Explore the vast range of titles available.

We aimed to compare the effects of vitamin C, glucocorticoids, vitamin B1, combinations of these drugs, and placebo or usual care on longer-term mortality in adults with sepsis or septic shock. MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO-ICTRP were searched. The final search was carried out on September 3rd, 2021. Multiple reviewers independently selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing very-high-dose vitamin C (≥ 12 g/day), high-dose vitamin C (< 12, ≥ 6 g/day), vitamin C (< 6 g/day), glucocorticoid (< 400 mg/day of hydrocortisone), vitamin B1, combinations of these drugs, and placebo/usual care. We performed random-effects network meta-analysis and, where applicable, a random-effects component network meta-analysis. We used the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis framework to assess the degree of treatment effect certainty. The primary outcome was longer-term mortality (90-days to 1-year). Secondary outcomes were severity of organ dysfunction over 72 h, time to cessation of vasopressor therapy, and length of stay in intensive care unit (ICU). Forty-three RCTs (10,257 patients) were eligible. There were no significant differences in longer-term mortality between treatments and placebo/usual care or between treatments (10 RCTs, 7,096 patients, moderate to very-low-certainty). We did not find any evidence that vitamin C or B1 affect organ dysfunction or ICU length of stay. Adding glucocorticoid to other treatments shortened duration of vasopressor therapy (incremental mean difference, − 29.8 h [95% CI − 44.1 to − 15.5]) and ICU stay (incremental mean difference, − 1.3 days [95% CI − 2.2 to − 0.3]). Metabolic resuscitation with vitamin C, glucocorticoids, vitamin B1, or combinations of these drugs was not significantly associated with a decrease in longer-term mortality.

Background Sodium glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors improve long-term cardiovascular and renal outcomes in individuals with type 2 diabetes. However, the safety of SGLT2 inhibitors in ICU patients with type 2 diabetes is uncertain. We aimed to perform a pilot study to assess the relationship between empagliflozin therapy and biochemical, and clinical outcomes in such patients. Methods We included 18 ICU patients with type 2 diabetes receiving empagliflozin (10 mg daily) and insulin to target glucose range of 10–14 mmol/l according to our liberal glucose control protocol for patients with diabetes (treatment group). Treatment group patients were matched on age, glycated hemoglobin A1c, and ICU duration with 72 ICU patients with type 2 diabetes exposed to the same target glucose range but who did not receive empagliflozin (control group). We compared changes in electrolyte and acid–base parameters, hypoglycemia, ketoacidosis, worsening kidney function, urine culture findings, and hospital mortality between the groups. Results Median (IQR) maximum increase in sodium and chloride levels were 3 (1–10) mmol/l and 3 (2–8) mmol/l in the control group and 9 (3–12) mmol/l and 8 (3–10) mmol/l in the treatment group ( P  = 0.045 for sodium, P  = 0.059 for chloride). We observed no differences in strong ion difference, pH or base excess. Overall, 6% developed hypoglycemia in each group. No patient in the treatment group and one patient in the control group developed ketoacidosis. Worsening kidney function occurred in 18% and 29% of treatment and control group patients, respectively ( P  = 0.54). Urine cultures were positive in 22% of treatment group patients and 13% of control group patients ( P  = 0.28). Overall, 17% of treatment group patients and 19% of control group patients died in hospital ( P  = 0.79). Conclusions In our pilot study of ICU patients with type 2 diabetes, empagliflozin therapy was associated with increases in sodium and chloride levels but was not significantly associated with acid–base changes, hypoglycemia, ketoacidosis, worsening kidney function, bacteriuria, or mortality.

Background Septic shock is associated with decreased vasopressor responsiveness. Experimental data suggest that central alpha2-agonists like dexmedetomidine (DEX) increase vasopressor responsiveness and reduce catecholamine requirements in septic shock. However, DEX may also cause hypotension and bradycardia. Thus, it remains unclear whether DEX is hemodynamically safe or helpful in this setting. Methods In this post hoc subgroup analysis of the Sedation Practice in Intensive Care Evaluation (SPICE III) trial, an international randomized trial comparing early sedation with dexmedetomidine to usual care in critically patients receiving mechanical ventilation, we studied patients with septic shock admitted to two tertiary ICUs in Australia and Switzerland. The primary outcome was vasopressor requirements in the first 48 h after randomization, expressed as noradrenaline equivalent dose (NEq [μg/kg/min] = noradrenaline + adrenaline + vasopressin/0.4). Results Between November 2013 and February 2018, 417 patients were recruited into the SPICE III trial at both sites. Eighty-three patients with septic shock were included in this subgroup analysis. Of these, 44 (53%) received DEX and 39 (47%) usual care. Vasopressor requirements in the first 48 h were similar between the two groups. Median NEq dose was 0.03 [0.01, 0.07] μg/kg/min in the DEX group and 0.04 [0.01, 0.16] μg/kg/min in the usual care group ( p  = 0.17). However, patients in the DEX group had a lower NEq/MAP ratio, indicating lower vasopressor requirements to maintain the target MAP. Moreover, on adjusted multivariable analysis, higher dexmedetomidine dose was associated with a lower NEq/MAP ratio. Conclusions In critically ill patients with septic shock, patients in the DEX group received similar vasopressor doses in the first 48 h compared to the usual care group. On multivariable adjusted analysis, dexmedetomidine appeared to be associated with lower vasopressor requirements to maintain the target MAP. Trial registration The SPICE III trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01728558 ).

