Search

Background: Repurposed drugs for treatment of new onset disease may be an effective therapeutic shortcut. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of repurposed antivirals compared to placebo in lowering SARS-CoV2 viral load of COVID-19 patients., Methods: REVOLUTIOn is a randomised, parallel, blinded, multistage, superiority and placebo controlled randomised trial conducted in 35 centres in Brazil. We include patients aged 18 years or older admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptoms onset 9 days or less and SpO 2 94% or lower at room air were eligible. All participants were randomly allocated to receive either atazanavir, daclatasvir or sofosbuvir/daclatasvir or placebo for 10 days. The primary outcome was the decay rate (slope) of the SARS-CoV-2 viral load logarithm assessed in the modified intention to-treat population. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04468087., Findings: Between February 09, 2021, and August 04, 2021, 255 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to atazanavir (n = 64), daclatasvir (n = 66), sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (n = 67) or placebo (n = 58). Compared to placebo group, the change from baseline to day 10 in log viral load was not significantly different for any of the treatment groups (0.05 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.12], -0.02 [95% CI, -0.09 to 0.06], and -0.03 [95% CI, -0.11 to 0.04] for atazanavir, daclatasvir and sofosbuvir/daclatasvir groups respectively). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events between treatment groups., Interpretation: No significant reduction in viral load was observed from the use of atazanavir, daclatasvir or sofosbuvir/daclatasvir compared to placebo in hospitalised COVID-19 patients who need oxygen support with symptoms onset 9 days or less., Funding: Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (MCTI) - Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPQ); Cia Latino-Americana de Medicamentos (Clamed); Cia Industrial H. Carlos Schneider (Ciser); Hospital Research Foundation Incorporation, Australia, HCor São Paulo; Blanver Farmoquímica; Instituto de Tecnologia em Fármacos (Farmanguinhos) da Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (Fiocruz); Coordenação Geral de Planejamento Estratégico (Cogeplan)/Fiocruz; and Fundação de apoio a Fiocruz (Fiotec, VPGDI-054-FIO-20-2-13)., Competing Interests: ISM reports devices supply from Fisher & Paykel outside the submitted work; ISM and ABC reports funding paid to HCor by Ministerio da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (MCTIC)/Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPQ), Cia Latino Americana de Medicamentos (Clamed); Cia Industrial H. Carlos Schneider (Ciser); Hospital Research Foundation Incorporation, Australia, HCor São Paulo; Blanver Farmoquímica; Instituto de Tecnologia em Fármacos (Farmanguinhos) da Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (Fiocruz); Coordenação Geral de Planejamento Estratégico (Cogeplan)/Fiocruz; and Fundação de apoio a Fiocruz; LPD reports personal statistical Consulting fees from Servier Laboratories, Aché Laboratory and Astra Zeneca; FGZ reports grants for investigator initiated trials paid to his institution from Bactiguard, Ionis Pharmaceuticals and statistical Consulting from Bactiguard; RGR reported research grants from Pfizer and Brazilian Ministry of Health-PROADI-SUS; LCPA reported participation on advisory board of COVID-19 drugs for MSD; OB reported grants or contracts from: AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Pfizer, BMS Servier, Novartis Boehringer-Ingelheim, RDL reports grants or contracts from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Glaxo Smith Kline, Medtronic, Pfizer, Sanofi with payments to his institution, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers, manuscript writing from Pfizer, Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board of Glaxo Smith Kline and Consulting fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingleheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Glaxo Smith Kline, Medtronic, Merck, Pfizer, Portola and Sanofi; AA reports grants form Population Health Research Institute, EMS and Bayer as funding to his institution, payment for lectures for EMS and Bayer. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Purpose: Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) in COVID-19 patients is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. In the present study, we aimed to develop a prognostic score to predict AKI development in these patients., Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective observational study of 2334 COVID 19 patients admitted to 23 different hospitals in Brazil, between January 10th and August 30rd, 2020. The primary outcome of AKI was defined as any increase in serum creatinine (SCr) by 0.3 mg/dL within 48 h or a change in SCr by ≥ 1.5 times of baseline within 1 week, based on Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guidelines. All patients aged ≥ 18 y/o admitted with confirmed SARS-COV-2 infection were included. Discrimination of variables was calculated by the Receiver Operator Characteristic Curve (ROC curve) utilizing area under curve. Some continuous variables were categorized through ROC curve. The cutoff points were calculated using the value with the best sensitivity and specificity., Results: A total of 1131 patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU were included. Patients mean age was 52 ± 15,8 y/o., with a prevalence of males 60% (n = 678). The risk of AKI was 33% (n = 376), 78% (n = 293) of which did not require dialysis. Overall mortality was 11% (n = 127), while for AKI patients, mortality rate was 21% (n = 80). Variables selected for the logistic regression model and inclusion in the final prognostic score were the following: age, diabetes, ACEis, ARBs, chronic kidney disease and hypertension., Conclusion: AKI development in COVID 19 patients is accurately predicted by common clinical variables, allowing early interventions to attenuate the impact of AKI in these patients., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic affected stroke care worldwide. Data from low- and middle-income countries are limited., Research Question: What was the impact of the pandemic in ICU admissions and outcomes of patients with stroke, in comparison with trends over the last 10 years?, Study Design and Methods: Retrospective cohort study including prospectively collected data from 165 ICUs in Brazil between 2011 and 2020. We analyzed clinical characteristics and mortality over a period of 10 years and evaluated the impact of the pandemic on stroke outcomes, using the following approach: analyses of admissions for ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes and trends in in-hospital mortality over 10 years; analysis of variable life-adjusted display (VLAD) during 2020; and a mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression model., Results: A total of 17,115 stroke admissions were analyzed, from which 13,634 were ischemic and 3,481 were hemorrhagic. In-hospital mortality was lower after ischemic stroke as compared with hemorrhagic (9% vs 24%, respectively). Changes in VLAD across epidemiological weeks of 2020 showed that the rise in COVID-19 cases was accompanied by increased mortality, mainly after ischemic stroke. In logistic regression mixed models, mortality was higher in 2020 compared with 2019, 2018, and 2017 in patients with ischemic stroke, namely, in those without altered mental status. In hemorrhagic stroke, the increased mortality in 2020 was observed in patients 50 years of age or younger, as compared with 2019., Interpretation: Hospital outcomes of stroke admissions worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic, interrupting a trend of improvements in survival rates over 10 years. This effect was more pronounced during the surge of COVID-19 ICU admissions affecting predominantly patients with ischemic stroke without coma, and young patients with hemorrhagic stroke., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: We declare no competing interests.

