Loop diuretics in adult intensive care patients with fluid overload: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Furosemide versus placebo for fluid overload in intensive care patients-The randomised GODIF trial second version: Statistical analysis plan

BACKGROUND

Fluid overload is associated with increased mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The GODIF trial aims to assess the benefits and harms of fluid removal with furosemide versus placebo in stable adult patients with moderate to severe fluid overload in the ICU. This article describes the detailed statistical analysis plan for the primary results of the second version of the GODIF trial.

METHODS

The GODIF trial is an international, multi-centre, randomised, stratified, blinded, parallel-group, pragmatic clinical trial, allocating 1000 adult ICU patients with moderate to severe fluid overload 1:1 to furosemide versus placebo. The primary outcome is days alive and out of hospital within 90 days post-randomisation. With a power of 90% and an alpha level of 5%, we may reject or detect an improvement of 8%. The primary analyses of all outcomes will be performed in the intention-to-treat population. For the primary outcome, the Kryger Jensen and Lange method will be used to compare the two treatment groups adjusted for stratification variables supplemented with sensitivity analyses in the per-protocol population and with further adjustments for prognostic variables. Secondary outcomes will be analysed with multiple linear regressions, logistic regressions or the Kryger Jensen and Lange method as suitable with adjustment for stratification variables.

CONCLUSION

The GODIF trial data will increase the certainty about the effects of fluid removal using furosemide in adult ICU patients with fluid overload.

TRIAL REGISTRATIONS

EudraCT identifier: 2019-004292-40 and ClinicalTrials.org: NCT04180397.

Administration of Intravenous Furosemide in Patients with Acute Infection: Patient Characteristics and Impact on In-Hospital Outcome

Intravenous (IV) fluid is frequently used to treat patients who have been admitted with an acute infection; among these patients, some will experience pulmonary congestion and will need diuretic treatment. Consecutive admissions to the Internal Medicine Department of patients with an acute infection were included. Patients were divided based on IV furosemide treatment within 48 h after admission. A total of 3556 admissions were included: In 1096 (30.8%), furosemide was administered after ≥48 h, and in 2639 (74.2%), IV fluid was administered within <48 h. Mean age was 77.2 ± 15.8 years, and 1802 (50.7%) admissions were females. In a multivariable analysis, older age (OR 1.01 [95% CI, 1.00-1.01]), male gender (OR 0.74 [95% CI, 0.63-0.86]), any cardiovascular disease (OR 1.51 [95% CI, 1.23-1.85]), congestive heart failure (CHF) (OR 2.81 [95% CI, 2.33-3.39), hypertension (OR 1.42 [95% CI, 1.22-1.67]), respiratory infection (OR 1.38 [95% CI, 1.17-1.63]), and any IV fluid administration (OR 3.37 [95% CI, 2.80-4.06]) were independently associated with furosemide treatment >48 h after hospital admission. In-hospital mortality was higher in patients with furosemide treatment (15.9% vs. 6.8%, p < 0.001). Treatment with furosemide in patients admitted with an infection was found to be associated with prolonged hospital stay and increased in-hospital mortality.

Diuretics depletion improves cardiac output and ventriculo-arterial coupling in congestive ICU patients during hemodynamic de-escalation

PURPOSE

Congestion was shown to hamper organ perfusion, but the exact timing of diuretic initiation during hemodynamic de-escalation in shock is unclear. The aim of this study was to describe the hemodynamic effects of diuretic initiation in the stabilized shock.

METHODS

We performed a monocentric, retrospective analysis, in a cardiovascular medico-surgical ICU. We included consecutive resuscitated adult patients, for whom the clinician decided to introduce loop diuretic treatment for clinical signs of fluid overload. The patients were hemodynamically evaluated at the moment of diuretic introduction and 24 h later.

RESULTS

Seventy ICU patients were included in this study, with a median duration of ICU stay before diuretic initiation of 2 [1-3] days. 51(73%) patients were classified as congestive (central venous pressure > 12 mmHg). After treatment, the cardiac index increased towards normal values in the congestive group (2.7 ± 0.8 L min^- 1 m^- 2 from 2.5 ± 0.8 L min^- 1 m^- 2, p = 0.042), but not in the non-congestive group (2.7 ± 0.7 L min^- 1 m^- 2 from baseline 2.7 ± 0.8 L min^- 1 m^- 2, p = 0.968). A decrease in arterial lactate concentrations was observed in the congestive group (2.1 ± 2 mmol L^- 1 vs. 1.3 ± 0.6 mmol L^- 1, p < 0.001). The diuretic therapy was associated with an improvement of ventriculo-arterial coupling comparing with baseline values in the congestive group (1.69 ± 1 vs. 1.92 ± 1.5, p = 0.03). The norepinephrine use decreased in congestive patients (p = 0.021), but not in the non-congestive group (p = 0.467).

CONCLUSION

The initiation of diuretics in ICU congestive patients with stabilized shock was associated with improvement of cardiac index, ventriculo-arterial coupling, and tissue perfusion parameter. These effects were not observed in non-congestive patients.

Goal-directed fluid removal with furosemide versus placebo in intensive care patients with fluid overload: A randomised, blinded trial (GODIF trial-First version)

BACKGROUND

Salt and water accumulation leading to fluid overload is associated with increased mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, but diuretics' effects on patient outcomes are uncertain. In this first version of the GODIF trial, we aimed to assess the effects of goal-directed fluid removal with furosemide versus placebo in adult ICU patients with fluid overload.

