Search

Purpose of Review: To date, most randomized clinical trials in critical care report neutral overall results. However, research as to whether heterogenous responses underlie these results and give opportunity for personalized care is gaining momentum but has yet to inform clinical practice guidance. Thus, we aim to provide an overview of methodological approaches to estimating heterogeneity of treatment effects in randomized trials and conjecture about future paths to application in patient care., Recent Findings: Despite their limitations, traditional subgroup analyses are still the most reported approach. More recent methods based on subphenotyping, risk modeling and effect modeling are still uncommonly embedded in primary reports of clinical trials but have provided useful insights in secondary analyses. However, further simulation studies and subsequent guidelines are needed to ascertain the most efficient and robust manner to validate these results for eventual use in practice., Summary: There is an increasing interest in approaches that can identify heterogeneity in treatment effects from randomized clinical trials, extending beyond traditional subgroup analyses. While prospective validation in further studies is still needed, these approaches are promising tools for design, interpretation, and implementation of clinical trial results., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: ARDS is a heterogeneous condition with two subphenotypes identified by different methodologies. Our group similarly identified two ARDS subphenotypes using nine routinely available clinical variables. However, whether these are associated with differential response to treatment has yet to be explored., Research Question: Are there differential responses to positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) strategies on 28-day mortality according to subphenotypes in adult patients with ARDS?, Study Design and Methods: We evaluated data from two prior ARDS trials (Higher vs Lower Positive End-Expiratory Pressures in Patients With the ARDS [ALVEOLI] and the Alveolar Recruitment in ARDS Trial [ART]) that compared different PEEP strategies. We classified patients into one of two subphenotypes as described previously. We assessed the differential effect of PEEP with a Bayesian hierarchical logistic model for the primary outcome of 28-day mortality., Results: We analyzed data from 1,559 patients with ARDS. Compared with lower PEEP, a higher PEEP strategy resulted in higher 28-day mortality in patients with subphenotype A disease in the ALVEOLI study (OR, 1.61; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.90-2.94) and ART (OR, 1.73; 95% CrI, 1.01-2.98), with a probability of harm resulting from higher PEEP in this subphenotype of 94.3% and 97.7% in the ALVEOLI and ART studies, respectively. Higher PEEP was not associated with mortality in patients with subphenotype B disease in each trial (OR, 0.95 [95% CrI, 0.51-1.73] and 1.00 [95% CrI, 0.63-1.55], respectively), with probability of benefit of 56.4% and 50.7% in the ALVEOLI and ART studies, respectively. These effects were not modified by Pao 2 to Fio 2 ratio, driving pressure, or the severity of illness for the cohorts., Interpretation: We found evidence of differential response to PEEP strategies across two ARDS subphenotypes, suggesting possible harm with a higher PEEP strategy in one subphenotype. These observations may assist with predictive enrichment in future clinical trials., Competing Interests: Financial/Nonfinancial Disclosures The authors have reported to CHEST the following: W. d. R. L. and D. A. R. are employees of Endpoint Health, Inc. A. S. N. reports receiving personal fees from Dräger unrelated to the submitted work. A. D. is on the steering committee for Alung Technologies. R. O. D. is a scientific advisor for Endpoint Health, Inc., and is a shareholder. None declared (M. T. S., L. B., A. B. C., F. G. Z., I. S. M., D. M. P., L. N. L.)., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Exploring clinical trial data using alternative methods may enhance original study's findings and provide new insights. The SOAP II trial has been published more than 10 years ago; but there is still some speculation that some patients may benefit from dopamine administration for shock management. We aimed to reanalyse the trial under different approaches and evaluate for heterogeneity in treatment effect (HTE)., Methods: All patients enrolled in SOAP II were eligible for reanalysis. We used a variety of methods including the win-ratio (WR), a Bayesian reanalysis stratified according to shock type, and both a risk-based and effect-based explorations for HTE. The methods were applied to different endpoints, including a hierarchy of death, new use of renal-replacement therapy (RRT), and new-onset arrhythmia; 28-day mortality; a composite endpoint (mortality, new use of RRT, and new-onset arrhythmia), and days alive and free of ICU at 28-days (DAFICU28)., Results: A total of 1679 patients were included (average age was 64.9 years, 57% male, 62% with septic and 17% with cardiogenic shock). All analysis favoured norepinephrine over dopamine. Under the WR approach, dopamine had fewer wins compared to norepinephrine (WR 0.79; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.68-0.92; p = 0.003), evident in both cardiogenic and septic shock subgroups. The Bayesian reanalysis for type of shock showed, for dopamine, a probability of harm of 0.95 for mortality, > 0.99 probability of harm for composite endpoint, and 0.91 probability of harm for DAFICU28. The fewer DAFICU28 with dopamine was more apparent in those with cardiogenic shock (0.92). Under the risk-based HTE, there was a high probability that dopamine resulted fewer DAFICU28 in the highest quartile of predicted mortality risk. The effect-based HTE assessment model did not recommended dopamine over norepinephrine for any combination of possible modifiers including age, type of shock, presence of cardiomyopathy, and SOFA score. Receiving dopamine when the effect-based model recommended norepinephrine was associated with an absolute increase in composite endpoint of 6%., Conclusion: The harm associated with the use of dopamine for the management of shock appears to be present in both septic and cardiogenic shock patients. There was no suggestion of any subgroup in which dopamine was found to be favourable over norepinephrine., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: To evaluate the prevalence of burnout among the intensive care unit team of a university hospital after the second wave of COVID-19 and identify the key factors associated with its development., Methods: This single-center study included 395 employees from a multidisciplinary team. The participants completed a questionnaire based on the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Multivariate analysis was used to identify the factors associated with burnout., Results: Of 395 participants, 220 responded to the questionnaire (response rate: 56%). The prevalence of Burnout syndrome, defined as a severe score in at least one dimension, was 64.5% (142/220). Emotional distress was the most prevalent dimension, with a severe score affecting 50.5% (111/220) of the participants, followed by depersonalization at 39.1% (86/220). Only 5.9% (13/220) had severe scores in all three dimensions. Multivariate analysis revealed that being a physician was significantly associated with severe burnout symptoms in at least one dimension (odds ratio (OR), 1.32; 95% confidence interval (95%CI): 1.57-9.05; p=0.003). Additionally, having two or more jobs was associated with burnout in the three dimensions (OR=1.65; 95%CI=1.39-19.59; p=0.01)., Conclusion: This study highlights the alarming prevalence of burnout among intensive care unit teams, particularly among physicians, following the second wave of COVID-19. This emphasizes the need for targeted interventions and support systems to mitigate burnout and reduce its negative impact on healthcare professionals' well-being and patient care.

In recent decades, several databases of critically ill patients have become available in both low-, middle-, and high-income countries from all continents. These databases are also rich sources of data for the surveillance of emerging diseases, intensive care unit performance evaluation and benchmarking, quality improvement projects and clinical research. The Epimed Monitor database is turning 15 years old in 2024 and has become one of the largest of these databases. In recent years, there has been rapid geographical expansion, an increase in the number of participating intensive care units and hospitals, and the addition of several new variables and scores, allowing a more complete characterization of patients to facilitate multicenter clinical studies. As of December 2023, the database was being used regularly for 23,852 beds in 1,723 intensive care units and 763 hospitals from ten countries, totaling more than 5.6 million admissions. In addition, critical care societies have adopted the system and its database to establish national registries and international collaborations. In the present review, we provide an updated description of the database; report experiences of its use in critical care for quality improvement initiatives, national registries and clinical research; and explore other potential future perspectives and developments.