Purpose: To assess the association between acute disease severity and 1-year quality of life in patients discharged after hospitalisation due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)., Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study nested in 5 randomised clinical trials between March 2020 and March 2022 at 84 sites in Brazil. Adult post-hospitalisation COVID-19 patients were followed for 1 year. The primary outcome was the utility score of EuroQol five-dimension three-level (EQ-5D-3L). Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, and new disabilities in instrumental activities of daily living. Adjusted generalised estimating equations were used to assess the association between outcomes and acute disease severity according to the highest level on a modified ordinal scale during hospital stay (2: no oxygen therapy; 3: oxygen by mask or nasal prongs; 4: high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy or non-invasive ventilation; 5: mechanical ventilation)., Results: 1508 COVID-19 survivors were enrolled. Primary outcome data were available for 1156 participants. At 1 year, compared with severity score 2, severity score 5 was associated with lower EQ-5D-3L utility scores (0.7 vs 0.84; adjusted difference, - 0.1 [95% CI - 0.15 to - 0.06]); and worse results for all-cause mortality (7.9% vs 1.2%; adjusted difference, 7.1% [95% CI 2.5%-11.8%]), major cardiovascular events (5.6% vs 2.3%; adjusted difference, 2.6% [95% CI 0.6%-4.6%]), and new disabilities (40.4% vs 23.5%; adjusted difference, 15.5% [95% CI 8.5%-22.5]). Severity scores 3 and 4 did not differ consistently from score 2., Conclusions: COVID-19 patients who needed mechanical ventilation during hospitalisation have lower 1-year quality of life than COVID-19 patients who did not need mechanical ventilation during hospitalisation., (© 2022. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

BACKGROUND: Pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest results in high morbidity and mortality. Currently, there are no recommended therapies beyond supportive care. The THAPCA-OH (Therapeutic Hypothermia after Pediatric Cardiac Arrest Out-of-Hospital) trial compared hypothermia (33.0°C) with normothermia (36.8°C) in 295 children. Good neurobehavioral outcome and survival at 1 year were higher in the hypothermia group (20 vs. 12% and 38 vs. 29%, respectively). These differences did not meet the planned statistical threshold of P75% for all informative prior integrations with the THAPCA-OH results, except those with the most pessimistic priors. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high probability that hypothermia provides a modest benefit in neurobehavioral outcome and survival at 1 year. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00878644.)

Objectives and study design: In this population-based study of 602 patients, we amended C-reactive protein (CRP) and plasma albumin (PA) levels around the diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) to the International Prognostic Index (IPI) and assessed 0-90, 91-365, and +365-day survival. Results: The CRP did not contribute to the IPI's prognostic or discriminatory ability, regardless of time period, particularly not in models with PA. In contrast, the PA was an important contributor, especially in the 0-90 day period, but also up to one year after the diagnosis. For day 0-90, the model with the IPI only had an Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristics (AUROC) of 0.742, whereas the IPI with PA as a continuous variable rendered an AUROC of 0.841. Especially the lower PA quartile (18-32 g/L) contributed to the worse prognosis. Conclusions: The amendment of PA to the IPI may significantly improve the short-term prognostic and discriminative ability.Key messagesThe amendment of the plasma albumin (PA) level to the International Prognostic Index significantly improved the prediction of mortality up to one year after the diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.It was especially the lower quartile of the PA level (18-32 g/L) that contributed to the worse prognosis.

The overall patient population in contemporary cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) has only increased with respect to patient acuity, complexity, and illness severity. The current population has more cardiac and noncardiac comorbidities, a higher prevalence of multiorgan injury, and consumes more critical care resources than previously. Patients with heart failure (HF) now occupy a large portion of contemporary tertiary or quaternary care CICU beds around the world. In this review, we discuss the core issues that relate to the care of critically ill patients with HF, including global perspectives on the organization, designation, and collaboration of CICUs regionally and across institutions, as well as unique models for provisioning care for patients with HF within a health care setting. The latter includes a discussion of traditional and emerging models, specialized HF units, the makeup and implementation of multidisciplinary team-based decision-making, and cardiac critical care admission and triage practices. This article illustrates the ways in which critically ill patients with HF have helped to shape contemporary CICUs throughout the world and explores how these very patients will similarly help to inform the future maturation of these specialized critical care units. Finally, we will critically examine broad, contemporary, international models of HF and cardiac critical care delivery in North America, Europe, South America, and Asia, and conclude with opportunities for the further investigation and generation of evidence for care delivery., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare the lung mechanics and outcomes between COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome., Methods: We combined data from two randomized trials in acute respiratory distress syndrome, one including only COVID-19 patients and the other including only patients without COVID-19, to determine whether COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome is associated with higher 28-day mortality than non-COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome and to examine the differences in lung mechanics between these two types of acute respiratory distress syndrome., Results: A total of 299 patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and 1,010 patients with non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome were included in the main analysis. The results showed that non-COVID-19 patients used higher positive end-expiratory pressure (12.5cmH2O; SD 3.2 versus 11.7cmH2O SD 2.8; p < 0.001), were ventilated with lower tidal volumes (5.8mL/kg; SD 1.0 versus 6.5mL/kg; SD 1.2; p < 0.001) and had lower static respiratory compliance adjusted for ideal body weight (0.5mL/cmH2O/kg; SD 0.3 versus 0.6mL/cmH2O/kg; SD 0.3; p = 0.01). There was no difference between groups in 28-day mortality (52.3% versus 58.9%; p = 0.52) or mechanical ventilation duration in the first 28 days among survivors (13 [IQR 5 - 22] versus 12 [IQR 6 - 26], p = 0.46)., Conclusion: This analysis showed that patients with non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome have different lung mechanics but similar outcomes to COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome patients. After propensity score matching, there was no difference in lung mechanics or outcomes between groups.

