Effect of Oral Versus Intramuscular Vitamin D Replacement on Oxidative Stress and Outcomes in Traumatic Mechanical Ventilated Patients Admitted to Intensive Care Unit

Weaning-associated interventions for ventilated intensive care patients: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Mechanical ventilation is a core intervention in critical care, but may also lead to negative consequences. Therefore, ventilator weaning is crucial for patient recovery. Numerous weaning interventions have been investigated, but an overview of interventions to evaluate different foci on weaning research is still missing.

AIM

To provide an overview of interventions associated with ventilator weaning.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a scoping review. A systematic search of the Medline, CINAHL and Cochrane Library databases was carried out in May 2023. Interventions from studies or reviews that aimed to extubate or decannulate mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units were included. Studies concerning children, outpatients or non-invasive ventilation were excluded. Screening and data extraction were conducted independently by three reviewers. Identified interventions were thematically analysed and clustered.

RESULTS

Of the 7175 records identified, 193 studies were included. A total of six clusters were formed: entitled enteral nutrition (three studies), tracheostomy (17 studies), physical treatment (13 studies), ventilation modes and settings (47 studies), intervention bundles (42 studies), and pharmacological interventions including analgesic agents (8 studies), sedative agents (53 studies) and other agents (15 studies).

CONCLUSIONS

Ventilator weaning is widely researched with a special focus on ventilation modes and pharmacological agents. Some aspects remain poorly researched or unaddressed (e.g. nutrition, delirium treatment, sleep promotion).

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

This review compiles studies on ventilator weaning interventions in thematic clusters, highlighting the need for multidisciplinary care and consideration of various interventions. Future research should combine different interventions and investigate their interconnection.

The effects of vitamin D on all-cause mortality in different diseases: an evidence-map and umbrella review of 116 randomized controlled trials

Purpose

To conduct a solid evidence by synthesizing meta-analyses and updated RCTs about the effects of vitamin D on all-cause mortality in different health conditions.

Methods

Data sources: Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar from inception until 25th April, 2022. Study selection: English-language, meta-analyses and updated RCTs assessing the relationships between vitamin D and all-cause mortality. Data synthesis: Information of study characteristics, mortality, supplementation were extracted, estimating with fixed-effects model. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation, and funnel plot was used to assess risk of bias. Main outcomes: All-cause mortality, cancer mortality, cardiovascular disease mortality.

Results

In total of 27 meta-analyses and 19 updated RCTs were selected, with a total of 116 RCTs and 149, 865 participants. Evidence confirms that vitamin D reduces respiratory cancer mortality (RR, 0.56 [95%CI, 0.33 to 0.96]). All-cause mortality is decreased in patients with COVID-19 (RR, 0.54[95%CI, 0.33 to 0.88]) and liver diseases (RR, 0.64 [95%CI, 0.50 to 0.81]), especially in liver cirrhosis (RR, 0.63 [95%CI, 0.50 to 0.81]). As for other health conditions, such as the general health, chronic kidney disease, critical illness, cardiovascular diseases, musculoskeletal diseases, sepsis, type 2 diabetes, no significant association was found between vitamin D and all-cause mortality.

Conclusions

Vitamin D may reduce respiratory cancer mortality in respiratory cancer patients and all-cause mortality in COVID-19 and liver disorders' patients. No benefits showed in all-cause mortality after vitamin D intervention among other health conditions. The hypothesis of reduced mortality with vitamin D still requires exploration.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=252921, identifier: CRD42021252921.

Vitamin D Deficiency Increases Mortality Risk in the UK Biobank : A Nonlinear Mendelian Randomization Study

BACKGROUND

Low vitamin D status is associated with increased mortality, but randomized trials on severely deficient participants are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To assess genetic evidence for the causal role of low vitamin D status in mortality.

DESIGN

Nonlinear Mendelian randomization analyses.

SETTING

UK Biobank, a large-scale, prospective cohort from England, Scotland, and Wales with participants recruited between March 2006 and July 2010.

PARTICIPANTS

307 601 unrelated UK Biobank participants of White European ancestry (aged 37 to 73 years at recruitment) with available measurements of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-(OH)D) and genetic data.

MEASUREMENTS

Genetically predicted 25-(OH)D was estimated using 35 confirmed variants of 25-(OH)D. All-cause and cause-specific mortality (cardiovascular disease [CVD], cancer, and respiratory) were recorded up to June 2020.

