Explore the vast range of titles available.

IntroductionCryopreservation at −80°C in dimethylsulphoxide extends platelet shelf-life from 7 days to 2 years. Only limited comparative trial data supports the safety and effectiveness of cryopreserved platelets as a treatment for surgical bleeding. Cryopreserved platelets are not currently registered for civilian use in most countries.Methods and analysisCLIP-II and CLIPNZ-II are harmonised, blinded, multicentre, randomised, controlled clinical non-inferiority trials comparing bleeding, transfusion, safety and cost outcomes associated with cryopreserved platelets versus conventional liquid platelets as treatment for bleeding in cardiac surgery. CLIP-II is planning to enrol patients in 12 tertiary hospitals in Australia; CLIPNZ-II will recruit in five tertiary hospitals in New Zealand. The trials use near-identical protocols aside from details of cryopreserved platelet preparation. Patients identified preoperatively as being at high risk of requiring a platelet transfusion receive up to three units of study platelets if their treating doctor considers platelet transfusion is indicated. The primary endpoint is blood loss through the surgical drains in the 24 hours following intensive care unit (ICU) admission after surgery. Other endpoints are blood loss at other time points, potential complications, adverse reactions, transfusion and fluid requirement, requirement for procoagulant treatments, time to commencement of postoperative anticoagulants, delay between platelet order and commencement of infusion, need for reoperation, laboratory and point-of-care clotting indices, cost, length of mechanical ventilation, ICU and hospital stay, and mortality. Transfusing 202 (CLIP-II) or 228 (CLIPNZ-II) patients with study platelets will provide 90% power to exclude the possibility of greater than 20% inferiority in the primary endpoint. If cryopreserved platelets are not inferior to liquid-stored platelets, the advantages of longer shelf-life would justify rapid change in clinical practice. Cost-effectiveness analyses will be incorporated into each study such that, should clinical non-inferiority compared with standard care be demonstrated, the hospitals in each country that would benefit most from changing to a cryopreserved platelet blood bank will be known.Ethics and disseminationCLIP-II was approved by the Austin Health Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/54406/Austin-2019) and by the Australian Red Cross Lifeblood Ethics Committee (2019#23). CLIPNZ-II was approved by the New Zealand Southern Health and Disability Ethics Committee (21/STH/66). Eligible patients are approached for informed consent at least 1 day prior to surgery. There is no provision for consent provided by a substitute decision-maker. The results of the two trials will be submitted separately for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numbersNCT03991481 and ACTRN12621000271808.

This randomized, double-blind trial involving critically ill patients compared balanced multielectrolyte solution with saline as fluid therapy in the ICU. There was no evidence that the risk of death or acute kidney injury was lower with the use of BMES than with saline.

Background In the critically ill, energy delivery from enteral nutrition (EN) is often less than the estimated energy requirement. Parenteral nutrition (PN) as a supplement to EN may increase energy delivery. We aimed to determine if an individually titrated supplemental PN strategy commenced 48–72 hours following ICU admission and continued for up to 7 days would increase energy delivery to critically ill adults compared to usual care EN delivery. Methods This study was a prospective, parallel group, phase II pilot trial conducted in six intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand. Mechanically ventilated adults with at least one organ failure and EN delivery below 80% of estimated energy requirement in the previous 24 hours received either a supplemental PN strategy (intervention group) or usual care EN delivery. EN in the usual care group could be supplemented with PN if EN remained insufficient after usual methods to optimise delivery were attempted. Results There were 100 patients included in the study and 99 analysed. Overall, 71% of the study population were male, with a mean (SD) age of 59 (17) years, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 18.2 (6.7) and body mass index of 29.6 (5.8) kg/m 2 . Significantly greater energy (mean (SD) 1712 (511) calories vs. 1130 (601) calories, p  < 0.0001) and proportion of estimated energy requirement (mean (SD) 83 (25) % vs. 53 (29) %, p  < 0.0001) from EN and/or PN was delivered to the intervention group compared to usual care. Delivery of protein and proportion of estimated protein requirements were also greater in the intervention group (mean (SD) 86 (25) g, 86 (23) %) compared to usual care (mean (SD) 53 (29) g, 51 (25) %, p  < 0.0001). Antibiotic use, ICU and hospital length of stay, mortality and functional outcomes were similar between the two groups. Conclusions This individually titrated supplemental PN strategy applied over 7 days significantly increased energy delivery when compared to usual care delivery. Clinical and functional outcomes were similar between the two patient groups. Trial registration Clinical Trial registry details: NCT01847534 (First registered 22 April 2013, last updated 31 July 2016)

Background Nutrition is one of the fundamentals of care provided to critically ill adults. The volume of enteral nutrition received, however, is often much less than prescribed due to multiple functional and process issues. To deliver the prescribed volume and correct the energy deficit associated with enteral nutrition alone, parenteral nutrition can be used in combination (termed “supplemental parenteral nutrition”), but benefits of this method have not been firmly established. A multi-centre, randomised, clinical trial is currently underway to determine if prescribed energy requirements can be provided to critically ill patients by using a supplemental parenteral nutrition strategy in the critically ill. Methods/design This prospective, multi-centre, randomised, stratified, parallel-group, controlled, phase II trial aims to determine whether a supplemental parenteral nutrition strategy will reliably and safely increase energy intake when compared to usual care. The study will be conducted for 100 critically ill adults with at least one organ system failure and evidence of insufficient enteral intake from six intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand. Enrolled patients will be allocated to either a supplemental parenteral nutrition strategy for 7 days post randomisation or to usual care with enteral nutrition. The primary outcome will be the average energy amount delivered from nutrition therapy over the first 7 days of the study period. Secondary outcomes include protein delivery for 7 days post randomisation; total energy and protein delivery, antibiotic use and organ failure rates (up to 28 days); duration of ventilation, length of intensive care unit and hospital stay. At both intensive care unit and hospital discharge strength and health-related quality of life assessments will be undertaken. Study participants will be followed up for health-related quality of life, resource utilisation and survival at 90 and 180 days post randomisation (unless death occurs first). Discussion This trial aims to determine if provision of a supplemental parenteral nutrition strategy to critically ill adults will increase energy intake compared to usual care in Australia and New Zealand. Trial outcomes will guide development of a subsequent larger randomised controlled trial. Trial registration NCT01847534 (First registered 5 February 2013, last updated 14 October 2015)