Search

Background: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is a leading cause of death worldwide. Establishing vascular access is critical for administering guideline-recommended drugs during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Both the intraosseous route and the intravenous route are used routinely, but their comparative effectiveness remains unclear., Methods: We conducted a randomized clinical trial to compare the effectiveness of initial attempts at intraosseous or intravenous vascular access in adults who had nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The primary outcome was a sustained return of spontaneous circulation. Key secondary outcomes were survival at 30 days and survival at 30 days with a favorable neurologic outcome, defined by a score of 0 to 3 on the modified Rankin scale (scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater disability)., Results: Among 1506 patients who underwent randomization, 1479 were included in the primary analysis (731 in the intraosseous-access group and 748 in the intravenous-access group). The successful establishment of vascular access within two attempts occurred in 669 patients (92%) assigned to the intraosseous-access group and in 595 patients (80%) assigned to the intravenous-access group. Sustained return of spontaneous circulation occurred in 221 patients (30%) in the intraosseous-access group and in 214 patients (29%) in the intravenous-access group (risk ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.24; P = 0.49). At 30 days, 85 patients (12%) in the intraosseous-access group and 75 patients (10%) in the intravenous-access group were alive (risk ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.56); a favorable neurologic outcome at 30 days occurred in 67 patients (9%) and 59 patients (8%), respectively (risk ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.62). Prespecified adverse events were uncommon., Conclusions: There was no significant difference in sustained return of spontaneous circulation between initial intraosseous and intravenous vascular access in adults who had out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. (Funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and others; IVIO EU Clinical Trials Register number, 2022-500744-38-00; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05205031.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate one-year outcomes of lower versus higher oxygenation targets in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and severe hypoxaemia., Methods: We conducted pre-planned analyses of one-year mortality and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in the Handling Oxygenation Targets in COVID-19 trial. The trial randomised 726 ICU patients with COVID-19 and hypoxaemia to partial pressure of arterial oxygen targets of 8 kPa (60 mmHg) versus 12 kPa (90 mmHg) during ICU stay up to 90 days, including readmissions. HRQoL was assessed using EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) and 5-level 5-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L). Outcomes were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Non-survivors were assigned the worst possible score (zero), and multiple imputation was applied for missing EQ-VAS values., Results: We obtained one-year vital status for 691/726 (95.2%) of patients and HRQoL data for 642/726 (88.4%). At one year, 117/348 (33.6%) of patients in the lower-oxygenation group had died compared to 134/343 (39.1%) in the higher-oxygenation group (adjusted risk ratio: 0.85; 98.6% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-1.09; p = 0.11). Median EQ-VAS was 50 (interquartile range, 0-80) versus 40 (0-75) (adjusted mean difference: 4.8; 98.6% CI  - 2.2 to 11.9; p = 0.09) and EQ-5D-5L index values were 0.61 (0-0.81) in the lower-oxygenation group versus 0.43 (0-0.79) (p = 0.20) in the higher-oxygenation group, respectively., Conclusion: Among adult ICU patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia, one-year mortality results were most compatible with benefit of the lower oxygenation target, which did not appear to result in more survivors with poor quality of life., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Access to the neuraxial space, including lumbar punctures and neuraxial anaesthesia, is an everyday procedure in clinical practice. Traditionally these procedures rely on manual palpation technique, but ultrasound is a useful tool when patients prove challenging. Presently, there is a lack of evidence-based guidelines for technical skills acquisition, both with and without ultrasound, and likewise, competency assessment approaches vary globally. Accordingly, we aim to assess the current evidence regarding learning and assessment in neuraxial access ± ultrasound, for future educational recommendations., Methods: This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement, together with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. A systematic search strategy will be based on a PICO approach, focusing on physicians, medical students, or nurses being exposed to education, training, or assessment in procedural neuraxial access ± ultrasound. No comparators are obligated, but outcomes should be assessable using the Kirkpatrick four levels of training evaluation. The search will be performed in Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, Scopus, PubMed, and CINAHL. Independently, two authors will screen the studies and conflicts will be resolved by a third author. Relevant predefined data will be extracted and analysed using a descriptive approach. The quality of the studies will be assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument., Discussion: This scoping review will contribute by presenting gathered evidence of an overview of the different approaches to achieving education and training of technical skills in neuraxial access, and how skills are tested, which could guide research and future recommendations for skills development and assessment., (© 2024 The Author(s). Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Background: Over the past decade, ultrasound utilization has increased within anesthesia and intensive care medicine, enhancing patient safety and diagnostic accuracy. However, the frequency of ultrasound usage and operator training in the Nordic countries remain unclear. This project aims to perform a survey on ultrasound availability, daily clinical use, and how ultrasound skills are trained and assessed, among anesthesiologists., Methods: This online cross-sectional survey will include anesthesiologists from the Nordic countries. The survey will adhere to the CROSS checklist. Survey items will be developed based on a formative model with a conceptual model, consisting of three main parts, including demographics, ultrasound machines and use, and skills development and assessment. The clinical relevance of items will be secured by including anesthesiologists of various levels of experience in the development of the survey. Furthermore, experienced researchers in medical education will participate in the development, contributing with relevant medical educational perspectives. Data will be summarized using a non-parametric descriptive approach. A chi-squared test will examine relevant relationships between certain answers., Results: Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant scientific conferences and meetings., Conclusion: This study may find a high availability of ultrasound machines and frequent use in the clinical departments. Despite this expected daily use of ultrasound, missing standardized structured skills acquisition and assessment could be uncovered. The results of this study may contribute to mapping various aspects of clinical ultrasound and skills development for further use in research., (© 2024 The Author(s). Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Introduction: Anaesthetic choices in cancer surgery, including the use of epidural analgesia, may affect immune function during the perioperative period and might play an important role in subsequent cancer spread and recurrence., Methods: This was a prospective, randomised, controlled, double-blinded, single-centre study allocating patients scheduled for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) lobectomy to post-operative pain management using either thoracic epidural analgesia or oral morphine. We compared pre-, per-, and post-operative plasma levels of interleukin (IL)-6, IL-10, IL-12, and interferon (IFN)-γ using regression analysis, and conducted a two-year survival follow-up., Results: A total of 66 patients were randomised. Fifty-six received the allocated treatment and were analysed. None of the investigated cytokines exhibited significant between-group differences in plasma concentrations when adjusted for the chosen covariates (p ≥ 0.204). A two-year follow-up showed no difference in survival between the two groups (p = 0.5)., Conclusion: Our study found no differences in the impact on the innate, non-specific immune system related to epidural analgesia for pain management in VATS., Funding: The Danish Cancer Society (R150-A10139). Oberstinde Kirsten Jensa la Cours Mindelegat (JSP-25076). University of Southern Denmark, Region of Southern Denmark and Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Odense University Hospital., Trial Registration: NCT02359175 (ClinicalTrials.gov)., (Published under Open Access CC-BY-NC-BD 4.0. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.)