Importance: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors improve outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease, but their effect on outcomes of critically ill patients with organ failure is unknown., Objective: To determine whether the addition of dapagliflozin, an SGLT-2 inhibitor, to standard intensive care unit (ICU) care improves outcomes in a critically ill population with acute organ dysfunction., Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized, open-label, clinical trial conducted at 22 ICUs in Brazil. Participants with unplanned ICU admission and presenting with at least 1 organ dysfunction (respiratory, cardiovascular, or kidney) were enrolled between November 22, 2022, and August 30, 2023, with follow-up through September 27, 2023., Intervention: Participants were randomized to 10 mg of dapagliflozin (intervention, n = 248) plus standard care or to standard care alone (control, n = 259) for up to 14 days or until ICU discharge, whichever occurred first., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a hierarchical composite of hospital mortality, initiation of kidney replacement therapy, and ICU length of stay through 28 days, analyzed using the win ratio method. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the hierarchical outcome, duration of organ support-free days, ICU, and hospital stay, assessed using bayesian regression models., Results: Among 507 randomized participants (mean age, 63.9 [SD, 15] years; 46.9%, women), 39.6% had an ICU admission due to suspected infection. The median time from ICU admission to randomization was 1 day (IQR, 0-1). The win ratio for dapagliflozin for the primary outcome was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.13; P = .89). Among all secondary outcomes, the highest probability of benefit found was 0.90 for dapagliflozin regarding use of kidney replacement therapy among 27 patients (10.9%) in the dapagliflozin group vs 39 (15.1%) in the control group., Conclusion and Relevance: The addition of dapagliflozin to standard care for critically ill patients and acute organ dysfunction did not improve clinical outcomes; however, confidence intervals were wide and could not exclude relevant benefits or harms for dapagliflozin., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05558098.

Purpose: To perform a post-hoc reanalysis of the Standard versus Accelerated Initiation of Renal-Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) and the Intensity of Continuous Renal-Replacement Therapy in Critically Ill Patients (RENAL) trials through hierarchical composite endpoint analysis using win ratio (WR)., Material and Methods: All patients with complete information from the STARRT-AKI (which compared accelerated versus standard approaches for renal replacement therapy - RRT initiation) and RENAL (which compared two different RRT doses in critically ill patients) trials were selected. WR was defined as a hierarchical composite endpoint using 90-day mortality, RRT dependency at 90-days, intensive care unit (ICU) length-of-stay (LOS), and hospital LOS (primary analysis); values above the unit represent a benefit of the intervention for the hierarchical composite endpoint. A secondary analysis replacing LOS by days alive and free of RRT was performed. Stratified analyses were performed according to illness severity score, surgical status, and the presence of sepsis., Results: The WR analysis produced 2,141,830 pairs for the STARRT-AKI trial and 536,446 pairs for the RENAL trial, respectively. The WR results for STARRT-AKI and RENAL were 1.04 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96-1.13; p = 0.33) and 1.02 (95% CI; 0.90-1.15; p = 0.75) for the primary analysis, and 0.88 (95% CI; 0.79-0.99; p = 0.03) and 1.02 (95% CI; 0.87-1.21; p = 0.77) for the secondary analysis, respectively. The stratified analysis of the primary suggested possible benefit of the accelerated-strategy in the STARRT-AKI trial for non-surgical patients with sepsis, while the secondary analysis suggested possible harm of the accelerated-strategy for surgical patients without sepsis. There was no evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effects in stratified analyses in the RENAL trial., Conclusion: WR approach using a hierarchical composite endpoint is feasible for trials in critical care nephrology. The primary re-analyses of the STARRT-AKI and RENAL trials both yielded neutral results; however, there was suggestion of heterogeneity in treatment effect in stratified analyses of the STARRT-AKI trial by surgical status and sepsis. Selection of the endpoints and hierarchical ordering before trial design using the WR approach can have important implications for trial interpretation., Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02568722 (STARRT-AKI) and NCT00076219 (RENAL)., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest FGZ has received grants for investigator-initiated trials from Bactiguard (Sweden), and Ionis Pharmaceuticals (USA), unrelated to the topic of this study. RB has received honoraria and grants from Baxter. SMB has received fees from Baxter for scientific advisory and speaking; fees from BioPorto, Novartis, Sea Star Medical and SphingoTec for scientific advisory., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To assess the effect of antisense therapy to block kallikrein-kinin pathway in COVID-19 patients., Material and Methods: Randomized, placebo-controlled, double blind, controlled trial enrolling hospitalized COVID-19 patients that required supplementary oxygen to sustain peripheral oxygen saturation. Key exclusion criteria included use of mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, and patients with more than 10 days since symptom onset or more than 48 h of oxygen use. Patients were randomized to either one subcutaneous dose of ISIS721744, an antisense that blocks prekallikrein, or placebo. The primary outcome was the number of days alive and free of oxygen support up to 15 days (DAFOR15). Secondary endpoints included organ failure score, need and duration of mechanical ventilation up to 15 days, and all-cause mortality at 30 days. Exploratory endpoints included physiological parameters, biomarkers, and quality of life., Results: From October 10, 2020, to December 09, 2020, 111 patients were randomized at thirteen sites in Brazil (56 to treatment and 55 to control group). Average age was 57.5 years, and most patients were male (68.5%). There were no significant differences in DAFOR15 between groups (5.9 ± 5.2 days for the intervention arm and 7.7 ± 5.1 for the control group; mean difference - 0.65, 95% confidence intervals from -2.95 to 1.36, p = 0.520)., Conclusion: Antisense therapy designed to block the kallikrein-kinin pathway did not demonstrate clinical benefits in increasing days-alive without respiratory support at 15 days in patients with COVID-19 during the first wave in 2020., Gov Identifier: NCT04549922., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None. This study was funded by Ionis Pharmaceutical, US, through a grant provided to HCor. The sponsor reviewed and agreed with the protocol, but had no role in any other aspect of the trial execution. MJ and GB were Ionis employees at the time this study was designed and provided relevant feedback on design of the trial and reviewed the final manuscript for intellectually relevant content. FGZ has received consulting fees from Baxter, unrelated to the scope of this manuscript., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Parametric regression models have been the main statistical method for identifying average treatment effects. Causal machine learning models showed promising results in estimating heterogeneous treatment effects in causal inference. Here we aimed to compare the application of causal random forest (CRF) and linear regression modelling (LRM) to estimate the effects of organisational factors on ICU efficiency., Methods: A retrospective analysis of 277,459 patients admitted to 128 Brazilian and Uruguayan ICUs over three years. ICU efficiency was assessed using the average standardised efficiency ratio (ASER), measured as the average of the standardised mortality ratio (SMR) and the standardised resource use (SRU) according to the SAPS-3 score. Using a causal inference framework, we estimated and compared the conditional average treatment effect (CATE) of seven common structural and organisational factors on ICU efficiency using LRM with interaction terms and CRF., Results: The hospital mortality was 14 %; median ICU and hospital lengths of stay were 2 and 7 days, respectively. Overall median SMR was 0.97 [IQR: 0.76,1.21], median SRU was 1.06 [IQR: 0.79,1.30] and median ASER was 0.99 [IQR: 0.82,1.21]. Both CRF and LRM showed that the average number of nurses per ten beds was independently associated with ICU efficiency (CATE [95 %CI]: -0.13 [-0.24, -0.01] and -0.09 [-0.17,-0.01], respectively). Finally, CRF identified some specific ICUs with a significant CATE in exposures that did not present a significant average effect., Conclusion: In general, both methods were comparable to identify organisational factors significantly associated with CATE on ICU efficiency. CRF however identified specific ICUs with significant effects, even when the average effect was nonsignificant. This can assist healthcare managers in further in-dept evaluation of process interventions to improve ICU efficiency., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Opioids remain the mainstay of analgesia for critically ill patients, but its exposure is associated with negative effects including persistent use after discharge. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may be an effective alternative to opioids with fewer adverse effects. We aimed to describe beliefs and attitudes towards the use of NSAIDs in adult intensive care units (ICUs)., Methods: Our survey of Canadian ICU physicians was conducted using a web-based platform and distributed through the Canadian Critical Care Society (CCCS) email distribution list. We used previously described survey development methodology including question generation and reduction, pretesting, and clinical sensibility and pilot testing., Results: We received 115 completed surveys from 321 CCCS members (36%). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs use was most described as "rarely" (59 respondents, 51%) with the primary concern being adverse events (acute kidney injury [108 respondents, 94%] and gastrointestinal bleeding [92 respondents, 80%]). The primary preferred analgesic was acetaminophen (75 respondents, 65%) followed by opioids (40 respondents, 35%). Most respondents (91 respondents, 80%) would be willing to participate in a randomized controlled trial examining NSAID use in critical care., Conclusions: In our survey, Canadian critical care physicians did not mention commonly using NSAIDs primarily because of concerns about adverse events. Nevertheless, respondents were interested in further studying ketorolac, a commonly used NSAID outside of the ICU, in critically ill patients., (© 2024. Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.)