Purpose: Studies of critically ill hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients have mainly been single-center and focused on allogenic HSCT recipients. We aimed to describe a cohort of autologous HSCT with an unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admission., Methods: This study is a retrospective cohort study of autologous HSCT performed as a treatment for a hematological malignancy, during their first unplanned ICU admission in 50 hospitals in Brazil. We assessed the hospital mortality and the association between mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, and renal replacement therapy and hospital mortality in autologous HSCT recipients, adjusted for potential confounders., Results: We included 301 patients. Multiple myeloma was the most common malignancy driving to HSCT. ICU and hospital mortality were 22.9% and 37.5%, respectively. After adjustment for potential confounders, mechanical ventilation (OR = 9.10; CI 95%, 4.82-17.15) was associated with hospital mortality, but vasopressors (OR = 1.43; CI 95%, 0.77-2.64) and renal replacement therapy (OR = 1.30; CI 95%, 0.63-2.66) were not., Conclusions: In this large cohort of critically ill autologous HSCT recipients, mechanical ventilation was the only organ support-therapy associated with increased mortality in autologous HSCT recipients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest MS is founder of Epimed Monitor®, an electronic healthcare system used to collect data and track ICU quality metrics. FGZ has received grants for investigator-initiated studies from Ionis Pharmaceuticals (USA), Bactiguard (Sweden) and Brazilian Ministry of Health, none related to the scope of this study., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To reanalyze the results of the Balanced Solutions in Intensive Care Study (BaSICS) through hierarchical endpoint analysis with win ratio., Methods: All patients with full data in BaSICS trial were elected for the analysis. BaSICS compared balanced solutions (Plasma Lye 148) versus 0.9% saline in critically ill patients requiring fluid challenge. The win ratio was defined as a hierarchical endpoint of 90-day mortality, recepit of kidney replacement therapy, hospital length-of-stay (LOS), and intensive care unit (ICU) LOS. Both unstratified and stratified (by admission type: planned admission, unplanned admission with sepsis, and unplanned admission without sepsis) approaches were used. A subgroup analysis was performed in patients with traumatic brain injury., Results: A total of 10,490 patients were included in the analysis, resulting in 27,587,566 unique combinations for unstratified WR. Unstratified Win ratio was 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.97; 1.07), which was similar to stratified WR. No stratum in the stratified analysis resulted in significant results. Subgroup analysis confirmed the possible harm of balanced solutions in traumatic brain injury patients (WR 0.80; 95% confidence interval 0.64; 0.99)., Conclusion: In this reanalysis of BaSICS, a win ratio analysis largely replicated the results of the main trial, yielding neutral results except for the subgroup of patients with traumatic brain injury where a signal of harm was found., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest FGZ has received grants for investigator-initiated trials from Bactiguard (Sweden), and Ionis Pharmaceuticals (USA), unrelated to the topic of this study. LCPA has received lecturing fees from Baxter®., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To describe the effects of balanced solution use on the short-term outcomes of patients with traumatic brain injury enrolled in BaSICS trial., Methods: Patients were randomized to receive either 0.9% saline or balanced solution during their intensive care unit stay. The primary endpoint was 90-day mortality, and the secondary outcomes were days alive and free of intensive care unit stay at 28 days. The primary endpoint was assessed using Bayesian logistic regression. The secondary endpoint was assessed using a Bayesian zero-inflated beta binomial regression., Results: We included 483 patients (236 in the 0.9% saline arm and 247 in the balanced solution arm). A total of 338 patients (70%) with a Glasgow coma scale score ≤ 12 were enrolled. The overall probability that balanced solutions were associated with higher 90-day mortality was 0.98 (OR 1.48; 95%CrI 1.04 - 2.09); this mortality increment was particularly noticeable in patients with a Glasgow coma scale score below 6 at enrollment (probability of harm of 0.99). Balanced solutions were associated with -1.64 days alive and free of intensive care unit at 28 days (95%CrI -3.32 - 0.00) with a probability of harm of 0.97., Conclusion: There was a high probability that balanced solutions were associated with high 90-day mortality and fewer days alive and free of intensive care units at 28 days.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02875873.

Background: Timing of initiation of kidney-replacement therapy (KRT) in critically ill patients remains controversial. The Standard versus Accelerated Initiation of Renal-Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) trial compared two strategies of KRT initiation (accelerated versus standard) in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury and found neutral results for 90-day all-cause mortality. Probabilistic exploration of the trial endpoints may enable greater understanding of the trial findings. We aimed to perform a reanalysis using a Bayesian framework., Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of all 2927 patients randomized in multi-national STARRT-AKI trial, performed at 168 centers in 15 countries. The primary endpoint, 90-day all-cause mortality, was evaluated using hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression. A spectrum of priors includes optimistic, neutral, and pessimistic priors, along with priors informed from earlier clinical trials. Secondary endpoints (KRT-free days and hospital-free days) were assessed using zero-one inflated beta regression., Results: The posterior probability of benefit comparing an accelerated versus a standard KRT initiation strategy for the primary endpoint suggested no important difference, regardless of the prior used (absolute difference of 0.13% [95% credible interval [CrI] - 3.30%; 3.40%], - 0.39% [95% CrI - 3.46%; 3.00%], and 0.64% [95% CrI - 2.53%; 3.88%] for neutral, optimistic, and pessimistic priors, respectively). There was a very low probability that the effect size was equal or larger than a consensus-defined minimal clinically important difference. Patients allocated to the accelerated strategy had a lower number of KRT-free days (median absolute difference of - 3.55 days [95% CrI - 6.38; - 0.48]), with a probability that the accelerated strategy was associated with more KRT-free days of 0.008. Hospital-free days were similar between strategies, with the accelerated strategy having a median absolute difference of 0.48 more hospital-free days (95% CrI - 1.87; 2.72) compared with the standard strategy and the probability that the accelerated strategy had more hospital-free days was 0.66., Conclusions: In a Bayesian reanalysis of the STARRT-AKI trial, we found very low probability that an accelerated strategy has clinically important benefits compared with the standard strategy. Patients receiving the accelerated strategy probably have fewer days alive and KRT-free. These findings do not support the adoption of an accelerated strategy of KRT initiation., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: To compare categorical and continuous combinations of the standardized mortality ratio (SMR) and the standardized resource use (SRU) to evaluate ICU performance., Materials and Methods: We analysed data from adult patients admitted to 128 ICUs in Brazil and Uruguay (BR/UY) and 83 ICUs in The Netherlands between 2016 and 2018. SMR and SRU were calculated using SAPS-3 (BR/UY) or APACHE-IV (The Netherlands). Performance was defined as a combination of metrics. The categorical combination was the efficiency matrix, whereas the continuous combination was the average SMR and SRU (average standardized ratio, ASER). Association among metrics in each dataset was evaluated using Spearman's rho and R 2 ., Results: We included 277,459 BR/UY and 164,399 Dutch admissions. Median [interquartile range] ASER = 0.99[0.83-1.21] in BR/UY and 0.99[0.92-1.09] in Dutch datasets. The SMR and SRU were more correlated in BR/UY ICUs than in Dutch ICUs (Spearman's Rho: 0.54vs.0.24). The highest and lowest ASER values were concentrated in the least and most efficient groups. An expert focus group listed potential advantages and limitations of both combinations., Conclusions: The categorical combination of metrics is easy to interpret but limits statistical inference for benchmarking. The continuous combination offers appropriate statistical properties for evaluating performance when metrics are positively correlated., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or the preparation of the manuscript. Dr. Soares and Dr. Salluh are founders and equity shareholders of Epimed Solutions®, which commercializes the Epimed Monitor System®, a cloud-based software for ICU management and benchmarking. Dr. Zampieri has received grants for investigator-initiated studies from Ionis Pharmaceuticals (USA), Bactiguard (Sweden) and the Brazilian Ministry of Health, none related to the scope of this study. N.F. de Keizer and D.A. Dongelmans are members of the board of the Dutch National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE) foundation. The NICE foundation pays the department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC, for processing data of all Dutch ICUs into audit and feedback information. S.A., N.F. de Keizer and F. Bakhshi-Raiez are employees of the department of medical informatics and work on the NICE project. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rationale: The effects of balanced crystalloid versus saline on clinical outcomes for ICU patients may be modified by the type of fluid that patients received for initial resuscitation and by the type of admission. Objectives: To assess whether the results of a randomized controlled trial could be affected by fluid use before enrollment and admission type. Methods: Secondary post hoc analysis of the BaSICS (Balanced Solution in Intensive Care Study) trial, which compared a balanced solution (Plasma-Lyte 148) with 0.9% saline in the ICU. Patients were categorized according to fluid use in the 24 hours before enrollment in four groups (balanced solutions only, 0.9% saline only, a mix of both, and no fluid before enrollment) and according to admission type (planned, unplanned with sepsis, and unplanned without sepsis). The association between 90-day mortality and the randomization group was assessed using a hierarchical logistic Bayesian model. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 10,520 patients were included. There was a low probability that the balanced solution was associated with improved 90-day mortality in the whole trial population (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; 89% credible interval [CrI], 0.66-10.51; probability of benefit, 0.58); however, probability of benefit was high for patients who received only balanced solutions before enrollment (regardless of admission type, OR, 0.78; 89% CrI, 0.56-1.03; probability of benefit, 0.92), mostly because of a benefit in unplanned admissions due to sepsis (OR, 0.70; 89% CrI, 0.50-0.97; probability of benefit, 0.96) and planned admissions (OR, 0.79; 89% CrI, 0.65-0.97; probability of benefit, 0.97). Conclusions: There is a high probability that balanced solution use in the ICU reduces 90-day mortality in patients who exclusively received balanced fluids before trial enrollment. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02875873).

