Are lower levels of red blood cell transfusion more cost-effective than liberal levels after cardiac surgery? Findings from the TITRe2 randomised controlled trial

Hemoglobin levels and clinical outcomes after extracorporeal circulation auxiliary to open heart surgery: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Extracorporeal circulation auxiliary to open heart surgery is a common procedure used to treat heart diseases. However, the optimal transfusion strategy for patients undergoing this surgery remains a subject of debate. This study aims to investigate the association between hemoglobin levels and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing extracorporeal circulation auxiliary to open heart surgery, with the ultimate goal of improving surgical success rates and enhancing patients' quality of life.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on data from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV 2.2 (MIMIC-IV 2.2) database, including 4144 patients. The patients were categorized into five groups based on their minimum hemoglobin levels during hospitalization. Baseline characteristics, clinical scores, laboratory results, and clinical outcome data were collected. Statistical analyses utilized descriptive statistics, ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis tests, Kaplan-Meier method, and Log-rank test.

RESULTS

The results revealed a significant correlation between hemoglobin levels and in-hospital mortality, as well as mortality rates at 30 days, 60 days, and 180 days (p < 0.001). Patients with lower hemoglobin levels exhibited higher mortality rates. However, once hemoglobin levels exceeded 7g/dL, no significant difference in mortality rates was observed (p = 0.557). Additionally, lower hemoglobin levels were associated with prolonged hospital stay, ICU admission time, and mechanical ventilation time (p < 0.001). Furthermore, hemoglobin levels were significantly correlated with complication risk, norepinephrine dosage, and red blood cell transfusion volume (p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference among the groups in terms of major complications, specifically sepsis (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The study highlights the importance of managing hemoglobin levels in patients undergoing heart surgery with extracorporeal circulation. Hemoglobin levels can serve as valuable indicators for predicting clinical outcomes and guiding treatment decisions. Physicians should carefully consider hemoglobin levels to optimize transfusion strategies and improve postoperative patient outcomes. Further research and intervention studies are warranted to validate and implement these findings in clinical practice.

Red Blood Cell Transfusion Guided by Hemoglobin Only or Integrating Perfusion Markers in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Strategies for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion in patients undergoing cardiac surgery have been traditionally anchored to hemoglobin (Hb) targets. A more physiologic approach would consider markers of organ hypoperfusion.

DESIGN

The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

SETTING

Cardiac surgery.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients.

INTERVENTION

RBC transfusion targeting only Hb levels compared with strategies combining Hb values with markers of organ hypoperfusion.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Primary outcomes were the number of RBC units transfused, the number of patients transfused at least once, and the average number of transfusions. Secondary outcomes were postoperative complications, intensive care (ICU) and hospital lengths of stay, and mortality. Only 2 RCTs were included (n = 257 patients), and both used central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2) as a marker of organ hypoperfusion (cut-off: <70% or ≤65%). A transfusion protocol combining Hb and ScvO2 reduced the overall number of RBC units transfused (risk ratio [RR]: 1.57 [1.33-1.85]; p < 0.0001, I2 = 0%), and the number of patients transfused at least once (RR: 1.33 [1.16-1.53]; p < 0.0001, I2 = 41%), but not the average number of transfusions (mean difference [MD]: 0.18 [-0.11 to 0.47]; p = 0.24, I2 = 66%), with moderate certainty of evidence. Mortality (RR: 1.29, [0.29-5.77]; p = 0.73, I2 = 0%), ICU length-of-stay (MD: -0.06 [-0.58 to 0.46]; p = 0.81, I2 = 0%), hospital length-of-stay (MD: -0.05 [-1.49 to 1.39];p = 0.95, I2 = 0%), and all postoperative complications were not affected.

CONCLUSIONS

In adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery, a restrictive protocol integrating Hb values with a marker of organ hypoperfusion (ScvO2) reduces the number of RBC units transfused and the number of patients transfused at least once without apparent signals of harm. These findings were preliminary and warrant further multicentric research.

Patient blood management programmes: keeping the ball rolling

Patient blood management programmes have been endorsed by the World Health Organization and multiple medical societies. It seems important to review the progress and results of patient blood management programmes so necessary modifications or new initiatives can be added to achieve their major goals. In this issue of the British Journal of Anaesthesia, Meybohm and colleagues show that a nationwide patient blood management programme had an impact and was potentially cost-effective in centres that previously utilised large amounts of allogeneic blood transfusions. Before implementing a programme, each institution might need to identify the area(s) of deficiency with respect to established patient blood management methods, which will warrant specific focus in subsequent clinical practice reviews.

