehabilitation interventions provided in ICU and a narrative synthesis of themes. A summary of the main results will be reported using modified GRADE methodology. Impact: This integrative review will inform the feasibility randomised clinical trial testing the development of a complex intervention

This rapid practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the use of awake proning in adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19. The panel included 20 experts from 12 countries, including one patient representative, and used a strict conflict of interest policy for potential financial and intellectual conflicts of interest. Methodological support was provided by the guidelines in intensive care, development, and evaluation (GUIDE) group. Based on an updated systematic review, and the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) method we evaluated the certainty of evidence and developed recommendations using the Evidence-to-Decision framework. We conducted an electronic vote, requiring >80% agreement amongst the panel for a recommendation to be adopted. The panel made a strong recommendation for a trial of awake proning in adult patients with COVID-19 related hypoxemic acute respiratory failure who are not invasively ventilated. Awake proning appears to reduce the risk of tracheal intubation, although it may not reduce mortality. The panel judged that most patients would want a trial of awake proning, although this may not be feasible in some patients and some patients may not tolerate it. However, given the high risk of clinical deterioration amongst these patients, awake proning should be conducted in an area where patients can be monitored by staff experienced in rapidly detecting and managing clinical deterioration. This RPG panel recommends a trial of awake prone positioning in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is a patient-centred outcome increasingly used as a secondary outcome in critical care research. It may cover several important dimensions of clinical status in intensive care unit (ICU) patients that arguably elude other more easily quantified outcomes such as mortality. Poor associations with harder outcomes, conflicting data on HRQoL in critically ill compared to the background population, and paradoxical effects on HRQoL and mortality complicate the current operationalisation in critical care trials. This protocol outlines a simulation study that will gauge if the areas under the HRQoL trajectories could be a viable alternative.METHODS: We will gauge the behaviour of the proposed HRQoL operationalisation through Monte Carlo simulations, under clinical scenarios that reflect a broad critical care population eligible for inclusion in a large pragmatic trial. We will simulate 15,360 clinical scenarios based on a full factorial design with the following seven simulation parameters: number of patients per arm, relative mortality reduction in the interventional arm, acceleration of HRQoL improvement in the interventional arm, the relative improvement in final HRQoL in the interventional arm, dampening effect of mortality on HRQoL values at discharge from the ICU, proportion of so-called mortality benefiters in the interventional arm and mortality trajectory shape. For each clinical scenario, we will simulate 100,000 two-arm trials with 1:1 randomisation. HRQoL will be sampled fortnightly after ICU discharge. Outcomes will include HRQoL in survivors and all patients at the end of follow-up; mean areas under the HRQoL trajectories in both arms; and mean difference between areas under the HRQoL trajectories and single-sampled HRQoLs at the end of follow-up.DISCUSSION: In the outlined simulation study, we aim to assess whether the area under the HRQoL trajectory curve could be a candidate for reconciling

BACKGROUND: Randomised clinical trials in critical care are prone to inconclusiveness due, in part, to undue optimism about effect sizes and suboptimal accounting for heterogeneous treatment effects. Although causal evidence from rich real-world critical care can help overcome these challenges by informing predictive enrichment, no overview exists.METHODS: We conducted a scoping review, systematically searching 10 general and speciality journals for reports published on or after 1 January 2018, of randomised clinical trials enrolling adult critically ill patients. We collected trial metadata on 22 variables including recruitment period, intervention type and early stopping (including reasons) as well as data on the use of causal evidence from secondary data for planned predictive enrichment.RESULTS: We screened 9020 records and included 316 unique RCTs with a total of 268,563 randomised participants. One hundred seventy-three (55%) trials tested drug interventions, 101 (32%) management strategies and 42 (13%) devices. The median duration of enrolment was 2.2 (IQR: 1.3-3.4) years, and 83% of trials randomised less than 1000 participants. Thirty-six trials (11%) were restricted to COVID-19 patients. Of the 55 (17%) trials that stopped early, 23 (42%) used predefined rules; futility, slow enrolment and safety concerns were the commonest stopping reasons. None of the included RCTs had used causal evidence from secondary data for planned predictive enrichment.CONCLUSION: Work is needed to harness the rich multiverse of critical care data and establish its utility in critical care RCTs. Such work will likely need to leverage methodology from interventional and analytical epidemiology as well as data science.

Background: Randomised clinical trials in critical care are prone to inconclusiveness due, in part, to undue optimism about effect sizes and suboptimal accounting for heterogeneous treatment effects. Planned predictive enrichment based on secondary critical care data (often very rich with respect to both data types and temporal granularity) and causal inference methods may help overcome these challenges, but no overview exists about their use to this end. Methods: We will conduct a scoping review to assess the extent and nature of the use of causal inference from secondary data for planned predictive enrichment of randomised clinical trials in critical care. We will systematically search 10 general and specialty journals for reports published on or after 1 January 2018, of randomised clinical trials enrolling adult critically-ill patients. We will collect trial metadata (e.g., recruitment period and phase) and, when available, information pertaining to the focus of the review (predictive enrichment based on causal inference estimates from secondary data): causal inference methods, estimation techniques and software used; types of patient populations; data provenance, types and model; and the availability of the data (public or not). The results will be reported in a descriptive manner. Discussion: The outlined scoping review aims to assess the use of causal inference methods and secondary data for planned predictive enrichment in randomised critical care trials. This will help guide methodological improvements to increase the utility, and facilitate the use, of causal inference estimates when planning such trials in the future.