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic tested the capacity of intensive care units (ICU) to respond to a crisis and demonstrated their fragility. Unsurprisingly, higher than usual mortality rates, lengths of stay (LOS), and ICU-acquired complications occurred during the pandemic. However, worse outcomes were not universal nor constant across ICUs and significant variation in outcomes was reported, demonstrating that some ICUs could adequately manage the surge of COVID-19., Methods: In the present editorial, we discuss the concept of a resilient Intensive Care Unit, including which metrics can be used to address the capacity to respond, sustain results and incorporate new practices that lead to improvement., Results: We believe that a resiliency analysis adds a component of preparedness to the usual ICU performance evaluation and outcomes metrics to be used during the crisis and in regular times., Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the need for a resilient health system. Although this concept has been discussed for health systems, it was not tested in intensive care. Future studies should evaluate this concept to improve ICU organization for standard and pandemic times., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for providing unbiased evidence of intervention effects. Here, we provide an overview of the history of RCTs and discuss the major challenges and limitations of current critical care RCTs, including overly optimistic effect sizes; unnuanced conclusions based on dichotomization of results; limited focus on patient-centred outcomes other than mortality; lack of flexibility and ability to adapt, increasing the risk of inconclusive results and limiting knowledge gains before trial completion; and inefficiency due to lack of re-use of trial infrastructure. We discuss recent developments in critical care RCTs and novel methods that may provide solutions to some of these challenges, including a research programme approach (consecutive, complementary studies of multiple types rather than individual, independent studies), and novel design and analysis methods. These include standardization of trial protocols; alternative outcome choices and use of core outcome sets; increased acceptance of uncertainty, probabilistic interpretations and use of Bayesian statistics; novel approaches to assessing heterogeneity of treatment effects; adaptation and platform trials; and increased integration between clinical trials and clinical practice. We outline the advantages and discuss the potential methodological and practical disadvantages with these approaches. With this review, we aim to inform clinicians and researchers about conventional and novel RCTs, including the rationale for choosing one or the other methodological approach based on a thorough discussion of pros and cons. Importantly, the most central feature remains the randomisation, which provides unparalleled restriction of confounding compared to non-randomised designs by reducing confounding to chance., (© 2021. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

BACKGROUND: The comparative efficacy and safety of balanced crystalloid solutions and saline for fluid therapy in critically ill adults remain uncertain. METHODS: We systematically reviewed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the use of balanced crystalloids with saline in critically ill adults. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality after pooling data from low-risk-of-bias trials using a random-effects model. We also performed a Bayesian meta-analysis to describe the primary treatment effect in probability terms. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI), new treatment with renal replacement therapy (RRT), and ventilator-free and vasopressor-free days to day 28. RESULTS: We identified 13 RCTs, comprising 35,884 participants. From six trials (34,450 participants) with a low risk of bias, the risk ratio (RR) for 90-day mortality with balanced crystalloids versus saline was 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.01; I2 = 12.1%); using vague priors, the posterior probability that balanced crystalloids reduce mortality was 89.5%. The RRs of developing AKI and of being treated with RRT with balanced crystalloids versus saline were 0.96 (95% CI, 0.89 to 1.02) and 0.95 (95% CI, 0.81 to 1.11), respectively. Ventilator-free days (mean difference, 0.18 days; 95% CI, −0.45 to 0.81) and vasopressor-free days (mean difference, 0.19 days; 95% CI, −0.14 to 0.51) were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated effect of using balanced crystalloids versus saline in critically ill adults ranges from a 9% relative reduction to a 1% relative increase in the risk of death, with a high probability that the average effect of using balanced crystalloids is to reduce mortality. (PROSPERO number, CRD42021243399.)