Background: Postoperative pain following video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) remains a significant challenge. While epidural analgesia is still the gold standard, other types of regional analgesia are gaining popularity because of perceived less risk of complications. The efficacy of systemic opioids as an alternative to epidural analgesia has not been thoroughly explored. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate and compare the efficacy of systemic opioids versus epidural analgesia in managing postoperative pain after VATS., Methods: We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist. A comprehensive search will be conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library supplemented with Scopus citation searches, search for gray literature using Google Scholar and a search for ongoing studies. We will include studies based on the PICO methodology without restrictions regarding study type. Two independent reviewers will screen studies, extract data, and assess study quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tools. The primary outcomes will be postoperative pain intensity at rest and during activity at 24, 48, and 72 h. Secondary outcomes will include use of "rescue" opioids, hospital length of stay, and adverse events. If feasible, a meta-analysis will be done, otherwise we will perform a descriptive analysis., Results: The results will provide a comparative analysis of the effectiveness of systemic opioids versus epidural analgesia in managing postoperative pain in VATS patients. Data synthesis will include pooled estimates for pain scores, opioid consumption, and adverse events, possibly with subgroup and sensitivity analyses conducted to explore heterogeneity across studies., Conclusions: This systematic review will offer valuable insights into the optimal pain management strategy for patients undergoing VATS. The findings may guide clinical practice in selecting the most effective and safe analgesic approach, improving postoperative recovery, and patient outcomes., (© 2024 The Author(s). Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Importance: Supplemental oxygen is ubiquitously used in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, but a lower dose may be beneficial., Objective: To assess the effects of targeting a Pao2 of 60 mm Hg vs 90 mm Hg in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia in the intensive care unit (ICU)., Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized clinical trial including 726 adults with COVID-19 receiving at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation in 11 ICUs in Europe from August 2020 to March 2023. The trial was prematurely stopped prior to outcome assessment due to slow enrollment. End of 90-day follow-up was June 1, 2023., Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to a Pao2 of 60 mm Hg (lower oxygenation group; n = 365) or 90 mm Hg (higher oxygenation group; n = 361) for up to 90 days in the ICU., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support (mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, or kidney replacement therapy) at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included mortality, proportion of patients with serious adverse events, and number of days alive and out of hospital, all at 90 days., Results: Of 726 randomized patients, primary outcome data were available for 697 (351 in the lower oxygenation group and 346 in the higher oxygenation group). Median age was 66 years, and 495 patients (68%) were male. At 90 days, the median number of days alive without life support was 80.0 days (IQR, 9.0-89.0 days) in the lower oxygenation group and 72.0 days (IQR, 2.0-88.0 days) in the higher oxygenation group (P = .009 by van Elteren test; supplemental bootstrapped adjusted mean difference, 5.8 days [95% CI, 0.2-11.5 days]; P = .04). Mortality at 90 days was 30.2% in the lower oxygenation group and 34.7% in the higher oxygenation group (risk ratio, 0.86 [98.6% CI, 0.66-1.13]; P = .18). There were no statistically significant differences in proportion of patients with serious adverse events or in number of days alive and out of hospital., Conclusion and Relevance: In adult ICU patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, targeting a Pao2 of 60 mm Hg resulted in more days alive without life support in 90 days than targeting a Pao2 of 90 mm Hg., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04425031.

Background: The Handling Oxygenation Targets in the Intensive Care Unit (HOT-ICU) trial was a multicentre, randomised, parallel-group trial of a lower oxygenation target (arterial partial pressure of oxygen [PaO 2 ] = 8 kPa) versus a higher oxygenation target (PaO 2  = 12 kPa) in adult ICU patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure; the Handling Oxygenation Targets in coronavirus disease 2019 (HOT-COVID) tested the same oxygenation targets in patients with confirmed COVID-19. In this study, we aim to evaluate the long-term effects of these oxygenation targets on cognitive and pulmonary function. We hypothesise that a lower oxygenation target throughout the ICU stay may result in cognitive impairment, whereas a higher oxygenation target may result in impaired pulmonary function., Methods: This is the updated protocol and statistical analysis plan of two pre-planned secondary outcomes, the long-term cognitive function, and long-term pulmonary function, in the HOT-ICU and HOT-COVID trials. Patients enrolled in both trials at selected Danish sites and surviving to 1 year after randomisation are eligible to participate. A Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status score and a full-body plethysmography, including diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide, will be obtained. The last patient is expected to be included in the spring of 2024., Conclusion: This study will provide important information on the long-term effects of a lower versus a higher oxygenation target on long-term cognitive and pulmonary functions in adult ICU patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure., (© 2024 The Authors. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Background: Little information exists regarding attitudes related to the presence of the partner in the operation room (OR) during category 1 emergency cesarean section (cat. 1 CS). We investigated how cat. 1 CS under general anesthesia is experienced, both by partners present in the OR and those not., Methods: An explorative prospective cohort trial, with qualitative elements, involving all cat. 1 CS in 2022 in two hospitals. At site 1 the partner was present in the OR during cat. 1 CS, whereas at site 2 the partner was not. Parents and staff answered questionnaires following each cat. 1 CS and semi-structured interviews with partners were held three months after surgery. Qualitative data were analyzed using content analysis. The primary outcome was the partner's answer to the question: "Would you have preferred not being present/being present in the OR?" respectively., Results: Seventeen and eight cat. 1 CS occurred at each site respectively. All parents agreed to participate. No partners in site 1 would have preferred to wait outside, and all evaluated the experience very positively. Partners at site 2 also evaluated not being present positively. Overarching themes from the qualitative analysis were "Being the family witness" and "Experience of being the partner". Mothers and staff from site 1 were very positive about their partners' presence., Conclusion: Partners present in the OR during cat. 1 CS under general anesthesia evaluated this very positively. Most partners, who had not been present in the OR, also evaluated this positively. No partners had post-traumatic stress., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Response time for emergency medical service units is a key performance indicator. Studies have shown reduced response time association with improved outcome for specific critical conditions. To achieve short response time, emergency vehicles utilize lights and sirens, and crews are allowed to be non-compliant with traffic rules, posing a risk for accident. The purpose of the systematic review and meta-analysis is to provide an overview of the current body of evidence regarding the association, if any, between ambulance and helicopter response time and major complications and mortality in patients conveyed by ambulance and/or helicopter. Our secondary aim will be to enhance knowledge in the field of criteria-based dispatch to provide decision makers with evidence to optimize dispatch of limited resources., Research Questions: What is the association between overall emergency medical services unit response time and patient outcomes, major complications, and time-critical conditions? What is the internal and external validity of the included literature?, Methods: We plan the systematic review and meta-analysis to be in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook and Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Systematic Reviews. The methodology will include formulating the review questions using a Population, Exposure, and Outcome framework. Every study design is eligible, including qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods designs. We will include all articles in English, Scandinavian, German, French and Portuguese in this systematic review., Results: We will publish results from the systematic review and meta-analysis in a peer-reviewed journal and we will present the results at scientific conferences and meetings. Results will also be available at www.ahrtemis.dk., Conclusion: We will base our conclusions on the findings of the review and meta-analysis., (© 2023 The Authors. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Objective: To describe the change in admission rate and demographic profile of patients admitted to ICUs throughout Denmark before and during first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic., Methods: A register-based national observational study of all patients admitted to ICU from December 2019 until April 2020, comparing ICU admission before and after lockdown., Results: The number of admissions declined, especially in the age groups below 18 and above 70. The sex distribution and the comorbidity-level remained unchanged. The length of hospital stay prior to ICU admission increased. Overall fewer patients were admitted electively., Conclusion: Fewer patients were admitted to ICU and waited longer for admission during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Fluid overload is associated with increased mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The GODIF trial aims to assess the benefits and harms of fluid removal with furosemide versus placebo in stable adult patients with moderate to severe fluid overload in the ICU. This article describes the detailed statistical analysis plan for the primary results of the second version of the GODIF trial., Methods: The GODIF trial is an international, multi-centre, randomised, stratified, blinded, parallel-group, pragmatic clinical trial, allocating 1000 adult ICU patients with moderate to severe fluid overload 1:1 to furosemide versus placebo. The primary outcome is days alive and out of hospital within 90 days post-randomisation. With a power of 90% and an alpha level of 5%, we may reject or detect an improvement of 8%. The primary analyses of all outcomes will be performed in the intention-to-treat population. For the primary outcome, the Kryger Jensen and Lange method will be used to compare the two treatment groups adjusted for stratification variables supplemented with sensitivity analyses in the per-protocol population and with further adjustments for prognostic variables. Secondary outcomes will be analysed with multiple linear regressions, logistic regressions or the Kryger Jensen and Lange method as suitable with adjustment for stratification variables., Conclusion: The GODIF trial data will increase the certainty about the effects of fluid removal using furosemide in adult ICU patients with fluid overload., Trial Registrations: EudraCT identifier: 2019-004292-40 and ClinicalTrials.org: NCT04180397., (© 2023 The Authors. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Background: In the Difficult Airway Society's 2015 "cannot intubate, cannot oxygenate" guideline, the emergency cricothyroidotomy is the final option when managing an unanticipated difficult airway. How often training for maintenance of this skill is required for anesthesiologists remains unknown. We aimed to assess if specialist-trained anesthesiologists' skills improved from a brush-up intervention and if skills were retained after 3 months., Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, participants were randomized to either a simulation-based brush-up or no brush-up. Both groups performed a mannequin-based technical skills emergency cricothyroidotomy test twice and were assessed by a blinded rater using a structured assessment tool that included time, positioning, palpation, appropriate employment of instruments, and stepwise progression. After 3 months of non-training, participants completed identical tests of retention., Results: A total of 54 anesthesiologists were included from three hospitals in the Region of Southern Denmark. Thirty-seven percent of the participants had received skills training in emergency cricothyroidotomy in the prior 12 months. The intervention group (N = 27) performed better in the initial tests, with a mean time of 51.5 s (SD = 10.82), a total score per minute of 15.9 points (SD = 4.91), and 93% passing both initial tests compared to the control group (N = 27) with a mean time of 76.8 s (SD = 35.82), a total score per minute of 6.6 (SD = 4.68) and only 15% passing both initial tests. The intervention group managed to retain overall performance in retention tests in terms of performance time (48.9 s, p = .26), total score per minute (13.6 points, p = .094), and passing the tests (75%, p = .059)., Conclusion: Exposure to simulation-based brush-up training in emergency cricothyroidotomy improved anesthesiologists' technical performance and was overall retained after 3 months. Some loss of skill concerning specific items was observed, highlighting the need for regular training in emergency cricothyroidotomy. Simulation-based training should be prioritized to improve and maintain technical skills in infrequent high-stakes procedures., (© 2023 The Authors. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Here we report the results of a study on the association between drug delivery via intravenous route or intraosseous route in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Intraosseous drug delivery is considered an alternative option in resuscitation if intravenous access is difficult or impossible. Intraosseous uptake of drugs may, however, be compromised. We have performed a retrospective cohort study of all Danish patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the years 2016-2020 to investigate whether mortality is associated with the route of drug delivery. Outcome was 30-day mortality, death at the scene, no prehospital return of spontaneous circulation, and 7- and 90-days mortality. 17,250 patients had out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. 6243 patients received no treatment and were excluded. 1908 patients had sustained return of spontaneous circulation before access to the vascular bed was obtained. 2061 patients were unidentified, and 286 cases were erroneously registered. Thus, this report consist of results from 6752 patients. Drug delivery by intraosseous route is associated with increased OR of: No spontaneous circulation at any time (OR 1.51), Death at 7 days (OR 1.94), 30 days (2.02), and 90 days (OR 2.29). Intraosseous drug delivery in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is associated with overall poorer outcomes than intravenous drug delivery., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Planning for end-of-life (EOL) and future treatment and care through advance care planning (ACP) is being increasingly implemented in different healthcare settings, and interest in ACP is growing. Several studies have emphasized the importance of relatives participating in conversations about wishes for EOL and being included in the process. Likewise, research has highlighted how relatives can be a valuable resource in an emergency setting. Although relatives have a significant role, few studies have investigated their perspectives of ACP and EOL conversations. This study explores relatives' experiences of the benefits and disadvantages of having conversations about wishes for EOL treatment., Methods: Semi-structured telephone interviews were held with 29 relatives who had participated in a conversation about EOL wishes with a patient and physician 2 years prior in a variety of Danish healthcare settings. The relatives were interviewed between September 2020 and June 2022. Content analysis was performed on the qualitative data., Results: The interviews revealed two themes: "gives peace of mind" and "enables more openness and common understanding of EOL." Relatives found that conversations about EOL could help assure that patients were heard and enhance their autonomy. These conversations relieved the relatives of responsibility by clarifying or confirming the patients' wishes, and they also made the relatives reflect on their own wishes for EOL. Moreover, they helped patients and relatives address other issues regarding EOL and made wishes more visible across settings., Significance of Results: The results indicate that conducting conversations about wishes for EOL treatment and having relatives participate in those conversations were perceived as beneficial for both relatives and patients. Involving relatives in ACP should be prioritized by physicians and healthcare personnel when holding conversations about EOL.

Platform trials focus on the perpetual testing of many interventions in a disease or a setting. These trials have lasting organizational, administrative, data, analytic, and operational frameworks making them highly efficient. The use of adaptation often increases the probabilities of allocating participants to better interventions and obtaining conclusive results. The COVID-19 pandemic showed the potential of platform trials as a fast and valid way to improved treatments. This review gives an overview of key concepts and elements using the Intensive Care Platform Trial (INCEPT) as an example., (Published under Open Access CC-BY-NC-BD 4.0. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.)

Background: Among ICU patients with COVID-19, it is largely unknown how the overall outcome and resource use have changed with time, different genetic variants, and vaccination status., Methods: For all Danish ICU patients with COVID-19 from March 10, 2020 to March 31, 2022, we manually retrieved data on demographics, comorbidities, vaccination status, use of life support, length of stay, and vital status from medical records. We compared patients based on the period of admittance and vaccination status and described changes in epidemiology related to the Omicron variant., Results: Among all 2167 ICU patients with COVID-19, 327 were admitted during the first (March 10-19, 2020), 1053 during the second (May 20, 2020 to June 30, 2021) and 787 during the third wave (July 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022). We observed changes over the three waves in age (median 72 vs. 68 vs. 65 years), use of invasive mechanical ventilation (81% vs. 58% vs. 51%), renal replacement therapy (26% vs. 13% vs. 12%), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (7% vs. 3% vs. 2%), duration of invasive mechanical ventilation (median 13 vs. 13 vs. 9 days) and ICU length of stay (median 13 vs. 10 vs. 7 days). Despite these changes, 90-day mortality remained constant (36% vs. 35% vs. 33%). Vaccination rates among ICU patients were 42% as compared to 80% in society. Unvaccinated versus vaccinated patients were younger (median 57 vs. 73 years), had less comorbidity (50% vs. 78%), and had lower 90-day mortality (29% vs. 51%). Patient characteristics changed significantly after the Omicron variant became dominant including a decrease in the use of COVID-specific pharmacological agents from 95% to 69%., Conclusions: In Danish ICUs, the use of life support declined, while mortality seemed unchanged throughout the three waves of COVID-19. Vaccination rates were lower among ICU patients than in society, but the selected group of vaccinated patients admitted to the ICU still had very severe disease courses. When the Omicron variant became dominant a lower fraction of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients received COVID treatment indicating other causes for ICU admission., (© 2023 The Authors. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Purpose: To assess long-term outcomes of restrictive versus standard intravenous (IV) fluid therapy in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock included in the European Conservative versus Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy in Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial., Methods: We conducted the pre-planned analyses of mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using EuroQol (EQ)-5D-5L index values and EQ visual analogue scale (VAS), and cognitive function using Mini Montreal Cognitive Assessment (Mini MoCA) test at 1 year. Deceased patients were assigned numerical zero for HRQoL as a state equal to death and zero for cognitive function outcomes as worst possible score, and we used multiple imputation for missing data on HRQoL and cognitive function., Results: Among 1554 randomized patients, we obtained 1-year data on mortality in 97.9% of patients, HRQoL in 91.3%, and cognitive function in 86.3%. One-year mortality was 385/746 (51.3%) in the restrictive-fluid group versus 383/767 (49.9%) in the standard-fluid group, absolute risk difference 1.5%-points [99% confidence interval (CI) - 4.8 to 7.8]. Mean differences were 0.00 (99% CI - 0.06 to 0.05) for EQ-5D-5L index values, - 0.65 for EQ VAS (- 5.40 to 4.08), and - 0.14 for Mini MoCA (- 1.59 to 1.14) for the restrictive-fluid group versus the standard-fluid group. The results for survivors only were similar in both groups., Conclusions: Among adult ICU patients with septic shock, restrictive versus standard IV fluid therapy resulted in similar survival, HRQoL, and cognitive function at 1 year, but clinically important differences could not be ruled out., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objectives: We aimed to provide an overview of the current evidence on routine versus on-demand blood sampling in critical care. We assessed the reported proportion of patients exposed to daily routine blood sampling, the tests performed, characteristics associated with more frequent blood sampling, and the reported benefits and harms of routine blood sampling compared with on-demand sampling., Data Sources: We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, the Excerpta Medica Database, and the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online for studies assessing routine versus on-demand blood testing in critically ill patients from inception to September 2022., Study Selection: Abstracts and full texts were assessed independently and in duplicate by two reviewers., Study Extraction: Data were extracted independently and in duplicate by two reviewers using predefined extraction forms., Data Synthesis: Of 12,212 records screened, 298 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. We included 70 studies; 50 nonrandomized interventional studies and 20 observational studies. Exposure to routine blood testing was 52-100% (very low certainty of evidence). Blood testing seemed to occur more frequently in medical intensive care settings with a median of 18 blood tests per patient day (interquartile range, 10-33) (very low certainty of evidence). Mixed biochemistry seemed to be the most frequently performed blood tests across all settings (five tests per patient day; interquartile range, 2-10) (very low certainty of evidence). Reductions in routine blood testing seemed to be associated with reduced transfusion rates and costs without apparent adverse patient outcomes (low certainty of evidence)., Conclusions: In this systematic review, routine blood testing in critically ill patients was common and varied considerably. A reduction in routine blood testing appeared to be associated with reduced transfusion rates and costs without adverse effects, but the evidence was very uncertain., Competing Interests: Dr. Hjortsø’s institution received funding from the Research Council of Rigshospitalet and The Novo Nordisk Foundation, Sygeforsikring “danmark,” and Pfizer and does contract research for AM-Pharma; he received support for article research from The Department of Intensive Care. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Background: Salt and water accumulation leading to fluid overload is associated with increased mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, but diuretics' effects on patient outcomes are uncertain. In this first version of the GODIF trial, we aimed to assess the effects of goal-directed fluid removal with furosemide versus placebo in adult ICU patients with fluid overload., Methods: We conducted a multicentre, randomised, stratified, parallel-group, blinded, placebo-controlled trial in clinically stable, adult ICU patients with at least 5% fluid overload. Participants were randomised to furosemide versus placebo infusion aiming at achieving neutral cumulative fluid balance as soon as possible. The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of the hospital at 90 days., Results: The trial was terminated after the enrolment of 41 of 1000 participants because clinicians had difficulties using cumulative fluid balance as the only estimate of fluid status (32% of participants had their initially registered cumulative fluid balance adjusted and 29% experienced one or more protocol violations). The baseline cumulative fluid balance was 6956 ml in the furosemide group and 6036 ml in the placebo group; on day three, the cumulative fluid balances were 1927 ml and 5139 ml. The median number of days alive and out of hospital at day 90 was 50 days in the furosemide group versus 45 days in the placebo group (mean difference 1 day, 95% CI -19 to 21, p-value .94)., Conclusions: The use of cumulative fluid balance as the only estimate of fluid status appeared too difficult to use in clinical practice. We were unable to provide precise estimates for any outcomes as only 4.1% of the planned sample size was randomised., (© 2023 The Authors. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Background: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have an increased risk of thromboembolic complications. We describe the occurrence of thromboembolic and bleeding events in all ICU patients with COVID-19 in Denmark during the first and second waves of the pandemic., Methods: This was a sub-study of the Danish Intensive Care Covid database, in which all patients with SARS-CoV-2 admitted to Danish ICUs from 10th March 2020 to 30th June 2021 were included. We registered coagulation variables at admission, and all thromboembolic and bleeding events, and the use of heparins during ICU stay. Variables associated with thrombosis and bleeding and any association with 90-day mortality were estimated using Cox regression analyses., Results: We included 1369 patients in this sub-study; 158 (12%, 95% confidence interval 10-13) had a thromboembolic event in ICU and 309 (23%, 20-25) had a bleeding event, among whom 81 patients (6%, 4.8-7.3) had major bleeding. We found that mechanical ventilation and increased D-dimer were associated with thrombosis and mechanical ventilation, low platelet count and presence of haematological malignancy were associated with bleeding. Most patients (76%) received increased doses of thromboprophylaxis during their ICU stay. Thromboembolic events were not associated with mortality in adjusted analysis (hazard ratio 1.35 [0.91-2.01, p = .14], whereas bleeding events were 1.55 [1.18-2.05, p = .002])., Conclusions: Both thromboembolic and bleeding events frequently occurred in ICU patients with COVID-19. Based on these data, it is not apparent that increased doses of thromboprophylaxis were beneficial., (© 2022 The Authors. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Introduction: Moderate to severe respiratory distress among patients with COVID-19 is associated with a high mortality. This study evaluated ventilator support and mortality by Do Intubate (DI) or Do Not Intubate (DNI) orders., Methods: This was a retrospective study of patients with COVID-19 and a supplemental oxygen requirement of ≥ 15 l/min. The patients were divided into two groups corresponding to the first and second wave of COVID-19 and were subsequently further divided according to DI and DNI orders and analysed regarding need of ventilator support and mortality., Results: The study included 178 patients. The mortality was 24% for patients with DI orders (n = 115) and 81% for patients with DNI orders (n = 63) increasing to 98% (n = 46) for patients with DNI orders and very high flow oxygen requirements (≥ 30 l/min.). From the first to the second wave of COVID-19, the use of constant continuous positive airway pressure (cCPAP) increased from 71% to 91% (p less-than 0.001), whereas the use of mechanical ventilation decreased from 54% to 28% (odds ratio = 0.38 (95% confidence interval: 0.17-0.85))., Conclusion: The mortality was high for patients with DNI orders and respiratory distress with very high levels in supplemental oxygen in both the first and second wave of COVID-19 despite an increase in use of cCPAP and treatment with dexamethasone and remdesivir during the second wave. Hence, careful evaluation on transition to palliative care must be considered for these patients., Funding: none., Trial Registration: The study was approved by the Danish Patient Safety Authority (record no. 31-1521-309) and the Regional Data Protection Centre (record no. P-2020-492)., (Articles published in the DMJ are “open access”. This means that the articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits any non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.)

Background: Emergency caesarean sections are often very urgent, with limited time for informing and guiding parents. Is it preferable to leave the partner outside of the operating room, or let the partner accompany the mother?, Objective: This review aimed to provide an overview of the available evidence regarding the presence of the partner in the operating room during emergency caesarean sections., Design: Scoping review., Data Sources: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cinahl and the Cochrane Library., Eligibility Criteria: All published literature reporting on emergency caesarean sections in regional or general anaesthesia with the partner present in the operating room were eligible, no matter the design., Results: Twenty-four titles, published between 1984 and 2020, were included; 15 contained original clinical findings and 9 were letters/debates. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and found to be very low/low (17 studies), moderate (6) or good (1). Studies originated from Europe (16 studies), USA/Canada (4), South America (2), Asia (1) and Africa (1). Content data were thematically summarised and were overall either in favour or against having the partner present. Staff seemed reluctant to let partners be present for caesarean sections under general anaesthesia; mothers and partners preferred the partners' presence. Under regional anaesthesia, parents also wished for the partners' presence and described the caesarean section under regional anaesthesia as a predominantly positive experience. Most staff had a favourable attitude towards letting the partner be present for caesarean sections under regional anaesthesia., Conclusion: Limited evidence exists regarding the presence of the partner during emergency caesarean sections, but is of low quality. Most parents prefer having their partner present. Staff can be reluctant, especially when general anaesthesia is used., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care.)