Background: The influence of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) with recruitment maneuvers on the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications after surgery is still not definitively established. Bayesian analysis can help to gain further insights from the available data and provide a probabilistic framework that is easier to interpret. Our objective was to estimate the posterior probability that the use of high PEEP with recruitment maneuvers is associated with reduced postoperative pulmonary complications in patients with intermediate-to-high risk under neutral, pessimistic, and optimistic expectations regarding the treatment effect., Methods: Multilevel Bayesian logistic regression analysis on individual patient data from three randomized clinical trials carried out on surgical patients at Intermediate-to-High Risk for postoperative pulmonary complications. The main outcome was the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications in the early postoperative period. We studied the effect of high PEEP with recruitment maneuvers versus Low PEEP Ventilation. Priors were chosen to reflect neutral, pessimistic, and optimistic expectations of the treatment effect., Results: Using a neutral, pessimistic, or optimistic prior, the posterior mean odds ratio (OR) for High PEEP with recruitment maneuvers compared to Low PEEP was 0.85 (95% Credible Interval [CrI] 0.71 to 1.02), 0.87 (0.72 to 1.04), and 0.86 (0.71 to 1.02), respectively. Regardless of prior beliefs, the posterior probability of experiencing a beneficial effect exceeded 90%. Subgroup analysis indicated a more pronounced effect in patients who underwent laparoscopy (OR: 0.67 [0.50 to 0.87]) and those at high risk for PPCs (OR: 0.80 [0.53 to 1.13]). Sensitivity analysis, considering severe postoperative pulmonary complications only or applying a different heterogeneity prior, yielded consistent results., Conclusion: High PEEP with recruitment maneuvers demonstrated a moderate reduction in the probability of PPC occurrence, with a high posterior probability of benefit observed consistently across various prior beliefs, particularly among patients who underwent laparoscopy., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests: GM: No conflict of interests FZ: Received consulting fees from Baxter. LB: No conflicts of interest NSC: No conflicts of interest TB: No conflicts of interest SNTH: No conflicts of interest CF: No conflicts of interest JL: No conflicts of interest MS: no conflicts of interest PP: No conflicts of interest MGdA: Received consulting fees from Zoll and Drager medical and Ambu Inc and honoraria for lectures from MSD. MJS: No conflicts of interest ASN: Received honorary from Drager medical for lectures; Own stocks in Endpoint Health, (Copyright © 2024 American Society of Anesthesiologists. All Rights Reserved.)

Purpose: This is the first of three parts of the clinical practice guideline from the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) on resuscitation fluids in adult critically ill patients. This part addresses fluid choice and the other two will separately address fluid amount and fluid removal., Methods: This guideline was formulated by an international panel of clinical experts and methodologists. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was applied to evaluate the certainty of evidence and to move from evidence to decision., Results: For volume expansion, the guideline provides conditional recommendations for using crystalloids rather than albumin in critically ill patients in general (moderate certainty of evidence), in patients with sepsis (moderate certainty of evidence), in patients with acute respiratory failure (very low certainty of evidence) and in patients in the perioperative period and patients at risk for bleeding (very low certainty of evidence). There is a conditional recommendation for using isotonic saline rather than albumin in patients with traumatic brain injury (very low certainty of evidence). There is a conditional recommendation for using albumin rather than crystalloids in patients with cirrhosis (very low certainty of evidence). The guideline provides conditional recommendations for using balanced crystalloids rather than isotonic saline in critically ill patients in general (low certainty of evidence), in patients with sepsis (low certainty of evidence) and in patients with kidney injury (very low certainty of evidence). There is a conditional recommendation for using isotonic saline rather than balanced crystalloids in patients with traumatic brain injury (very low certainty of evidence). There is a conditional recommendation for using isotonic crystalloids rather than small-volume hypertonic crystalloids in critically ill patients in general (very low certainty of evidence)., Conclusions: This guideline provides eleven recommendations to inform clinicians on resuscitation fluid choice in critically ill patients., (© 2024. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Driving pressure has been suggested to be the main driver of ventilator-induced lung injury and mortality in observational studies of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy can improve clinical outcomes is unclear., Objective: To describe the protocol and statistical analysis plan that will be used to test whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy including positive end-expiratory pressure titration according to the best respiratory compliance and reduction in tidal volume is superior to a standard strategy involving the use of the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table in terms of increasing the number of ventilator-free days in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia., Methods: The ventilator STrAtegy for coMmunIty acquired pNeumoniA (STAMINA) study is a randomized, multicenter, open-label trial that compares a driving pressure-limiting strategy to the ARDSnet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table in patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia admitted to intensive care units. We expect to recruit 500 patients from 20 Brazilian and 2 Colombian intensive care units. They will be randomized to a driving pressure-limiting strategy group or to a standard strategy using the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table. In the driving pressure-limiting strategy group, positive end-expiratory pressure will be titrated according to the best respiratory system compliance., Outcomes: The primary outcome is the number of ventilator-free days within 28 days. The secondary outcomes are in-hospital and intensive care unit mortality and the need for rescue therapies such as extracorporeal life support, recruitment maneuvers and inhaled nitric oxide., Conclusion: STAMINA is designed to provide evidence on whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy is superior to the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table strategy for increasing the number of ventilator-free days within 28 days in patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Here, we describe the rationale, design and status of the trial.

