Proton pump inhibitors for gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: A systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the most commonly prescribed drugs for preventing upper gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. However, concerns have arisen about the possible harms of using PPIs, including potentially increased risk of pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile infection, and more seriously, an increased risk of death in the most severely ill patients. Triggered by the REVISE trial, which is a forthcoming large randomized trial comparing pantoprazole to placebo in invasively mechanically ventilated patients, we will conduct this systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PPIs versus no prophylaxis for critically ill patients.

METHODS

We will systematically search randomized trials that compared gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs versus placebo or no prophylaxis in adults in the intensive care unit (ICU). Pairs of reviewers will independently screen the literature, and for those eligible trials, extract data and assess risk of bias. We will perform meta-analyses using a random-effects model, and calculate relative risks for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes, and the associated 95% confidence intervals. We will conduct subgroup analysis to explore whether the impact of PPIs on mortality differs in more and less severely ill patients. We will assess certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

DISCUSSION

This systematic review will provide the most up-to-date evidence regarding the merits and limitations of stress ulcer prophylaxis with PPIs in critically ill patients in contemporary practice.

Risk prediction models in emergency surgery: Protocol for a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Risk prediction models are used for many purposes in emergency surgery, including critical care triage and benchmarking. Several risk prediction models have been developed, and some are used for purposes other than those for which they were developed. We aim to provide an overview of the existing literature on risk prediction models used in emergency surgery and highlight knowledge gaps.

METHODS

We will conduct a scoping review on risk prediction models used for patients undergoing emergency surgery in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We will search Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library and include all study designs. We aim to answer the following questions: (1) What risk prediction models are used in emergency surgery? (2) Which variables are used in these models? (3) Which surgical specialties are the models used for? (4) Have the models been externally validated? (5) Where have the models been externally validated? (6) What purposes were the models developed for? (7) What are the strengths and limitations of the included models? We will summarize the results descriptively. The certainty of evidence will be evaluated using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

CONCLUSION

The outlined scoping review will summarize the existing literature on risk prediction models used in emergency surgery and highlight knowledge gaps.

A survey of preferences for respiratory support in the intensive care unit for patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure

BACKGROUND

When 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.

METHODS

We 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.

RESULTS

The 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.

CONCLUSIONS

The 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.

Lower vs Higher Fluid Volumes in Adult Patients With Sepsis: An Updated Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

BACKGROUND

IV fluids are recommended for adults with sepsis. However, the optimal strategy for IV fluid management in sepsis is unknown, and clinical equipoise exists.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Do lower vs higher fluid volumes improve patient-important outcomes in adult patients with sepsis?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We updated a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials assessing lower vs higher IV fluid volumes in adult patients with sepsis. The coprimary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. We followed the recommendations from the Cochrane Handbook and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Primary conclusions were based on trials with low risk of bias if available.

RESULTS

We included 13 trials (N = 4,006) with four trials (n = 3,385) added to this update. The meta-analysis of all-cause mortality in eight trials with low risk of bias showed a relative risk of 0.99 (97% CI, 0.89-1.10; moderate certainty evidence). Six trials with predefined definitions of serious adverse events showed a relative risk of 0.95 (97% CI, 0.83-1.07; low certainty evidence). Health-related quality of life was not reported.

INTERPRETATION

Among adult patients with sepsis, lower IV fluid volumes probably result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality compared with higher IV fluid volumes, but the interpretation is limited by imprecision in the estimate, which does not exclude potential benefit or harm. Similarly, the evidence suggests lower IV fluid volumes result in little to no difference in serious adverse events. No trials reported on health-related quality of life.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO; No.: CRD42022312572; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.

Validation of the NELA risk prediction model in emergency abdominal surgery

Risk prediction models are frequently used to identify high-risk patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. The National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) developed a risk prediction model specifically for emergency laparotomy patients, which was recently updated. In this study, we validated the updated NELA model in an external population. Furthermore, we compared it with three other risk prediction models: the original NELA model, the Portsmouth Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity (P-POSSUM) model, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS). We included adult patients undergoing emergency laparotomy at Zealand University Hospital, from March 2017 to January 2019, and Herlev Hospital, from November 2017 to January 2020. Variables included in the risk prediction models were collected retrospectively from the electronic patient records. Discrimination of the risk prediction models was evaluated with area under the curve (AUC) statistics, and calibration was assessed with Cox calibration regression. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Out of 1226 included patients, 146 patients (11.9%) died within 30 days. AUC (95% confidence interval) for 30-day mortality was 0.85 (0.82-0.88) for the updated NELA model, 0.84 (0.81-0.87) for the original NELA model, 0.81 (0.77-0.84) for the P-POSSUM model, and 0.76 (0.72-0.79) for the ASA-PS model. Calibration showed underestimation of mortality risk for both the updated NELA, original NELA and P-POSSUM models. The updated NELA risk prediction model performs well in this external validation study and may be used in similar settings. However, the model should only be used to discriminate between low- and high-risk patients, and not for prediction of individual risk due to underestimation of mortality.

Abnormal serum levels of magnesium, phosphate, and zinc in ICU patients-Characteristics, management, and outcomes: The WhyTrace cohort study

BACKGROUND

Abnormal serum levels of magnesium, phosphate, and zinc appear common in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, but the epidemiology, management, and associations with outcomes are less well described. We described these factors and estimated associations with outcomes in a large dataset of Danish ICU patients.

METHODS

We included adults who were acutely admitted to 10 general ICUs in Denmark between October 2011 and January 2018. From the dataset, we obtained characteristics of patients who had serum levels measured of magnesium, phosphate, or zinc, including data on supplementation. We used joint models with death as a competing outcome to estimate the associations between abnormal serum levels and time to successful extubation and, for magnesium, also incident tachyarrhythmia.

RESULTS

We included 16,517 of 36,514 patients in the dataset. The cumulative probability of hypomagnesemia within 28 days was 64% (95% confidence interval [CI] 62-66); of hypophosphatemia 74% (95% CI 72-75); and of hypozincemia 98% (95% CI 98-98). Supplementation of magnesium was used in 3554 out of 13,506 (26%) patients, phosphate in 2115 out of 14,148 (15%) patients, and zinc in 4465 out of 9869 (45%) patients. During ICU stay, 38% experienced hypermagnesemia, 58% hyperphosphatemia, and 1% hyperzincemia. Low serum levels of magnesium, phosphate, and zinc were associated with shorter time to successful extubation, and high serum magnesium and phosphate and low serum zinc with the competing risk of increased mortality, but too few serum measurements made the results inconclusive.