RESULTS

There were 18 700 deaths during the 14 years of follow-up. The association of genetically predicted 25-(OH)D with all-cause mortality was L-shaped (P for nonlinearity < 0.001), and risk for death decreased steeply with increasing concentrations until 50 nmol/L. Evidence for an association was also seen in analyses of mortality from cancer, CVD, and respiratory diseases (P ≤ 0.033 for all outcomes). Odds of all-cause mortality in the genetic analysis were estimated to increase by 25% (odds ratio, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.16 to 1.35]) for participants with a measured 25-(OH)D concentration of 25 nmol/L compared with 50 nmol/L.

LIMITATIONS

Analyses were restricted to a White European population. A genetic approach is best suited to providing proof of principle on causality, whereas the strength of the association is approximate.

CONCLUSION

Our study supports a causal relationship between vitamin D deficiency and mortality. Additional research needs to identify strategies that meet the National Academy of Medicine's guideline of greater than 50 nmol/L and that reduce the premature risk for death associated with low vitamin D levels.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Health and Medical Research Council.

Administration of vitamin D and its metabolites in critically ill adult patients: an updated systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

The clinical significance of vitamin D administration in critically ill patients remains inconclusive. The purpose of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of vitamin D and its metabolites on major clinical outcomes in critically ill patients, including a subgroup analysis based on vitamin D status and route of vitamin D administration.

Methods

Major databases were searched through February 9, 2022. Randomized controlled trials of adult critically ill patients with an intervention group receiving vitamin D or its metabolites were included. Random-effect meta-analyses were performed to estimate the pooled risk ratio (dichotomized outcomes) or mean difference (continuous outcomes). Risk of bias assessment included the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials.

Results

Sixteen randomized clinical trials with 2449 patients were included. Vitamin D administration was associated with lower overall mortality (16 studies: risk ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.62–0.97, p = 0.03; I² = 30%), reduced intensive care unit length of stay (12 studies: mean difference − 3.13 days, 95% CI − 5.36 to − 0.89, n = 1250, p = 0.006; I² = 70%), and shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (9 studies: mean difference − 5.07 days, 95% CI − 7.42 to − 2.73, n = 572, p < 0.0001; I² = 54%). Parenteral administration was associated with a greater effect on overall mortality than enteral administration (test of subgroup differences, p = 0.04), whereas studies of parenteral subgroups had lower quality. There were no subgroup differences based on baseline vitamin D levels.

Conclusions

Vitamin D supplementation in critically ill patients may reduce mortality. Parenteral administration might be associated with a greater impact on mortality. Heterogeneity and assessed certainty among the studies limits the generalizability of the results.

Trial registration: PROSPERO international prospective database of systematic reviews (CRD42021256939—05 July 2021).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-022-04139-1.

Does Vitamin D Improve All-cause Mortality in Critically Ill Adults? An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Introduction

Vitamin D deficiency is an amendable risk factor linked to increase in mortality in critically ill patients. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate if vitamin D supplementation reduced the mortality, and length of stay (LOS) in intensive care units (ICU) and hospitals in critically ill adults including coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-2019) patients.

Materials and methods

We searched the literature using the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane and Embase databases until January 13, 2022, for RCTs comparing vitamin D administration to placebo or no treatment in ICUs. The fixed-effect model was used for the primary outcome (all-cause mortality) and the random effect model for secondary objectives (LOS in ICU, hospital, mechanical ventilation). Subgroup analysis included ICU types and high vs low risk of bias. Sensitivity analysis compared severe COVID-19 vs no COVID disease.

Results

Eleven RCTs (2,328 patients) were included in the analysis. Pooled analysis of these RCTs, showed no significant difference in all-cause mortality between the vitamin D and placebo groups [odds ratio (OR) 0.93, p = 0.47]. Inclusion of COVID-positive patients did not change the results (OR 0.91, p = 0.37). No significant difference was observed between the vitamin D and placebo groups in LOS in ICU (p = 0.34); hospital (p = 0.40) and mechanical ventilation duration (p = 0.7). In the subgroup analysis, there was no improvement in mortality in medical ICU (p = 0.36) or surgical ICU (p = 0.03). Neither low risk of bias (p = 0.41) nor high risk of bias (p = 0.39) reduced mortality.

Conclusion

Vitamin D supplementation in the critically ill did not have statistically significant benefits on clinical outcomes in terms of overall mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, and LOS in ICU and hospital.

How to cite this article

Kaur M, Soni KD, Trikha A. Does Vitamin D Improve All-cause Mortality in Critically Ill Adults? An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(7):853-862.