Clinical and pathophysiological understanding of septic shock has progressed exponentially in the previous decades, translating into a steady decrease in septic shock-related morbidity and mortality. Even though large randomized, controlled trials have addressed fundamental aspects of septic shock resuscitation, many questions still exist. In this review, we will describe the current standards of septic shock resuscitation, but the emphasis will be placed on evolving concepts in different domains such as clinical resuscitation targets, adequate use of fluids and vasoactive drugs, refractory shock, and the use of extracorporeal therapies. Multiple research opportunities remain open, and collaborative endeavors should be performed to fill in these gaps., (© 2021. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Objectives: The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a heterogeneous condition, and identification of subphenotypes may help in better risk stratification. Our study objective is to identify ARDS subphenotypes using new simpler methodology and readily available clinical variables., Setting: This is a retrospective Cohort Study of ARDS trials. Data from the US ARDSNet trials and from the international ART trial., Participants: 3763 patients from ARDSNet data sets and 1010 patients from the ART data set., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was 60-day or 28-day mortality, depending on what was reported in the original trial. K-means cluster analysis was performed to identify subgroups. Sets of candidate variables were tested to assess their ability to produce different probabilities for mortality in each cluster. Clusters were compared with biomarker data, allowing identification of subphenotypes., Results: Data from 4773 patients were analysed. Two subphenotypes (A and B) resulted in optimal separation in the final model, which included nine routinely collected clinical variables, namely heart rate, mean arterial pressure, respiratory rate, bilirubin, bicarbonate, creatinine, PaO 2 , arterial pH and FiO 2 . Participants in subphenotype B showed increased levels of proinflammatory markers, had consistently higher mortality, lower number of ventilator-free days at day 28 and longer duration of ventilation compared with patients in the subphenotype A., Conclusions: Routinely available clinical data can successfully identify two distinct subphenotypes in adult ARDS patients. This work may facilitate implementation of precision therapy in ARDS clinical trials., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RK, EVA, LB, JO, DR and ROD are employees of Endpoint Health and ASN reported receiving personal fees from Dräger unrelated to the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Repurposed drugs are important in resource-limited settings because the interventions are more rapidly available, have already been tested safely in other populations and are inexpensive. Repurposed drugs are an effective solution, especially for emerging diseases such as COVID-19. The REVOLUTIOn trial has the objective of evaluating three repurposed antiviral drugs, atazanavir, daclatasvir and sofosbuvir, already used for HIV- and hepatitis C virus-infected patients in a randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive, multiarm, multistage study. The drugs will be tested simultaneously in a Phase II trial to first identify whether any of these drugs alone or in combination reduce the viral load. If they do, a Phase III trial will be initiated to investigate if these medications are capable of increasing the number of days free respiratory support. Participants must be hospitalized adults aged ≥ 18 years with initiation of symptoms ≤ 9 days and SpO2 ≤ 94% in room air or a need for supplemental oxygen to maintain an SpO2 > 94%. The expected total sample size ranges from 252 to 1,005 participants, depending on the number of stages that will be completed in the study. Hence, the protocol is described here in detail together with the statistical analysis plan. In conclusion, the REVOLUTIOn trial is designed to provide evidence on whether atazanavir, daclatasvir or sofosbuvir decrease the SARS-CoV-2 load in patients with COVID-19 and increase the number of days patients are free of respiratory support. In this protocol paper, we describe the rationale, design, and status of the trial. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04468087.

Purpose: To assess whether intensive care unit (ICU) outcomes for patients not affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: Retrospective cohort study including prospectively collected information of patients admitted to 165 ICUs in a hospital network in Brazil between 2011 and 2020. Association between admission in 2020 and worse hospital outcomes was performed using different techniques, including assessment of changes in illness severity of admitted patients, a variable life-adjusted display of mortality during 2020, a multivariate mixed regression model with admission year as both fixed effect and random slope adjusted for SAPS 3 score, an analysis of trends in performance using standardized mortality ratio (SMR) and standardized resource use (SRU), and perturbation analysis., Results: A total of 644,644 admissions were considered. After excluding readmissions and patients with COVID-19, 514,219 patients were available for analysis. Non-COVID-19 patients admitted in 2020 had slightly lower age and SAPS 3 score but a higher mortality (6.4%) when compared with previous years (2019: 5.6%; 2018: 6.1%). Variable-adjusted life display (VLAD) in 2020 increased but started to decrease as the number of COVID-19 cases increased; this trend reversed as number of COVID cases reduced but recurred on the second wave. After logistic regression, being admitted in 2020 was associated with higher mortality when compared to previous years from 2016 and 2019. Individual ICUs standardized mortality ratio also increased during 2020 (higher SMR) while resource use remained constant, suggesting worsening performance. A perturbation analysis further confirmed changes in ICU outcomes for non-COVID-19 patients., Conclusion: Hospital outcomes of non-COVID-19 critically ill patients worsened during the pandemic in 2020, possibly resulting in an increased number of deaths in critically ill non-COVID patients., (© 2021. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Precision medicine focuses on the identification of therapeutic strategies that are effective for a group of patients based on similar unifying characteristics. The recent success of precision medicine in non-critical care settings has resulted from the confluence of large clinical and biospecimen repositories, innovative bioinformatics, and novel trial designs. Similar advances for precision medicine in sepsis and in the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are possible but will require further investigation and significant investment in infrastructure. Methods: This project was funded by the American Thoracic Society Board of Directors. A multidisciplinary and diverse working group reviewed the available literature, established a conceptual framework, and iteratively developed recommendations for the Precision Medicine Research Agenda for Sepsis and ARDS. Results: The following six priority recommendations were developed by the working group: 1 ) the creation of large richly phenotyped and harmonized knowledge networks of clinical, imaging, and multianalyte molecular data for sepsis and ARDS; 2 ) the implementation of novel trial designs, including adaptive designs, and embedding trial procedures in the electronic health record; 3 ) continued innovation in the data science and engineering methods required to identify heterogeneity of treatment effect; 4 ) further development of the tools necessary for the real-time application of precision medicine approaches; 5 ) work to ensure that precision medicine strategies are applicable and available to a broad range of patients varying across differing racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and demographic groups; and 6 ) the securement and maintenance of adequate and sustainable funding for precision medicine efforts. Conclusions: Precision medicine approaches that incorporate variability in genomic, biologic, and environmental factors may provide a path forward for better individualizing the delivery of therapies and improving care for patients with sepsis and ARDS.