CONCLUSION

In this multicenter cohort study of acutely admitted ICU patients, most experienced low serum levels of magnesium, phosphate, or zinc during ICU stay, many received supplementation, and experiencing both low and high serum levels during ICU stay was not uncommon. Associations between serum levels and clinical outcomes appeared inconclusive because the data proved unfit for these analyses.

Routine Versus On-Demand Blood Sampling in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to provide an overview of the current evidence on routine versus on-demand blood sampling in critical care. We assessed the reported proportion of patients exposed to daily routine blood sampling, the tests performed, characteristics associated with more frequent blood sampling, and the reported benefits and harms of routine blood sampling compared with on-demand sampling.

DATA SOURCES

We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, the Excerpta Medica Database, and the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online for studies assessing routine versus on-demand blood testing in critically ill patients from inception to September 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Abstracts and full texts were assessed independently and in duplicate by two reviewers.

STUDY EXTRACTION

Data were extracted independently and in duplicate by two reviewers using predefined extraction forms.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of 12,212 records screened, 298 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. We included 70 studies; 50 nonrandomized interventional studies and 20 observational studies. Exposure to routine blood testing was 52-100% (very low certainty of evidence). Blood testing seemed to occur more frequently in medical intensive care settings with a median of 18 blood tests per patient day (interquartile range, 10-33) (very low certainty of evidence). Mixed biochemistry seemed to be the most frequently performed blood tests across all settings (five tests per patient day; interquartile range, 2-10) (very low certainty of evidence). Reductions in routine blood testing seemed to be associated with reduced transfusion rates and costs without apparent adverse patient outcomes (low certainty of evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review, routine blood testing in critically ill patients was common and varied considerably. A reduction in routine blood testing appeared to be associated with reduced transfusion rates and costs without adverse effects, but the evidence was very uncertain.

Effects of magnesium, phosphate, or zinc supplementation in intensive care unit patients-A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Low-serum levels of magnesium, phosphate, and zinc are observed in many intensive care unit (ICU) patients, but clinical equipoise exists regarding supplementation strategies. We aimed to assess the desirable and undesirable effects of supplementation with magnesium, phosphate, or zinc in adult ICU patients.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of supplementation with magnesium, phosphate, or zinc in adult ICU patients. Primary outcomes were mortality and duration of mechanical ventilation. We registered the protocol, followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement, used the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool, and the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

We identified no low risk of bias trials. For magnesium supplementation, we included three trials (n = 235); the relative risk (RR) for mortality was 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30-0.96 compared to no supplementation (very low certainty of evidence). For zinc supplementation, two trials were included (n = 168); the RR for mortality was 0.73, 95% CI 0.41-1.28 compared to control. No trials assessed the effects of phosphate supplementation on mortality. For outcomes other than mortality, only zero or one trial was available.

CONCLUSIONS

In adult ICU patients, the certainty of evidence for the effects of supplementation with magnesium, phosphate, or zinc was very low. High-quality trials are needed to assess the value of supplementation strategies in these patients.

Restriction of Intravenous Fluid in ICU Patients with Septic Shock

BACKGROUND

Intravenous fluids are recommended for the treatment of patients who are in septic shock, but higher fluid volumes have been associated with harm in patients who are in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

In this international, randomized trial, we assigned patients with septic shock in the ICU who had received at least 1 liter of intravenous fluid to receive restricted intravenous fluid or standard intravenous fluid therapy; patients were included if the onset of shock had been within 12 hours before screening. The primary outcome was death from any cause within 90 days after randomization.

RESULTS

We enrolled 1554 patients; 770 were assigned to the restrictive-fluid group and 784 to the standard-fluid group. Primary outcome data were available for 1545 patients (99.4%). In the ICU, the restrictive-fluid group received a median of 1798 ml of intravenous fluid (interquartile range, 500 to 4366); the standard-fluid group received a median of 3811 ml (interquartile range, 1861 to 6762). At 90 days, death had occurred in 323 of 764 patients (42.3%) in the restrictive-fluid group, as compared with 329 of 781 patients (42.1%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.7 to 4.9; P = 0.96). In the ICU, serious adverse events occurred at least once in 221 of 751 patients (29.4%) in the restrictive-fluid group and in 238 of 772 patients (30.8%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, -1.7 percentage points; 99% CI, -7.7 to 4.3). At 90 days after randomization, the numbers of days alive without life support and days alive and out of the hospital were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among adult patients with septic shock in the ICU, intravenous fluid restriction did not result in fewer deaths at 90 days than standard intravenous fluid therapy. (Funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and others; CLASSIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03668236.).

Therapeutics and COVID-19-A living WHO guideline: Endorsement by the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine

The Clinical Practice Committee of the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine endorses the Living WHO guideline on therapeutics and COVID-19. This trustworthy continuously updated guideline serves as a highly useful decision aid for Nordic anaesthesiologists caring for patients with COVID-19.

Lower versus higher oxygenation targets in critically ill patients with severe hypoxaemia: secondary Bayesian analysis to explore heterogeneous treatment effects in the Handling Oxygenation Targets in the Intensive Care Unit (HOT-ICU) trial

BACKGROUND

In the Handling Oxygenation Targets in the Intensive Care Unit (HOT-ICU) trial, a lower (8 kPa) vs a higher (12 kPa) PaO2 target did not affect mortality amongst critically ill adult patients. We used Bayesian statistics to evaluate any heterogeneity in the effect of oxygenation targets on mortality between different patient groups within the HOT-ICU trial.

METHODS

We analysed 90-day all-cause mortality using adjusted Bayesian logistic regression models, and assessed heterogeneous treatment effects according to four selected baseline variables using both hierarchical models of subgroups and models with interactions on the continuous scales. Results are presented as mortality probability (%) and relative risk (RR) with 95% credibility intervals (CrI).

RESULTS

All 2888 patients in the intention-to-treat cohort of the HOT-ICU trial were included. The adjusted 90-day mortality rates were 43.0% (CrI: 38.3-47.8%) and 42.3% (CrI: 37.7-47.1%) in the lower and higher oxygenation groups, respectively (RR 1.02 [CrI: 0.93-1.11]), with 36.5% probability of an RR <1.00. Analyses of heterogeneous treatment effects suggested a dose-response relationship between baseline norepinephrine dose and increased mortality with the lower oxygenation target, with 95% probability of increased mortality associated with the lower oxygenation target as norepinephrine doses increased.

