Effects of IV fluid restriction according to site-specific intensity of standard fluid treatment-protocol

BACKGROUND

Variation in usual practice in fluid trials assessing lower versus higher volumes may affect overall comparisons. To address this, we will evaluate the effects of heterogeneity in treatment intensity in the Conservative versus Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy of Septic Shock in Intensive Care trial. This will reflect the effects of differences in site-specific intensities of standard fluid treatment due to local practice preferences while considering participant characteristics.

METHODS

We will assess the effects of heterogeneity in treatment intensity across one primary (all-cause mortality) and three secondary outcomes (serious adverse events or reactions, days alive without life support and days alive out of hospital) after 90 days. We will classify sites based on the site-specific intensity of standard fluid treatment, defined as the mean differences in observed versus predicted intravenous fluid volumes in the first 24 h in the standard-fluid group while accounting for differences in participant characteristics. Predictions will be made using a machine learning model including 22 baseline predictors using the extreme gradient boosting algorithm. Subsequently, sites will be grouped into fluid treatment intensity subgroups containing at least 100 participants each. Subgroups differences will be assessed using hierarchical Bayesian regression models with weakly informative priors. We will present the full posterior distributions of relative (risk ratios and ratios of means) and absolute differences (risk differences and mean differences) in each subgroup.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide data on the effects of heterogeneity in treatment intensity while accounting for patient characteristics in critically ill adult patients with septic shock.

REGISTRATIONS

The European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT): 2018-000404-42, ClinicalTrials. gov: NCT03668236.

Albumin use in patients with septic shock-Post-hoc analyses of an international randomised fluid trial

BACKGROUND

Albumin administration is suggested in patients with sepsis and septic shock who have received large volumes of crystalloids. Given lack of firm evidence, clinical practice variation may exist. To address this, we investigated if patient characteristics or trial site were associated with albumin use in septic shock.

METHODS

We conducted a post-hoc study of the CLASSIC international, randomised clinical trial of fluid volumes in septic shock. Associations between selected baseline variables and trial site with albumin use during ICU stay were assessed in Cox models considering death, ICU discharge, and loss-to-follow-up as competing events. Baseline variables were first assessed individually, adjusted for treatment allocation (restrictive vs. standard IV fluid), and then adjusted for allocation and the other baseline variables. Site was assessed in a model adjusted for allocation and baseline variables.

RESULTS

We analysed 1541 of 1554 patients randomised in CLASSIC (99.2%). During ICU stay, 36.3% of patients in the restrictive-fluid group and 52.6% in the standard-fluid group received albumin. Gastrointestinal focus of infection and higher doses of norepinephrine were most strongly associated with albumin use (subgroup with highest quartile of norepinephrine doses, hazard ratio (HR) 2.58, 95% CI 1.89 to 3.53). HRs for associations between site and albumin use ranged from 0.11 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.26) to 1.70 (95% CI 1.06 to 2.74); test for overall effect of site: p < .001.

CONCLUSIONS

In adults with septic shock, gastrointestinal focus of infection and higher doses of norepinephrine at baseline were associated with albumin use, which also varied substantially between sites.

Restrictive versus standard IV fluid therapy in adult ICU patients with septic shock-Bayesian analyses of the CLASSIC trial

BACKGROUND

The CLASSIC trial assessed the effects of restrictive versus standard intravenous (IV) fluid therapy in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock. This pre-planned study provides a probabilistic interpretation and evaluates heterogeneity in treatment effects (HTE).

METHODS

We analysed mortality, serious adverse events (SAEs), serious adverse reactions (SARs) and days alive without life-support within 90 days using Bayesian models with weakly informative priors. HTE on mortality was assessed according to five baseline variables: disease severity, vasopressor dose, lactate levels, creatinine values and IV fluid volumes given before randomisation.

RESULTS

The absolute difference in mortality was 0.2%-points (95% credible interval: -5.0 to 5.4; 47% posterior probability of benefit [risk difference <0.0%-points]) with restrictive IV fluid. The posterior probabilities of benefits with restrictive IV fluid were 72% for SAEs, 52% for SARs and 61% for days alive without life-support. The posterior probabilities of no clinically important differences (absolute risk difference ≤2%-points) between the groups were 56% for mortality, 49% for SAEs, 90% for SARs and 38% for days alive without life-support. There was 97% probability of HTE for previous IV fluid volumes analysed continuously, that is, potentially relatively lower mortality of restrictive IV fluids with higher previous IV fluids. No substantial evidence of HTE was found in the other analyses.