Background The Needs Assessment Tool: Progressive Disease-Heart Failure (NAT: PD-HF) is a tool created to assess the needs of people living with heart failure and their informal caregivers to assist delivering care in a more comprehensive way that addresses actual needs that are unmet, and to improve quality of life. In this study, we aimed to (1) Translate the tool into German and culturally adapt it. (2) Assess internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and test–retest reliability of the German NAT: PD-HF. (3) Evaluate whether and how patients and health care personnel understand the tool and its utility. (4) Assess the tool’s face validity, applicability, relevance, and acceptability among health care personnel. Methods Single-center validation study. The tool was translated from English into German using a forward–backward translation. To assess internal consistency, we used Cronbach´s alpha. To assess inter-rater reliability and test–retest reliability, we used Cohen´s kappa, and to assess validity we used face validity. Results The translated tool showed good internal consistency. Raters were in substantial agreement on a majority of the questions, and agreement was almost perfect for all the questions in the test–retest analysis. Face validity was rated high by health care personnel. Conclusion The German NAT: PD-HF is a reliable, valid, and internally consistent tool that is well accepted by both patients and health care personnel. However, it is important to keep in mind that effective use of the tool requires training of health care personnel.

IntroductionVasoplegia is common and associated with a poor prognosis in patients with sepsis and septic shock. Vitamin C therapy in combination with vitamin B1 and glucocorticoid, as well as monotherapy in various doses, has been investigated as a treatment for the vasoplegic state in sepsis, through targeting the inflammatory cascade. However, the combination effect and the relative contribution of each drug have not been well evaluated. Furthermore, the best combination between the three agents is currently unknown. We are planning a systematic review (SR) with network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the different treatments and identify the combination with the most favourable effect on survival.Methods and analysisWe will include all randomised controlled trials comparing any intervention using intravenous vitamin C, vitamin B1 and/or glucocorticoid with another or with placebo in the treatment of sepsis. We are interested in comparing the following active interventions. Very high-dose vitamin C (≥12 g/day), high-dose vitamin C (≥6 g/day), vitamin C (<6 g/day); low-dose glucocorticoid (<400 mg/day of hydrocortisone (or equivalent)), vitamin B1 and combinations of the drugs above. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up within 1 year but 90 days or longer postrandomisation. All relevant studies will be sought through database searches and trial registries. All reference selection and data extraction will be conducted by two independent reviewers. We will conduct a random-effects NMA to synthesise all evidence for each outcome and obtain a comprehensive ranking of all treatments. We will use the surface under the cumulative ranking curve and the mean ranks to rank the various interventions. To differentiate between the effect of combination therapies and the effect of a component, we will employ a component NMA.Ethics and disseminationThis SR does not require ethical approval. We will publish findings from this systematic review in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and present these at scientific conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018103860.

Background In critically ill patients with permissive hyperglycemia, it is uncertain whether exogenous insulin administration suppresses or enhances c-peptide secretion (a marker of pancreatic beta-cell response). We aimed to explore this effect in patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods We prospectively enrolled a cohort of 45 critically ill patients with type 2 diabetes managed according to a liberal glucose protocol (target blood glucose 10–14 mmol/l). We recorded the administration of insulin and oral hypoglycemic agents and measured plasma c-peptide as surrogate marker of endogenous insulin secretion on the first two consecutive days in ICU. Results Overall, 20 (44.4%) patients required insulin to achieve target blood glucose. Insulin-treated patients had higher glycated hemoglobin A1c, more premorbid insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes, and greater blood glucose levels but lower c-peptide levels on admission. Premorbid insulin-requiring diabetes was independently associated with lower admission c-peptide, whereas greater plasma creatinine was independently associated with higher levels. Increases in c-peptide were positively correlated with an increase in blood glucose both in patients who did ( r  = 0.54, P  = 0.01) and did not ( r  = 0.56, P  = 0.004) receive insulin. However, insulin administration was independently associated with a greater increase in c-peptide ( P  = 0.04). This association was not modified by the use of oral insulin secretagogues. Conclusions C-peptide, a marker of beta-cell response, responds to and is influenced by glycemia and renal function in critically ill patients with type 2 diabetes. In addition, in our cohort, exogenous insulin administration was associated with a greater increase in c-peptide in response to hyperglycemia. Trial Registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12615000216516).