CONCLUSIONS

A lower oxygenation target was unlikely to affect overall mortality amongst critically ill adult patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. However, our results suggest an increasing mortality risk for patients with a lower oxygen target as the baseline norepinephrine dose increases. These findings warrant additional investigation.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03174002.

Effect of 12 mg vs 6 mg of Dexamethasone on the Number of Days Alive Without Life Support in Adults With COVID-19 and Severe Hypoxemia: The COVID STEROID 2 Randomized Trial

IMPORTANCE

A daily dose with 6 mg of dexamethasone is recommended for up to 10 days in patients with severe and critical COVID-19, but a higher dose may benefit those with more severe disease.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of 12 mg/d vs 6 mg/d of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A multicenter, randomized clinical trial was conducted between August 2020 and May 2021 at 26 hospitals in Europe and India and included 1000 adults with confirmed COVID-19 requiring at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation. End of 90-day follow-up was on August 19, 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized 1:1 to 12 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 503) or 6 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 497) for up to 10 days.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support (invasive mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, or kidney replacement therapy) at 28 days and was adjusted for stratification variables. Of the 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, 5 are included in this analysis (the number of days alive without life support at 90 days, the number of days alive out of the hospital at 90 days, mortality at 28 days and at 90 days, and ≥1 serious adverse reactions at 28 days).

RESULTS

Of the 1000 randomized patients, 982 were included (median age, 65 [IQR, 55-73] years; 305 [31%] women) and primary outcome data were available for 971 (491 in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 480 in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group). The median number of days alive without life support was 22.0 days (IQR, 6.0-28.0 days) in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 20.5 days (IQR, 4.0-28.0 days) in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted mean difference, 1.3 days [95% CI, 0-2.6 days]; P = .07). Mortality at 28 days was 27.1% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 32.3% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.86 [99% CI, 0.68-1.08]). Mortality at 90 days was 32.0% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 37.7% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.87 [99% CI, 0.70-1.07]). Serious adverse reactions, including septic shock and invasive fungal infections, occurred in 11.3% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 13.4% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.83 [99% CI, 0.54-1.29]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, 12 mg/d of dexamethasone compared with 6 mg/d of dexamethasone did not result in statistically significantly more days alive without life support at 28 days. However, the trial may have been underpowered to identify a significant difference.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04509973 and ctri.nic.in Identifier: CTRI/2020/10/028731.

Use of hydroxyethyl starch in sepsis research: A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

After being used for more than a decade the use of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) 130/0.38-0.45 in clinical practice was discouraged because of serious adverse events including bleeding, acute kidney injury and death. But could these adverse effects have been discovered sooner? By comparing the summary effect estimates of the adverse effects of HES 130/0.38-0.45 in different study designs we aimed to disclose any signal of this.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library and hand-searched the reference lists of relevant studies to identify studies for inclusion. Eligible trials were randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies in patients with sepsis and randomised trials in animals with induced sepsis comparing HES 130/0.38-0.45 to any type of crystalloid. Relevant outcomes were all-cause mortality at longest follow-up, renal replacement therapy (RRT), acute kidney injury (AKI) and bleeding. We extracted data, conducted conventional meta-analyses and assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

We included 8 RCTs including 3,273 patients, 1 observational study including 379 patients and 5 randomised animal trials including 94 test animals. There was no suggestion of interaction in subgroup analyses comparing the different study designs for any outcomes (all-cause mortality at longest follow-up p = .33; RRT p = .70; AKI p = .63; bleeding p = .20).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed no interaction between the summary effect estimates of RCTs, observational studies in patients and randomised animal trials for any of the outcomes. Accordingly, we found no evidence indicating that the adverse effects of HES 130/0.38-0.45 could have been discovered sooner.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO ID: CRD42018103422.

PROTOCOL

Johansen JR, Perner A, Brodtkorb JH, Møller MH. Use of hydroxyethyl starch in sepsis research: Protocol for a systematic review. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2019;63:814-818. https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.13345.

Ischaemic vascular disease and long-term mortality in emergency abdominal surgical patients: A population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Emergency abdominal surgery carries a high mortality, as patients are often frail with significant comorbidity. We aimed to evaluate the association between co-existing ischaemic vascular disease (IVD) and long-term mortality in patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery.

METHODS

We included adult emergency abdominal surgical patients operated on 13 Danish hospitals between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2010. Appendectomies were excluded. Data were retrieved from the National Patient Registry (NPR) and the Danish Anaesthesia Database. Preoperative IVD status was retrieved from NPR. We used crude and adjusted Cox regression analysis. The primary outcome was mortality within eight years. The secondary outcome was mortality within 30 days.

RESULTS

We included 4864 patients, of which 2584 (53.7%) died within 8 years. Some 20.9% (1019/4864) had preoperative IVD. The adjusted association between preoperative IVD and mortality within 8 years was hazard ratio (HR) 1.10 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.20; P = .045). At 30 days, this association was HR 0.97 (95% CI, 0.84-1.13).

CONCLUSION

In adult major emergency abdominal surgical patients, preoperative IVD was prevalent and associated with a 10% relative increase in long-term mortality, but not in short-term mortality.

COVID-19 versus influenza A/B supeRInfectionS in the IntenSive care unit (CRISIS): Protocol for a Danish nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND

Superinfection following viral infection is a known complication, which may lead to longer hospitalisation and worse outcome. Empirical antibiotic therapy may prevent bacterial superinfections, but may also lead to overuse, adverse effects and development of resistant pathogens. Knowledge about the incidence of superinfections in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited.

METHODS

We will conduct a nationwide cohort study comparing the incidence of superinfections in patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to the ICU compared with ICU patients with influenza A/B in Denmark. We will include approximately 1000 patients in each group from the time period of 1 October 2014 to 30 April 2019 and from 10 March 2020 to 1 March 2021 for patients with influenza and COVID-19, respectively. The primary outcome is any superinfection within 90 days of admission to the ICU. We will use logistic regression analysis comparing COVID-19 with influenza A/B after adjustment for relevant predefined confounders. Secondarily, we will use unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression analyses to assess six potential risk factors (sex, age, cancer [including haematological], immunosuppression and use of life support on day 1 in the ICU) for superinfections and compare outcomes in patients with COVID-19 with/without superinfections, and present descriptive data regarding the superinfections.

CONCLUSION

This study will provide important knowledge about superinfections in ICU patients with severe COVID-19.

