Pantoprazole in Patients at Risk for Gastrointestinal Bleeding in the ICU

BACKGROUND

Prophylaxis for gastrointestinal stress ulceration is frequently given to patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), but its risks and benefits are unclear.

METHODS

In this European, multicenter, parallel-group, blinded trial, we randomly assigned adults who had been admitted to the ICU for an acute condition (i.e., an unplanned admission) and who were at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding to receive 40 mg of intravenous pantoprazole (a proton-pump inhibitor) or placebo daily during the ICU stay. The primary outcome was death by 90 days after randomization.

RESULTS

A total of 3298 patients were enrolled; 1645 were randomly assigned to the pantoprazole group and 1653 to the placebo group. Data on the primary outcome were available for 3282 patients (99.5%). At 90 days, 510 patients (31.1%) in the pantoprazole group and 499 (30.4%) in the placebo group had died (relative risk, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.13; P=0.76). During the ICU stay, at least one clinically important event (a composite of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, or myocardial ischemia) had occurred in 21.9% of patients assigned to pantoprazole and 22.6% of those assigned to placebo (relative risk, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.11). In the pantoprazole group, 2.5% of patients had clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, as compared with 4.2% in the placebo group. The number of patients with infections or serious adverse reactions and the percentage of days alive without life support within 90 days were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among adult patients in the ICU who were at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, mortality at 90 days and the number of clinically important events were similar in those assigned to pantoprazole and those assigned to placebo. (Funded by Innovation Fund Denmark and others; SUP-ICU ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02467621 .).

Lower versus higher hemoglobin threshold for transfusion in septic shock

BACKGROUND

Blood transfusions are frequently given to patients with septic shock. However, the benefits and harms of different hemoglobin thresholds for transfusion have not been established.

METHODS

In this multicenter, parallel-group trial, we randomly assigned patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) who had septic shock and a hemoglobin concentration of 9 g per deciliter or less to receive 1 unit of leukoreduced red cells when the hemoglobin level was 7 g per deciliter or less (lower threshold) or when the level was 9 g per deciliter or less (higher threshold) during the ICU stay. The primary outcome measure was death by 90 days after randomization.

RESULTS

We analyzed data from 998 of 1005 patients (99.3%) who underwent randomization. The two intervention groups had similar baseline characteristics. In the ICU, the lower-threshold group received a median of 1 unit of blood (interquartile range, 0 to 3) and the higher-threshold group received a median of 4 units (interquartile range, 2 to 7). At 90 days after randomization, 216 of 502 patients (43.0%) assigned to the lower-threshold group, as compared with 223 of 496 (45.0%) assigned to the higher-threshold group, had died (relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.78 to 1.09; P=0.44). The results were similar in analyses adjusted for risk factors at baseline and in analyses of the per-protocol populations. The numbers of patients who had ischemic events, who had severe adverse reactions, and who required life support were similar in the two intervention groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with septic shock, mortality at 90 days and rates of ischemic events and use of life support were similar among those assigned to blood transfusion at a higher hemoglobin threshold and those assigned to blood transfusion at a lower threshold; the latter group received fewer transfusions. (Funded by the Danish Strategic Research Council and others; TRISS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01485315.).

Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.42 versus Ringer's acetate in severe sepsis

BACKGROUND

Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) [corrected] is widely used for fluid resuscitation in intensive care units (ICUs), but its safety and efficacy have not been established in patients with severe sepsis.

METHODS

In this multicenter, parallel-group, blinded trial, we randomly assigned patients with severe sepsis to fluid resuscitation in the ICU with either 6% HES 130/0.42 (Tetraspan) or Ringer's acetate at a dose of up to 33 ml per kilogram of ideal body weight per day. The primary outcome measure was either death or end-stage kidney failure (dependence on dialysis) at 90 days after randomization.

RESULTS

Of the 804 patients who underwent randomization, 798 were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. The two intervention groups had similar baseline characteristics. At 90 days after randomization, 201 of 398 patients (51%) assigned to HES 130/0.42 had died, as compared with 172 of 400 patients (43%) assigned to Ringer's acetate (relative risk, 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.36; P=0.03); 1 patient in each group had end-stage kidney failure. In the 90-day period, 87 patients (22%) assigned to HES 130/0.42 were treated with renal-replacement therapy versus 65 patients (16%) assigned to Ringer's acetate (relative risk, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.80; P=0.04), and 38 patients (10%) and 25 patients (6%), respectively, had severe bleeding (relative risk, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.94 to 2.48; P=0.09). The results were supported by multivariate analyses, with adjustment for known risk factors for death or acute kidney injury at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with severe sepsis assigned to fluid resuscitation with HES 130/0.42 had an increased risk of death at day 90 and were more likely to require renal-replacement therapy, as compared with those receiving Ringer's acetate. (Funded by the Danish Research Council and others; 6S ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00962156.).

The Procalcitonin And Survival Study (PASS) - a randomised multi-center investigator-initiated trial to investigate whether daily measurements biomarker Procalcitonin and pro-active diagnostic and therapeutic responses to abnormal Procalcitonin levels, can improve survival in intensive care unit patients. Calculated sample size (target population): 1000 patients

BACKGROUND

Sepsis and complications to sepsis are major causes of mortality in critically ill patients. Rapid treatment of sepsis is of crucial importance for survival of patients. The infectious status of the critically ill patient is often difficult to assess because symptoms cannot be expressed and signs may present atypically. The established biological markers of inflammation (leucocytes, C-reactive protein) may often be influenced by other parameters than infection, and may be unacceptably slowly released after progression of an infection. At the same time, lack of a relevant antimicrobial therapy in an early course of infection may be fatal for the patient. Specific and rapid markers of bacterial infection have been sought for use in these patients.

METHODS

Multi-centre randomized controlled interventional trial. Powered for superiority and non-inferiority on all measured end points. Complies with, "Good Clinical Practice" (ICH-GCP Guideline (CPMP/ICH/135/95, Directive 2001/20/EC)). Inclusion: 1) Age > or = 18 years of age, 2) Admitted to the participating intensive care units, 3) Signed written informed consent.Exclusion: 1) Known hyper-bilirubinaemia. or hypertriglyceridaemia, 2) Likely that safety is compromised by blood sampling, 3) Pregnant or breast feeding. Computerized Randomisation: Two arms (1:1), n = 500 per arm: Arm 1: standard of care. Arm 2: standard of care and Procalcitonin guided diagnostics and treatment of infection. Primary Trial Objective: To address whether daily Procalcitonin measurements and immediate diagnostic and therapeutic response on day-to-day changes in procalcitonin can reduce the mortality of critically ill patients.

DISCUSSION

For the first time ever, a mortality-endpoint, large scale randomized controlled trial with a biomarker-guided strategy compared to the best standard of care, is conducted in an Intensive care setting. Results will, with a high statistical power answer the question: Can the survival of critically ill patients be improved by actively using biomarker procalcitonin in the treatment of infections? 700 critically ill patients are currently included of 1000 planned (June 2008). Two interim analyses have been passed without any safety or futility issues, and the third interim analysis is soon to take place. Trial registration number at clinicaltrials.gov: Id. nr.: NCT00271752).