Background: Conducting a conversation about wishes for treatment at end of life (EOL) has been shown to improve EOL care for patients and relatives. Still, only a minority of physicians conduct the conversation, which might lead to unwanted interventions and treatments., Objectives: The purpose of this survey was to examine which factors facilitate and hinder physicians across a wide range of health care facilities to initiate the conversation about wishes for treatment at EOL., Design: A questionnaire survey based on a Delphi-developed questionnaire., Setting/subjects: The questionnaire was sent to both hospital physicians and general practitioners (GPs) in a Danish region., Results: More than 3000 physicians were invited to participate in the survey. Of these, 782 responded, 622 working at a hospital department, and 160 from general practice clinics. Results showed that senior physicians, GPs, and physicians working in a medical department feel best equipped to conduct the conversation. Moreover, senior physicians pointed to their experience as physicians as being of great importance for conducting the conversation, whereas junior physicians found training in conducting the conversation as an important factor., Conclusion: Our study indicates that different factors depending on the health care setting and the seniority of the physician facilitate or hinder physicians from conducting the conversation about wishes for treatment at EOL. Being aware of these differences and making a concerted effort depending on setting and seniority might help implement and conduct the conversation., Competing Interests: No competing financial interests exist., (© Mette Aaby Smith et al., 2022; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.)

Background: Fluid overload is a risk factor for mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Administration of loop diuretics is the predominant treatment of fluid overload, but evidence for its benefit is very uncertain when assessed in a systematic review of randomised clinical trials. The GODIF trial will assess the benefits and harms of goal directed fluid removal with furosemide versus placebo in ICU patients with fluid overload., Methods: An investigator-initiated, international, randomised, stratified, blinded, parallel-group trial allocating 1000 adult ICU patients with fluid overload to infusion of furosemide versus placebo. The goal is to achieve a neutral fluid balance. The primary outcome is days alive and out of hospital 90 days after randomisation. Secondary outcomes are all-cause mortality at day 90 and 1-year after randomisation; days alive at day 90 without life support; number of participants with one or more serious adverse events or reactions; health-related quality of life and cognitive function at 1-year follow-up. A sample size of 1000 participants is required to detect an improvement of 8% in days alive and out of hospital 90 days after randomisation with a power of 90% and a risk of type 1 error of 5%. The conclusion of the trial will be based on the point estimate and 95% confidence interval; dichotomisation will not be used., Clinicaltrials: gov identifier: NCT04180397., Perspective: The GODIF trial will provide important evidence of possible benefits and harms of fluid removal with furosemide in adult ICU patients with fluid overload., (© 2022 The Authors. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Background: Characteristics and care of intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID-19 may have changed during the pandemic, but longitudinal data assessing this are limited. We compared patients with COVID-19 admitted to Danish ICUs in the first wave with those admitted later., Methods: Among all Danish ICU patients with COVID-19, we compared demographics, chronic comorbidities, use of organ support, length of stay and vital status of those admitted 10 March to 19 May 2020 (first wave) versus 20 May 2020 to 30 June 2021. We analysed risk factors for death by adjusted logistic regression analysis., Results: Among all hospitalised patients with COVID-19, a lower proportion was admitted to ICU after the first wave (13% vs. 8%). Among all 1374 ICU patients with COVID-19, 326 were admitted during the first wave. There were no major differences in patient's characteristics or mortality between the two periods, but use of invasive mechanical ventilation (81% vs. 58% of patients), renal replacement therapy (26% vs. 13%) and ECMO (8% vs. 3%) and median length of stay in ICU (13 vs. 10 days) and in hospital (20 vs. 17 days) were all significantly lower after the first wave. Risk factors for death were higher age, larger burden of comorbidities (heart failure, pulmonary disease and kidney disease) and active cancer, but not admission during or after the first wave., Conclusions: After the first wave of COVID-19 in Denmark, a lower proportion of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 were admitted to ICU. Among ICU patients, use of organ support was lower and length of stay was reduced, but mortality rates remained at a relatively high level., (© 2022 The Authors. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Background: ICU admission due to COVID-19 may result in cognitive and physical impairment. We investigated the long-term cognitive and physical status of Danish ICU patients with COVID-19., Methods: We included all patients with COVID-19 admitted to Danish ICUs between March 10 and May 19, 2020. Patients were the contacted prospectively at 6 and 12 months for follow-up. Our primary outcomes were cognitive function and frailty at 6 and 12 months after ICU admission, estimated by the Mini Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and the Clinical Frailty Scale. Secondary outcomes were 6- and 12-month mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessed by EQ-5D-5L, functional status (Barthel activities of daily living and Lawton-Brody instrumental activities of daily living), and fatigue (Fatigue Assessment Scale). The study had no information on pre-ICU admission status for the participants., Results: A total of 326 patients were included. The 6- and 12-month mortality was 37% and 38%, respectively. Among the 204 six-month survivors, 105 (51%) participated in the 6-month follow-up; among the 202 twelve-month survivors, 95 (47%) participated in the 12-month follow-up. At 6 months, cognitive scores indicated impairment for 26% (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.4-12.4) and at 12 months for 17% (95% CI, 12.0-12.8) of participants. Frailty was indicated in 20% (95% CI, 3.4-3.9) at 6 months, and for 18% (95% CI, 3.3-3.8) at 12 months. Fatigue was reported by 52% at 6 months, and by 47% at 12 months. For HRQoL, moderate, severe, or extreme health problems were reported by 28% at 6 months, and by 25% at 12 months., Conclusion: Long-term cognitive, functional impairment was found in up to one in four of patients surviving intensive care for COVID-19. Fatigue was present in nearly half the survivors at both 6 and 12 months. However, pre-ICU admission status of the patients was unknown., (© 2022 Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Introduction: A prehospital system where obvious futile cases may be terminated prehospitally by physicians may reduce unethical treatment of dying patients. Withholding treatment in futile cases may seem ethically sound but may keep dying patients from becoming organ donors. The objective of this study was to characterise the prehospital patients who underwent organ donation. The aim was to alert prehospital physicians to a potential for an increase in the organ donor pool by considering continued treatment even in some prehospital patients with obvious fatal lesions or illness., Methods: This is a retrospective register-based study from the Region of Southern Denmark. The prehospital medical records from patients who underwent organ donation after prehospital care from 1st of January 2016-31st of December 2020 were screened for inclusion. The outcome measures were prehospital diagnosis, vital parameters, and critical interventions., Results: In the five year period, one-hundred-and-fifty-one patients were entered into a donation process in the health region following prehospital care. Sixteen patients were excluded due to limitations in data availability. Of the 135 patients included, 36.3% had a stroke. 36.7% of these patients were intubated prehospitally. 15.6% had subarachnoideal haemorrhage. 66.7% of these were intubated prehospitally. 10.4% suffered from head trauma. 64.3% of these patients were intubated at the scene. In 21.5% of the patients, the prehospitally assigned tentative diagnosis was missing or included a diverse spectrum of medical and surgical emergencies. Twenty-two patients (16.3%) were resuscitated from cardiac arrest. 81.8% were intubated at the scene., Conclusion: The majority of the patients who became organ donors presented prehospitally with intracranial pathology. However, 30% of the patients that later underwent an organ donation process had other prehospital diagnoses. Among these, one patient in six had out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Termination of treatment in patients with cardiac arrest is not uncommon in physician-manned prehospital emergency medical systems. An organ donation process cannot be initiated prehospitally but can be shut down if treatment is withheld or terminated. We contend that there is a potential for enlarging the donor pool if the decision processes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest include considerations concerning future procurement of organ donors., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Substantial variation in survival following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is described both internationally and nationally. The Utstein factors account for half of the variation, but the remaining is not fully understood. Local regulations or guidelines concerning the withholding and termination of resuscitation may influence the reporting of cardiac arrests when comparing outcomes between different Emergency Medical Service systems., Method: We have developed an online cross-sectional mixed-methods explanatory design survey aimed at describing the international and national variations in the initiation, the termination of resuscitation, and the refraining from resuscitation of adult patients (>18 years of age) suffering from non-traumatic OHCA. The respondents will be national experts and the questionnaire will be distributed among members of European Prehospital Research Alliance, the International Liaison Committee of Resuscitation, the European Resuscitation Council, and the Resuscitation Academy. Each invited country will have to identify at least two national experts with special expertise in prehospital resuscitation practices. We exclude countries with less than two respondents., Results: The survey will provide both quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data will be presented as frequencies and proportions. Qualitative data will be analyzed using content analysis., Conclusion: This survey could be of importance in understanding the multiple factors leading to the substantial variation in survival found following OHCA. Furthermore, the interpretation of future studies on OHCA from different settings may be improved to further increase survival following OHCA., (© 2022 The Authors. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Background: Intravenous fluids are recommended for the treatment of patients who are in septic shock, but higher fluid volumes have been associated with harm in patients who are in the intensive care unit (ICU)., Methods: In this international, randomized trial, we assigned patients with septic shock in the ICU who had received at least 1 liter of intravenous fluid to receive restricted intravenous fluid or standard intravenous fluid therapy; patients were included if the onset of shock had been within 12 hours before screening. The primary outcome was death from any cause within 90 days after randomization., Results: We enrolled 1554 patients; 770 were assigned to the restrictive-fluid group and 784 to the standard-fluid group. Primary outcome data were available for 1545 patients (99.4%). In the ICU, the restrictive-fluid group received a median of 1798 ml of intravenous fluid (interquartile range, 500 to 4366); the standard-fluid group received a median of 3811 ml (interquartile range, 1861 to 6762). At 90 days, death had occurred in 323 of 764 patients (42.3%) in the restrictive-fluid group, as compared with 329 of 781 patients (42.1%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.7 to 4.9; P = 0.96). In the ICU, serious adverse events occurred at least once in 221 of 751 patients (29.4%) in the restrictive-fluid group and in 238 of 772 patients (30.8%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, -1.7 percentage points; 99% CI, -7.7 to 4.3). At 90 days after randomization, the numbers of days alive without life support and days alive and out of the hospital were similar in the two groups., Conclusions: Among adult patients with septic shock in the ICU, intravenous fluid restriction did not result in fewer deaths at 90 days than standard intravenous fluid therapy. (Funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and others; CLASSIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03668236.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Purpose: We assessed long-term outcomes of dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg given daily for up to 10 days in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and severe hypoxaemia., Methods: We assessed 180-day mortality and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using EuroQoL (EQ)-5D-5L index values and EQ visual analogue scale (VAS) in the international, stratified, blinded COVID STEROID 2 trial, which randomised 1000 adults with confirmed COVID-19 receiving at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation in 26 hospitals in Europe and India. In the HRQoL analyses, higher values indicated better outcomes, and deceased patients were given a score of zero., Results: We obtained vital status at 180 days for 963 of 982 patients (98.1%) in the intention-to-treat population, EQ-5D-5L index value data for 922 (93.9%) and EQ VAS data for 924 (94.1%). At 180 days, 164 of 486 patients (33.7%) had died in the 12 mg group versus 184 of 477 (38.6%) in the 6 mg group [adjusted risk difference - 4.3%; 99% confidence interval (CI) - 11.7-3.0; relative risk 0.89; 0.72-1.09; P = 0.13]. The adjusted mean differences between the 12 mg and the 6 mg groups in EQ-5D-5L index values were 0.06 (99% CI - 0.01 to 0.12; P = 0.10) and in EQ VAS scores 4 (- 3 to 10; P = 0.22)., Conclusion: Among patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia, dexamethasone 12 mg compared with 6 mg did not result in statistically significant improvements in mortality or HRQoL at 180 days, but the results were most compatible with benefit from the higher dose., (© 2022. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Introduction: Different outcomes are reported in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, and no core outcome set (COS) is available for ICU patients in general. Accordingly, we aim to develop a COS for ICU patients in general., Methods: The COS will be developed in accordance with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Handbook, using a modified Delphi consensus process and semi-structured interviews involving adults who have survived acute admission to an ICU, family members, clinicians, researchers and other stakeholders. The modified Delphi process will include two steps. Step 1: conduction of a modified Delphi survey, developed and informed by combining the outputs of a literature search of outcomes in previous COSs and semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders. We plan at least two survey rounds to obtain consensus and refine the COS. Step 2: a consensus process regarding instruments or definitions to be recommended for the measurements of the outcomes selected in Step 1. A 'patient and public involvement panel' consisting of a smaller group of patients, family members, clinicians and researchers will be included in the development, analysis and interpretation of the COS., Discussion: The outlined multiple method studies will establish a COS for ICU patients in general, which may be used to increase the standardisation and comparability of results of RCTs conducted in patients in the ICU setting., (© 2021 The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Although supplemental oxygen can be lifesaving, liberal oxygen administration causing hyperoxaemia may be harmful. The targets for oxygenation in patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure acutely admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) are strongly debated, and consensus on which targets to recommend has not been reached. The Handling Oxygenation Targets in the ICU (HOT-ICU) trial is a multicentre, randomised, parallel-group trial of a lower oxygenation target (arterial partial pressure of oxygen [PaO 2 ] = 8 kPa) versus a higher oxygenation target (PaO 2  = 12 kPa) in adult ICU patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. In this study, we aim to evaluate the effects of these targets on long-term cognitive and pulmonary function in Danish patients, enrolled in the HOT-ICU trial and surviving to 1-year follow-up. We hypothesise that a lower oxygenation target throughout the ICU stay may result in cognitive impairment, whereas a higher oxygenation target may result in impaired pulmonary function., Methods: All patients enrolled in the HOT-ICU trial at Danish sites and surviving to 1 year after randomisation are eligible to participate. The last patient is expected to be included by November 2021. A Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status and a body plethysmography, including diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide, both pre-planned secondary long-term outcomes of the HOT-ICU trial, will be obtained., Conclusion: This study will provide important information on the long-term effects of a lower versus a higher oxygenation target on cognitive and pulmonary function in adult ICU patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure., (© 2021 The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: We compared dexamethasone 12 versus 6 mg daily for up to 10 days in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and severe hypoxaemia in the international, randomised, blinded COVID STEROID 2 trial. In the primary, conventional analyses, the predefined statistical significance thresholds were not reached. We conducted a pre-planned Bayesian analysis to facilitate probabilistic interpretation., Methods: We analysed outcome data within 90 days in the intention-to-treat population (data available in 967 to 982 patients) using Bayesian models with various sensitivity analyses. Results are presented as median posterior probabilities with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) and probabilities of different effect sizes with 12 mg dexamethasone., Results: The adjusted mean difference on days alive without life support at day 28 (primary outcome) was 1.3 days (95% CrI -0.3 to 2.9; 94.2% probability of benefit). Adjusted relative risks and probabilities of benefit on serious adverse reactions was 0.85 (0.63 to 1.16; 84.1%) and on mortality 0.87 (0.73 to 1.03; 94.8%) at day 28 and 0.88 (0.75 to 1.02; 95.1%) at day 90. Probabilities of benefit on days alive without life support and days alive out of hospital at day 90 were 85 and 95.7%, respectively. Results were largely consistent across sensitivity analyses, with relatively low probabilities of clinically important harm with 12 mg on all outcomes in all analyses., Conclusion: We found high probabilities of benefit and low probabilities of clinically important harm with dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg daily in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia on all outcomes up to 90 days., (© 2021. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Supplemental oxygen is the key intervention for severe and critical COVID-19 patients. With the unstable supplies of oxygen in many countries, it is important to define the lowest safe dosage., Methods: In spring 2020, 110 COVID-19 patients were enrolled as part of the Handling Oxygenation Targets in the ICU trial (HOT-ICU). Patients were allocated within 12 h of ICU admission. Oxygen therapy was titrated to a partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO 2 ) of 8 kPa (lower oxygenation group) or a PaO 2 of 12 kPa (higher oxygenation group) during ICU stay up to 90 days. We report key outcomes at 90 days for the subgroup of COVID-19 patients., Results: At 90 days, 22 of 54 patients (40.7%) in the lower oxygenation group and 23 of 55 patients (41.8%) in the higher oxygenation group had died (adjusted risk ratio: 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.32). The percentage of days alive without life support was significantly higher in the lower oxygenation group (p = 0.03). The numbers of severe ischemic events were low with no difference between the two groups. Proning and inhaled vasodilators were used more frequently, and the positive end-expiratory pressure was higher in the higher oxygenation group. Tests for interactions with the results of the remaining HOT-ICU population were insignificant., Conclusions: Targeting a PaO 2 of 8 kPa may be beneficial in ICU patients with COVID-19. These results come with uncertainty due to the low number of patients in this unplanned subgroup analysis, and insignificant tests for interaction with the main HOT-ICU trial., Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03174002. Date of registration: June 2, 2017., (© 2021 The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

In patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), the initial prehospital treatment and transfer of patients directly to intervention clinics-bypassing smaller hospitals-have improved outcomes in recent years. Despite the improved treatment strategies, some patients develop myoclonic status following OHCA, and this phenomenon is usually considered an indicator of poor outcome. With this study, we wanted to challenge this perception. The regional prehospital database in Odense in the Region of Southern Denmark was searched for patients with OHCA from the period of 2011-2016. All 900 patients presenting with a diagnosis of OHCA were included in the study. Patients surviving to the hospital and presenting with myoclonic status were followed for up to one year. Only 2 out of 38 patients with myoclonic status and status epilepticus verified by an EEG survived more than one year. Eleven out of 36 patients with myoclonic status but without status epilepticus survived for more than one year. We found no evidence that myoclonic status is an unmistakable sign of poor outcome when not associated with EEG-verified status epilepticus. The conclusion for clinicians involved in post-resuscitation care is that myoclonic status is uncomfortable to witness but does not necessarily indicate that further treatment is futile.