CONCLUSION

We could not rule out clinically important effects of restrictive IV fluid therapy on mortality, SAEs or days alive without life-support, but substantial effects on SARs were unlikely. IV fluids given before randomisation might interact with IV fluid strategy.

Albumin administration in septic shock-Protocol for post-hoc analyses of data from a multicentre RCT

BACKGROUND

Intravenous (IV) albumin is suggested for patients with septic shock who have received large amounts of IV crystalloids; a conditional recommendation based on moderate certainty of evidence. Clinical variation in the administration of IV albumin in septic shock may exist according to patient characteristics and location.

METHODS

This is a protocol and statistical analysis plan for a post-hoc secondary study of the Conservative versus Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy of Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC) RCT of 1554 adult ICU patients with septic shock. We will assess if specific baseline characteristics or trial site are associated with the administration of IV albumin during ICU stay using Cox models with competing events. All models will be adjusted for the treatment allocation in CLASSIC (restrictive vs. standard IV fluid), and all analyses will consider competing events (death, ICU discharge and loss-to-follow-up). We will present results as hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals and p-values for the associations of baseline characteristics or site with IV albumin administration. Between-group differences (interactions) will be assessed using p-values from likelihood ratio tests. All results will be considered exploratory only.

DISCUSSION

This secondary study of the CLASSIC RCT may yield important insight into potential practice variation in the administration of albumin in septic shock.

Long-term effects of restriction of intravenous fluid in adult ICU patients with septic shock

PURPOSE

To assess long-term outcomes of restrictive versus standard intravenous (IV) fluid therapy in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock included in the European Conservative versus Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy in Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial.

METHODS

We conducted the pre-planned analyses of mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using EuroQol (EQ)-5D-5L index values and EQ visual analogue scale (VAS), and cognitive function using Mini Montreal Cognitive Assessment (Mini MoCA) test at 1 year. Deceased patients were assigned numerical zero for HRQoL as a state equal to death and zero for cognitive function outcomes as worst possible score, and we used multiple imputation for missing data on HRQoL and cognitive function.

RESULTS

Among 1554 randomized patients, we obtained 1-year data on mortality in 97.9% of patients, HRQoL in 91.3%, and cognitive function in 86.3%. One-year mortality was 385/746 (51.3%) in the restrictive-fluid group versus 383/767 (49.9%) in the standard-fluid group, absolute risk difference 1.5%-points [99% confidence interval (CI) - 4.8 to 7.8]. Mean differences were 0.00 (99% CI - 0.06 to 0.05) for EQ-5D-5L index values, - 0.65 for EQ VAS (- 5.40 to 4.08), and - 0.14 for Mini MoCA (- 1.59 to 1.14) for the restrictive-fluid group versus the standard-fluid group. The results for survivors only were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among adult ICU patients with septic shock, restrictive versus standard IV fluid therapy resulted in similar survival, HRQoL, and cognitive function at 1 year, but clinically important differences could not be ruled out.

Low-dose hydrocortisone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia: The COVID STEROID randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Background

In the early phase of the pandemic, some guidelines recommended the use of corticosteroids for critically ill patients with COVID‐19, whereas others recommended against the use despite lack of firm evidence of either benefit or harm. In the COVID STEROID trial, we aimed to assess the effects of low‐dose hydrocortisone on patient‐centred outcomes in adults with COVID‐19 and severe hypoxia.

Methods

In this multicentre, parallel‐group, placebo‐controlled, blinded, centrally randomised, stratified clinical trial, we randomly assigned adults with confirmed COVID‐19 and severe hypoxia (use of mechanical ventilation or supplementary oxygen with a flow of at least 10 L/min) to either hydrocortisone (200 mg/d) vs a matching placebo for 7 days or until hospital discharge. The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support at day 28 after randomisation.

Results

The trial was terminated early when 30 out of 1000 participants had been enrolled because of external evidence indicating benefit from corticosteroids in severe COVID‐19. At day 28, the median number of days alive without life support in the hydrocortisone vs placebo group were 7 vs 10 (adjusted mean difference: −1.1 days, 95% CI −9.5 to 7.3, P = .79); mortality was 6/16 vs 2/14; and the number of serious adverse reactions 1/16 vs 0/14.

Conclusions

In this trial of adults with COVID‐19 and severe hypoxia, we were unable to provide precise estimates of the benefits and harms of hydrocortisone as compared with placebo as only 3% of the planned sample size were enrolled.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04348305. European Union Drug Regulation Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT) Database: 2020‐001395‐15.

