Lower vs Higher Fluid Volumes in Adult Patients With Sepsis: An Updated Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

EDucated: The emergency medicine pharmacotherapy literature of 2023

The purpose of this article is to summarize pharmacotherapy related emergency medicine (EM) literature indexed in 2023. Articles were selected utilizing a modified Delphi approach. The table of contents from pre-determined journals were reviewed and independently evaluated via the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system by paired authors. Pharmacotherapy-related publications deemed to be GRADE 1A and 1B were reviewed by the collective group for inclusion in the review. In all, this article summarizes and provides commentary on the potential clinical impact of 13 articles, 6 guidelines, and 5 meta-analyses covering topics including guideline releases and updates on rapid sequence intubation in the critically ill, managing cardiac arrest or life-threatening toxicity due to poisoning, and management of major bleeding following trauma. Also discussed are ongoing controversies surrounding fluid resuscitation, time and treatment modalities for ischemic stroke, steroid use in community-acquired pneumonia, targeted blood product administration, and much more.

Protocolized reduction of non-resuscitation fluids versus usual care in septic shock patients (REDUSE): a randomized multicentre feasibility trial

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Non-resuscitation fluids constitute the majority of fluid administered for septic shock patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). This multicentre, randomized, feasibility trial was conducted to test the hypothesis that a restrictive protocol targeting non-resuscitation fluids reduces the overall volume administered compared with usual care.

METHODS

Adults with septic shock in six Swedish ICUs were randomized within 12 h of ICU admission to receive either protocolized reduction of non-resuscitation fluids or usual care. The primary outcome was the total volume of fluid administered within three days of inclusion.

RESULTS

Median (IQR) total volume of fluid in the first three days, was 6008 ml (interquartile range [IQR] 3960-8123) in the restrictive fluid group (n = 44), and 9765 ml (IQR 6804-12,401) in the control group (n = 48); corresponding to a Hodges-Lehmann median difference of 3560 ml [95% confidence interval 1614-5302]; p < 0.001). Outcome data on all-cause mortality, days alive and free of mechanical ventilation and acute kidney injury or ischemic events in the ICU within 90 days of inclusion were recorded in 98/98 (100%), 95/98 (98%) and 95/98 (98%) of participants respectively. Cognition and health-related quality of life at six months were recorded in 39/52 (75%) and 41/52 (79%) of surviving participants, respectively. Ninety out of 134 patients (67%) of eligible patients were randomized, and 15/98 (15%) of the participants experienced at least one protocol violation.

CONCLUSION

Protocolized reduction of non-resuscitation fluids in patients with septic shock resulted in a large decrease in fluid administration compared with usual care. A trial using this design to test if reducing non-resuscitation fluids improves outcomes is feasible.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05249088, 18 February 2022. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05249088.

Managing sepsis and septic shock in an endothelial glycocalyx-friendly way: from the viewpoint of surviving sepsis campaign guidelines

Maintaining tissue perfusion in sepsis depends on vascular integrity provided by the endothelial glycocalyx, the critical layer covering the luminal surface of blood vessels. The glycocalyx is composed of proteoglycans, glycosaminoglycans, and functional plasma proteins that are critical for antithrombogenicity, regulating tone, controlling permeability, and reducing endothelial interactions with leukocytes and platelets. Degradation of the glycocalyx in sepsis is substantial due to thromboinflammation, and treatments for sepsis and septic shock may exacerbate endotheliopathy via additional glycocalyx injury. As a result, therapeutic strategies aimed at preserving glycocalyx integrity should be considered, including modifications in fluid volume resuscitation, minimizing catecholamine use, controlling hyperglycemia, and potential use of corticosteroids and anticoagulants. In this review, we explore treatment strategies aligned with the recommendations outlined in the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines 2021 with a special emphasis on evidence regarding glycocalyx protection.

Effects of IV fluid restriction according to site-specific intensity of standard fluid treatment-protocol

BACKGROUND

Variation in usual practice in fluid trials assessing lower versus higher volumes may affect overall comparisons. To address this, we will evaluate the effects of heterogeneity in treatment intensity in the Conservative versus Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy of Septic Shock in Intensive Care trial. This will reflect the effects of differences in site-specific intensities of standard fluid treatment due to local practice preferences while considering participant characteristics.

METHODS

We will assess the effects of heterogeneity in treatment intensity across one primary (all-cause mortality) and three secondary outcomes (serious adverse events or reactions, days alive without life support and days alive out of hospital) after 90 days. We will classify sites based on the site-specific intensity of standard fluid treatment, defined as the mean differences in observed versus predicted intravenous fluid volumes in the first 24 h in the standard-fluid group while accounting for differences in participant characteristics. Predictions will be made using a machine learning model including 22 baseline predictors using the extreme gradient boosting algorithm. Subsequently, sites will be grouped into fluid treatment intensity subgroups containing at least 100 participants each. Subgroups differences will be assessed using hierarchical Bayesian regression models with weakly informative priors. We will present the full posterior distributions of relative (risk ratios and ratios of means) and absolute differences (risk differences and mean differences) in each subgroup.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide data on the effects of heterogeneity in treatment intensity while accounting for patient characteristics in critically ill adult patients with septic shock.

REGISTRATIONS

The European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT): 2018-000404-42, ClinicalTrials. gov: NCT03668236.

Restrictive versus standard IV fluid therapy in adult ICU patients with septic shock-Bayesian analyses of the CLASSIC trial

BACKGROUND

The CLASSIC trial assessed the effects of restrictive versus standard intravenous (IV) fluid therapy in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock. This pre-planned study provides a probabilistic interpretation and evaluates heterogeneity in treatment effects (HTE).