Importance: A daily dose with 6 mg of dexamethasone is recommended for up to 10 days in patients with severe and critical COVID-19, but a higher dose may benefit those with more severe disease., Objective: To assess the effects of 12 mg/d vs 6 mg/d of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia., Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter, randomized clinical trial was conducted between August 2020 and May 2021 at 26 hospitals in Europe and India and included 1000 adults with confirmed COVID-19 requiring at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation. End of 90-day follow-up was on August 19, 2021., Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to 12 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 503) or 6 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 497) for up to 10 days., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support (invasive mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, or kidney replacement therapy) at 28 days and was adjusted for stratification variables. Of the 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, 5 are included in this analysis (the number of days alive without life support at 90 days, the number of days alive out of the hospital at 90 days, mortality at 28 days and at 90 days, and ≥1 serious adverse reactions at 28 days)., Results: Of the 1000 randomized patients, 982 were included (median age, 65 [IQR, 55-73] years; 305 [31%] women) and primary outcome data were available for 971 (491 in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 480 in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group). The median number of days alive without life support was 22.0 days (IQR, 6.0-28.0 days) in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 20.5 days (IQR, 4.0-28.0 days) in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted mean difference, 1.3 days [95% CI, 0-2.6 days]; P = .07). Mortality at 28 days was 27.1% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 32.3% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.86 [99% CI, 0.68-1.08]). Mortality at 90 days was 32.0% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 37.7% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.87 [99% CI, 0.70-1.07]). Serious adverse reactions, including septic shock and invasive fungal infections, occurred in 11.3% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 13.4% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.83 [99% CI, 0.54-1.29])., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, 12 mg/d of dexamethasone compared with 6 mg/d of dexamethasone did not result in statistically significantly more days alive without life support at 28 days. However, the trial may have been underpowered to identify a significant difference., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04509973 and ctri.nic.in Identifier: CTRI/2020/10/028731.

Background: In the early phase of the pandemic, some guidelines recommended the use of corticosteroids for critically ill patients with COVID-19, whereas others recommended against the use despite lack of firm evidence of either benefit or harm. In the COVID STEROID trial, we aimed to assess the effects of low-dose hydrocortisone on patient-centred outcomes in adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia., Methods: In this multicentre, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, blinded, centrally randomised, stratified clinical trial, we randomly assigned adults with confirmed COVID-19 and severe hypoxia (use of mechanical ventilation or supplementary oxygen with a flow of at least 10 L/min) to either hydrocortisone (200 mg/d) vs a matching placebo for 7 days or until hospital discharge. The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support at day 28 after randomisation., Results: The trial was terminated early when 30 out of 1000 participants had been enrolled because of external evidence indicating benefit from corticosteroids in severe COVID-19. At day 28, the median number of days alive without life support in the hydrocortisone vs placebo group were 7 vs 10 (adjusted mean difference: -1.1 days, 95% CI -9.5 to 7.3, P = .79); mortality was 6/16 vs 2/14; and the number of serious adverse reactions 1/16 vs 0/14., Conclusions: In this trial of adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia, we were unable to provide precise estimates of the benefits and harms of hydrocortisone as compared with placebo as only 3% of the planned sample size were enrolled., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04348305. European Union Drug Regulation Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT) Database: 2020-001395-15., (© 2021 The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to severe hypoxic respiratory failure and death. Corticosteroids decrease mortality in severely or critically ill patients with COVID-19. However, the optimal dose remains unresolved. The ongoing randomised COVID STEROID 2 trial investigates the effects of higher vs lower doses of dexamethasone (12 vs 6 mg intravenously daily for up to 10 days) in 1,000 adult patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia., Methods: This protocol outlines the rationale and statistical methods for a secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis of the primary outcome (days alive without life support at day 28) and all secondary outcomes registered up to day 90. We will use hurdle-negative binomial models to estimate the mean number of days alive without life support in each group and present results as mean differences and incidence rate ratios with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). Additional count outcomes will be analysed similarly and binary outcomes will be analysed using logistic regression models with results presented as probabilities, relative risks and risk differences with 95% CrIs. We will present probabilities of any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm and probabilities of effects smaller than pre-defined clinically minimally important differences for all outcomes analysed. Analyses will be adjusted for stratification variables and conducted using weakly informative priors supplemented by sensitivity analyses using sceptic priors., Discussion: This secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis will supplement the primary, conventional analysis and may help clinicians, researchers and policymakers interpret the results of the COVID STEROID 2 trial while avoiding arbitrarily dichotomised interpretations of the results., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04509973; EudraCT: 2020-003363-25., (© 2021 The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in the intensive care unit (ICU) are treated with supplemental oxygen, but the benefits and harms of different oxygenation targets are unclear. We hypothesized that using a lower target for partial pressure of arterial oxygen (Pao 2 ) would result in lower mortality than using a higher target., Methods: In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 2928 adult patients who had recently been admitted to the ICU (≤12 hours before randomization) and who were receiving at least 10 liters of oxygen per minute in an open system or had a fraction of inspired oxygen of at least 0.50 in a closed system to receive oxygen therapy targeting a Pao 2 of either 60 mm Hg (lower-oxygenation group) or 90 mm Hg (higher-oxygenation group) for a maximum of 90 days. The primary outcome was death within 90 days., Results: At 90 days, 618 of 1441 patients (42.9%) in the lower-oxygenation group and 613 of 1447 patients (42.4%) in the higher-oxygenation group had died (adjusted risk ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.94 to 1.11; P = 0.64). At 90 days, there was no significant between-group difference in the percentage of days that patients were alive without life support or in the percentage of days they were alive after hospital discharge. The percentages of patients who had new episodes of shock, myocardial ischemia, ischemic stroke, or intestinal ischemia were similar in the two groups (P = 0.24)., Conclusions: Among adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in the ICU, a lower oxygenation target did not result in lower mortality than a higher target at 90 days. (Funded by the Innovation Fund Denmark and others; HOT-ICU ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03174002.)