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, ICUs remained under stress and observed elevated mortality rates and high variations of outcomes. A knowledge gap exists regarding whether an ICU performing best during nonpandemic times would still perform better when under high pressure compared with the least performing ICUs., Research Question: Does prepandemic ICU performance explain the risk-adjusted mortality variability for critically ill patients with COVID-19?, Study Design and Methods: This study examined a cohort of adults with real-time polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 admitted to 156 ICUs in 35 hospitals from February 16, 2020, through December 31, 2021, in Brazil. We evaluated crude and adjusted in-hospital mortality variability of patients with COVID-19 in the ICU during the pandemic. Association of baseline (prepandemic) ICU performance and in-hospital mortality was examined using a variable life-adjusted display (VLAD) during the pandemic and a multivariable mixed regression model adjusted by clinical characteristics, interaction of performance with the year of admission, and mechanical ventilation at admission., Results: Thirty-five thousand six hundred nineteen patients with confirmed COVID-19 were evaluated. The median age was 52 years, median Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 was 42, and 18% underwent invasive mechanical ventilation. In-hospital mortality was 13% and 54% for those receiving invasive mechanical ventilation. Adjusted in-hospital mortality ranged from 3.6% to 63.2%. VLAD in the most efficient ICUs was higher than the overall median in 18% of weeks, whereas VLAD was 62% and 84% in the underachieving and least efficient groups, respectively. The least efficient baseline ICU performance group was associated independently with increased mortality (OR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.45-3.62) after adjusting for patient characteristics, disease severity, and pandemic surge., Interpretation: ICUs caring for patients with COVID-19 presented substantial variation in risk-adjusted mortality. ICUs with better baseline (prepandemic) performance showed reduced mortality and less variability. Our findings suggest that achieving ICU efficiency by targeting improvement in organizational aspects of ICUs may impact outcomes, and therefore should be a part of the preparedness for future pandemics., Competing Interests: Financial/Nonfinancial Disclosures The authors have reported to CHEST the following: M. S. and J. I. F. S. are the founders and equity shareholders of Epimed Solutions, which commercializes the Epimed Monitor System, a cloud-based ICU management and benchmarking software. None declared (L. S. L. B., S. H., P. K., O. T. R., F. G. Z., F. A. B.)., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Acute kidney injury (AKI) often complicates sepsis and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, several important clinical trials have improved our understanding of sepsis-associated AKI (SA-AKI) and impacted clinical care. Advances in sub-phenotyping of sepsis and AKI and clinical trial design offer unprecedented opportunities to fill gaps in knowledge and generate better evidence for improving the outcome of critically ill patients with SA-AKI. In this manuscript, we review the recent literature of clinical trials in sepsis with focus on studies that explore SA-AKI as a primary or secondary outcome. We discuss lessons learned and potential opportunities to improve the design of clinical trials and generate actionable evidence in future research. We specifically discuss the role of enrichment strategies to target populations that are most likely to derive benefit and the importance of patient-centered clinical trial endpoints and appropriate trial designs with the aim to provide guidance in designing future trials., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Piperacillin/tazobactam is one of the most common antibiotics prescribed in the ICU and the combination of piperacillin/tazobactam with vancomycin has been associated with acute kidney injury (AKI) in critically ill patients. However, data on the risk of AKI with piperacillin/tazobactam, despite vancomycin co-exposure, are lacking., Objectives: To investigate the association of piperacillin/tazobactam with AKI and renal replacement therapy (RRT) among adult ICU patients., Methods: We analysed data from patients included in two open access databases (MIMIC-IV and eICU). Critically ill patients who received piperacillin/tazobactam or cefepime (a cephalosporin with similar broad-spectrum activity to piperacillin/tazobactam) during their first ICU stay were eligible for the study. Marginal structural Cox models, accounting for time-fixed covariates and time-dependent covariates were performed. The primary outcomes were AKI and need of RRT., Results: A total of 20 107 patients were included, with 11 213 in the piperacillin/tazobactam group and 8894 in the cefepime group. Exposure to piperacillin/tazobactam was associated with AKI (HR 1.77; 95% CI 1.51-2.07; P < 0.001) and with need of RRT (HR 1.31; 95% CI 1.08-1.57; P = 0.005). Tests for interaction were not statistically significant for occurrence of AKI and RRT in the subgroup of patients exposed to vancomycin or not (P = 0.26 and P = 0.6, respectively)., Conclusions: In critically ill patients, exposure to piperacillin/tazobactam was associated with increased risk of AKI and with increased risk of RRT, regardless of combination therapy with vancomycin., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The effect of balanced crystalloids compared with that of saline in critically ill patients overall and in specific subgroups is unclear. We aimed to assess whether use of balanced solutions, compared with 0·9% sodium chloride (saline), decreased in-hospital mortality in adult patients in intensive care units (ICUs)., Methods: For this systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases from inception until March 1, 2022 (updated Sept 1, 2023) for individually randomised and cluster-randomised trials comparing balanced solutions with saline for adult patients in the ICU. Eligible trials were those that allocated patients to receive balanced solutions or saline for fluid resuscitation and maintenance fluids, or for maintenance fluids only; and administered the allocated fluid throughout ICU admission or, for trials using landmark mortality as their primary outcome, until the timepoint at which mortality was assessed (if ≥28 days). Authors of eligible trials were contacted to request individual patient data. Data obtained from eligible trials were merged, checked for accuracy, and centrally analysed by use of Bayesian regression models. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Prespecified subgroups included patients with traumatic brain injury. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022299282)., Findings: Our search identified 5219 records, yielding six eligible randomised controlled trials. Data obtained for 34 685 participants from the six trials, 17 407 assigned to receive balanced crystalloids and 17 278 to receive saline, were included in the analysis. The mean age of participants was 58·8 years (SD 17·5). Of 34 653 participants with available data, 14 579 (42·1%) were female and 20 074 (57·9%) were male. Among patients who provided consent to report in-hospital mortality, 2907 (16·8%) of 17 313 assigned balanced solutions and 2975 (17·3%) of 17 166 assigned saline died in hospital (odds ratio [OR] 0·962 [95% CrI 0·909 to 1·019], absolute difference -0·4 percentage points [-1·5 to 0·2]). The posterior probability that balanced solutions reduced mortality was 0·895. In patients with traumatic brain injury, 191 (19·1%) of 999 assigned balanced and 141 (14·7%) of 962 assigned saline died (OR 1·424 [1·100 to 1·818], absolute difference 3·2 percentage points [0·7 to 8·7]). The probability that balanced solutions increased mortality in patients with traumatic brain injury was 0·975. In an independent risk of bias assessment, two trials were deemed to be at low risk of bias and four at high risk of bias., Interpretation: The probability that using balanced solutions in the ICU reduces in-hospital mortality is high, although the certainty of the evidence was moderate and the absolute risk reduction was small. In patients with traumatic brain injury, using balanced solutions was associated with increased in-hospital mortality., Funding: HCor (Brazil) and The George Institute for Global Health (Australia)., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests FGZ reports receiving consulting fees from Baxter (USA) and Bactiguard (Sweden), and grants, paid to his institution from Ionis Pharmaceuticals (USA), and receiving logistical support and donation of study materials from Baxter Hospitalar for the BaSICS trial. ABC reports receiving logistical support and donation of study materials from Baxter Hospitalar for the BaSICS trial. GLDT reports receiving consulting fees from Gilead paid to his then employer (The George Institute for Global Health) for work outside the scope of this paper. LPD reports receiving fees for statistical analysis from Nestlé and Endpoint Health, all unrelated to the scope of this study. NEH reports research funding and donation of study materials from Baxter Healthcare related to intravenous fluid therapy, research funding from Endpoint Health, and consulting fees from RevImmune unrelated to fluid therapy, all paid to her employer; and competitive research grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Medical Research Future Fund. FRM reports receiving consulting fees from Baxter and receiving logistical support and donation of study materials from Baxter Hospitalar for the BaSICS trial. SM declares no competing interests. JM reports research funding and donation of study materials from Baxter Healthcare related to intravenous fluid therapy, paid to his employer; research funding from Endpoint Health unrelated to fluid therapy; and competitive research grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Medical Research Future Fund. MR reports donation of study materials from Baxter Healthcare related to intravenous fluid therapy and competitive research grants from the Australian Medical Research Future Fund. BV reports donation of study materials from Baxter Healthcare related to intravenous fluid therapy, research funding from Endpoint Health unrelated to fluid therapy, and consulting fees from RevImmune unrelated to fluid therapy, all paid to his institution; and competitive research grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. TWR reports receiving consulting fees received from Cumberland Pharmaceuticals and Cytovale and fees for serving as a data safety and monitoring board member from Sanofi, all unrelated to the scope of this paper; and grants from the US National Institutes for Health, Centers for Disease Control, and Department of Defence, all paid to his institution. MWS reports receiving grants from the US National Institutes for Health and Department of Defence unrelated to the current work; and consulting fees and honoraria from Baxter Healthcare related to intravenous fluid therapy. PJY reports receiving competitive grants from the Health Research Council of New Zealand unrelated to this work; consulting fees from AM Pharma unrelated to this work; and consulting fees from Baxter Healthcare related to intravenous fluid therapy. SF reports competitive research grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, research funding and consulting fees from Baxter Healthcare related to intravenous fluid therapy, research funding and consulting fees from RevImmune unrelated to fluid therapy, and research funding from Endpoint Health unrelated to fluid therapy, all paid to his institution; and owning stock options in Sepsis Scout, unrelated to fluid therapy., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The aim of this Intensive Care Medicine Rapid Practice Guideline (ICM-RPG) was to provide evidence-based clinical guidance about the use of higher versus lower oxygenation targets for adult patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). The guideline panel comprised 27 international panelists, including content experts, ICU clinicians, methodologists, and patient representatives. We adhered to the methodology for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines, including the use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of evidence, and used the Evidence-to-Decision framework to generate recommendations. A recently published updated systematic review and meta-analysis constituted the evidence base. Through teleconferences and web-based discussions, the panel provided input on the balance and magnitude of the desirable and undesirable effects, the certainty of evidence, patients' values and preferences, costs and resources, equity, feasibility, acceptability, and research priorities. The updated systematic review and meta-analysis included data from 17 randomized clinical trials with 10,248 participants. There was little to no difference between the use of higher versus lower oxygenation targets for all outcomes with available data, including all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, stroke, functional outcomes, cognition, and health-related quality of life (very low certainty of evidence). The panel felt that values and preferences, costs and resources, and equity favored the use of lower oxygenation targets. The ICM-RPG panel issued one conditional recommendation against the use of higher oxygenation targets: "We suggest against the routine use of higher oxygenation targets in adult ICU patients (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). Remark: an oxygenation target of SpO 2 88%-92% or PaO 2 8 kPa/60 mmHg is relevant and safe for most adult ICU patients.", (© 2023 Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