Clinical practice guideline on spinal stabilisation of adult trauma patients: Endorsement by the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine

The Clinical Practice Committee of the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine endorses the clinical practice guideline New clinical guidelines on the spinal stabilisation of adult trauma patients-consensus and evidence based. The guideline can serve as a useful decision aid for clinicians caring for patients with traumatic spinal cord injury. However, it is important to acknowledge that the overall certainty of evidence supporting the guideline recommendations was low, implying that further research is likely to have an important impact on the confidence in the estimate of effect.

Higher vs lower doses of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia (COVID STEROID 2) trial: Protocol and statistical analysis plan

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has resulted in millions of deaths and overburdened healthcare systems worldwide. Systemic low‐dose corticosteroids have proven clinical benefit in patients with severe COVID‐19. Higher doses of corticosteroids are used in other inflammatory lung diseases and may offer additional clinical benefits in COVID‐19. At present, the balance between benefits and harms of higher vs. lower doses of corticosteroids for patients with COVID‐19 is unclear.

Methods

The COVID STEROID 2 trial is an investigator‐initiated, international, parallel‐grouped, blinded, centrally randomised and stratified clinical trial assessing higher (12 mg) vs. lower (6 mg) doses of dexamethasone for adults with COVID‐19 and severe hypoxia. We plan to enrol 1,000 patients in Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland and India. The primary outcome is days alive without life support (invasive mechanical ventilation, circulatory support or renal replacement therapy) at day 28. Secondary outcomes include serious adverse reactions at day 28; all‐cause mortality at day 28, 90 and 180; days alive without life support at day 90; days alive and out of hospital at day 90; and health‐related quality of life at day 180. The primary outcome will be analysed using the Kryger Jensen and Lange test adjusted for stratification variables and reported as adjusted mean differences and median differences. The full statistical analysis plan is outlined in this protocol.

Discussion

The COVID STEROID 2 trial will provide evidence on the optimal dosing of systemic corticosteroids for COVID‐19 patients with severe hypoxia with important implications for patients, their relatives and society.

Lower or Higher Oxygenation Targets for Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure

BACKGROUND

Patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in the intensive care unit (ICU) are treated with supplemental oxygen, but the benefits and harms of different oxygenation targets are unclear. We hypothesized that using a lower target for partial pressure of arterial oxygen (Pao₂) would result in lower mortality than using a higher target.

METHODS

In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 2928 adult patients who had recently been admitted to the ICU (≤12 hours before randomization) and who were receiving at least 10 liters of oxygen per minute in an open system or had a fraction of inspired oxygen of at least 0.50 in a closed system to receive oxygen therapy targeting a Pao₂ of either 60 mm Hg (lower-oxygenation group) or 90 mm Hg (higher-oxygenation group) for a maximum of 90 days. The primary outcome was death within 90 days.

RESULTS

At 90 days, 618 of 1441 patients (42.9%) in the lower-oxygenation group and 613 of 1447 patients (42.4%) in the higher-oxygenation group had died (adjusted risk ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.94 to 1.11; P = 0.64). At 90 days, there was no significant between-group difference in the percentage of days that patients were alive without life support or in the percentage of days they were alive after hospital discharge. The percentages of patients who had new episodes of shock, myocardial ischemia, ischemic stroke, or intestinal ischemia were similar in the two groups (P = 0.24).

CONCLUSIONS

Among adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in the ICU, a lower oxygenation target did not result in lower mortality than a higher target at 90 days. (Funded by the Innovation Fund Denmark and others; HOT-ICU ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03174002.).

Prophylactic acid suppressants in children in the intensive care unit: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Critically ill children are at risk of stress-induced gastrointestinal ulceration. Acid suppressants are frequently used in intensive care units even though there is uncertainty about the benefits and harms. With this systematic review, we aimed to assess patient-important benefits and harms of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in children in intensive care.

METHODS

We conducted the review according to the PRISMA statement, the Cochrane Handbook, and GRADE, using conventional meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA). We included randomised clinical trials comparing SUP with histamine-2-receptor antagonists or proton pump inhibitors vs placebo/no prophylaxis in children admitted for intensive care. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and overt gastrointestinal bleeding. Secondary outcomes were serious adverse events, hospital-acquired pneumonia, Clostridium difficile enteritis, myocardial ischemia, acute kidney injury and quality of life.

RESULTS

We included a total of seven trials (n = 504) with eight trial comparisons. We found no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality (relative risk (RR) 1.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86-2.37), overt gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.42-1.35) or hospital-acquired pneumonia (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77-1.82) between SUP vs placebo/no prophylaxis. No trials reported on remaining secondary outcomes. TSA was unable to draw firm conclusions for all outcomes and certainty of evidence for all outcomes was "very low."

CONCLUSIONS

We found no difference in all-cause mortality, overt gastrointestinal bleeding or hospital-acquired pneumonia in children in intensive care receiving acid suppressants compared with placebo/no prophylaxis. However, the quantity and quality of evidence was very low with no firm evidence for benefit or harm.

Long-term mortality in the Intermediate care after emergency abdominal surgery (InCare) trial-A post-hoc follow-up study

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery are at high risk of post-operative complications. Although post-operative treatment at an intermediate care unit may improve early outcome, there is a lack of studies on the long-term effects of such therapy. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term effect of intermediate care versus standard surgical ward care on mortality in the Intermediate Care After Emergency Abdominal Surgery (InCare) trial.

METHODS

We included adult patients undergoing emergency major laparoscopy or laparotomy with an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score of 10 or more, who participated in the InCare trial from October 2010 to November 2012. In the InCare trial, patients were randomized to either post-operative intermediate care or standard surgical ward care. The primary outcome was time to death within 6 years after surgery. We assessed mortality with Coxregression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 286 patients were included. The all-cause 6-year landmark mortality was 52.8% (76 of 144 patients) in the intermediate care group and 47.9% (68 of 142 patients) in the ward care group. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality risk between the two groups (hazard ratio 1.06 (95% confidence interval 0.76-1.47), P = .73).

CONCLUSION

We found no statistically significant difference in 6-year mortality between patients randomized to post-operative intermediate care or ward care after emergency abdominal surgery. However, we detected an absolute mortality risk reduction of 5% in favour of ward care, possibly due to random error.

Efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials

PURPOSE

Motivated by a new randomized trial (the PEPTIC trial) that raised the issue of an increase in mortality with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) relative to histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), we updated our prior systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) addressing the impact of pharmacological gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs, H2RAs, or sucralfate versus one another or placebo or no prophylaxis in adult critically ill patients. We performed Bayesian random-effects NMA and conducted analyses using all PEPTIC data as well as a restricted analysis using only PEPTIC data from high compliance centers. We used the GRADE approach to quantify absolute effects and assess the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Seventy-four trials enrolling 39 569 patients proved eligible. Both PPIs (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% credible interval 0.93 to 1.14, moderate certainty) and H2RAs (RR 0.98, 0.89 to 1.08, moderate certainty) probably have little or no impact on mortality compared with no prophylaxis. There may be no important difference between PPIs and H2RAs on mortality (RR 1.05, 0.97 to 1.14, low certainty), the 95% credible interval of the complete analysis has not excluded an important increase in mortality with PPIs. Both PPIs (RR 0.46, 0.29 to 0.66) and H2RAs (RR 0.67, 0.48 to 0.94) probably reduce clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding; the magnitude of reduction is probably greater in PPIs than H2RAs (RR 0.69, 0.45 to 0.93), and the difference may be important in higher, but not lower bleeding risk patients. PPIs (RR 1.08, 0.88 to 1.45, low certainty) and H2RAs (RR 1.07, 0.85 to 1.37, low certainty) may have no important impact on pneumonia compared with no prophylaxis.

CONCLUSION

This updated NMA confirmed that PPIs and H2RAs are most likely to have a similar effect on mortality compared to each other and compared to no prophylaxis; however, the possibility that PPIs may slightly increase mortality cannot be excluded (low certainty evidence). PPIs and H2RAs probably achieve important reductions in clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding; for higher bleeding risk patients, the greater benefit of PPIs over H2RAs may be important. PPIs or H2RAs may not result in important increases in pneumonia but the certainty of evidence is low.

Managing ICU surge during the COVID-19 crisis: rapid guidelines

Given the rapidly changing nature of COVID-19, clinicians and policy makers require urgent review and summary of the literature, and synthesis of evidence-based guidelines to inform practice. The WHO advocates for rapid reviews in these circumstances. The purpose of this rapid guideline is to provide recommendations on the organizational management of intensive care units caring for patients with COVID-19 including: planning a crisis surge response; crisis surge response strategies; triage, supporting families, and staff.

Spontaneous versus controlled mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome - Protocol for a scoping review

BACKGROUND

In caring for mechanically ventilated adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), clinicians are faced with an uncertain choice between controlled or spontaneous breathing modes. Observational data indicate considerable practice variation which may be driven by differences in sedation and mobilisation practices. The benefits and harms of either strategy are largely unknown.

METHODS

A scoping review will be prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews. We will review the clinical literature on controlled vs spontaneous breathing in mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS of any severity. Studies reporting on qualitative and/or quantitative data from any world region will be considered. For inclusion, studies must include data on mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS who are allowed spontaneous (triggered ventilation). Searches will be conducted in four electronic databases without any limitation on publication date and language. We will assess the quality of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, where appropriate.

CONCLUSION

We will perform a scoping review of the clinical literature on controlled vs spontaneously breathing in mechanically ventilated patients who fulfil ARDS criteria (including acute lung injury). This is to elucidate if a pragmatic clinical trial comparing controlled and spontaneous mechanical ventilation is warranted and will allow us to formulate relevant research questions.

Prophylactic use of acid suppressants in adult acutely ill hospitalised patients: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Acutely ill patients are at risk of stress-related gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and prophylactic acid suppressants are frequently used. In this systematic review, we assessed the effects of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) versus placebo or no prophylaxis in acutely ill hospitalised patients.

METHODS

We conducted the review according to the PRISMA statement, the Cochrane Handbook and GRADE, using conventional meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA). The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinically important GI bleeding and serious adverse events (SAEs). The primary analyses included overall low risk of bias trials.

RESULTS

We included 65 comparisons from 62 trials (n = 9713); 43 comparisons were from intensive care units. Only three trials (n = 3596) had overall low risk of bias. We did not find an effect on all-cause mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.14; TSA-adjusted CI 0.90 to 1.18; high certainty). The rate of clinically important GI bleeding was lower with SUP (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.89; TSA-adjusted CI 0.14 to 2.81; moderate certainty). We did not find a difference in pneumonia rates (moderate certainty). Effects on SAEs, Clostridium difficile enteritis, myocardial ischaemia and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were inconclusive due to sparse data. Analyses of all trials regardless of risk of bias were consistent with the primary analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not observe a difference in all-cause mortality or pneumonia with SUP. The incidence of clinically important GI bleeding was reduced with SUP, whereas any effects on SAEs, myocardial ischaemia, Clostridium difficile enteritis and HRQoL were inconclusive.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number CRD42017055676; published study protocol: Marker, et al 2017 in Systematic Reviews.

APACHE II score validation in emergency abdominal surgery. A post hoc analysis of the InCare trial

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery are at high risk of morbidity and mortality. Accurate identification of high-risk patients is important. The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score needs to be validated in a larger heterogeneous population before implementation. We aimed to assess the predictive value of the APACHE II score in emergency abdominal surgical patients. Furthermore, we compared the APACHE II score with the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status score and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI).

METHODS

We included adult patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery screened for enrolment in the InCare trial from October 2010 to November 2012. The APACHE II score was evaluated with area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) statistics. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included 90-day mortality and admission to the intensive care unit.

RESULTS

We included a total of 885 patients. All-cause 30-day mortality was 5.0%, 90-day mortality was 8.9%, and a total of 7.9% of the patients were admitted to the intensive care unit. The AUROC (95% confidence interval) of the APACHE II score was 0.72 (0.65-0.80) for 30-day mortality, 0.70 (0.64-0.76) for 90-day mortality and 0.65 (0.59-0.71) for admission to the intensive care unit. The CCI performed better in prediction of 90-day mortality (P = .04). All other results for the ASA score and CCI were comparable with the APACHE II score.

CONCLUSION

The APACHE II score predicted mortality moderately and admission to intensive care unit poorly in emergency abdominal surgical patients.

Efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine, in critically ill patients, the relative impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), sucralfate, or no gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis (or stress ulcer prophylaxis) on outcomes important to patients.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registers, and grey literature up to March 2019.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES AND METHODS

We included randomised controlled trials that compared gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs, H2RAs, or sucralfate versus one another or placebo or no prophylaxis in adult critically ill patients. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendation) provided critical oversight of the systematic review, including identifying outcomes important to patients. We performed random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. When results differed between low risk and high risk of bias studies, we used the former as best estimates.