Cost-effectiveness of therapeutics for COVID-19 patients: a rapid review and economic analysis

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019. Over six million deaths worldwide have been associated with coronavirus disease 2019.

Objective

To assess the cost-effectiveness of treatments used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 in hospital or used in the community in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 at high risk of hospitalisation.

Setting

Treatments provided in United Kingdom hospital and community settings.

Methods

Clinical effectiveness estimates were taken from the coronavirus disease-network meta-analyses initiative and the metaEvidence initiative. A mathematical model was constructed to explore how the interventions impacted on patient health, measured in quality-adjusted life-years gained. The costs associated with treatment, including those of hospital care, were also estimated and used to form a cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained value which was compared with thresholds published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Estimates of cost-effectiveness compared against current standard of care were produced in both the hospital and community settings at three different levels of efficacy: mean, low and high. Public list prices were used for interventions with neither confidential patient access schemes nor confidential list prices considered. Results incorporating confidential pricing data were provided to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisal committee.

Results

The treatments were estimated to be clinically effective although not all reached statistical significance. All treatments in the hospital setting, or community, were estimated to plausibly have a cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained value below National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's thresholds when compared with standard of care. However, almost all drugs could plausibly have cost per quality-adjusted life-years above National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's thresholds. However, there is considerable uncertainty in the results as the prevalent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variant, vaccination status, history of being infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and standard of care have all evolved since the pivotal studies were conducted which could have significant impact on the efficacy of each drug. For drugs used in high-risk patients in the community setting, the proportion of people at high risk who need hospital admission was a large driver of the cost per quality-adjusted life-year.

Limitations

No studies were identified that were conducted in current conditions. This may be a large limitation as the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variant changes. No head-to-head studies of interventions were identified.

Conclusions

The results produced could be informative to decision-makers, although conclusions regarding the most clinical - and cost-effectiveness of each intervention should be tentative due to the evolving nature of the decision problem and, in this report, the use of list prices only. Comparisons between interventions should also be treated with caution due to potentially large heterogeneity between studies.

Future work

Research assessing the relative clinical effectiveness of interventions within head-to-head studies in current conditions would be beneficial. Contemporary information related to the probability of hospital admission and death for patients at high risk in the community would improve the precision of the estimates generated.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR135564) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Remdesivir for the Treatment of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 in England and Wales

OBJECTIVES

COVID-19 is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. This study aims to synthesize evidence to assess the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir (RDV) for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in England and Wales.

METHODS

A probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted informed by 2 large trials and uses a partitioned survival approach to assess short- and long-term clinical consequences and costs associated with COVID-19 in a hypothetical cohort of hospitalized patients requiring supplemental oxygen at the start of treatment. Given that it is uncertain whether RDV reduces death, 2 analyses are presented, assuming RDV either reduces death or does not. Published sources were used for long-term clinical, quality of life, and cost parameters.

RESULTS

Under the assumption that RDV reduces death, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for RDV is estimated at £11 881 per quality-adjusted life-year gained compared with standard of care (SoC) (probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio £12 400). The probability for RDV to be cost-effective is 74% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. RDV was no longer cost-effective when the hazard ratio for overall survival compared with SoC was >0·915.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this study suggest that using RDV for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is likely to represent a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources at current willingness-to-pay threshold in England and Wales, only if it prevents death. Results needs to be interpreted caution as vaccination was introduced and the SoC and evidence available have also evolved considerably since the analysis is conducted.

Transfusion thresholds for guiding red blood cell transfusion

BACKGROUND

The optimal haemoglobin threshold for use of red blood cell (RBC) transfusions in anaemic patients remains an active field of research. Blood is a scarce resource, and in some countries, transfusions are less safe than in others because of inadequate testing for viral pathogens. If a liberal transfusion policy does not improve clinical outcomes, or if it is equivalent, then adopting a more restrictive approach could be recognised as the standard of care.  OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review update was to compare 30-day mortality and other clinical outcomes for participants randomised to restrictive versus liberal red blood cell (RBC) transfusion thresholds (triggers) for all clinical conditions. The restrictive transfusion threshold uses a lower haemoglobin concentration as a threshold for transfusion (most commonly, 7.0 g/dL to 8.0 g/dL), and the liberal transfusion threshold uses a higher haemoglobin concentration as a threshold for transfusion (most commonly, 9.0 g/dL to 10.0 g/dL).