Highly sensitized (HS) patients accumulate on deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT) waitlists worldwide due to matching difficulty and inequity of allocation policies. Current situation of HS patients on KT waitlist in Brazil has not been published. All patients enrolled on the KT waitlist of the State of São Paulo from 2002 to 2017 were retrospectively assessed. Patients were divided into eight groups according to their degree of sensitization, PRA of 0%, >0-40%, >40-80%, >80-85%, >85-90%, >90-95%, >95-98% and > 98%. Cumulative incidence curves for transplantation or mortality/removal from waitlist were estimated by competing risk. Among 50,249 waitlisted candidates, 1247 prioritized, 2467 with age < 18 or > 75 years and 4152 submitted to living-donor KT were excluded from the analysis, remaining 42,383 patients. There were 29,664(70%) PRA 0%, 5611(13.2%) PRA > 0-40%, 3442(8.2%) PRA > 40-80%, 507(1.2%) PRA > 80-85%, 564(1.3%) PRA > 85-90%, 825(1.9%) PRA >90-95%, 859(2%) PRA > 95-98% and 911(2.2%) PRA > 98%. There was a progressive increase in the need of prioritization, waiting time for KT or on waitlist and time on dialysis as PRA increased (p < 0.001). Probability of DDKT clearly increased as PRA decreased so that PRA 0% candidates were much more likely to be transplanted compared to PRA > 98% patients(HR:13.02, p < 0.001). Waiting list mortality/removal was higher among PRA > 0-40%(HR1.05,p = 0.03), PRA > 90-95%(HR:1.10,p = 0.05), PRA > 95-98%(HR:1.26,p < 0.001) and PRA > 98%(HR:1.09,p = 0.05) patients compared to PRA zero candidates. HS patients in Sao Paulo-Brazil required greater prioritization due to lack of venous access, longer dialysis and waitlist times, lower probability of DDKT and higher rates of waitlist mortality/removal. We confirmed the disparity of access to KT among HS patients in Sao Paulo-Brazil, indicating the need of new strategies that optimize transplantation for this subcategory of patients., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Slower intravenous fluid infusion rates could reduce the formation of tissue edema and organ dysfunction in critically ill patients; however, there are no data to support different infusion rates during fluid challenges for important outcomes such as mortality., Objective: To determine the effect of a slower infusion rate vs control infusion rate on 90-day survival in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU)., Design, Setting, and Participants: Unblinded randomized factorial clinical trial in 75 ICUs in Brazil, involving 11 052 patients requiring at least 1 fluid challenge and with 1 risk factor for worse outcomes were randomized from May 29, 2017, to March 2, 2020. Follow-up was concluded on October 29, 2020. Patients were randomized to 2 different infusion rates (reported in this article) and 2 different fluid types (balanced fluids or saline, reported separately)., Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive fluid challenges at 2 different infusion rates; 5538 to the slower rate (333 mL/h) and 5514 to the control group (999 mL/h). Patients were also randomized to receive balanced solution or 0.9% saline using a factorial design., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was 90-day survival., Results: Of all randomized patients, 10 520 (95.2%) were analyzed (mean age, 61.1 years [SD, 17.0 years]; 44.2% were women) after excluding duplicates and consent withdrawals. Patients assigned to the slower rate received a mean of 1162 mL on the first day vs 1252 mL for the control group. By day 90, 1406 of 5276 patients (26.6%) in the slower rate group had died vs 1414 of 5244 (27.0%) in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.96-1.11; P = .46). There was no significant interaction between fluid type and infusion rate (P = .98)., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients in the intensive care unit requiring fluid challenges, infusing at a slower rate compared with a faster rate did not reduce 90-day mortality. These findings do not support the use of a slower infusion rate., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02875873.

Importance: Intravenous fluids are used for almost all intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Clinical and laboratory studies have questioned whether specific fluid types result in improved outcomes, including mortality and acute kidney injury., Objective: To determine the effect of a balanced solution vs saline solution (0.9% sodium chloride) on 90-day survival in critically ill patients., Design, Setting, and Participants: Double-blind, factorial, randomized clinical trial conducted at 75 ICUs in Brazil. Patients who were admitted to the ICU with at least 1 risk factor for worse outcomes, who required at least 1 fluid expansion, and who were expected to remain in the ICU for more than 24 hours were randomized between May 29, 2017, and March 2, 2020; follow-up concluded on October 29, 2020. Patients were randomized to 2 different fluid types (a balanced solution vs saline solution reported in this article) and 2 different infusion rates (reported separately)., Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either a balanced solution (n = 5522) or 0.9% saline solution (n = 5530) for all intravenous fluids., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 90-day survival., Results: Among 11 052 patients who were randomized, 10 520 (95.2%) were available for the analysis (mean age, 61.1 [SD, 17] years; 44.2% were women). There was no significant interaction between the 2 interventions (fluid type and infusion speed; P = .98). Planned surgical admissions represented 48.4% of all patients. Of all the patients, 60.6% had hypotension or vasopressor use and 44.3% required mechanical ventilation at enrollment. Patients in both groups received a median of 1.5 L of fluid during the first day after enrollment. By day 90, 1381 of 5230 patients (26.4%) assigned to a balanced solution died vs 1439 of 5290 patients (27.2%) assigned to saline solution (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.90-1.05]; P = .47). There were no unexpected treatment-related severe adverse events in either group., Conclusion and Relevance: Among critically ill patients requiring fluid challenges, use of a balanced solution compared with 0.9% saline solution did not significantly reduce 90-day mortality. The findings do not support the use of this balanced solution., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02875873.

Purpose: Clinical characteristics and management of COVID-19 patients have evolved during the pandemic, potentially changing their outcomes. We analyzed the associations of changes in mortality rates with clinical profiles and respiratory support strategies in COVID-19 critically ill patients., Methods: A multicenter cohort of RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted at 126 Brazilian intensive care units between February 27 th and October 28 th , 2020. Assessing temporal changes in deaths, we identified distinct time periods. We evaluated the association of characteristics and respiratory support strategies with 60-day in-hospital mortality using random-effects multivariable Cox regression with inverse probability weighting., Results: Among the 13,301 confirmed-COVID-19 patients, 60-day in-hospital mortality was 13%. Across four time periods identified, younger patients were progressively more common, non-invasive respiratory support was increasingly used, and the 60-day in-hospital mortality decreased in the last two periods. 4188 patients received advanced respiratory support (non-invasive or invasive), from which 42% underwent only invasive mechanical ventilation, 37% only non-invasive respiratory support and 21% failed non-invasive support and were intubated. After adjusting for organ dysfunction scores and premorbid conditions, we found that younger age, absence of frailty and the use of non-invasive respiratory support (NIRS) as first support strategy were independently associated with improved survival (hazard ratio for NIRS first [95% confidence interval], 0.59 [0.54-0.65], p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Age and mortality rates have declined over the first 8 months of the pandemic. The use of NIRS as the first respiratory support measure was associated with survival, but causal inference is limited by the observational nature of our data.

Substantial COVID-19 research investment has been allocated to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, which currently face recruitment challenges or early discontinuation. We aim to estimate the effects of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on survival in COVID-19 from all currently available RCT evidence, published and unpublished. We present a rapid meta-analysis of ongoing, completed, or discontinued RCTs on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment for any COVID-19 patients (protocol: https://osf.io/QESV4/ ). We systematically identified unpublished RCTs (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Cochrane COVID-registry up to June 11, 2020), and published RCTs (PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv up to October 16, 2020). All-cause mortality has been extracted (publications/preprints) or requested from investigators and combined in random-effects meta-analyses, calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), separately for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. Prespecified subgroup analyses include patient setting, diagnostic confirmation, control type, and publication status. Sixty-three trials were potentially eligible. We included 14 unpublished trials (1308 patients) and 14 publications/preprints (9011 patients). Results for hydroxychloroquine are dominated by RECOVERY and WHO SOLIDARITY, two highly pragmatic trials, which employed relatively high doses and included 4716 and 1853 patients, respectively (67% of the total sample size). The combined OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine is 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.20; I² = 0%; 26 trials; 10,012 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I² = 0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects. We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine. Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities.