The cardiovascular safety from azithromycin in the treatment of several infectious diseases has been challenged. In this prespecified pooled analysis of 2 multicenter randomized clinical trials, we aimed to assess whether the use of azithromycin might lead to corrected QT (QTc) interval prolongation or clinically relevant ventricular arrhythmias. In the COALITION COVID Brazil I trial, 667 patients admitted with moderate COVID-19 were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine, hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, or standard of care. In the COALITION COVID Brazil II trial, 447 patients with severe COVID-19 were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine alone versus hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin. The principal end point for the present analysis was the composite of death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or ventricular arrhythmias. The addition of azithromycin to hydroxychloroquine did not result in any prolongation of the QTc interval (425.8 ± 3.6 ms vs 427.9 ± 3.9 ms, respectively, mean difference -2.1 ms, 95% confidence interval -12.5 to 8.4 ms, p = 0.70). The combination of azithromycin plus hydroxychloroquine compared with hydroxychloroquine alone did not result in increased risk of the primary end point (proportion of patients with events at 15 days 17.2% vs 16.0%, respectively, hazard ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.49, p = 0.65). In conclusion, in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 already receiving standard-of-care management (including hydroxychloroquine), the addition of azithromycin did not result in the prolongation of the QTc interval or increase in cardiovascular adverse events. Because azithromycin is among the most commonly prescribed antimicrobial agents, our results may inform clinical practice. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04322123, NCT04321278., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Furtado reports research grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Servier, and Apsen and research grants (received from his institution) from Pfizer, Libbs, Brazilian Ministry of Health, and University Health Network. Dr. Fonseca received research grants from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Essity, Aché, Colgate, BioGen, and Brazilian Ministry of Health. Dr. Barros e Silva reports reports fees and research grants from Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, and Bayer. Dr. Pereira reports research grants from Brazilian Ministry of Health through PROADI-SUS Program (not related to this article). Dr. Polanczyk received research grants and professional fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Brazilian Ministry of Health through PROADI Programs. Dr. Veiga received grants from Brazilian Ministry of Health through PROADI-SUS Program. Dr. Rosa received research grants from Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Brazilian Ministry of Health. Dr. Azevedo received professional fees from Baxter, Nestle, and Merck Sharp & Dohme not related to the present work and research grants from Brazilian Ministry of Health through PROADI-SUS Program. Dr. Avezum reports research grants from Bayer, Sanofi-Pasteur, and Population Health Research Institute. Dr. Cavalcanti reports research grants from Bayer. Dr. Lopes reports research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer and consulting fees from Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Merck, Pfizer, and Portola. Dr. Berwanger report research grants from Bayer, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Servier, Novartis, and Boehringer-Ingelheim. The remaining authors have no competing interest to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: none declared.