High Dose Vitamin D3 Supplementation Is Not Associated With Lower Mortality in Critically Ill Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials

Background

Vitamin D deficiency is a common condition in critically ill patients. A high dose of vitamin D3 can rapidly restore vitamin D levels. The aim of this meta-analysis was to synthesize the results from up-to-date randomized control trials (RCT) and validate the effect of vitamin D3 in critically ill patients.

Study Methods

Several databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central database, were searched up to December 4th, 2020. All RCTs that investigated the use of a high dose of vitamin D3 in critically ill patients and reported mortality data were included in the meta-analysis. The primary outcome was the mortality truncated to day 28 and day 90.

Results

A total of 10 RCTs enrolling 2058 patients were finally included. The use of a high dose of vitamin D3 in critically ill patients could not decrease the mortality truncated to day 28 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78–1.11, P = 0.43) or day 90 (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79–1.05, P = 0.21). A high dose of vitamin D3 could significantly reduce the ventilator days (MD −9.38, 95%CI −13.44 to −5.31, P < 0.001), but there were no statistic difference in length of ICU stay (MD −2.76, 95% CI −6.27 to 0.74, P = 0.12) and hospital stay (MD −2.42, 95% CI −6.21 to 1.36, P = 0.21). No significant difference was observed in adverse events between the vitamin D3 group and the placebo group.

Conclusion

The use of high dose vitamin D3 was not associated with decreased mortality in critically ill patients, but could significantly reduce the ventilator days.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42020179195.

Vitamin D Supplementation in Critically Ill Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported conflicting outcomes with the use of vitamin D in critically ill patients. With reporting of newer RCTs, we conducted this updated meta-analysis. Electronic databases were searched for RCTs comparing vitamin D with placebo in critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). A random-effects meta-analysis was used to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Eleven RCTs with a total of 2,187 patients (vitamin D: n = 1,120; placebo: n = 1,067) were included. Vitamin D when compared to placebo was associated with the decreased duration of mechanical ventilation (SMD = -0.50; 95% CI = [-0.97, -0.03]; p = 0.04) and ICU stay (SMD = -0.60; 95% CI = [-1.03, -0.16]; p = 0.007) without any difference in the mortality (RR = 0.85; 95% CI = [0.68, 1.04]; p = 0.12) and length of hospital stay (SMD = -0.21; 95% CI = (-0.51, 0.09); p = 0.18]. Subgroup analysis showed that parenteral vitamin D may reduce the risk of mortality (RR = 0.54; 95% CI = [0.35, 0.83], p = 0.005). Vitamin D supplementation in critically ill patients decreases the duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay. Further studies should identify specific groups of patients who will derive the most benefit from vitamin D supplementation.

Effect of Anti-Inflammatory and Antimicrobial Cosupplementations on Sepsis Prevention in Critically Ill Trauma Patients at High Risk for Sepsis

Background: Sepsis development in patients with trauma is associated with bad prognosis. This study investigated the effect of immunomodulatory interventions in major trauma patients at high risk for sepsis. Methods: In a randomized, double-blinded, controlled design, severe trauma patients were stratified by leukocyte anti-sedimentation rate (LAR) test into high risk (HR) and low risk (LR) for sepsis. The HR patients were randomly allocated into intravenous vitamin C plus vitamin B1 (HR-CB), intramuscular vitamin D plus oral Lactobacillus probiotics (HR-DP), or control (HR-C) groups. The clinical trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT04216459). Outcomes: The primary outcome was Acute Physiologic Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation score II (APACHE II) score. Secondary outcomes included sepsis incidence, changes in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, and serum monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1) on day 6 from baseline, 28-day mortality, intensive care unit (ICU), and hospital discharge. Results: The HR-DP, HR-CB, and LR groups showed a significantly lower incidence of sepsis development (20%, 20%, and 16%, respectively, versus 60% in the HR-C group, p-value = 0.004). The three groups also showed a significant improvement in APACHE II and SOFA scores. Besides, MCP-1 levels were significantly decreased in HR-DP and HR-CB groups compared to the HR-C group (p-value ≤ 0.05). Significantly decreased mortality (10% and 16% versus 60% in the HR-C group) and increased ICU discharge (95% and 84% versus 45% in the HR-C group) were observed in HR-CB and LR groups (p-value = 0.001). Conclusion: Both combinations of interventions improved APACHE II scores and reduced sepsis incidence in trauma patients. The LAR combined with injury severity score were good sepsis predictors.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Vitamin D and acute and severe illness - a mechanistic and pharmacokinetic perspective