Objective: To evaluate how performance status impairment and acute organ dysfunction influence hospital mortality in critically ill patients with cancer who were admitted with suspected sepsis., Methods: Data were obtained from a retrospective cohort of patients, admitted to an intensive care unit, with cancer and with a suspected infection who received parenteral antibiotics and underwent the collection of bodily fluid samples. We used logistic regression with hospital mortality as the outcome and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, and their interactions as predictors., Results: Of 450 patients included, 265 (58.9%) died in the hospital. For patients admitted to the intensive care unit with lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (≤ 6), performance status impairment influenced the in-hospital mortality, which was 32% among those with no and minor performance status impairment and 52% among those with moderate and severe performance status impairment, p < 0.01. However, for those with higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (> 6), performance status impairment did not influence the in-hospital mortality (73% among those with no and minor impairment and 84% among those with moderate and severe impairment; p = 0.1)., Conclusion: Performance status impairment seems to influence hospital mortality in critically ill cancer patients with suspected sepsis when they have less severe acute organ dysfunction at the time of intensive care unit admission.

Background: Patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) often have low magnesium, phosphate and zinc levels. Monitoring of serum concentrations and supplementation may be important, but there is no consensus on optimal practice. The objective of the WhyTrace survey was to describe current practice regarding the measurement and supplementation of magnesium, phosphate and zinc in ICUs., Methods: A 54-item electronic questionnaire was developed in accordance with SURGE, SUrvey Reporting GuidelinE, to address international clinical practice in the ICU. National investigators recruited ICUs in ten countries with one physician responding per ICU using a unique e-mail distributed survey-link., Results: The questionnaire was sent to clinicians in 336 ICUs of whom 283 (84%) responded. In 62% of the ICUs, a standard procedure was in place regarding the measurement of serum magnesium levels, in 58% for phosphate and in 9% for zinc. Zinc was never or rarely measured in 64% of ICUs. The frequency of requesting serum levels varied from twice daily to once weekly. Regarding supplementation, 66% of ICUs had a standard procedure for magnesium, 63% for phosphate and 15% for zinc. Most procedures recommended supplementation when serum levels were below the lower reference level, but some used the upper reference levels as the threshold for supplementation and others decided on a case-by-case basis., Conclusion: The practice of measuring and supplementing magnesium, phosphate and zinc differed substantially between ICUs. Our findings indicate that there is a need for high-quality prospective data on frequencies of measurements, treatment goals and effects of supplementation on patient-important outcomes., (© 2020 The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Most randomized trials are designed and analyzed using frequentist statistical approaches such as null hypothesis testing and P values. Conceptually, P values are cumbersome to understand, as they provide evidence of data incompatibility with a null hypothesis (e.g., no clinical benefit) and not direct evidence of the alternative hypothesis (e.g., clinical benefit). This counterintuitive framework may contribute to the misinterpretation that the absence of evidence is equal to evidence of absence and may cause the discounting of potentially informative data. Bayesian methods provide an alternative, probabilistic interpretation of data. The reanalysis of completed trials using Bayesian methods is becoming increasingly common, particularly for trials with effect estimates that appear clinically significant despite P values above the traditional threshold of 0.05. Statistical inference using Bayesian methods produces a distribution of effect sizes that would be compatible with observed trial data, interpreted in the context of prior assumptions about an intervention (called "priors"). These priors are chosen by investigators to reflect existing beliefs and past empirical evidence regarding the effect of an intervention. By calculating the likelihood of clinical benefit, a Bayesian reanalysis can augment the interpretation of a trial. However, if priors are not defined a priori , there is a legitimate concern that priors could be constructed in a manner that produces biased results. Therefore, some standardization of priors for Bayesian reanalysis of clinical trials may be desirable for the critical care community. In this Critical Care Perspective, we discuss both frequentist and Bayesian approaches to clinical trial analysis, introduce a framework that researchers can use to select priors for a Bayesian reanalysis, and demonstrate how to apply our proposal by conducting a novel Bayesian trial reanalysis.

Purpose: To describe trends in outcomes of cancer patients with unplanned admissions to intensive-care units (ICU) according to cancer type, organ support use, and performance status (PS) over an 8-year period., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed prospectively collected data from all cancer patients admitted to 92 medical-surgical ICUs from July/2011 to June/2019. We assessed trends in mortality through a Bayesian hierarchical model adjusted for relevant clinical confounders and whether there was a reduction in ICU length-of-stay (LOS) over time using a competing risk model., Results: 32,096 patients (8.7% of all ICU admissions; solid tumors, 90%; hematological malignancies, 10%) were studied. Bed/days use by cancer patients increased up to more than 30% during the period. Overall adjusted mortality decreased by 9.2% [95% credible interval (CI), 13.1-5.6%]. The largest reductions in mortality occurred in patients without need for organ support (9.6%) and in those with need for mechanical ventilation (MV) only (11%). Smallest reductions occurred in patients requiring MV, vasopressors, and dialysis (3.9%) simultaneously. Survival gains over time decreased as PS worsened. Lung cancer patients had the lowest decrease in mortality. Each year was associated with a lower sub-hazard for ICU death [SHR 0.93 (0.91-0.94)] and a higher chance of being discharged alive from the ICU earlier [SHR 1.01 (1-1.01)]., Conclusion: Outcomes in critically ill cancer patients improved in the past 8 years, with reductions in both mortality and ICU LOS, suggesting improvements in overall care. However, outcomes remained poor in patients with lung cancer, requiring multiple organ support and compromised PS.

End-of-life care and decisions on withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies vary across countries, which may affect the feasibility of future multicenter cardiac arrest trials. In Brazil, withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy is reportedly uncommon, allowing the natural history of postcardiac arrest hypoxic-ischemic brain injury to present itself. We aimed to characterize approaches to neuroprognostication of cardiac arrest survivors among physicians in Brazil., Design: Cross-sectional study., Setting: Between August 2, 2019, and July 31, 2020, we distributed a web-based survey to physicians practicing in Brazil., Subjects: Physicians practicing in Brazil and members of the Brazilian Association of Neurointensive Care, who care for patients resuscitated following cardiac arrest., Interventions: Not applicable., Measurements and Main Results: Responses from 185 physicians were obtained. Pupillary reflexes, corneal reflexes, and motor responses were considered critical to prognostication, whereas neuroimaging and electroencephalography were also regarded as important. For patients without targeted temperature management, absent pupillary and corneal reflexes at 24 hours postarrest were considered strongly predictive of poor neurologic outcome by 31.8% and 33.0%, respectively. For targeted temperature management-treated patients, absent pupillary and corneal reflexes at 24-hour postrewarming were considered prognostic by 22.9% and 20.0%, respectively. Physicians felt comfortable making definitive prognostic recommendations at day 6 postarrest or later (34.2%) for nontargeted temperature management-treated patients, and at day 6 postrewarming (20.4%) for targeted temperature management-treated patients. Over 90% believed that improving neuroprognostic accuracy would affect end-of-life decision-making., Conclusions: There is significant variability in neuroprognostic approaches to postcardiac arrest patients and timing of prognostic studies among Brazilian physicians, with practices frequently deviating from current guidelines, underscoring a need for greater neuroprognostic accuracy. Nearly all physicians believed that improving neuroprognostication will impact end-of-life decision-making. Given the tendency to delay prognostic recommendations while using similar neuroprognostic tools, Brazil offers a unique cohort in which to examine the natural history of hypoxic-ischemic brain injury in future studies., Competing Interests: Dr. Maciel has received the Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center Junior Scholar award that supports preclinical studies of mechanisms of secondary brain injury in a rodent cardiac arrest model. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.)