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials through updated searches: CENTRAL (2020, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to November 2020), Embase (1974 to November 2020), Transfusion Evidence Library (1950 to November 2020), Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index (1990 to November 2020), and trial registries (November 2020). We  checked the reference lists of other published reviews and relevant papers to identify additional trials. We were aware of one trial identified in earlier searching that was in the process of being published (in February 2021), and we were able to include it before this review was finalised.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials of surgical or medical participants that recruited adults or children, or both. We excluded studies that focused on neonates. Eligible trials assigned intervention groups on the basis of different transfusion schedules or thresholds or 'triggers'. These thresholds would be defined by a haemoglobin (Hb) or haematocrit (Hct) concentration below which an RBC transfusion would be administered; the haemoglobin concentration remains the most commonly applied marker of the need for RBC transfusion in clinical practice. We included trials in which investigators had allocated participants to higher thresholds or more liberal transfusion strategies compared to more restrictive ones, which might include no transfusion. As in previous versions of this review, we did not exclude unregistered trials published after 2010 (as per the policy of the Cochrane Injuries Group, 2015), however, we did conduct analyses to consider the differential impact of results of trials for which prospective registration could not be confirmed.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We identified trials for inclusion and extracted data using Cochrane methods. We pooled risk ratios of clinical outcomes across trials using a random-effects model. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We conducted predefined analyses by clinical subgroups. We defined participants randomly allocated to the lower transfusion threshold as being in the 'restrictive transfusion' group and those randomly allocated to the higher transfusion threshold as being in the 'liberal transfusion' group.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 48 trials, involving data from 21,433 participants (at baseline), across a range of clinical contexts (e.g. orthopaedic, cardiac, or vascular surgery; critical care; acute blood loss (including gastrointestinal bleeding); acute coronary syndrome; cancer; leukaemia; haematological malignancies), met the eligibility criteria. The haemoglobin concentration used to define the restrictive transfusion group in most trials (36) was between 7.0 g/dL and 8.0 g/dL.  Most trials included only adults; three trials focused on children. The included studies were generally at low risk of bias for key domains including allocation concealment and incomplete outcome data. Restrictive transfusion strategies reduced the risk of receiving at least one RBC transfusion by 41% across a broad range of clinical contexts (risk ratio (RR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.66; 42 studies, 20,057 participants; high-quality evidence), with a large amount of heterogeneity between trials (I² = 96%). Overall, restrictive transfusion strategies did not increase or decrease the risk of 30-day mortality compared with liberal transfusion strategies (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.15; 31 studies, 16,729 participants; I² = 30%; moderate-quality evidence) or any of the other outcomes assessed (i.e. cardiac events (low-quality evidence), myocardial infarction, stroke, thromboembolism (all high-quality evidence)). High-quality evidence shows that the liberal transfusion threshold did not affect the risk of infection (pneumonia, wound infection, or bacteraemia). Transfusion-specific reactions are uncommon and were inconsistently reported within trials. We noted less certainty in the strength of evidence to support the safety of restrictive transfusion thresholds for the following predefined clinical subgroups: myocardial infarction, vascular surgery, haematological malignancies, and chronic bone-marrow disorders.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Transfusion at a restrictive haemoglobin concentration decreased the proportion of people exposed to RBC transfusion by 41% across a broad range of clinical contexts. Across all trials, no evidence suggests that a restrictive transfusion strategy impacted 30-day mortality, mortality at other time points, or morbidity (i.e. cardiac events, myocardial infarction, stroke, pneumonia, thromboembolism, infection) compared with a liberal transfusion strategy. Despite including 17 more randomised trials (and 8846 participants), data remain insufficient to inform the safety of transfusion policies in important and selected clinical contexts, such as myocardial infarction, chronic cardiovascular disease, neurological injury or traumatic brain injury, stroke, thrombocytopenia, and cancer or haematological malignancies, including chronic bone marrow failure.  Further work is needed to improve our understanding of outcomes other than mortality. Most trials compared only two separate thresholds for haemoglobin concentration, which may not identify the actual optimal threshold for transfusion in a particular patient. Haemoglobin concentration may not be the most informative marker of the need for transfusion in individual patients with different degrees of physiological adaptation to anaemia. Notwithstanding these issues, overall findings provide good evidence that transfusions with allogeneic RBCs can be avoided in most patients with haemoglobin thresholds between the range of 7.0 g/dL and 8.0 g/dL. Some patient subgroups might benefit from RBCs to maintain higher haemoglobin concentrations; research efforts should focus on these clinical contexts.