Low-dose hydrocortisone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia (COVID STEROID) trial-Protocol and statistical analysis plan

Introduction

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2 has caused a pandemic of coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) with many patients developing hypoxic respiratory failure. Corticosteroids reduce the time on mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit and potentially also mortality in similar patient populations. However, corticosteroids have undesirable effects, including longer time to viral clearance. Clinical equipoise on the use of corticosteroids for COVID‐19 exists.

Methods

The COVID STEROID trial is an international, randomised, stratified, blinded clinical trial. We will allocate 1000 adult patients with COVID‐19 receiving ≥10 L/min of oxygen or on mechanical ventilation to intravenous hydrocortisone 200 mg daily vs placebo (0.9% saline) for 7 days. The primary outcome is days alive without life support (ie mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, and renal replacement therapy) at day 28. Secondary outcomes are serious adverse reactions at day 14; days alive without life support at day 90; days alive and out of hospital at day 90; all‐cause mortality at day 28, day 90, and 1 year; and health‐related quality of life at 1 year. We will conduct the statistical analyses according to this protocol, including interim analyses for every 250 patients followed for 28 days. The primary outcome will be compared using the Kryger Jensen and Lange test in the intention to treat population and reported as differences in means and medians with 95% confidence intervals.

Discussion

The COVID STEROID trial will provide important evidence to guide the use of corticosteroids in COVID‐19 and severe hypoxia.

Lower vs Higher Fluid Volumes During Initial Management of Sepsis: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

OBJECTIVE

IV fluids are recommended during the initial management of sepsis, but the quality of evidence is low, and clinical equipoise exists. We aimed to assess patient-important benefits and harms of lower vs higher fluid volumes in adult patients with sepsis.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) of randomized clinical trials of IV fluid volume separation in adult patients with sepsis. We adhered to our published protocol; the Cochrane handbook; the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation statements. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events (SAEs), and quality of life.

RESULTS

We included nine trials (n = 637); all were published after 2015 and had an overall high risk of bias. We found no statistically significant difference between lower vs higher fluid volumes in all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.69-1.10; I² = 0%; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.34-2.22) or SAEs (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78-1.05; I² = 0%; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.68-1.21). No trials reported on quality of life. We did not find differences in the secondary or exploratory outcomes. The quality of evidence was very low across all outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review, we found very low quantity and quality of evidence supporting the decision on the volumes of IV fluid therapy in adults with sepsis.

TRIAL REGISTRY

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03668236; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

External validation of the Simplified Mortality Score for the Intensive Care Unit (SMS-ICU)

BACKGROUND

The Simplified Mortality Score for the Intensive Care Unit (SMS-ICU) is a clinical prediction model, which estimates the risk of 90-day mortality in acutely ill adult ICU patients using 7 readily available variables. We aimed to externally validate the SMS-ICU and compare its discrimination with existing prediction models used with 90-day mortality as the outcome.

METHODS

We externally validated the SMS-ICU using data from 3282 patients included in the Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in the Intensive Care Unit trial, which randomised acutely ill adult ICU patients with risk factors for gastrointestinal bleeding to prophylactic pantoprazole or placebo in 33 ICUs in Europe. We assessed discrimination, calibration and overall performance of the SMS-ICU and compared discrimination with the commonly used and more complex SAPS II and SOFA scores.

RESULTS

Mortality at day 90 was 30.7%. The discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) for the SMS-ICU was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.65-0.69), as compared with 0.68 (95% CI: 0.66-0.70, P = 0.35) for SAPS II and 0.63 (95% CI: 0.61-0.65, P < 0.001) for the SOFA score. Calibration (intercept and slope) was 0.001 and 0.786, respectively, and Nagelkerke's R² (overall performance) was 0.06. The proportions of missing data for the SMS-ICU, SAPS II and SOFA scores were 0.2%, 8.5% and 6.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Discrimination for 90-day mortality of the SMS-ICU in this cohort was poor, but similar to SAPS II and better than that of the SOFA score with markedly less missing data.

Conservative vs liberal fluid therapy in septic shock (CLASSIC) trial-Protocol and statistical analysis plan

INTRODUCTION

Intravenous (IV) fluid is a key intervention in the management of septic shock. The benefits and harms of lower versus higher fluid volumes are unknown and thus clinical equipoise exists. We describe the protocol and detailed statistical analysis plan for the conservative versus liberal approach to fluid therapy of septic shock in the Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial. The aim of the CLASSIC trial is to assess benefits and harms of IV fluid restriction versus standard care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock.