Introduction: The long-term effects caused by COVID-19 are unknown. The present study aims to assess factors associated with health-related quality of life and long-term outcomes among survivors of hospitalization for COVID-19 in Brazil., Methods: This is a multicenter prospective cohort study nested in five randomized clinical trials designed to assess the effects of specific COVID-19 treatments in over 50 centers in Brazil. Adult survivors of hospitalization due to proven or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection will be followed-up for a period of 1 year by means of structured telephone interviews. The primary outcome is the 1-year utility score of health-related quality of life assessed by the EuroQol-5D3L. Secondary outcomes include all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, rehospitalizations, return to work or study, physical functional status assessed by the Lawton-Brody Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, dyspnea assessed by the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale, need for long-term ventilatory support, symptoms of anxiety and depression assessed by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder assessed by the Impact of Event Scale-Revised, and self-rated health assessed by the EuroQol-5D3L Visual Analog Scale. Generalized estimated equations will be performed to test the association between five sets of variables (1- demographic characteristics, 2- premorbid state of health, 3- characteristics of acute illness, 4- specific COVID-19 treatments received, and 5- time-updated postdischarge variables) and outcomes., Ethics and Dissemination: The study protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of all participant institutions. The results will be disseminated through conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

Background: Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have been used to treat patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). However, evidence on the safety and efficacy of these therapies is limited., Methods: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label, three-group, controlled trial involving hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed Covid-19 who were receiving either no supplemental oxygen or a maximum of 4 liters per minute of supplemental oxygen. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive standard care, standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily, or standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily plus azithromycin at a dose of 500 mg once daily for 7 days. The primary outcome was clinical status at 15 days as assessed with the use of a seven-level ordinal scale (with levels ranging from one to seven and higher scores indicating a worse condition) in the modified intention-to-treat population (patients with a confirmed diagnosis of Covid-19). Safety was also assessed., Results: A total of 667 patients underwent randomization; 504 patients had confirmed Covid-19 and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. As compared with standard care, the proportional odds of having a higher score on the seven-point ordinal scale at 15 days was not affected by either hydroxychloroquine alone (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 2.11; P = 1.00) or hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.73; P = 1.00). Prolongation of the corrected QT interval and elevation of liver-enzyme levels were more frequent in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, than in those who were not receiving either agent., Conclusions: Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care. (Funded by the Coalition Covid-19 Brazil and EMS Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04322123.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Objectives: Use of observational data to inform the response and care of patients during a pandemic faces unique challenges., Design: The Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study COVID 2019 Registry Core data and research methodology team convened over virtual meetings throughout March to June 2020 to determine best practice goals for development of a pandemic disease registry to support rapid data collection and analysis., Setting: International, multi-center registry of hospitalized patients., Patients: None., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: Large-scale observational data collection requires: 1) quality assurance and harmonization across many sites; 2) a transparent process for selecting from among many potential research questions; 3) the use of best practices in design of descriptive, predictive, and inferential studies; (4) innovative approaches to characterize random error in the setting of constantly updated data; (5) rapid peer-review and reporting; and (6) transitions from a focus on discovery to implementation. Herein, we describe the guiding principles to best practices and suggestions for innovations to study design and reporting within the coronavirus disease 2019 Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study pandemic registry., Conclusions: Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study coronavirus disease 2019 registry sought to develop and implement prespecified best practices combined with grassroots efforts from clinical sites worldwide in order to develop clinically useful knowledge in response to a pandemic.

Importance: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with substantial mortality and use of health care resources. Dexamethasone use might attenuate lung injury in these patients., Objective: To determine whether intravenous dexamethasone increases the number of ventilator-free days among patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS., Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized, open-label, clinical trial conducted in 41 intensive care units (ICUs) in Brazil. Patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe ARDS, according to the Berlin definition, were enrolled from April 17 to June 23, 2020. Final follow-up was completed on July 21, 2020. The trial was stopped early following publication of a related study before reaching the planned sample size of 350 patients., Interventions: Twenty mg of dexamethasone intravenously daily for 5 days, 10 mg of dexamethasone daily for 5 days or until ICU discharge, plus standard care (n =151) or standard care alone (n = 148)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was ventilator-free days during the first 28 days, defined as being alive and free from mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality at 28 days, clinical status of patients at day 15 using a 6-point ordinal scale (ranging from 1, not hospitalized to 6, death), ICU-free days during the first 28 days, mechanical ventilation duration at 28 days, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores (range, 0-24, with higher scores indicating greater organ dysfunction) at 48 hours, 72 hours, and 7 days., Results: A total of 299 patients (mean [SD] age, 61 [14] years; 37% women) were enrolled and all completed follow-up. Patients randomized to the dexamethasone group had a mean 6.6 ventilator-free days (95% CI, 5.0-8.2) during the first 28 days vs 4.0 ventilator-free days (95% CI, 2.9-5.4) in the standard care group (difference, 2.26; 95% CI, 0.2-4.38; P = .04). At 7 days, patients in the dexamethasone group had a mean SOFA score of 6.1 (95% CI, 5.5-6.7) vs 7.5 (95% CI, 6.9-8.1) in the standard care group (difference, -1.16; 95% CI, -1.94 to -0.38; P = .004). There was no significant difference in the prespecified secondary outcomes of all-cause mortality at 28 days, ICU-free days during the first 28 days, mechanical ventilation duration at 28 days, or the 6-point ordinal scale at 15 days. Thirty-three patients (21.9%) in the dexamethasone group vs 43 (29.1%) in the standard care group experienced secondary infections, 47 (31.1%) vs 42 (28.3%) needed insulin for glucose control, and 5 (3.3%) vs 9 (6.1%) experienced other serious adverse events., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with COVID-19 and moderate or severe ARDS, use of intravenous dexamethasone plus standard care compared with standard care alone resulted in a statistically significant increase in the number of ventilator-free days (days alive and free of mechanical ventilation) over 28 days., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04327401.