The COVID-19 pandemic has generated high interest in factors modulating risk of infection, disease severity and recovery. Vitamin D has received interest since it is known to modulate immune function and vitamin D deficiency is associated with increased risk of respiratory infections and adverse health outcomes in severely ill patients. There are no population representative data on the direct relationship between vitamin D status and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk and severity of COVID-19. Data from intervention studies are limited to 4 studies. Here we summarise findings regarding vitamin D status and metabolism and their alterations during severe illness, relevant to COVID-19 patients. Further, we summarise vitamin D intervention studies with respiratory disease outcomes and in critically ill patients and provide an overview of relevant patient and population guidelines. Vitamin D deficiency is highly prevalent in hospitalised patients, particularly when critically ill including those with COVID-19. Acute and critical illness leads to pronounced changes in vitamin D metabolism and status, suggestive of increased requirements. This needs to be considered in the interpretation of potential links between vitamin D status and disease risk and severity and for patient management. There is some evidence that vitamin D supplementation decreases the risk of respiratory tract infections, while supplementation of ICU patients has shown little effect on disease severity or length of treatment. Considering the high prevalence of deficiency and low risks associated with supplementation, pro-actively applying current population and patient management guidelines to prevent, monitor and correct vitamin D deficiency is appropriate.

The Effect of Vitamin D Supplementation on Clinical Outcomes for Critically Ill Patients: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Purpose: Vitamin D deficiency is a common scenario in critically ill patients and has been proven to be associated with poor outcomes. However, the effect of vitamin D supplementation for critically ill patients remains controversial. Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of vitamin D supplementation among critically ill patients. Methods: Electronic databases PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were searched for eligible randomized controlled trials between 2000 and January 2021. The primary outcome was overall mortality, and the secondary ones were the length of intensive care unit stay, the length of hospital stay, as well as the duration of mechanical ventilation. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore the treatment effect by type of admission, route of administration, dose of supplemented vitamin D, and the degree of vitamin D deficiency. Results: A total of 14 studies involving 2,324 patients were finally included. No effect on overall mortality was found between vitamin D supplementation and control group [odds ratio (OR), 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52-1.03; I ² = 28%]. The vitamin D supplementation reduced the length of intensive care unit stay [mean difference (MD), -2.25; 95% CI, -4.07 to -0.44, I ² = 71%] and duration of mechanical ventilation (MD, -3.47; 95% CI, -6.37 to -0.57, I ² = 88%). In the subgroup analyses, the vitamin D supplementation for surgical patients (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47-0.94; I ² = 0%) or through parenteral way (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.22-0.82, I ² = 0%) was associated with reduced mortality. Conclusion: In critically ill patients, the supplementation of vitamin D has no effect on overall mortality compared to placebo but may decrease the length of intensive care unit stay and mechanical ventilation. Further trials are necessary to confirm our findings.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members. As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Vitamin D supplementation and the outcomes of critically ill adult patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

This meta-analysis assessed the association between vitamin D supplementation and the outcomes of critically ill adult patients. A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, and Embase databases until March 21, 2020. We only included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation with placebo in critically ill adult patients. The primary outcome was their 28-day mortality. Overall, 9 RCTs with 1867 patients were included. In the pooled analysis of the 9 RCTs, no significant difference was observed in 28-day mortality between the vitamin D supplementation and placebo groups (20.4% vs 21.7%, OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.46–1.15; I² = 51%). This result did not change as per the method of vitamin D supplementation (enteral route only: 19.9% vs 18.2%, OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.88–1.57; I² = 10%; intramuscular or intravenous injection route: 25.6% vs 40.8%, OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.21–1.06; I² = 19%) or daily dose (high dose: 20.9% vs 19.8%, OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.51–1.36; I² = 53%; low dose: 15.6% vs 21.3%, OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.32–1.68; I² = 0%). No significant difference was observed between the vitamin D supplementation and placebo groups regarding the length of ICU stay (standard mean difference [SMD], − 0.30; 95% CI, − 0.61 to 0.01; I² = 60%), length of hospital stay (SMD, − 0.17; 95% CI, − 041 to 0.08; I² = 65%), and duration of mechanical ventilation (SMD, − 0.41; 95% CI, − 081 to 0.00; I² = 72%). In conclusion, this meta-analysis suggested that the administration of vitamin D did not provide additional advantages over placebo for critically ill patients. However, additional studies are needed to confirm our findings.