To RAP or Not to RAP: A Retrospective Comparison of the Effects of Retrograde Autologous Priming

Retrograde autologous priming (RAP) is a process used to reduce hemodilution associated with the initiation of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Previous studies have reported potential benefits to RAP; however, many of these studies do not evaluate the benefits of RAP with limited preoperative fluid administration combined with a condensed CPB circuit. We examined clinical metrics of patients who underwent RAP versus those who did not undergo RAP prior to the initiation of CPB. This was a retrospective data review of 1,303 patients who underwent CPB in the setting of open-heart surgery for a 2-year period. RAP was used on all patients between June 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018 (n = 519) and not used on patients between July 1, 2018 and June 30, 2019 (n = 784). Both groups were subjected to a low-prime CPB circuit volume of 800-900 mL. We compared the clinical metrics for packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusion, oxygen delivery, postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI), Albumin utilization, ventilator time, Intensive Care Unit length of stay (ICU LOS), and 30-day mortality between the two groups. Our data analysis showed there were no statistically significantly differences between the two groups on the incidence of postoperative AKI, PRBC administration, ventilator time, ICU LOS or 30-day mortality. In the RAP group, there was a statistically significant lower oxygen delivery and a statistically significant increased volume of Albumin administered postoperatively, although those differences were so small, they were potentially not clinically significant. Our analysis revealed no significant benefit to performing RAP with limited preoperative fluid administration and minimized CPB circuit prime volume. We formalized a process that included limiting preoperative fluid administration and minimizing the CPB circuit volume so that we were not required to RAP and did not simultaneously sacrifice patient outcomes in other areas.

Patient blood management interventions do not lead to important clinical benefits or cost-effectiveness for major surgery: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patient blood management (PBM) interventions aim to improve clinical outcomes by reducing bleeding and transfusion. We assessed whether existing evidence supports the routine use of combinations of these interventions during and after major surgery.

METHODS

Five systematic reviews and a National Institute of Health and Care Excellence health economic review of trials of common PBM interventions enrolling participants of any age undergoing surgery were updated. The last search was on June 1, 2019. Studies in trauma, burns, gastrointestinal haemorrhage, gynaecology, dentistry, or critical care were excluded. The co-primary outcomes were: risk of receiving red cell transfusion and 30-day or hospital all-cause mortality. Treatment effects were estimated using random-effects models and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity assessments used I2. Network meta-analyses used a frequentist approach. The protocol was registered prospectively (PROSPERO CRD42018085730).

RESULTS

Searches identified 393 eligible randomised controlled trials enrolling 54 917 participants. PBM interventions resulted in a reduction in exposure to red cell transfusion (RR=0.60; 95% CI 0.57, 0.63; I2=77%), but had no statistically significant treatment effect on 30-day or hospital mortality (RR=0.93; 95% CI 0.81, 1.07; I2=0%). Treatment effects were consistent across multiple secondary outcomes, sub-groups and sensitivity analyses that considered clinical setting, type of intervention, and trial quality. Network meta-analysis did not demonstrate additive benefits from the use of multiple interventions. No trial demonstrated that PBM was cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

In randomised trials, PBM interventions do not have important clinical benefits beyond reducing bleeding and transfusion in people undergoing major surgery.

Transfusion in critical care: Past, present and future

Anaemia and coagulopathy are common in critically ill patients and are associated with poor outcomes, including increased risk of mortality, myocardial infarction, failure to be liberated from mechanical ventilation and poor physical recovery. Transfusion of blood and blood products remains the corner stone of anaemia and coagulopathy treatment in critical care. However, determining when the benefits of transfusion outweigh the risks of anaemia may be challenging in some critically ill patients. Therefore, the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine prioritised the development of a clinical practice guideline to address anaemia and coagulopathy in non-bleeding critically ill patients. The aims of this article are to: (1) review the evolution of transfusion practice in critical care and the direction for future developments in this important area of transfusion medicine and (2) to provide a brief synopsis of the guideline development process and recommendations in a format designed for busy clinicians and blood bank staff. These clinical practice guidelines provide recommendations to clinicians on how best to manage non-bleeding critically ill patients at the bedside. More research is needed on alternative transfusion targets, use of transfusions in special populations (e.g., acute neurological injury, acute coronary syndromes), use of anaemia prevention strategies and point-of-care interventions to guide transfusion strategies.