Purpose: Fluid use could modulate the effect of balanced solutions (BS) on outcome of intensive care unit (ICU) patients. It is uncertain whether fluid use practices are driven more by patient features or local practices. It is also unclear whether a "dose-response" for the potential benefits of balanced solutions exists., Methods: The secondary analysis of the Balanced Solution in Intensive Care Study (BaSICS) compared 0.9% saline versus Plasma-Lyte 148 ® (BS) for fluid therapy in the ICU. The relative contribution of patient features and enrolling site (the random effect) on the volume of fluid used up to day 3 after admission was assessed using different methods, including a Bayesian regression, a frequentist mixed model, and a random forest, all adjusted for relevant patient confounders. Subsequently, a variety of methods were used to assess whether volume of fluid used modulated the effect of BS on 90-day mortality, including a traditional subgroup analysis for patients that remained alive and in the ICU up to 3 days, a Bayesian network accounting for competing risks, and an analysis based on site practices., Results: 10,505 patients were analyzed. Median fluid use in the BS arm and in the 0.9% saline arm were 2500 mL and 2488 mL, respectively. The random effect in the Bayesian regression explained 0.32 (95% credible intervals (CrI) 0.24-0.41) of all model variance (0.33, 95% credible intervals from 0.32-0.35). Frequentist and random forest models produced similar results. In the analysis including only patients alive and in the ICU at 3 days, there was a strong suggestion of interaction between fluid use and the effect of BS, driven mostly by a lower mortality with BS compared to 0.9% saline as fluid use increased for patients with sepsis. These results were consistent in the Bayesian network analysis and in an analysis based on site practices, where septic patients enrolled to BS at high fluid use sites had a lower mortality (absolute risk reduction of - 0.13 [95% credible interval - 0.27 to - 0.01]; 0.98 probability of benefit)., Conclusion: Baseline patient characteristics collected in the BaSICS trial explain less of the variance of fluid use during the first 3 days than the enrolling site. Volume of fluid used and the effects of BS appear to interact, mostly in the sepsis subgroup where there was a strong association between fluid use after enrollment and the effect of BS on 90-day mortality., (© 2023. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Critical illness is a major ongoing health care burden worldwide and is associated with high mortality rates. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors have consistently shown benefits in cardiovascular and renal outcomes. The effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors in acute illness have not been properly investigated., Methods: DEFENDER is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in 500 adult participants with acute organ dysfunction who are hospitalized in the intensive care unit. Eligible participants will be randomized 1:1 to receive dapagliflozin 10mg plus standard of care for up to 14 days or standard of care alone. The primary outcome is a hierarchical composite of hospital mortality, initiation of kidney replacement therapy, and intensive care unit length of stay, up to 28 days. Safety will be strictly monitored throughout the study., Conclusion: DEFENDER is the first study designed to investigate the use of a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor in general intensive care unit patients with acute organ dysfunction. It will provide relevant information on the use of drugs of this promising class in critically ill patients., Clinicaltrials.gov Registry: NCT05558098.

Objective: It remains unclear whether balanced solutions improve patient-centred outcomes in critically ill patients overall and whether the treatment effect is heterogeneous, with evidence that some populations of patients may be helped and others harmed. To provide the most up-to-date and comprehensive assessment of the totality of the evidence, we will perform an ongoing living systematic review with aggregated and individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) comparing the use of balanced solutions with saline in critically ill adults. Design: Living systematic review using aggregated and individual patient data from randomised controlled trials. Data sources: We will conduct annual searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials. gov, the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), Japan's University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Center, and the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC). The first search was completed on 1 March 2022 and will be repeated annually. Authors of eligible trials will be invited to provide individual data for the IPDMA. The initial analysis will use all data received up to 30 June 2022. Review methods: We will include randomised controlled trials in adults treated in an intensive care unit that allocated individuals or clusters of patients to a balanced crystalloid solution or 0.9% saline for intravenous fluid therapy. Studies that used colloids as part of the intervention or that recruited only elective surgical patients will be excluded. The primary endpoint will be in-hospital mortality. The key secondary endpoint will be survival at longest follow-up for each trial. Data will be synthesised using both a random effect Bayesian meta-analysis and using hierarchical Bayesian models for individual patient data. Discussion: The use of balanced crystalloid solutions may reduce mortality and improve other outcomes in some critically ill patients. We will assess the totality of current and future evidence by performing an ongoing living systematic review with aggregated data and IPDMA. Protocol registration: CRD42022299282., Competing Interests: FGZ reports receiving grants for investigator-initiated trial from Ionis Pharmaceuticals (USA) and logistics support from Baxter Hospitalar (Brazil) for the BaSICS trial. SF / JM / NH / SM received unrestricted grants from Baxter and CSL (Paid to their institution)., (© 2022 College of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand.)

Background: The best way to offer non-invasive respiratory support across several aetiologies of acute respiratory failure (ARF) is presently unclear. Both high flow nasal catheter (HFNC) therapy and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) may improve outcomes in critically ill patients by avoiding the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Objective: Describe the details of the protocol and statistical analysis plan designed to test whether HFNC therapy is non-inferior or even superior to NIPPV in patients with ARF due to different aetiologies. Methods: RENOVATE is a multicentre adaptive randomised controlled trial that is recruiting patients from adult emergency departments, wards and intensive care units (ICUs). It takes advantage of an adaptive Bayesian framework to assess the effectiveness of HFNC therapy versus NIPPV in four subgroups of ARF (hypoxaemic non-immunocompromised, hypoxaemic immunocompromised, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations, and acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema). The study will report the posterior probabilities of non-inferiority, superiority or futility for the comparison between HFNC therapy and NIPPV. The study assumes neutral priors and the final sample size is not fixed. The final sample size will be determined by a priori determined stopping rules for non-inferiority, superiority and futility for each subgroup or by reaching the maximum of 2000 patients. Outcomes: The primary endpoint is endotracheal intubation or death within 7 days. Secondary outcomes are 28-day and 90-day mortality, and ICU-free and IMV-free days in the first 28 days. Results and conclusions: RENOVATE is designed to provide evidence on whether HFNC therapy improves, compared with NIPPV, important patient-centred outcomes in different aetiologies of ARF. Here, we describe the rationale, design and status of the trial. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03643939., Competing Interests: All authors declare that they do not have any potential conflict of interest in relation to this manuscript., (© 2022 College of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand.)

Purpose: To assess the physiological and clinical effects of different rates of intravenous fluids for volume expansion of critically ill and perioperative patients., Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies comparing intravenous infusion rates both in animals and studies involving healthy subjects, critically ill, and perioperative care patients of all ages., Results: Seven animal studies, eleven clinical studies and three studies including healthy volunteers were identified. Slower infusion led to lower mortality in two studies, lower blood loss in one study, better or more sustained expansion of plasma volume and less edema in three studies, but slower restoration of blood pressure in one study. Three healthy volunteer studies suggested more effective plasma expansion with slower infusion, whereas one trial with postoperative patients did not show plasma volume differences between different infusion rates. One randomized trial found increased mortality with faster infusion in septic children, whereas a randomized trial found no significant differences in critically ill adults., Conclusions: In this scoping review, most studies showed that slower intravenous infusion rates result in a more efficient intravascular expansion, with a longer effect, and less edema than faster rates. Effects on clinical outcomes were inconsistent., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The aim of these guidelines is to update the 2017 clinical practice guideline (CPG) of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). The scope of this CPG is limited to adult patients and to non-pharmacological respiratory support strategies across different aspects of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), including ARDS due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). These guidelines were formulated by an international panel of clinical experts, one methodologist and patients' representatives on behalf of the ESICM. The review was conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement recommendations. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and grade recommendations and the quality of reporting of each study based on the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network guidelines. The CPG addressed 21 questions and formulates 21 recommendations on the following domains: (1) definition; (2) phenotyping, and respiratory support strategies including (3) high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNO); (4) non-invasive ventilation (NIV); (5) tidal volume setting; (6) positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment maneuvers (RM); (7) prone positioning; (8) neuromuscular blockade, and (9) extracorporeal life support (ECLS). In addition, the CPG includes expert opinion on clinical practice and identifies the areas of future research., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