METHODS

We conducted a multicentre, randomised, stratified, parallel-group, blinded, placebo-controlled trial in clinically stable, adult ICU patients with at least 5% fluid overload. Participants were randomised to furosemide versus placebo infusion aiming at achieving neutral cumulative fluid balance as soon as possible. The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of the hospital at 90 days.

RESULTS

The trial was terminated after the enrolment of 41 of 1000 participants because clinicians had difficulties using cumulative fluid balance as the only estimate of fluid status (32% of participants had their initially registered cumulative fluid balance adjusted and 29% experienced one or more protocol violations). The baseline cumulative fluid balance was 6956 ml in the furosemide group and 6036 ml in the placebo group; on day three, the cumulative fluid balances were 1927 ml and 5139 ml. The median number of days alive and out of hospital at day 90 was 50 days in the furosemide group versus 45 days in the placebo group (mean difference 1 day, 95% CI -19 to 21, p-value .94).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of cumulative fluid balance as the only estimate of fluid status appeared too difficult to use in clinical practice. We were unable to provide precise estimates for any outcomes as only 4.1% of the planned sample size was randomised.

Sepsis-associated acute kidney injury: consensus report of the 28th Acute Disease Quality Initiative workgroup

Sepsis-associated acute kidney injury (SA-AKI) is common in critically ill patients and is strongly associated with adverse outcomes, including an increased risk of chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular events and death. The pathophysiology of SA-AKI remains elusive, although microcirculatory dysfunction, cellular metabolic reprogramming and dysregulated inflammatory responses have been implicated in preclinical studies. SA-AKI is best defined as the occurrence of AKI within 7 days of sepsis onset (diagnosed according to Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcome criteria and Sepsis 3 criteria, respectively). Improving outcomes in SA-AKI is challenging, as patients can present with either clinical or subclinical AKI. Early identification of patients at risk of AKI, or at risk of progressing to severe and/or persistent AKI, is crucial to the timely initiation of adequate supportive measures, including limiting further insults to the kidney. Accordingly, the discovery of biomarkers associated with AKI that can aid in early diagnosis is an area of intensive investigation. Additionally, high-quality evidence on best-practice care of patients with AKI, sepsis and SA-AKI has continued to accrue. Although specific therapeutic options are limited, several clinical trials have evaluated the use of care bundles and extracorporeal techniques as potential therapeutic approaches. Here we provide graded recommendations for managing SA-AKI and highlight priorities for future research.

Nordic survey on assessment and treatment of fluid overload in intensive care

Introduction

Fluid overload in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is associated with higher mortality. There are few randomized controlled trials to guide physicians in treating patients with fluid overload in the ICU, and no guidelines exist. We aimed to elucidate how ICU physicians from Nordic countries define, assess, and treat fluid overload in the ICU.

Materials and methods

We developed an online questionnaire with 18 questions. The questions were pre-tested and revised by specialists in intensive care medicine. Through a network of national coordinators. The survey was distributed to a wide range of Nordic ICU physicians. The distribution started on January 5th, 2022 and ended on May 6th, 2022.

Results

We received a total of 1,066 responses from Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, and Iceland. When assessing fluid status, respondents applied clinical parameters such as clinical examination findings, cumulative fluid balance, body weight, and urine output more frequently than cardiac/lung ultrasound, radiological appearances, and cardiac output monitoring. A large proportion of the respondents agreed that a 5% increase or more in body weight from baseline supported the diagnosis of fluid overload. The preferred de-resuscitation strategy was diuretics (91%), followed by minimization of maintenance (76%) and resuscitation fluids (71%). The majority declared that despite mild hypotension, mild hypernatremia, and ongoing vasopressor, they would not withhold treatment of fluid overload and would continue diuretics. The respondents were divided when it came to treating fluid overload with loop diuretics in patients receiving noradrenaline. Around 1% would not administer noradrenaline and diuretics simultaneously and 35% did not have a fixed upper limit for the dosage. The remaining respondents 63% reported different upper limits of noradrenaline infusion (0.05-0.50 mcg/kg/min) when administering loop diuretics.

Conclusion

Self-reported practices among Nordic ICU physicians when assessing, diagnosing, and treating fluid overload reveals variability in the practice. A 5% increase in body weight was considered a minimum to support the diagnosis of fluid overload. Clinical examination findings were preferred for assessing, diagnosing and treating fluid overload, and diuretics were the preferred treatment modality.

Goal directed fluid removal with furosemide versus placebo in intensive care patients with fluid overload: a trial protocol for a randomised, blinded trial (GODIF Trial)

Background

Fluid overload is a risk factor for mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Administration of loop diuretics is the predominant treatment of fluid overload, but evidence for its benefit is very uncertain when assessed in a systematic review of randomised clinical trials. The GODIF trial will assess the benefits and harms of goal directed fluid removal with furosemide versus placebo in ICU patients with fluid overload.

Methods

An investigator‐initiated, international, randomised, stratified, blinded, parallel‐group trial allocating 1000 adult ICU patients with fluid overload to infusion of furosemide versus placebo. The goal is to achieve a neutral fluid balance. The primary outcome is days alive and out of hospital 90 days after randomisation. Secondary outcomes are all‐cause mortality at day 90 and 1‐year after randomisation; days alive at day 90 without life support; number of participants with one or more serious adverse events or reactions; health‐related quality of life and cognitive function at 1‐year follow‐up. A sample size of 1000 participants is required to detect an improvement of 8% in days alive and out of hospital 90 days after randomisation with a power of 90% and a risk of type 1 error of 5%. The conclusion of the trial will be based on the point estimate and 95% confidence interval; dichotomisation will not be used. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04180397.

Perspective

The GODIF trial will provide important evidence of possible benefits and harms of fluid removal with furosemide in adult ICU patients with fluid overload.