Controversies in the Clinical Practice of Patient Blood Management

Patient blood management (PBM) has been proposed as a standard of care in modern perioperative medicine. PBM-related interventions usually are implemented as bundles, but randomized controlled trials on the implementation of PBM as a bundle are missing. This special article focuses on the current evidence and controversies in the clinical practice of PBM and on emerging data related to specific PBM-related interventions in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Strong evidence for many PBM-related interventions is limited because of missing studies or the poor quality of published findings and study endpoints. Restrictive blood transfusion and timely interventions to maintain hemoglobin concentration and to reduce blood loss potentially might result in improved patient outcome, although the latter has yet to be proven.

Positive impact of retrograde autologous priming in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Adult cardiac surgery with extracorporeal circulation is known to be associated with increased risk of blood transfusion leading to adverse outcomes. Procedures like retrograde autologous priming (RAP) may reduce these negative side effects. This randomized prospective study was initiated to assess whether RAP using specifically designed RAP bag (Terumo) has immediate effects on patient outcome.

METHODS

One hundred eighteen adults undergoing elective CABG or elective aortic valve replacement were randomly assigned by a computer program into two groups: the RAP group (n = 54) in which the retrograde autologous priming was applied and the non-RAP (n = 64) group in which the same setting was used without the possibility to save priming volume. Patient demographics, preoperative characteristics and postoperative outcomes were analyzed for both groups.

RESULTS

The primary endpoint defined as rate of intraoperative blood transfusion was significantly reduced in the RAP-group (p = 0.04). The absolute risk reduction for RAP managed patients was 13.5 percent points. There were no significant differences in operation time and blood loss. No deaths and no myocardial infarctions were observed. The number of patients needed to treat to prevent at least one red blood cell transfusion was around 8 (NNT = 7.42).

CONCLUSIONS

Retrograde autologous priming is a safe and less invasive procedure which achieves clear benefits for adult cardiac surgery patients. In the light of increasing red blood cell transfusion risks and costs and the wish of patients to avoid a transfusion implementation of retrograde autologous priming is an interesting option.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register ID: DRKS00013512 , registered 04 December 2017.

Diagnostic and therapeutic medical devices for safer blood management in cardiac surgery: systematic reviews, observational studies and randomised controlled trials

Background

Anaemia, coagulopathic bleeding and transfusion are strongly associated with organ failure, sepsis and death following cardiac surgery.

Objective

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of medical devices used as diagnostic and therapeutic tools for the management of anaemia and bleeding in cardiac surgery.

Methods and results

Workstream 1 – in the COagulation and Platelet laboratory Testing in Cardiac surgery (COPTIC) study we demonstrated that risk assessment using baseline clinical factors predicted bleeding with a high degree of accuracy. The results from point-of-care (POC) platelet aggregometry or viscoelastometry tests or an expanded range of laboratory reference tests for coagulopathy did not improve predictive accuracy beyond that achieved with the clinical risk score alone. The routine use of POC tests was not cost-effective. A systematic review concluded that POC-based algorithms are not clinically effective. We developed two new clinical risk prediction scores for transfusion and bleeding that are available as e-calculators. Workstream 2 – in the PAtient-SPecific Oxygen monitoring to Reduce blood Transfusion during heart surgery (PASPORT) trial and a systematic review we demonstrated that personalised near-infrared spectroscopy-based algorithms for the optimisation of tissue oxygenation, or as indicators for red cell transfusion, were neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. Workstream 3 – in the REDWASH trial we failed to demonstrate a reduction in inflammation or organ injury in recipients of mechanically washed red cells compared with standard (unwashed) red cells.

Limitations

Existing studies evaluating the predictive accuracy or effectiveness of POC tests of coagulopathy or near-infrared spectroscopy were at high risk of bias. Interventions that alter red cell transfusion exposure, a common surrogate outcome in most trials, were not found to be clinically effective.

Conclusions

A systematic assessment of devices in clinical use as blood management adjuncts in cardiac surgery did not demonstrate clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. The contribution of anaemia and coagulopathy to adverse clinical outcomes following cardiac surgery remains poorly understood. Further research to define the pathogenesis of these conditions may lead to more accurate diagnoses, more effective treatments and potentially improved clinical outcomes.

Study registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20778544 (COPTIC study) and PROSPERO CRD42016033831 (systematic review) (workstream 1); Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN23557269 (PASPORT trial) and PROSPERO CRD4201502769 (systematic review) (workstream 2); and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27076315 (REDWASH trial) (workstream 3).

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full inProgramme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 5, No. 17. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Anemia and blood transfusion in the critically ill patient with cardiovascular disease

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2017. Other selected articles can be found online at http://ccforum.com/series/annualupdate2017 . Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from http://www.springer.com/series/8901 .