While opioids are part of usual care for analgesia in the ICU, there are concerns regarding excess use. This is a systematic review of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) use in postoperative critical care adult patients., Data Sources: We searched Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library, trial registries, Google Scholar, and relevant systematic reviews through March 2023., Study Selection: Titles, abstracts, and full texts were reviewed independently and induplicate by two investigators to identify eligible studies. We included randomized control trials (RCTs) that compared NSAIDs alone or as an adjunct to opioids for systemic analgesia. The primary outcome was opioid utilization., Data Extraction: In duplicate, investigators independently extracted study characteristics, patient demographics, intervention details, and outcomes of interest using predefined abstraction forms. Statistical analyses were conducted using Review Manager software Version 5.4. (The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark)., Data Synthesis: We included 15 RCTs ( n = 1,621 patients) for admission to the ICU for postoperative management after elective procedures. Adjunctive NSAID therapy to opioids reduced 24-hour oral morphine equivalent consumption by 21.4 mg (95% CI, 11.8-31.0 mg reduction; high certainty) and probably reduced pain scores (measured by Visual Analog Scale) by 6.1 mm (95% CI, 12.2 decrease to 0.1 increase; moderate certainty). Adjunctive NSAID therapy probably had no impact on the duration of mechanical ventilation (1.6 hr reduction; 95% CI, 0.4 hr to 2.7 reduction; moderate certainty) and may have no impact on ICU length of stay (2.1 hr reduction; 95% CI, 6.1 hr reduction to 2.0 hr increase; low certainty). Variability in reporting adverse outcomes (e.g., gastrointestinal bleeding, acute kidney injury) precluded their meta-analysis., Conclusions: In postoperative critical care adult patients, systemic NSAIDs reduced opioid use and probably reduced pain scores. However, the evidence is uncertain for the duration of mechanical ventilation or ICU length of stay. Further research is required to characterize the prevalence of NSAID-related adverse outcomes., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.)

Background: Using the frequentist approach, a recent meta-analysis of three randomized clinical trials in patients undergoing intraoperative ventilation during general anesthesia for major surgery failed to show the benefit of ventilation that uses high positive end-expiratory pressure with recruitment maneuvers when compared to ventilation that uses low positive end-expiratory pressure without recruitment maneuvers. Methods: We designed a protocol for a Bayesian analysis using the pooled dataset. The multilevel Bayesian logistic model will use the individual patient data. Prior distributions will be prespecified to represent a varying level of skepticism for the effect estimate. The primary endpoint will be a composite of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) within the first seven postoperative days, which reflects the primary endpoint of the original studies. We preset a range of practical equivalence to assess the futility of the intervention with an interval of odds ratio (OR) between 0.9 and 1.1 and assess how much of the 95% of highest density interval (HDI) falls between the region of practical equivalence. Ethics and dissemination: The used data derive from approved studies that were published in recent years. The findings of this current analysis will be reported in a new manuscript, drafted by the writing committee on behalf of the three research groups. All investigators listed in the original trials will serve as collaborative authors., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2023 Mazzinari G et al.)

Background: Days alive without life support (DAWOLS) and similar outcomes that seek to summarise mortality and non-mortality experiences are increasingly used in critical care research. The use of these outcomes is challenged by different definitions and non-normal outcome distributions that complicate statistical analysis decisions., Methods: We scrutinized the central methodological considerations when using DAWOLS and similar outcomes and provide a description and overview of the pros and cons of various statistical methods for analysis supplemented with a comparison of these methods using data from the COVID STEROID 2 randomised clinical trial. We focused on readily available regression models of increasing complexity (linear, hurdle-negative binomial, zero-one-inflated beta, and cumulative logistic regression models) that allow comparison of multiple treatment arms, adjustment for covariates and interaction terms to assess treatment effect heterogeneity., Results: In general, the simpler models adequately estimated group means despite not fitting the data well enough to mimic the input data. The more complex models better fitted and thus better replicated the input data, although this came with increased complexity and uncertainty of estimates. While the more complex models can model separate components of the outcome distributions (i.e., the probability of having zero DAWOLS), this complexity means that the specification of interpretable priors in a Bayesian setting is difficult. Finally, we present multiple examples of how these outcomes may be visualised to aid assessment and interpretation., Conclusions: This summary of central methodological considerations when using, defining, and analysing DAWOLS and similar outcomes may help researchers choose the definition and analysis method that best fits their planned studies., Trial Registration: COVID STEROID 2 trial, ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04509973, ctri.nic.in: CTRI/2020/10/028731., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Importance: Approximately 20% to 30% of patients admitted to an intensive care unit have sepsis. While fluid therapy typically begins in the emergency department, intravenous fluids in the intensive care unit are an essential component of therapy for sepsis., Observations: For patients with sepsis, intravenous fluid can increase cardiac output and blood pressure, maintain or increase intravascular fluid volume, and deliver medications. Fluid therapy can be conceptualized as 4 overlapping phases from early illness through resolution of sepsis: resuscitation (rapid fluid administered to restore perfusion); optimization (the risks and benefits of additional fluids to treat shock and ensure organ perfusion are evaluated); stabilization (fluid therapy is used only when there is a signal of fluid responsiveness); and evacuation (excess fluid accumulated during treatment of critical illness is eliminated). Among 3723 patients with sepsis who received 1 to 2 L of fluid, 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) reported that goal-directed therapy administering fluid boluses to attain a central venous pressure of 8 to 12 mm Hg, vasopressors to attain a mean arterial blood pressure of 65 to 90 mm Hg, and red blood cell transfusions or inotropes to attain a central venous oxygen saturation of at least 70% did not decrease mortality compared with unstructured clinical care (24.9% vs 25.4%; P = .68). Among 1563 patients with sepsis and hypotension who received 1 L of fluid, an RCT reported that favoring vasopressor treatment did not improve mortality compared with further fluid administration (14.0% vs 14.9%; P = .61). Another RCT reported that among 1554 patients in the intensive care unit with septic shock treated with at least 1 L of fluid compared with more liberal fluid administration, restricting fluid administration in the absence of severe hypoperfusion did not reduce mortality (42.3% vs 42.1%; P = .96). An RCT of 1000 patients with acute respiratory distress during the evacuation phase reported that limiting fluid administration and administering diuretics improved the number of days alive without mechanical ventilation compared with fluid treatment to attain higher intracardiac pressure (14.6 vs 12.1 days; P < .001), and it reported that hydroxyethyl starch significantly increased the incidence of kidney replacement therapy compared with saline (7.0% vs 5.8%; P = .04), Ringer lactate, or Ringer acetate., Conclusions and Relevance: Fluids are an important component of treating patients who are critically ill with sepsis. Although optimal fluid management in patients with sepsis remains uncertain, clinicians should consider the risks and benefits of fluid administration in each phase of critical illness, avoid use of hydroxyethyl starch, and facilitate fluid removal for patients recovering from acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Rationale: Optimal infusion rate for fluid challenges in critically ill patients is unknown. A large clinical trial comparing two different infusion rates yielded neutral results. Conditional average treatment effect (CATE) assessment may aid in tailoring therapy. Objectives: To estimate CATE in patients enrolled in the BaSICS trial and to assess the effects of receiving CATE model-recommended treatment in terms of hospital mortality. Methods: Post hoc analysis of the BaSICS trial assessing the effect of two infusion rates for the fluid challenge (fast, 999 ml/h, control group; vs. slow, 333 ml/h, intervention group) on hospital mortality. CATE was estimated as the difference in outcome for treatment arms in counterfactuals obtained from a Bayesian model trained in the first half of the trial adjusted for predictors hypothesized to interact with the intervention. The model recommended slow or fast infusion or made no recommendation in the second half. A threshold greater than 0.90 probability of benefit was considered. Results: A total of 10,465 patients were analyzed. The model was trained in 5,230 patients and tested in 5,235 patients. A recommendation could be made in the test set in 19% of patients (14% were recommended the control group and 5% the treatment group); for 81% of patients, no recommendation could be made. Slow infusion was more frequently recommended in cases of planned admissions in younger patients; fast infusion was recommended for older patients with sepsis. Slow infusion rate in the subgroup of patients in the test set in which slow infusion was recommended by the model was associated with an odds ratio of 0.58 (95% credible interval of 0.32-0.90; 0.99 posterior probability of benefit) for hospital mortality. Fast infusion in the subgroup in which the model recommended fast infusion was associated with an odds ratio of 0.72 (credible intervals from 0.54 to 0.91; probability of benefit >0.99). Conclusions: Estimation of CATEs from counterfactual probabilities in data from BaSICS provided additional information on trial data. Agreement between treatment recommendation and actual treatment was associated with lower hospital mortality. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02875873).