., (Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Most data on intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID-19 originate in selected populations from stressed healthcare systems with shorter term follow-up. We present characteristics, interventions and longer term outcomes of the entire, unselected cohort of all ICU patients with COVID-19 in Denmark where the ICU capacity was not exceeded., Methods: We identified all patients with SARS-CoV-2 admitted to any Danish ICU from 10 March to 19 May 2020 and registered demographics, chronic comorbidities, use of organ support, length of stay, and vital status from patient files. Risk factors for death were analyzed using adjusted Cox regression analysis., Results: There were 323 ICU patients with confirmed COVID-19. Median age was 68 years, 74% were men, 50% had hypertension, 21% diabetes, and 20% chronic pulmonary disease; 29% had no chronic comorbidity. Invasive mechanical ventilation was used in 82%, vasopressors in 83%, renal replacement therapy in 26%, and extra corporeal membrane oxygenation in 8%. ICU stay was median 13 days (IQR 6-22) and hospital stay 19 days (11-30). Median follow-up was 79 days. At end of follow-up, 118 had died (37%), 15 (4%) were still in hospital hereof 4 in ICU as of 16 June 2020. Risk factors for mortality included male gender, age, chronic pulmonary disease, active cancer, and number of co-morbidities., Conclusions: In this nationwide, population-based cohort of ICU patients with COVID-19, longer term survival was high despite high age and substantial use of organ support. Male gender, age, and chronic co-morbidities, in particular chronic pulmonary disease, were associated with increased risk of death., (© 2020 The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 has caused a pandemic of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) with many patients developing hypoxic respiratory failure. Corticosteroids reduce the time on mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit and potentially also mortality in similar patient populations. However, corticosteroids have undesirable effects, including longer time to viral clearance. Clinical equipoise on the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 exists., Methods: The COVID STEROID trial is an international, randomised, stratified, blinded clinical trial. We will allocate 1000 adult patients with COVID-19 receiving ≥10 L/min of oxygen or on mechanical ventilation to intravenous hydrocortisone 200 mg daily vs placebo (0.9% saline) for 7 days. The primary outcome is days alive without life support (ie mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, and renal replacement therapy) at day 28. Secondary outcomes are serious adverse reactions at day 14; days alive without life support at day 90; days alive and out of hospital at day 90; all-cause mortality at day 28, day 90, and 1 year; and health-related quality of life at 1 year. We will conduct the statistical analyses according to this protocol, including interim analyses for every 250 patients followed for 28 days. The primary outcome will be compared using the Kryger Jensen and Lange test in the intention to treat population and reported as differences in means and medians with 95% confidence intervals., Discussion: The COVID STEROID trial will provide important evidence to guide the use of corticosteroids in COVID-19 and severe hypoxia., (© 2020 The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

This review provides a summary of treatment of cardiac arrest with mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). CPR provides chest compressions according to guidelines in the treatment of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This is useful in situations where CPR cannot be safely delivered (e.g. during transportation and prolonged CPR). Randomized controlled trials have not shown improved patient outcomes after treatment with mechanical CPR compared to manual CPR. Mechanical CPR can, like manual CPR, cause injuries, and some may be life-threatening. Mechanical CPR is therefore recommended as an adjunct to manual CPR in special circumstances but not used routinely.

For years, the use of ketamine as an anesthetic to patients suffering from acute brain injury has been debated because of its possible deleterious effects on the cerebral circulation and thus on the cerebral perfusion. Early studies suggested that ketamine could increase the intracranial pressure thus lowering the cerebral perfusion and hence reduce the oxygen supply to the injured brain. However, more recent studies are less conclusive and might even indicate that patients with acute brain injury could benefit from ketamine sedation. This systematic review summarizes the evidence regarding the use of ketamine in patients suffering from traumatic brain injury. Databases were searched for studies using ketamine in acute brain injury. Outcomes of interest were mortality, intracranial pressure, cerebral perfusion pressure, blood pressure, heart rate, spreading depolarizations, and neurological function. In total 11 studies were included. The overall level of evidence concerning the use of ketamine in brain injury is low. Only two studies found a small increase in intracranial pressure, while two small studies found decreased levels of intracranial pressure following ketamine administration. We found no evidence of harm during ketamine use in patients suffering from acute brain injury.

The "morning morality effect"-the alleged phenomenon that people are more likely to act in unethical ways in the afternoon when they are tired and have less self-control than in the morning-may well be expected to influence prehospital anaesthesiologist manning mobile emergency care units (MECUs). The working conditions of these units routinely entail fatigue, hunger, sleep deprivation and other physical or emotional conditions that might make prehospital units predisposed to exhibit the "morning morality effect". We investigated whether this is in fact the case by looking at the distribution of patient transports to hospital with and without physician escort late at night at the end of the shift as a surrogate marker for changing thresholds in ethical behaviour. All missions over a period of 11 years in the MECU in Odense were reviewed. Physician-escorted transports to hospital were compared with non-physician-escorted transports during daytime, evening, and night-time (which correlates with time on the 24 h shifts). In total, 26,883 patients were transported to hospital following treatment by the MECU. Of these, 27.4% (26.9%-27.9%) were escorted to the hospital. The ratio of patient transports to hospital with and without physician escort during the three periods of the day did not differ ( p = 1.00). We found no evidence of changes in admission patterns over the day. Thus, no evidence of the expected "morning morality effect" could be found in a prehospital physician-manned emergency care unit., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Background: In patients with septic shock, mortality is high, and survivors experience long-term physical, mental and social impairments. The ongoing Conservative vs Liberal Approach to fluid therapy of Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial assesses the benefits and harms of a restrictive vs standard-care intravenous (IV) fluid therapy. The hypothesis is that IV fluid restriction improves patient-important long-term outcomes., Aim: To assess the predefined patient-important long-term outcomes in patients randomised into the CLASSIC trial., Methods: In this pre-planned follow-up study of the CLASSIC trial, we will assess all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and cognitive function 1 year after randomisation in the two intervention groups. The 1-year mortality will be collected from electronic patient records or central national registries in most participating countries. We will contact survivors and assess EuroQol 5-Dimension, -5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) and EuroQol-Visual Analogue Scale and Montreal Cognitive Assessment 5-minute protocol score. We will analyse mortality by logistic regression and use general linear models to assess HRQoL and cognitive function., Discussion: With this pre-planned follow-up study of the CLASSIC trial, we will provide patient-important data on long-term survival, HRQoL and cognitive function of restrictive vs standard-care IV fluid therapy in patients with septic shock., (© 2019 The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Intravenous (IV) fluid is a key intervention in the management of septic shock. The benefits and harms of lower versus higher fluid volumes are unknown and thus clinical equipoise exists. We describe the protocol and detailed statistical analysis plan for the conservative versus liberal approach to fluid therapy of septic shock in the Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial. The aim of the CLASSIC trial is to assess benefits and harms of IV fluid restriction versus standard care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock., Methods: CLASSIC trial is an investigator-initiated, international, randomised, stratified, and analyst-blinded trial. We will allocate 1554 adult patients with septic shock, who are planned to be or are admitted to an ICU, to IV fluid restriction versus standard care. The primary outcome is mortality at day 90. Secondary outcomes are serious adverse events (SAEs), serious adverse reactions (SARs), days alive at day 90 without life support, days alive and out of the hospital at day 90 and mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and cognitive function at 1 year. We will conduct the statistical analyses according to a pre-defined statistical analysis plan, including three interim analyses. For the primary analysis, we will use logistic regression adjusted for the stratification variables comparing the two interventions in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population., Discussion: The CLASSIC trial results will provide important evidence to guide clinicians' choice regarding the IV fluid therapy in adults with septic shock., (© 2019 The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)