METHODS

CLASSIC trial is an investigator-initiated, international, randomised, stratified, and analyst-blinded trial. We will allocate 1554 adult patients with septic shock, who are planned to be or are admitted to an ICU, to IV fluid restriction versus standard care. The primary outcome is mortality at day 90. Secondary outcomes are serious adverse events (SAEs), serious adverse reactions (SARs), days alive at day 90 without life support, days alive and out of the hospital at day 90 and mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and cognitive function at 1 year. We will conduct the statistical analyses according to a pre-defined statistical analysis plan, including three interim analyses. For the primary analysis, we will use logistic regression adjusted for the stratification variables comparing the two interventions in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population.

DISCUSSION

The CLASSIC trial results will provide important evidence to guide clinicians' choice regarding the IV fluid therapy in adults with septic shock.

Indications for fluid resuscitation in patients with septic shock: Post-hoc analyses of the CLASSIC trial

BACKGROUND

Fluid resuscitation is recommended in septic shock, but the specific indications for fluids have not been established. Our aim was to investigate the indications currently used for fluid resuscitation and the effect of fluid on these indications in patients with septic shock admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

This was a post-hoc analysis of the CLASSIC trial, where patients with septic shock were randomized to fluid restriction or standard care. We recorded indications for and effect of each fluid bolus during the first 24 hours.

RESULTS

In total, 256 fluid boluses were administered on 515 indications to the 76 patients in the standard care group. The most frequent indications were low blood pressure/increase in noradrenalin dose (199 boluses, 78%), high lactate (94, 37%), and low urinary output (68, 27%). While the analyses of all 418 fluid boluses given in all 151 patients failed to show any effect of fluid on these variables, the data did suggest that time from randomization altered the effect; fluid may have increased urinary output when given early and increased noradrenalin dose when given later. For 56% of the fluid boluses given on the most frequent indications, a second fluid bolus was given on the same indication.

CONCLUSIONS

In ICU patients with septic shock, low blood pressure, high lactate, and low urinary output were the most frequent indications for fluid. The effects of fluids when given on these indications were less clear, but may dependent on the time course of sepsis resuscitation.

Time trends in the reporting of conflicts of interest, funding and affiliation with industry in intensive care research: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Conflict of interest (COI) may compromise, or have the appearance of compromising, a researcher's judgment or integrity in conducting or reporting research. We sought to assess time trends of COI and funding statement reporting in the critical care literature.

METHODS

PubMed was searched by using Medical Subject Headings and the appropriate corresponding keywords: "INTENSIVE CARE UNIT" or "ICU" as a major topic. Four years in a 15-year time period (2001-2016) were arbitrarily chosen and one study month was randomly selected for each study period. Studies published during the selected months were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

Three hundred and seventy-four studies were evaluated, including five reviews (1.3%) and ten randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (2.7%). COI statements were available in 65% of the studies and 8% had declared COI. COI statement rate, declared COI and funding statements increased over time, while the number of authors affiliated with industry and the discordance between the lack of COI statement and affiliation with industry decreased. Declared COI were more frequent in 2011-2016 as compared to 2001-2010 (OR 4.06; 95% CI 1.15-25.79) and in the higher quartile of a journal's impact factor (OR of 16.73; 95% CI 3.28-306.20). Surprisingly, focus of the study, country of the first author and/or endorsement of the study by a trial group were not associated with COI statements.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests COI reporting to have been unintuitive to most investigators and unreliable before ICMJE statements, and that strong incentives are needed to implement adequate reporting of COI.

Simplified Mortality Score for the Intensive Care Unit (SMS-ICU): protocol for the development and validation of a bedside clinical prediction rule

INTRODUCTION

Mortality prediction scores are widely used in intensive care units (ICUs) and in research, but their predictive value deteriorates as scores age. Existing mortality prediction scores are imprecise and complex, which increases the risk of missing data and decreases the applicability bedside in daily clinical practice. We propose the development and validation of a new, simple and updated clinical prediction rule: the Simplified Mortality Score for use in the Intensive Care Unit (SMS-ICU).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

During the first phase of the study, we will develop and internally validate a clinical prediction rule that predicts 90-day mortality on ICU admission. The development sample will comprise 4247 adult critically ill patients acutely admitted to the ICU, enrolled in 5 contemporary high-quality ICU studies/trials. The score will be developed using binary logistic regression analysis with backward stepwise elimination of candidate variables, and subsequently be converted into a point-based clinical prediction rule. The general performance, discrimination and calibration of the score will be evaluated, and the score will be internally validated using bootstrapping. During the second phase of the study, the score will be externally validated in a fully independent sample consisting of 3350 patients included in the ongoing Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in the Intensive Care Unit trial. We will compare the performance of the SMS-ICU to that of existing scores.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

We will use data from patients enrolled in studies/trials already approved by the relevant ethical committees and this study requires no further permissions. The results will be reported in accordance with the Transparent Reporting of multivariate prediction models for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement, and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.