RESULTS

Seventy two trials including 12 660 patients proved eligible. For patients at highest risk (>8%) or high risk (4-8%) of bleeding, both PPIs and H2RAs probably reduce clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding compared with placebo or no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 0.61 (95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.89), 3.3% fewer for highest risk and 2.3% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 0.46 (0.27 to 0.79), 4.6% fewer for highest risk and 3.1% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty). Both may increase the risk of pneumonia compared with no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 1.39 (0.98 to 2.10), 5.0% more, low certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 1.26 (0.89 to 1.85), 3.4% more, low certainty). It is likely that neither affect mortality (PPIs 1.06 (0.90 to 1.28), 1.3% more, moderate certainty; H2RAs 0.96 (0.79 to 1.19), 0.9% fewer, moderate certainty). Otherwise, results provided no support for any affect on mortality, Clostridium difficile infection, length of intensive care stay, length of hospital stay, or duration of mechanical ventilation (varying certainty of evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

For higher risk critically ill patients, PPIs and H2RAs likely result in important reductions in gastrointestinal bleeding compared with no prophylaxis; for patients at low risk, the reduction in bleeding may be unimportant. Both PPIs and H2RAs may result in important increases in pneumonia. Variable quality evidence suggested no important effects of interventions on mortality or other in-hospital morbidity outcomes.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019126656.

Heterogeneity of treatment effect of stress ulcer prophylaxis in ICU patients: A secondary analysis protocol

BACKGROUND

In the Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in the Intensive Care Unit (SUP-ICU) trial, 3291 adult ICU patients at risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding were randomly allocated to intravenous pantoprazole 40 mg or placebo once daily in the ICU. No difference was observed between the groups in the primary outcome 90-day mortality or the secondary outcomes, except for clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding. However, heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) not detected by conventional subgroup analyses could be present.

METHODS

This is a protocol and statistical analysis plan for a secondary, post hoc, exploratory analysis of the SUP-ICU trial. We will explore HTE in one set of subgroups based on severity of illness (using the Simplified Acute Physiology Score [SAPS] II) and another set of subgroups based on the total number of risk factors for GI bleeding in each patient using Bayesian hierarchical models. We will summarise posterior probability distributions using medians and 95% credible intervals and present probabilities for different levels of benefit and harm of the intervention in each subgroup. Finally, we will assess if the treatment effect interacts with SAPS II and the number of risk factors separately on the continuous scale using marginal effects plots.

CONCLUSIONS

The outlined post hoc analysis will explore whether HTE was present in the SUP-ICU trial and may help answer some of the remaining questions regarding the balance between benefits and harms of pantoprazole in ICU patients at risk of GI bleeding. CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV REGISTRATION

NCT02467621.

Routine vs on-demand blood sampling in critically ill patients-Protocol for a scoping review

BACKGROUND

In intensive care units, blood sampling is done commonly as part of daily routine. It remains unknown whether this practice is associated with harms or benefits, as not all routine blood tests may be clinically indicated, and blood sampling done without specific indications may be problematic. Accordingly, we aim to assess the body of evidence regarding the usage of routine vs on-demand blood sampling in critically ill patients in a scoping review.

METHODS

We will conduct a scoping review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement as well as the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Using a PICO-based search strategy, we will systematically search the Cochrane Library, Embase and Medline for relevant studies regardless of design. Two authors will independently screen studies for inclusion and extract data. We will provide a descriptive analysis of the data and asses the quality of evidence in accordance with the Grading of Recommended Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

DISCUSSION

The outlined scoping review will provide an important overview on the current body of evidence regarding the use of daily routine vs on-demand blood sampling in critical care settings. The findings of this scoping review will guide further research.

Prevention of rhabdomyolysis-induced acute kidney injury - A DASAIM/DSIT clinical practice guideline

BACKGROUND

Rhabdomyolysis-induced acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common and serious condition. We aimed to summarise the available evidence on this topic and provide recommendations according to current standards for trustworthy guidelines.

METHODS

This guideline was developed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). The following preventive interventions were assessed: (a) fluids, (b) diuretics, (c) alkalinisation, (d) antioxidants, and (e) renal replacement therapy. Exclusively patient-important outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

We suggest using early rather than late fluid resuscitation (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence). We suggest using crystalloids rather than colloids (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence). We suggest against routine use of loop diuretics as compared to none (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence). We suggest against use of mannitol as compared to none (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence). We suggest against routine use of any diuretic as compared to none (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence). We suggest against routine use of alkalinisation with sodium bicarbonate as compared to none (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence). We suggest against the routine use of any alkalinisation as compared to none (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence). We suggest against routine use of renal replacement therapy as compared to none (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence). For the remaining PICO questions, no recommendations were issued.

CONCLUSION

The quantity and quality of evidence supporting preventive interventions for rhabdomyolysis-induced AKI is low/very low. We were able to issue eight weak recommendations and no strong recommendations.

Use of hydroxyethyl starch in sepsis research: Protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) 130/0.38-0.45 is a synthetic colloid, which has been on the market since 1999. In recent years, concern about the use of HES has been raised because of serious adverse events, including acute kidney injury, bleeding and even increased mortality with its use. In the outlined systematic review, we aim to assess if the adverse effects of HES 130/0.38-0.45 in patients with sepsis could have been discovered earlier.

METHODS

We will conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials in animals and patients and observational studies in patients comparing HES 130/0.38-0.45 vs any crystalloid in sepsis. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality at longest follow-up. We will systematically search EMBASE, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library for relevant literature. We will follow the recommendations by the Cochrane Handbook, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statements and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

DISCUSSION

With the outlined systematic review, we aim to assess whether the adverse effects of HES 130/0.38-0.45 could have been discovered earlier by comparing summary effect estimates of harm from observational studies in patients and randomised trials in animals and patients. The results may have implications for future drug development and approval processes.

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 .).

Timing of onset of gastrointestinal bleeding in the ICU: Protocol for a preplanned observational study

BACKGROUND

Critically ill patients are at risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, but clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding is rare. The majority of intensive care unit (ICU) patients receive stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP), despite uncertainty concerning the balance between benefit and harm. For approximately half of ICU patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, onset is early, ie within the first two days of the ICU stay. The aetiology of gastrointestinal bleeding and consequently the balance between benefit and harm of SUP may differ between patients with early vs late gastrointestinal bleeding.

METHODS

This is a protocol and statistical analysis plan for a preplanned exploratory substudy of the Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in the Intensive Care Unit (SUP-ICU) randomized clinical trial, comparing intravenous pantoprazole (40 mg once daily) with placebo in 3350 acutely ill adult ICU patients. We will describe baseline characteristics and assess the time to onset of the first clinically important episode of GI bleeding accounting for survival status and allocation to SUP or placebo. In addition, we will describe differences in therapeutic and diagnostic procedures used in patients with clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding according to early vs late bleeding and 90-day vital status.

