| 1. |
- Aslam, Tayyba N., et al.
(author)
-
A survey of preferences for respiratory support in the intensive care unit for patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure
- 2023
-
In: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. - : WILEY. - 0001-5172 .- 1399-6576. ; 67:10, s. 1383-1394
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BackgroundWhen caring for mechanically ventilated adults with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF), clinicians are faced with an uncertain choice between ventilator modes allowing for spontaneous breaths or ventilation fully controlled by the ventilator. The preferences of clinicians managing such patients, and what motivates their choice of ventilator mode, are largely unknown. To better understand how clinicians preferences may impact the choice of ventilatory support for patients with AHRF, we issued a survey to an international network of intensive care unit (ICU) researchers.MethodsWe distributed an online survey with 32 broadly similar and interlinked questions on how clinicians prioritise spontaneous or controlled ventilation in invasively ventilated patients with AHRF of different severity, and which factors determine their choice.ResultsThe survey was distributed to 1337 recipients in 12 countries. Of these, 415 (31%) completed the survey either fully (52%) or partially (48%). Most respondents were identified as medical specialists (87%) or physicians in training (11%). Modes allowing for spontaneous ventilation were considered preferable in mild AHRF, with controlled ventilation considered as progressively more important in moderate and severe AHRF. Among respondents there was strong support (90%) for a randomised clinical trial comparing spontaneous with controlled ventilation in patients with moderate AHRF.ConclusionsThe responses from this international survey suggest that there is clinical equipoise for the preferred ventilator mode in patients with AHRF of moderate severity. We found strong support for a randomised trial comparing modes of ventilation in patients with moderate AHRF.
|
|
| 2. |
- Dahl, Michael, et al.
(author)
-
Can a central blood volume deficit be detected by systolic pressure variation during spontaneous breathing?
- 2016
-
In: BMC Anesthesiology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1471-2253 .- 1471-2253. ; 16
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Whether during spontaneous breathing arterial pressure variations (APV) can detect a volume deficit is not established. We hypothesized that amplification of intra-thoracic pressure oscillations by breathing through resistors would enhance APV to allow identification of a reduced cardiac output (CO). This study tested that hypothesis in healthy volunteers exposed to central hypovolemia by head-up tilt. Methods: Thirteen healthy volunteers were exposed to central hypovolemia by 45 degrees head-up tilt while breathing through a facemask with 7.5 cmH(2)O inspiratory and/or expiratory resistors. A brachial arterial catheter was used to measure blood pressure and thus systolic pressure variation (SPV), pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation. Pulse contour analysis determined stroke volume (SV) and CO and we evaluated whether APV could detect a 10 % decrease in CO. Results: During head-up tilt SV decreased form 91 (+/- 46) to 55 (+/- 24) mL (mean +/- SD) and CO from 5.8 (+/- 2.9) to 4.0 (+/- 1.8) L/min (p < 0.05), while heart rate increased (65 (+/- 11) to 75 (+/- 13) bpm; P < 0.05). Systolic pressure decreased from 127 (+/- 14) to 121 (+/- 13) mmHg during head-up tilt, while SPV tended to increase (from 21 (+/- 15)% to 30 (+/- 13) %). Yet during head-up tilt, a SPV >= 37 % predicted a decrease in CO >= 10 % with a sensitivity and specificity of 78 % and 100 %, respectively. Conclusion: In spontaneously breathing healthy volunteers combined inspiratory and expiratory resistors enhance SPV during head-up tilted induced central hypovolemia and allow identifying a 10 % reduction in CO. Applying inspiratory and expiratory resistors might detect a fluid deficit in spontaneously breathing patients.
|
|
| 3. |
- Granholm, Anders, et al.