Targeted tissue perfusion versus macrocirculation-guided standard care in patients with septic shock (TARTARE-2S): study protocol and statistical analysis plan for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Septic shock has a 90-day mortality risk of up to 50 %. The hemodynamic targets, including mean arterial pressure (MAP) are not based on robust clinical data. Both severe hypotension and high doses of vasopressors may be harmful. Hence, re-evaluation of hemodynamic targets in septic shock is relevant.

Methods/design

The targeted tissue perfusion versus macrocirculation-guided standard care in patients with septic shock (TARTARE-2S) trial is a prospective, two-parallel-group, randomized, open-label, multicenter trial with assessor-blinded outcome evaluation. We will randomize at least 200 patients with septic shock in four European intensive care units (ICUs) to test whether a tissue perfusion-guided treatment strategy based on capillary refill time, peripheral temperature, arterial lactate concentrations, and accepting lower MAP levels, leads to a faster resolution of shock than macrocirculation target-guided standard care.

The primary outcome measure is days alive in 30 days with normal arterial blood lactate (first value of <2 mmol/L) and without any inotropic or vasopressor agent. Secondary outcomes include individual components of the primary outcome, days alive without renal replacement, days alive without mechanical ventilation in 30 days, and new acute kidney injury. The sample size enables detection of a 13.5-h difference in the primary outcome with a type 1 error of 5 % and power of 80 %, assuming 25 % mortality and a mean of 650 h (SD 30) among the 30-day survivors. After 150 included patients the statistician masked for allocation group will recalculate the sample size potentially increasing the sample up to 300. The Data Safety and Monitoring Board (DSMB) will review the safety data after 100 patients.

Discussion

The TARTARE-2S trial will provide important clinical data on treatment targets in septic shock, evaluating the impact of clinical tissue perfusion-guided hemodynamic treatment on a surrogate outcome combining resolution of shock (hyperlactatemia and vasopressors/inotropes), and 30-day mortality.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02579525. Registered on 19 October 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1515-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Control groups in recent septic shock trials: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The interpretation of septic shock trial data is profoundly affected by patients, control intervention, co-interventions and selected outcome measures. We evaluated the reporting of control groups in recent septic shock trials.

METHODS

We searched for original articles presenting randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in adult septic shock patients from 2006 to 2016. We included RCTs focusing on septic shock patients with at least two parallel groups and at least 50 patients in the control group. We selected and evaluated data items regarding patients, control group characteristics, and mortality outcomes, and calculated a data completeness score to provide an overall view of quality of reporting.

RESULTS

A total of 24 RCTs were included (mean n = 287 patients and 71 % of eligible patients were randomized). Of the 24 studies, 14 (58 %) presented baseline data on vasopressors and 58 % the proportion of patients with elevated lactate values. Five studies (21 %) provided data to estimate the proportion of septic shock patients fulfilling the Sepsis-3 definition. The mean data completeness score was 19 out of 36 (range 8-32). Of 18 predefined control group characteristics, a mean of 8 (range 2-17) were reported. Only 2 (8 %) trials provided adequate data to confirm that their control group treatment represented usual care.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent trials in septic shock provide inadequate data on the control group treatment and hemodynamic values. We propose a standardized trial dataset to be created and validated, comprising characteristics of patient population, interventions administered, hemodynamic values achieved, surrogate organ dysfunction, and mortality outcomes, to allow better analysis and interpretation of future trial results.

Immunoglobulin for necrotising soft tissue infections (INSTINCT): protocol for a randomised trial

INTRODUCTION

Necrotising soft tissue infections (NSTI) are aggressive infections that can result in severe disability or death. Intravenous polyspecific immunoglobulin G (IVIG) is used as supplementary treatment for patients with NSTIs. The level of evidence is very low, but suggests that IVIG may have beneficial effects. However, IVIG may also have adverse effects. With this trial we will estimate the effects of IVIG on a patient-reported outcome and other patient-centred outcomes in patients with NSTI.