CONCLUSIONS

The study outlined in this protocol will provide detailed information on patient characteristics and the timing of onset of gastrointestinal bleeding in the patients enrolled in the SUP-ICU trial. This may provide additional knowledge and incentives for future studies on which patients benefit from SUP.

Common Sense Approach to Managing Sepsis

Sepsis results in many deaths, prolonged suffering among survivors and relatives, and high use of resources both in developed and developing countries. The updated Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines should aid clinicians in improving the identification and management of these patients, but many uncertainties remain because most of the guidance is based on low-quality evidence. This article discusses how to use some of the specific items of the guidelines together with a common-sense approach to aid clinical management of patients with sepsis while trying to balance the potential benefit and harm of the items.

Risk factors for reintervention after surgery for perforated gastroduodenal ulcer

Background

Perforated gastroduodenal ulcer carries a high mortality rate. Need for reintervention after surgical repair is associated with worse outcome, but knowledge on risk factors for reintervention is limited. The aim was to identify prognostic risk factors for reintervention after perforated gastroduodenal ulcer in a nationwide cohort.

Methods

All patients treated surgically for perforated gastroduodenal ulcer in Denmark between 2003 and 2014 were included using data from the Danish Clinical Register of Emergency Surgery. Potential risk factors for reintervention were assessed, and their crude and adjusted associations calculated by the competing risks subdistribution hazards approach.

Results

A total of 4086 patients underwent surgery for perforated gastroduodenal ulcer during the study interval. Median age was 71·1 (i.q.r. 59·6–81·0) years and the overall 90-day mortality rate was 30·8 per cent (1258 of 4086). Independent risk factors for reintervention were: male sex (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1·46, 95 per cent c.i. 1·20 to 1·78), in-hospital perforation (adjusted HR 1·36, 1·11 to 1·68), high BMI (adjusted HR 1·49, 1·10 to 2·01), high ASA physical status grade (adjusted HR 1·54, 1·23 to 1·94), shock on admission (adjusted HR 1·40, 1·13 to 1·74), surgical delay (adjusted HR 1·07, 1·02 to 1·14) and other co-morbidity (adjusted HR 1·24, 1·02 to 1·51). Preadmission use of steroids (adjusted HR 0·59, 0·41 to 0·84) and age above 70 years (adjusted HR 0·72, 0·59 to 0·89) were associated with a reduced risk of reoperation.

Conclusion

Obese men with coexisting diseases and high disease severity who have surgery for gastroduodenal perforation are at increased risk of reoperation.

Perforated peptic ulcer

Perforated peptic ulcer is a common emergency condition worldwide, with associated mortality rates of up to 30%. A scarcity of high-quality studies about the condition limits the knowledge base for clinical decision making, but a few published randomised trials are available. Although Helicobacter pylori and use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are common causes, demographic differences in age, sex, perforation location, and underlying causes exist between countries, and mortality rates also vary. Clinical prediction rules are used, but accuracy varies with study population. Early surgery, either by laparoscopic or open repair, and proper sepsis management are essential for good outcome. Selected patients can be managed non-operatively or with novel endoscopic approaches, but validation of such methods in trials is needed. Quality of care, sepsis care bundles, and postoperative monitoring need further assessment. Adequate trials with low risk of bias are urgently needed to provide better evidence. We summarise the evidence for perforated peptic ulcer management and identify directions for future clinical research.

Randomized multicentre feasibility trial of intermediate care versus standard ward care after emergency abdominal surgery (InCare trial)

Background

Emergency abdominal surgery carries a considerable risk of death and postoperative complications. Early detection and timely management of complications may reduce mortality. The aim was to evaluate the effect and feasibility of intermediate care compared with standard ward care in patients who had emergency abdominal surgery.

Methods

This was a randomized clinical trial carried out in seven Danish hospitals. Eligible for inclusion were patients with an Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score of at least 10 who were ready to be transferred to the surgical ward within 24 h of emergency abdominal surgery. Participants were randomized to either intermediate care or standard surgical ward care after surgery. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality.

Results

In total, 286 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The trial was terminated after the interim analysis owing to slow recruitment and a lower than expected mortality rate. Eleven (7·6 per cent) of 144 patients assigned to intermediate care and 12 (8·5 per cent) of 142 patients assigned to ward care died within 30 days of surgery (odds ratio 0·91, 95 per cent c.i. 0·38 to 2·16; P = 0·828). Thirty (20·8 per cent) of 144 patients assigned to intermediate care and 37 (26·1 per cent) of 142 assigned to ward care died within the total observation period (hazard ratio 0·78, 95 per cent c.i. 0·48 to 1·26; P = 0·310).

Conclusion

Postoperative intermediate care had no statistically significant effect on 30-day mortality after emergency abdominal surgery, nor any effect on secondary outcomes. The trial was stopped prematurely owing to slow recruitment and a much lower than expected mortality rate among the enrolled patients. Registration number: NCT01209663 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Surgical complications after open and laparoscopic surgery for perforated peptic ulcer in a nationwide cohort

BACKGROUND

Surgery for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) is associated with a risk of complications. The frequency and severity of reoperative surgery is poorly described. The aims of the present study were to characterize the frequency, procedure-associated risk and mortality associated with reoperation after surgery for PPU.

METHODS

All patients treated surgically for PPU in Denmark between 2011 and 2013 were included. Baseline and clinical data, including 90-day mortality and detailed information on reoperative surgery, were collected from the Danish Clinical Register of Emergency Surgery. Distribution frequencies of reoperation stratified by type of surgical approach (laparoscopy or open) were reported. The crude and adjusted risk associations between surgical approach and reoperation were assessed by regression analysis and reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95 per cent c.i. Sensitivity analyses were carried out.

RESULTS

A total of 726 patients were included, of whom 238 (32·8 per cent) were treated laparoscopically and 178 (24·5 per cent) had a laparoscopic procedure converted to laparotomy. Overall, 124 (17·1 per cent) of 726 patients underwent reoperation. A persistent leak was the most frequent cause (43 patients, 5·9 per cent), followed by wound dehiscence (34, 4·7 per cent). The crude risk of reoperative surgery was higher in patients who underwent laparotomy and those with procedures converted to open surgery than in patients who had laparoscopic repair: OR 1·98 (95 per cent c.i. 1·19 to 3·27) and 2·36 (1·37 to 4·08) respectively. The difference was confirmed when adjusted for age, surgical delay, co-morbidity and American Society of Anesthesiologists fitness grade. However, the intention-to-treat sensitivity analysis (laparoscopy including conversions) demonstrated no significant difference in risk. The risk of death within 90 days was greater in patients who had reoperation: crude and adjusted OR 1·53 (1·00 to 2·34) and 1·06 (0·65 to 1·72) respectively.