(author)
-
Dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg for patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia: a pre-planned, secondary Bayesian analysis of the COVID STEROID 2 trial
- 2022
-
In: Intensive Care Medicine. - : SPRINGER. - 0342-4642 .- 1432-1238. ; 48:1, s. 45-55
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Purpose We compared dexamethasone 12 versus 6 mg daily for up to 10 days in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and severe hypoxaemia in the international, randomised, blinded COVID STEROID 2 trial. In the primary, conventional analyses, the predefined statistical significance thresholds were not reached. We conducted a pre-planned Bayesian analysis to facilitate probabilistic interpretation. Methods We analysed outcome data within 90 days in the intention-to-treat population (data available in 967 to 982 patients) using Bayesian models with various sensitivity analyses. Results are presented as median posterior probabilities with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) and probabilities of different effect sizes with 12 mg dexamethasone. Results The adjusted mean difference on days alive without life support at day 28 (primary outcome) was 1.3 days (95% CrI -0.3 to 2.9; 94.2% probability of benefit). Adjusted relative risks and probabilities of benefit on serious adverse reactions was 0.85 (0.63 to 1.16; 84.1%) and on mortality 0.87 (0.73 to 1.03; 94.8%) at day 28 and 0.88 (0.75 to 1.02; 95.1%) at day 90. Probabilities of benefit on days alive without life support and days alive out of hospital at day 90 were 85 and 95.7%, respectively. Results were largely consistent across sensitivity analyses, with relatively low probabilities of clinically important harm with 12 mg on all outcomes in all analyses. Conclusion We found high probabilities of benefit and low probabilities of clinically important harm with dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg daily in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia on all outcomes up to 90 days.
|
|
| 4. |
- Granholm, Anders, et al.
(author)
-
Empirical meropenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam for adult patients with sepsis (EMPRESS) trial : Protocol
-
In: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. - 0001-5172.
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Piperacillin/tazobactam may be associated with less favourable outcomes than carbapenems in patients with severe bacterial infections, but the certainty of evidence is low. Methods: The Empirical Meropenem versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam for Adult Patients with Sepsis (EMPRESS) trial is an investigator-initiated, international, parallel-group, randomised, open-label, adaptive clinical trial with an integrated feasibility phase. We will randomise adult, critically ill patients with sepsis to empirical treatment with meropenem or piperacillin/tazobactam for up to 30 days. The primary outcome is 30-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes are serious adverse reactions within 30 days; isolation precautions due to resistant bacteria within 30 days; days alive without life support and days alive and out of hospital within 30 and 90 days; 90- and 180-day all-cause mortality and 180-day health-related quality of life. EMPRESS will use Bayesian statistical models with weak to somewhat sceptical neutral priors. Adaptive analyses will be conducted after follow-up of the primary outcome for the first 400 participants concludes and after every 300 subsequent participants, with adaptive stopping for superiority/inferiority and practical equivalence (absolute risk difference <2.5%-points) and response-adaptive randomisation. The expected sample sizes in scenarios with no, small or large differences are 5189, 5859 and 2570 participants, with maximum 14,000 participants and ≥99% probability of conclusiveness across all scenarios. Conclusions: EMPRESS will compare the effects of empirical meropenem against piperacillin/tazobactam in adult, critically ill patients with sepsis. Due to the pragmatic, adaptive design with high probability of conclusiveness, the trial results are expected to directly inform clinical practice.
|
|
| 5. |
- Granholm, Anders, et al.
(author)
-
Higher vs Lower Doses of Dexamethasone in Patients with COVID-19 and Severe Hypoxia (COVID STEROID 2) trial: Protocol for a secondary Bayesian analysis
- 2021
-
In: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. - : WILEY. - 0001-5172 .- 1399-6576. ; 65:5, s. 702-710
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to severe hypoxic respiratory failure and death. Corticosteroids decrease mortality in severely or critically ill patients with COVID-19. However, the optimal dose remains unresolved. The ongoing randomised COVID STEROID 2 trial investigates the effects of higher vs lower doses of dexamethasone (12 vs 6 mg intravenously daily for up to 10 days) in 1,000 adult patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia. Methods This protocol outlines the rationale and statistical methods for a secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis of the primary outcome (days alive without life support at day 28) and all secondary outcomes registered up to day 90. We will use hurdle-negative binomial models to estimate the mean number of days alive without life support in each group and present results as mean differences and incidence rate ratios with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). Additional count outcomes will be analysed similarly and binary outcomes will be analysed using logistic regression models with results presented as probabilities, relative risks and risk differences with 95% CrIs. We will present probabilities of any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm and probabilities of effects smaller than pre-defined clinically minimally important differences for all outcomes analysed. Analyses will be adjusted for stratification variables and conducted using weakly informative priors supplemented by sensitivity analyses using sceptic priors. Discussion This secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis will supplement the primary, conventional analysis and may help clinicians, researchers and policymakers interpret the results of the COVID STEROID 2 trial while avoiding arbitrarily dichotomised interpretations of the results. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04509973; EudraCT: 2020-003363-25.