METHODS

We analysed mortality, serious adverse events (SAEs), serious adverse reactions (SARs) and days alive without life-support within 90 days using Bayesian models with weakly informative priors. HTE on mortality was assessed according to five baseline variables: disease severity, vasopressor dose, lactate levels, creatinine values and IV fluid volumes given before randomisation.

RESULTS

The absolute difference in mortality was 0.2%-points (95% credible interval: -5.0 to 5.4; 47% posterior probability of benefit [risk difference <0.0%-points]) with restrictive IV fluid. The posterior probabilities of benefits with restrictive IV fluid were 72% for SAEs, 52% for SARs and 61% for days alive without life-support. The posterior probabilities of no clinically important differences (absolute risk difference ≤2%-points) between the groups were 56% for mortality, 49% for SAEs, 90% for SARs and 38% for days alive without life-support. There was 97% probability of HTE for previous IV fluid volumes analysed continuously, that is, potentially relatively lower mortality of restrictive IV fluids with higher previous IV fluids. No substantial evidence of HTE was found in the other analyses.

CONCLUSION

We could not rule out clinically important effects of restrictive IV fluid therapy on mortality, SAEs or days alive without life-support, but substantial effects on SARs were unlikely. IV fluids given before randomisation might interact with IV fluid strategy.

Furosemide versus placebo for fluid overload in intensive care patients-The randomised GODIF trial second version: Statistical analysis plan

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.

Sepsis Management in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit

Septic shock management in the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) is challenging due to the complex interaction of pathophysiology between vasodilatory and cardiogenic shock, complicating how to optimally deploy fluid resuscitation, vasopressors, and mechanical circulatory support devices. Because mixed shock portends high mortality and morbidity, familiarity with quality, contemporary clinical evidence surrounding available therapeutic tools is needed to address the resultant wide range of complications that can arise. This review integrates pathophysiology principles and clinical recommendations to provide an organized, topic-based review of the nuanced intricacies of managing sepsis in the CICU.

Fluid Resuscitation in Septic Patients

Sepsis is a life-threatening organ failure caused by a dysregulated response to infection. Fluid resuscitation and vasopressors are used to maintain systolic blood pressure and organ perfusion. Fluid resuscitation can be done with liberal or restricted fluids as well as colloids or crystalloid fluids. This review analyses the evidence for the use of liberal or restrictive fluids and colloids or crystalloids for the management of sepsis. A methodical search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ScienceDirect, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines were followed for this study. Randomized controlled trials and retrospective observational studies were included in this study. Liberal and restrictive fluid strategies were found to be comparable in efficacy, but restrictive fluid regimens had the added benefit of a lower incidence of fluid overload. Balanced crystalloids were safer and more effective when compared to normal saline. Albumin replacement was found to be safe and showed efficacy in reducing mortality in patients with sepsis and septic shock.

The predictive values of admission characteristics for 28-day all-cause mortality in septic patients with diabetes mellitus: a study from the MIMIC database

Background

Septic patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are more venerable to subsequent complications and the resultant increase in associated mortality. Therefore, it is important to make tailored clinical decisions for this subpopulation at admission.

Method

Data from large-scale real-world databases named the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care Database (MIMIC) were reviewed. The least absolute selection and shrinkage operator (LASSO) was performed with 10 times cross-validation methods to select the optimal prognostic factors. Multivariate COX regression analysis was conducted to identify the independent prognostic factors and nomogram construction. The nomogram was internally validated via the bootstrapping method and externally validated by the MIMIC III database with receiver operating characteristic (ROC), calibration curves, decision curve analysis (DCA), and Kaplan-Meier curves for robustness check.

Results

A total of 3,291 septic patients with DM were included in this study, 2,227 in the MIMIC IV database and 1,064 in the MIMIC III database, respectively. In the training cohort, the 28-day all-cause mortality rate is 23.9% septic patients with DM. The multivariate Cox regression analysis reveals age (hazard ratio (HR)=1.023, 95%CI: 1.016-1.031, p<0.001), respiratory failure (HR=1.872, 95%CI: 1.554-2.254, p<0.001), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (HR=1.056, 95%CI: 1.018-1.094, p=0.004); base excess (HR=0.980, 95%CI: 0.967-0.992, p=0.002), anion gap (HR=1.100, 95%CI: 1.080-1.120, p<0.001), albumin (HR=0.679, 95%CI: 0.574-0.802, p<0.001), international normalized ratio (HR=1.087, 95%CI: 1.027-1.150, p=0.004), red cell distribution width (HR=1.056, 95%CI: 1.021-1.092, p=0.001), temperature (HR=0.857, 95%CI: 0.789-0.932, p<0.001), and glycosylated hemoglobin (HR=1.358, 95%CI: 1.320-1.401, p<0.001) at admission are independent prognostic factors for 28-day all-cause mortality of septic patients with DM. The established nomogram shows satisfied accuracy and clinical utility with AUCs of 0.870 in the internal validation and 0.830 in the external validation cohort as well as 0.820 in the septic shock subpopulation, which is superior to the predictive value of the single SOFA score.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that admission characteristics show an optimal prediction value for short-term mortality in septic patients with DM. The established model can support intensive care unit physicians in making better initial clinical decisions for this subpopulation.

Long-term effects of restriction of intravenous fluid in adult ICU patients with septic shock

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.