CONCLUSION

Reoperation was necessary in almost one in every five patients operated on for PPU. Laparoscopy was associated with lower risk of reoperation than laparotomy or a converted procedure. However, there was a risk of bias, including confounding by indication.

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.).

Influence of body mass index on mortality after surgery for perforated peptic ulcer

BACKGROUND

Body mass index (BMI) is a strong predictor of mortality in the general population. In spite of the medical hazards of obesity, a protective effect on mortality has been suggested in surgical patients: the obesity paradox. The aim of the present nationwide cohort study was to examine the association between BMI and mortality in patients treated surgically for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU).

METHODS

This was a national prospective cohort study of all Danish patients treated surgically for PPU between 1 February 2003 and 31 August 2009, for whom BMI was registered. Non-surgically treated patients and those with malignant ulcers were excluded. The primary outcome measure was 90-day mortality. The association between BMI and mortality was calculated as crude and adjusted relative risks (RRs) with 95 per cent confidence intervals (c.i.).

RESULTS

Of 2668 patients who underwent surgical treatment for PPU, 1699 (63.7 per cent) had BMI recorded. Median age was 69.4 (range 17.6-100.9) years and 53.7 per cent of the patients were women. Some 1126 patients (66.3 per cent) had at least one of six co-morbid diseases; 728 (42.8 per cent) had an American Society of Anesthesiologists grade of III or more. A total of 471 patients (27.7 per cent) died within 90 days of surgery. Being underweight was associated with a more than twofold increased risk of death following surgery for PPU (adjusted RR 2.26, 95 per cent c.i. 1.37 to 3.71). No statistically significant association was found between obesity and mortality.

CONCLUSION

Being underweight was associated with increased mortality in patients with PPU, whereas being overweight or obese was neither protective nor an adverse prognostic factor.

Mortality and postoperative care pathways after emergency gastrointestinal surgery in 2904 patients: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Emergency major gastrointestinal (GI) surgery carries a considerable risk of mortality and postoperative complications. Effective management of complications and appropriate organization of postoperative care may improve outcome. The importance of the latter is poorly described in emergency GI surgical patients. We aimed to present mortality data and evaluate the postoperative care pathways used after emergency GI surgery.

METHODS

A population-based cohort study with prospectively collected data from six Capital Region hospitals in Denmark. We included 2904 patients undergoing major GI laparotomy or laparoscopy surgery between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2010. The primary outcome measure was 30 day mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 538 patients [18.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 17.1-19.9] died within 30 days of surgery. In all, 84.2% of the patients were treated after operation in the standard ward, with a 30 day mortality of 14.3%, and 4.8% were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) after a median stay of 2 days (inter-quartile range: 1-6). When compared with 'admission to standard ward', 'admission to standard ward before ICU admission' and 'ICU admission after surgery' were independently associated with 30 day mortality; odds ratio 5.45 (95% CI: 3.48-8.56) and 3.27 (95% CI: 2.45-4.36), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Mortality in emergency major GI surgical patients remains high. Failure to allocate patients to the appropriate level of care immediately after surgery may contribute to the high postoperative mortality. Future research should focus on improving risk stratification and evaluating the effect of different postoperative care pathways in emergency GI surgery.

Surgical delay is a critical determinant of survival in perforated peptic ulcer

Background

Morbidity and mortality following perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) remain substantial. Surgical delay is a well established negative prognostic factor, but evidence derives from studies with a high risk of bias. The aim of the present nationwide cohort study was to evaluate the adjusted effect of hourly surgical delay on survival after PPU.

Methods

This was a cohort study including all Danish patients treated surgically for PPU between 1 February 2003 and 31 August 2009. Medically treated patients and those with a malignant ulcer were excluded. The associations between surgical delay and 30-day survival are presented as crude and adjusted relative risks (RRs) with 95 per cent confidence intervals (c.i.).

Results

A total of 2668 patients were included. Their median age was 70·9 (range 16·2–104·2) years and 55·4 per cent (1478 of 2668) were female. Some 67·5 per cent of the patients (1800 of 2668) had at least one of six co-morbid diseases and 45·6 per cent had an American Society of Anesthesiologists fitness grade of III or more. A total of 708 patients (26·5 per cent) died within 30 days of surgery. Every hour of delay from admission to surgery was associated with an adjusted 2·4 per cent decreased probability of survival compared with the previous hour (adjusted RR 1·024, 95 per cent c.i. 1·011 to 1·037).

Conclusion

Limiting surgical delay in patients with PPU seems of paramount importance.

Quality-of-care initiative in patients treated surgically for perforated peptic ulcer

BACKGROUND

Mortality and morbidity are considerable after treatment for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). Since 2003, a Danish nationwide quality-of-care (QOC) improvement initiative has focused on reducing preoperative delay, and improving perioperative monitoring and care for patients with PPU. The present study reports the results of this initiative.

METHODS

This was a nationwide cohort study based on prospectively collected data, involving all hospitals caring for patients with PPU in Denmark. Details of patients treated surgically for PPU between September 2004 and August 2011 were reported to the Danish Clinical Register of Emergency Surgery. Changes in baseline patient characteristics and in seven QOC indicators are presented, including relative risks (RRs) for achievement of the indicators.

RESULTS

The study included 2989 patients. An increasing number fulfilled the following four QOC indicators in 2010-2011 compared with the first 2 years of monitoring: preoperative delay no more than 6 h (59·0 versus 54·0 per cent; P = 0·030), daily monitoring of bodyweight (48·0 versus 29·0 per cent; P < 0·001), daily monitoring of fluid balance (79·0 versus 74·0 per cent; P = 0·010) and daily monitoring of vital signs (80·0 versus 68·0 per cent; P < 0·001). A lower proportion of patients had discontinuation of routine prophylactic antibiotics (82·0 versus 90·0 per cent; P < 0·001). Adjusted 30-day mortality decreased non-significantly from 2005-2006 to 2010-2011 (adjusted RR 0·87, 95 per cent confidence interval 0·76 to 1·00), whereas the rate of reoperative surgery remained unchanged (adjusted RR 0·98, 0·78 to 1·23).

CONCLUSION

This nationwide quality improvement initiative was associated with reduced preoperative delay and improved perioperative monitoring in patients with PPU. A non-significant improvement was seen in 30-day mortality.