BACKGROUND: Mortality is often the primary outcome in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in critically ill patients. Due to increased awareness on survivors after critical illness and outcomes other than mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and days alive without life support (DAWOLS) or days alive and out of hospital (DAAOOH) are increasingly being used. DAWOLS and DAAOOH convey more information than mortality, are easier to collect than HRQoL, and are usually assessed at earlier time points, which may be preferable in some situations. However, the associations between DAWOLS-DAAOOH and HRQoL are uncertain.METHODS: We will assess associations between DAWOLS-DAAOOH at day 28 and 90 (independent variables/predictors) and HRQoL assessed using the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L questionnaire (EQ-VAS and EQ-5D-5L index values) at 6 or 12 months (dependent variables) in 2 RCTs: the COVID STEROID 2 RCT conducted in adult patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia and the HOT-ICU RCT conducted in adult intensive care patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. We will describe associations using best-fitting fractional polynomial transformations separately in each dataset, with the resulting models presented and assessed in both datasets graphically and using measures of fit and prediction adequacy (i.e., internal performance and external validation). We will use multiple imputation if missingness exceeds 5%.DISCUSSION: The outlined study will provide important knowledge on the associations between DAWOLS-DAAOOH and HRQoL in adult critically ill patients, which may help researchers and clinical trialists prioritise and select outcomes in future RCTs conducted in this population.

Introduction: Different outcomes are reported in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, and no core outcome set (COS) is available for ICU patients in general. Accordingly, we aim to develop a COS for ICU patients in general. Methods: The COS will be developed in accordance with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Handbook, using a modified Delphi consensus process and semi-structured interviews involving adults who have survived acute admission to an ICU, family members, clinicians, researchers and other stakeholders. The modified Delphi process will include two steps. Step 1: conduction of a modified Delphi survey, developed and informed by combining the outputs of a literature search of outcomes in previous COSs and semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders. We plan at least two survey rounds to obtain consensus and refine the COS. Step 2: a consensus process regarding instruments or definitions to be recommended for the measurements of the outcomes selected in Step 1. A ‘patient and public involvement panel’ consisting of a smaller group of patients, family members, clinicians and researchers will be included in the development, analysis and interpretation of the COS. Discussion: The outlined multiple method studies will establish a COS for ICU patients in general, which may be used to increase the standardisation and comparability of results of RCTs conducted in patients in the ICU setting.

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) has increased in recent years but remains the exception rather than the rule. We aim to assess the frequency and extent of PPI in large, contemporary RCTs conducted in an intensive care setting. Methods and design: We will conduct a meta-epidemiological study of RCTs conducted in intensive care settings published since 2019 and assess their use of PPI. We will extract trial characteristics and verify the use of PPI with trial authors unless specifically stated in the published paper. The primary outcome will be the proportion of trials that use PPI. Secondary outcomes will explore which groups are consulted, at which stage of the trial process this occurs, and by what means these opinions are collected and implemented. Discussion: This meta-epidemiological study will provide an important insight into the use of PPI in large, contemporary intensive care trials. We wish to reveal ways in which patient involvement could be incorporated more broadly and purposefully here and help to empower clinicians, researchers and patients to collaborate further on future research processes and goals.

Background: In the early phase of the pandemic, some guidelines recommended the use of corticosteroids for critically ill patients with COVID-19, whereas others recommended against the use despite lack of firm evidence of either benefit or harm. In the COVID STEROID trial, we aimed to assess the effects of low-dose hydrocortisone on patient-centred outcomes in adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia. Methods: In this multicentre, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, blinded, centrally randomised, stratified clinical trial, we randomly assigned adults with confirmed COVID-19 and severe hypoxia (use of mechanical ventilation or supplementary oxygen with a flow of at least 10 L/min) to either hydrocortisone (200 mg/d) vs a matching placebo for 7 days or until hospital discharge. The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support at day 28 after randomisation. Results: The trial was terminated early when 30 out of 1000 participants had been enrolled because of external evidence indicating benefit from corticosteroids in severe COVID-19. At day 28, the median number of days alive without life support in the hydrocortisone vs placebo group were 7 vs 10 (adjusted mean difference: −1.1 days, 95% CI −9.5 to 7.3, P =.79); mortality was 6/16 vs 2/14; and the number of serious adverse reactions 1/16 vs 0/14. Conclusions: In this trial of adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia, we were unable to provide precise estimates of the benefits and harms of hydrocortisone as compared with placebo as only 3% of the planned sample size were enrolled. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04348305. European Union Drug Regulation Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT) Database: 2020-001395-15.

BACKGROUND: Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in intensive care units (ICUs) frequently focus on all-cause mortality, but other patient-important outcomes are increasingly used and recommended. Their use, however, is not straightforward: choices and definitions, operationalisation of death, handling of missing data, choice of effect measures, and statistical analyses for these outcomes vary greatly.METHODS: We will conduct a scoping review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. We will search 10 selected general and speciality journals for RCTs conducted in adult ICU patients from 2018 and onwards reporting at least one patient-important outcome other than mortality (including days alive without life support/days alive and out of hospital-type outcomes, health-related quality of life, functional/cognitive/neurological outcomes and other general patient-important outcomes). We will summarise data on outcome measures and definitions, assessment time points, proportions and handling of death, proportions and handling of missing data, and effect measures and statistical methods used for analysis.DISCUSSION: The outlined scoping review will provide an overview of choices, definitions and handling of patient-important outcomes other than mortality in contemporary RCTs conducted in adult ICU patients. This may guide discussions with patients and relatives, the design of future RCTs, and research on optimal outcome choices and handling.