Current evidence on COVID-19 prognostic models is inconsistent and clinical applicability remains controversial. We performed a systematic review to summarize and critically appraise the available studies that have developed, assessed and/or validated prognostic models of COVID-19 predicting health outcomes. We searched six bibliographic databases to identify published articles that investigated univariable and multivariable prognostic models predicting adverse outcomes in adult COVID-19 patients, including intensive care unit (ICU) admission, intubation, high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and mortality. We identified and assessed 314 eligible articles from more than 40 countries, with 152 of these studies presenting mortality, 66 progression to severe or critical illness, 35 mortality and ICU admission combined, 17 ICU admission only, while the remaining 44 studies reported prediction models for mechanical ventilation (MV) or a combination of multiple outcomes. The sample size of included studies varied from 11 to 7,704,171 participants, with a mean age ranging from 18 to 93 years. There were 353 prognostic models investigated, with area under the curve (AUC) ranging from 0.44 to 0.99. A great proportion of studies (61.5%, 193 out of 314) performed internal or external validation or replication. In 312 (99.4%) studies, prognostic models were reported to be at high risk of bias due to uncertainties and challenges surrounding methodological rigor, sampling, handling of missing data, failure to deal with overfitting and heterogeneous definitions of COVID-19 and severity outcomes. While several clinical prognostic models for COVID-19 have been described in the literature, they are limited in generalizability and/or applicability due to deficiencies in addressing fundamental statistical and methodological concerns. Future large, multi-centric and well-designed prognostic prospective studies are needed to clarify remaining uncertainties.

PurposeRecombinant erythropoietin (EPO) administered for traumatic brain injury (TBI) may increase short-term survival, but the long-term effect is unknown.MethodsWe conducted a pre-planned long-term follow-up of patients in the multicentre erythropoietin in TBI trial (2010–2015). We invited survivors to follow-up and evaluated survival and functional outcome with the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE) (categories 5–8 = good outcome), and secondly, with good outcome determined relative to baseline function (sliding scale). We used survival analysis to assess time to death and absolute risk differences (ARD) to assess favorable outcomes. We categorized TBI severity with the International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in TBI model. Heterogeneity of treatment effects were assessed with interaction p-values based on the following a priori defined subgroups, the severity of TBI, and the presence of an intracranial mass lesion and multi-trauma in addition to TBI.ResultsOf 603 patients in the original trial, 487 patients had survival data; 356 were included in the follow-up at a median of 6 years from injury. There was no difference between treatment groups for patient survival [EPO vs placebo hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 (0.47–1.14) p = 0.17]. Good outcome rates were 110/175 (63%) in the EPO group vs 100/181 (55%) in the placebo group (ARD 8%, 95% CI - 3 to 18%, p = 0.14). When good outcome was determined relative to baseline risk, the EPO groups had better GOSE (sliding scale ARD 12%, 95% CI 2–22%, p = 0.02). When considering long-term patient survival, there was no evidence for heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) according to severity of TBI (p = 0.85), presence of an intracranial mass lesion (p = 0.48), or whether the patient had multi-trauma in addition to TBI (p = 0.08). Similarly, no evidence of treatment heterogeneity was seen for the effect of EPO on functional outcome.ConclusionEPO neither decreased overall long-term mortality nor improved functional outcome in moderate or severe TBI patients treated in the intensive care unit (ICU). The limited sample size makes it difficult to make final conclusions about the use of EPO in TBI.

To develop and validate an electronic poor outcome screening (ePOS) score to identify critically ill patients with potentially unmet palliative care (PC) needs at 48 hours after ICU admission. Retrospective single-centre cohort study of 1’772 critically ill adult patients admitted to a tertiary academic ICU in Switzerland between 2017 and 2018. We used data available from electronic health records (EHR) in the first 48 hours and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) logistic regression to develop a prediction model and generate a score to predict the risk of all cause 6-month mortality. Within 6 months of the ICU admission, 598 patients (33.7%) had died. At a cut-off of 20 points, the ePOS score (range 0-46 points) had a sensitivity of 0.81 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.84) and a specificity of 0.51 (0.48 to 0.54) for predicting 6-month mortality and showed good discriminatory performance (AUROC 0.72, 0.67 to 0.77). The ePOS score can easily be implemented in EHR and can be used for automated screening and stratification of ICU patients, pinpointing those in whom a comprehensive PC assessment should be performed. However, it should not replace clinical judgement. •The ePOS score identifies ICU patients at high risk of 6-month mortality.•Such patients may benefit from an early palliative care assessment.•ePOS is based on modified palliative care triggers available in the first 48 hours.•It can be implemented in electronic health records for automated screening.