Search

Objectives Democracy-based medicine is a combination of evidence-based medicine (systematic review), expert assessment, and worldwide voting by physicians to express their opinions and self-reported practice via the Internet. The authors applied democracy-based medicine to key trials in critical care medicine. Design and Setting A systematic review of literature followed by web-based voting on findings of a consensus conference. Participants A total of 555 clinicians from 61 countries. Interventions The authors performed a systematic literature review (via searching MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Embase) and selected all multicenter randomized clinical trials in critical care that reported a significant effect on survival and were endorsed by expert clinicians. Then they solicited voting and self-reported practice on such evidence via an interactive Internet questionnaire. Relationships among trial sample size, design, and respondents’ agreement were investigated. The gap between agreement and use/avoidance and the influence of country origin on physicians’ approach to interventions also were investigated. Measurements and Main Results According to 24 multicenter randomized controlled trials, 15 interventions affecting mortality were identified. Wide variabilities in both the level of agreement and reported practice among different interventions and countries were found. Moreover, agreement and reported practice often did not coincide. Finally, a positive correlation among agreement, trial sample size, and number of included centers was found. On the contrary, trial design did not influence clinicians’ agreement. Conclusions Physicians’ clinical practice and agreement with the literature vary among different interventions and countries. The role of these interventions in affecting survival should be further investigated to reduce both the gap between evidence and clinical practice and transnational differences.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify all treatments that affect mortality in adult critically ill patients in multicenter randomized controlled trials. We also evaluated the methodological aspects of these studies, and we surveyed clinicians' opinion and usual practice for the selected interventions.DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were searched. Further articles were suggested for inclusion from experts and cross-check of references.STUDY SELECTION: We selected the articles that fulfilled the following criteria: publication in a peer-reviewed journal; multicenter randomized controlled trial design; dealing with nonsurgical interventions in adult critically ill patients; and statistically significant effect in unadjusted landmark mortality. A consensus conference assessed all interventions and excluded those with lack of reproducibility, lack of generalizability, high probability of type I error, major baseline imbalances between intervention and control groups, major design flaws, contradiction by subsequent larger higher quality trials, modified intention to treat analysis, effect found only after adjustments, and lack of biological plausibility.DATA EXTRACTION: For all selected studies, we recorded the intervention and its comparator, the setting, the sample size, whether enrollment was completed or interrupted, the presence of blinding, the effect size, and the duration of follow-up.DATA SYNTHESIS: We found 15 interventions that affected mortality in 24 multicenter randomized controlled trials. Median sample size was small (199 patients) as was median centers number (10). Blinded trials enrolled significantly more patients and involved more centers. Multicenter randomized controlled trials showing harm also involved significantly more centers and more patients (p = 0.016 and p = 0.04, respectively). Five hundred fifty-five clinicians from 61 countries showed variable agreement on perceived validity of such interventions.CONCLUSIONS: We identified 15 treatments that decreased/increased mortality in critically ill patients in 24 multicenter randomized controlled trials. However, design affected trial size and larger trials were more likely to show harm. Finally, clinicians view of such trials and their translation into practice varied.

Standard inotropic treatment is often necessary in end-stage heart failure but may be harmful. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to investigate the effect of repeated administration of levosimendan on survival in patients with chronic heart failure. Four investigators independently searched in CENTRAL, Google Scholar MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials to identify any randomized study ever performed with intermittent levosimendan intravenous administration in adult patients with chronic heart failure with no restrictions on dose or time of administration. Data from a total of 326 patients from six randomized controlled studies using intermittent levosimendan in a cardiological setting were included in the analysis. Levosimendan was associated with a significant reduction in mortality at the longest follow-up available [32 of 168 (19 %) in the levosimendan group 46 of 133 (35 %) in the control arm, RR = 0.55 (95 % CI 0.37-0.84), p for effect = 0 0.005, p for heterogeneity = 0.3, I (2) = 23.4 %, NNT = 6 with 5 studies included]. Brain natriuretic peptide values, ejection fraction and number of patients with New York Heart Association a parts per thousand yenIII status were similar in survivors of both groups. A large randomized trial is necessary to confirm the promising beneficial effects of intermittent levosimendan administration on the mid-term survival of patients with chronic heart failure.

Objective The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the cardioprotective properties of isoflurane versus any comparator in terms of the rate of myocardial infarction and all-cause mortality. Design Pertinent studies were searched independently in Biomed, Central, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials. The primary endpoint was mortality at the longest follow-up available. Setting A hospital. Participants Randomized controlled trials. Intervention A meta-analysis of 37 trials. Measurements and Main Results The 37 included trials randomized 3,539 patients in cardiac (16 studies) and in noncardiac surgery (21 studies) with noninhalation comparators in 55% of trials. The overall analysis showed no difference in mortality between the isoflurane and control groups (16/1,602 [1.0%] v 23/1,937 [1.2%], odds ratios (OR) = 0.76 [0.39-1.47], p = 0.4 with 37 studies included) and no difference in the rate of myocardial infarction (3/1,312 [0.2%] v 1/1,532 [0.07%], OR = 2.03 [0.27-15.49], p = 0.5 with 30 studies included). Mortality was reduced in the isoflurane group when only studies with a low risk of bias were included in the analyses (0/540 [0%] v 5/703 [0.7%] in the control arm, OR = 0.13 [0.02-0.76], p = 0.02) with 4 cardiac and 6 noncardiac trials included and 5 noninhalation and 5 inhalation agents as the comparator. A trend was noted when a subanalysis was performed with propofol as a comparator (1/544 [0.2%] v 6/546 [1.1%], p = 0.05, with 16 studies included). Conclusions Isoflurane reduced mortality in high-quality studies and showed a trend toward a reduction in mortality when it was compared with propofol. No differences in the rates of overall mortality and myocardial infarction were noted.