Sepsis causes significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Resuscitation is a cornerstone of management. This review covers five areas of evolving practice in the management of early sepsis-induced hypoperfusion: fluid resuscitation volume, timing of vasopressor initiation, resuscitation targets, route of vasopressor administration, and use of invasive blood pressure monitoring. For each topic, we review the seminal evidence, discuss the evolution of practice over time, and highlight questions for additional research. Intravenous fluids are a core component of early sepsis resuscitation. However, with growing concerns about the harms of fluid, practice is evolving toward smaller-volume resuscitation, which is often paired with earlier vasopressor initiation. Large trials of fluid-restrictive, vasopressor-early strategies are providing more information about the safety and potential benefit of these approaches. Lowering blood pressure targets is a means to prevent fluid overload and reduce exposure to vasopressors; mean arterial pressure targets of 60-65 mm Hg appear to be safe, at least in older patients. With the trend toward earlier vasopressor initiation, the need for central administration of vasopressors has been questioned, and peripheral vasopressor use is increasing, although it is not universally accepted. Similarly, although guidelines suggest the use of invasive blood pressure monitoring with arterial catheters in patients receiving vasopressors, blood pressure cuffs are less invasive and often sufficient. Overall, the management of early sepsis-induced hypoperfusion is evolving toward fluid-sparing and less-invasive strategies. However, many questions remain, and additional data are needed to further optimize our approach to resuscitation.

Background: Nosocomial sepsis is a major healthcare issue, but there are few data on estimates of its attributable mortality. We aimed to estimate attributable mortality fraction (AF) due to nosocomial sepsis., Methods: Matched 1:1 case-control study in 37 hospitals in Brazil. Hospitalized patients in participating hospitals were included. Cases were hospital non-survivors and controls were hospital survivors, which were matched by admission type and date of discharge. Exposure was defined as occurrence of nosocomial sepsis, defined as antibiotic prescription plus presence of organ dysfunction attributed to sepsis without an alternative reason for organ failure; alternative definitions were explored. Main outcome measurement was nosocomial sepsis-attributable fractions, estimated using inversed-weight probabilities methods using generalized mixed model considering time-dependency of sepsis occurrence., Results: 3588 patients from 37 hospitals were included. Mean age was 63 years and 48.8% were female at birth. 470 sepsis episodes occurred in 388 patients (311 in cases and 77 in control group), with pneumonia being the most common source of infection (44.3%). Average AF for sepsis mortality was 0.076 (95% CI 0.068-0.084) for medical admissions; 0.043 (95% CI 0.032-0.055) for elective surgical admissions; and 0.036 (95% CI 0.017-0.055) for emergency surgeries. In a time-dependent analysis, AF for sepsis rose linearly for medical admissions, reaching close to 0.12 on day 28; AF plateaued earlier for other admission types (0.04 for elective surgery and 0.07 for urgent surgery). Alternative sepsis definitions yield different estimates., Conclusion: The impact of nosocomial sepsis on outcome is more pronounced in medical admissions and tends to increase over time. The results, however, are sensitive to sepsis definitions., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Repurposed drugs for treatment of new onset disease may be an effective therapeutic shortcut. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of repurposed antivirals compared to placebo in lowering SARS-CoV2 viral load of COVID-19 patients., Methods: REVOLUTIOn is a randomised, parallel, blinded, multistage, superiority and placebo controlled randomised trial conducted in 35 centres in Brazil. We include patients aged 18 years or older admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptoms onset 9 days or less and SpO 2 94% or lower at room air were eligible. All participants were randomly allocated to receive either atazanavir, daclatasvir or sofosbuvir/daclatasvir or placebo for 10 days. The primary outcome was the decay rate (slope) of the SARS-CoV-2 viral load logarithm assessed in the modified intention to-treat population. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04468087., Findings: Between February 09, 2021, and August 04, 2021, 255 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to atazanavir (n = 64), daclatasvir (n = 66), sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (n = 67) or placebo (n = 58). Compared to placebo group, the change from baseline to day 10 in log viral load was not significantly different for any of the treatment groups (0.05 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.12], -0.02 [95% CI, -0.09 to 0.06], and -0.03 [95% CI, -0.11 to 0.04] for atazanavir, daclatasvir and sofosbuvir/daclatasvir groups respectively). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events between treatment groups., Interpretation: No significant reduction in viral load was observed from the use of atazanavir, daclatasvir or sofosbuvir/daclatasvir compared to placebo in hospitalised COVID-19 patients who need oxygen support with symptoms onset 9 days or less., Funding: Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (MCTI) - Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPQ); Cia Latino-Americana de Medicamentos (Clamed); Cia Industrial H. Carlos Schneider (Ciser); Hospital Research Foundation Incorporation, Australia, HCor São Paulo; Blanver Farmoquímica; Instituto de Tecnologia em Fármacos (Farmanguinhos) da Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (Fiocruz); Coordenação Geral de Planejamento Estratégico (Cogeplan)/Fiocruz; and Fundação de apoio a Fiocruz (Fiotec, VPGDI-054-FIO-20-2-13)., Competing Interests: ISM reports devices supply from Fisher & Paykel outside the submitted work; ISM and ABC reports funding paid to HCor by Ministerio da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (MCTIC)/Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPQ), Cia Latino Americana de Medicamentos (Clamed); Cia Industrial H. Carlos Schneider (Ciser); Hospital Research Foundation Incorporation, Australia, HCor São Paulo; Blanver Farmoquímica; Instituto de Tecnologia em Fármacos (Farmanguinhos) da Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (Fiocruz); Coordenação Geral de Planejamento Estratégico (Cogeplan)/Fiocruz; and Fundação de apoio a Fiocruz; LPD reports personal statistical Consulting fees from Servier Laboratories, Aché Laboratory and Astra Zeneca; FGZ reports grants for investigator initiated trials paid to his institution from Bactiguard, Ionis Pharmaceuticals and statistical Consulting from Bactiguard; RGR reported research grants from Pfizer and Brazilian Ministry of Health-PROADI-SUS; LCPA reported participation on advisory board of COVID-19 drugs for MSD; OB reported grants or contracts from: AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Pfizer, BMS Servier, Novartis Boehringer-Ingelheim, RDL reports grants or contracts from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Glaxo Smith Kline, Medtronic, Pfizer, Sanofi with payments to his institution, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers, manuscript writing from Pfizer, Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board of Glaxo Smith Kline and Consulting fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingleheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Glaxo Smith Kline, Medtronic, Merck, Pfizer, Portola and Sanofi; AA reports grants form Population Health Research Institute, EMS and Bayer as funding to his institution, payment for lectures for EMS and Bayer. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© 2023 The Authors.)