|
|
| 6. |
- Granholm, Anders, et al.
(author)
-
Long-term outcomes of dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia
- 2022
-
In: Intensive Care Medicine. - : SPRINGER. - 0342-4642 .- 1432-1238. ; 48, s. 580-589
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Purpose We assessed long-term outcomes of dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg given daily for up to 10 days in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and severe hypoxaemia. Methods We assessed 180-day mortality and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using EuroQoL (EQ)-5D-5L index values and EQ visual analogue scale (VAS) in the international, stratified, blinded COVID STEROID 2 trial, which randomised 1000 adults with confirmed COVID-19 receiving at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation in 26 hospitals in Europe and India. In the HRQoL analyses, higher values indicated better outcomes, and deceased patients were given a score of zero. Results We obtained vital status at 180 days for 963 of 982 patients (98.1%) in the intention-to-treat population, EQ-5D-5L index value data for 922 (93.9%) and EQ VAS data for 924 (94.1%). At 180 days, 164 of 486 patients (33.7%) had died in the 12 mg group versus 184 of 477 (38.6%) in the 6 mg group [adjusted risk difference - 4.3%; 99% confidence interval (CI) - 11.7-3.0; relative risk 0.89; 0.72-1.09; P = 0.13]. The adjusted mean differences between the 12 mg and the 6 mg groups in EQ-5D-5L index values were 0.06 (99% CI - 0.01 to 0.12; P = 0.10) and in EQ VAS scores 4 (- 3 to 10; P = 0.22). Conclusion Among patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia, dexamethasone 12 mg compared with 6 mg did not result in statistically significant improvements in mortality or HRQoL at 180 days, but the results were most compatible with benefit from the higher dose.
|
|
| 7. |
- Jung, Christian, et al.
(author)
-
A comparison of very old patients admitted to intensive care unit after acute versus elective surgery or intervention
- 2019
-
In: Journal of critical care. - : W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC. - 0883-9441 .- 1557-8615. ; 52, s. 141-148
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: We aimed to evaluate differences in outcome between patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) after elective versus acute surgery in a multinational cohort of very old patients (80 years; VIP). Predictors of mortality, with special emphasis on frailty, were assessed.Methods: In total, 5063 VIPs were induded in this analysis, 922 were admitted after elective surgery or intervention, 4141 acutely, with 402 after acute surgery. Differences were calculated using Mann-Whitney-U test and Wilcoxon test. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were used to assess associations with mortality.Results: Compared patients admitted after acute surgery, patients admitted after elective surgery suffered less often from frailty as defined as CFS (28% vs 46%; p < 0.001), evidenced lower SOFA scores (4 +/- 5 vs 7 +/- 7; p < 0.001). Presence of frailty (CFS >4) was associated with significantly increased mortality both in elective surgery patients (7% vs 12%; p = 0.01), in acute surgery (7% vs 12%; p = 0.02).Conclusions: VIPs admitted to ICU after elective surgery evidenced favorable outcome over patients after acute surgery even after correction for relevant confounders. Frailty might be used to guide clinicians in risk stratification in both patients admitted after elective and acute surgery.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Mortensen, Camilla Bekker, et al.
(author)
-
Long-term outcomes with haloperidol versus placebo in acutely admitted adult ICU patients with delirium
- 2024
-
In: Intensive Care Medicine. - 0342-4642. ; 50:1, s. 103-113
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- 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.
|
|