Background Inotropes and vasopressors are frequently administered to critically ill patients in order to improve haemodynamic function and restore adequate organ perfusion. However, some studies have suggested a possible association between inotrope administration and increased mortality. We therefore performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials published in the last 20 yr to investigate the effect of these drugs on mortality. Methods BioMedCentral, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register were searched (all updated April 8th, 2015). Inclusion criteria were: random allocation to treatment, at least one group receiving an inotropic or vasopressor drug compared with at least one group receiving a non-inotropic/vasopressor treatment, study published after 1st January 1994, and systemic drug administration. Exclusion criteria were overlapping populations, studies published as abstract only, crossover studies, paediatric studies and lack of data on mortality. Results A total of 28 280 patients from 177 trials were included. Overall, pooled estimates showed no difference in mortality between the group receiving inotropes/vasopressors and the control group [4255/14 036 (31.7%) vs 4277/14 244 (31.8%), risk ratio=0.98 (0.96–1.01), P for effect=0.23, P for heterogeneity=0.30, I2=6%]. A reduction in mortality was associated with inotrope/vasopressor therapy use in settings of vasoplegic syndromes, sepsis and cardiac surgery. Levosimendan was the only drug associated with improvement in survival. Subgroup analysis did not identify any groups with increased mortality associated with inotrope/vasopressor therapy. Conclusions Our systematic review found that inotrope/vasopressor therapy is not associated with differences in mortality in the overall population and in the majority of subsettings.

INTRODUCTION: Hypotensive state is frequently observed in several critical conditions. If an adequate mean arterial pressure is not promptly restored, insufficient tissue perfusion and organ dysfunction may develop. Fluids and catecholamines are the cornerstone of critical hypotensive states management. Catecholamines side effects such as increased myocardial oxygen consumption and development of arrhythmias are well known. Thus, in recent years, interest in catecholamine-sparing agents such as vasopressin, terlipressin and methylene blue has increased; however, few randomized trials, mostly with small sample sizes, have been performed. We therefore conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials to investigate the effect of non-catecholaminergic vasopressors on mortality.METHODS: PubMed, BioMed Central and Embase were searched (update December 31st, 2014) by two independent investigators. Inclusion criteria were: random allocation to treatment, at least one group receiving a non-catecholaminergic vasopressor, patients with or at risk for vasodilatory shock. Exclusion criteria were: crossover studies, pediatric population, non-human studies, studies published as abstract only, lack of data on mortality. Studied drugs were vasopressin, terlipressin and methylene blue. Primary endpoint was mortality at the longest follow-up available.RESULTS: A total of 1,608 patients from 20 studies were included in our analysis. The studied settings were sepsis (10/20 studies [50%]), cardiac surgery (7/20 [35%]), vasodilatory shock due to any cause (2/20 [19%]), and acute traumatic injury (1/20 [5%]). Overall, pooled estimates showed that treatment with non-catecholaminergic agents improves survival (278/810 [34.3%] versus 309/798 [38.7%], risk ratio = 0.88, 95% confidence interval = 0.79 to 0.98, p = 0.02). None of the drugs was associated with significant reduction in mortality when analyzed independently. Results were not confirmed when analyzing studies with a low risk of bias.CONCLUSIONS: Catecholamine-sparing agents in patients with or at risk for vasodilatory shock may improve survival. Further researches on this topic are needed to confirm the finding.

Levosimendan is a calcium-sensitizing agent that improves cardiac function, hemodynamic performance, and survival in critically ill adult patient. Few data exist on its off-label use in paediatric patients. We therefore performed a systematic review updated in September 2013 of all the published articles describing the use of levosimendan in paediatric patients. We identified 24 studies published in the period 2004-2013 that included a total of 623 patients, the largest one being a case series of 293 patients. Most of the patients underwent cardiac surgery, other settings consisting of chronic heart failure, primary congenital heart diseases and sepsis and cancer-associated cardiac dysfunction. Most studies reported improvement in ventricular function, central venous oxygen saturation, serum lactate levels or cardiac index. The 5 randomized studies published so far have all been performed in cardiac surgery and suggest a beneficial effect on hemodynamic data with no effect on intensive care unit stay, hospital stay or survival. Side effects (e.g. hypotension) were reported. This inodilator merits to be investigated with further randomized trials focusing on clinically relevant outcomes.