METHODS

INSTINCT is a randomised, double-blinded, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial with concealed allocation of patients with NSTI 1:1 to IVIG or an equal volume of 0.9% saline. Patients are recruited at Rigshospitalet, Denmark. The primary outcome is the physical component summary score of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey as assessed six months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes are: mortality; time to resolution of shock; bleeding; sequential organ failure assessment scores on days 1-7; use of renal-replacement therapy, mechanical ventilation and vasopressors; days alive and out of hospital; amputation; and severe adverse reactions.

CONCLUSION

This study will be the only completed trial testing IVIG for NSTI, thereby providing important data on a severely sick patient group.

FUNDING

The trial is supported by CSL Behring in the form of trial medication and a € 92,182 grant for trial conduct, research, nurse salary and statistical analyses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02111161). .

Associations of Hospital and Patient Characteristics with Fluid Resuscitation Volumes in Patients with Severe Sepsis: Post Hoc Analyses of Data from a Multicentre Randomised Clinical Trial

Purpose

Fluid resuscitation is a key intervention in patients with sepsis and circulatory impairment. The recommendations for continued fluid therapy in sepsis are vague, which may result in differences in clinical practice. We aimed to evaluate associations between hospital and patient characteristics and fluid resuscitation volumes in ICU patients with severe sepsis.

Methods

We explored the 6S trial database of ICU patients with severe sepsis needing fluid resuscitation randomised to hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.42 vs. Ringer’s acetate. Our primary outcome measure was fluid resuscitation volume and secondary outcome total fluid input administered from 24 hours before randomisation until the end of day 3 post-randomisation. We performed multivariate analyses with hospital and patient baseline characteristics as covariates to assess associations with fluid volumes given.

Results

We included 654 patients who were in the ICU for 3 days and had fluid volumes available. Individual trial sites administered significantly different volumes of fluid resuscitation and total fluid input after adjusting for baseline variables (P<0.001). Increased lactate, higher cardiovascular and renal SOFA subscores, lower respiratory SOFA subscore and surgery were all independently associated with increased fluid resuscitation volumes.

Conclusions

Hospital characteristics adjusted for patient baseline values were associated with differences in fluid resuscitation volumes given in the first 3 days of severe sepsis. The data indicate variations in clinical practice not explained by patient characteristics emphasizing the need for RCTs assessing fluid resuscitation volumes fluid in patients with sepsis.

Effect of feedback on delaying deterioration in quality of compressions during 2 minutes of continuous chest compressions: a randomized manikin study investigating performance with and without feedback

Background

Good quality basic life support (BLS) improves outcome following cardiac arrest. As BLS performance deteriorates over time we performed a parallel group, superiority study to investigate the effect of feedback on quality of chest compression with the hypothesis that feedback delays deterioration of quality of compressions.

Methods

Participants attending a national one-day conference on cardiac arrest and CPR in Denmark were randomized to perform single-rescuer BLS with (n = 26) or without verbal and visual feedback (n = 28) on a manikin using a ZOLL AED plus. Data were analyzed using Rescuenet Code Review. Blinding of participants was not possible, but allocation concealment was performed. Primary outcome was the proportion of delivered compressions within target depth compared over a 2-minute period within the groups and between the groups. Secondary outcome was the proportion of delivered compressions within target rate compared over a 2-minute period within the groups and between the groups. Performance variables for 30-second intervals were analyzed and compared.

Results

24 (92%) and 23 (82%) had CPR experience in the group with and without feedback respectively. 14 (54%) were CPR instructors in the feedback group and 18 (64%) in the group without feedback. Data from 26 and 28 participants were analyzed respectively. Although median values for proportion of delivered compressions within target depth were higher in the feedback group (0-30 s: 54.0%; 30-60 s: 88.0%; 60-90 s: 72.6%; 90-120 s: 87.0%), no significant difference was found when compared to without feedback (0-30 s: 19.6%; 30-60 s: 33.1%; 60-90 s: 44.5%; 90-120 s: 32.7%) and no significant deteriorations over time were found within the groups. In the feedback group a significant improvement was found in the proportion of delivered compressions below target depth when the subsequent intervals were compared to the first 30 seconds (0-30 s: 3.9%; 30-60 s: 0.0%; 60-90 s: 0.0%; 90-120 s: 0.0%). Significant differences were not found in secondary outcome and in other performance variables between the groups and over time

Conclusions

Quality of CPR was maintained during 2 minutes of continuous compressions regardless of feedback in a group of trained rescuers.