Prognostic accuracy of qSOFA score, SIRS criteria, and EWSs for in-hospital mortality among adult patients presenting with suspected infection to the emergency department (PASSEM) Multicenter prospective external validation cohort study protocol

BACKGROUND

Early identification of a patient with infection who may develop sepsis is of utmost importance. Unfortunately, this remains elusive because no single clinical measure or test can reflect complex pathophysiological changes in patients with sepsis. However, multiple clinical and laboratory parameters indicate impending sepsis and organ dysfunction. Screening tools using these parameters can help identify the condition, such as SIRS, quick SOFA (qSOFA), National Early Warning Score (NEWS), or Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS). We aim to externally validate qSOFA, SIRS, and NEWS/NEWS2/MEWS for in-hospital mortality among adult patients with suspected infection who presenting to the emergency department.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

PASSEM study is an international prospective external validation cohort study. For 9 months, each participating center will recruit consecutive adult patients who visited the emergency departments with suspected infection and are planned for hospitalization. We will collect patients' demographics, vital signs measured in the triage, initial white blood cell count, and variables required to calculate Charlson Comorbidities Index; and follow patients for 90 days since their inclusion in the study. The primary outcome will be 30-days in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcome will be intensive care unit (ICU) admission, prolonged stay in the ICU (i.e., ≥72 hours), and 30- as well as 90-days all-cause mortality. The study started in December 2021 and planned to enroll 2851 patients to reach 200 in-hospital death. The sample size is adaptive and will be adjusted based on prespecified consecutive interim analyses.

DISCUSSION

PASSEM study will be the first international multicenter prospective cohort study that designated to externally validate qSOFA score, SIRS criteria, and EWSs for in-hospital mortality among adult patients with suspected infection presenting to the ED in the Middle East region.

STUDY REGISTRATION

The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05172479).

REVISE: Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions in the ICU: a randomised trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

The Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions (REVISE) Trial aims to determine the impact of the proton pump inhibitor pantoprazole compared with placebo on clinically important upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in the intensive care unit (ICU), 90-day mortality and other endpoints in critically ill adults. The objective of this report is to describe the rationale, methodology, ethics and management of REVISE.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

REVISE is an international, randomised, concealed, stratified, blinded parallel-group individual patient trial being conducted in ICUs in Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia, UK, US, Kuwait, Pakistan and Brazil. Patients≥18 years old expected to remain invasively mechanically ventilated beyond the calendar day after enrolment are being randomised to either 40 mg pantoprazole intravenously or an identical placebo daily while mechanically ventilated in the ICU. The primary efficacy outcome is clinically important upper GI bleeding within 90 days of randomisation. The primary safety outcome is 90-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes include rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile infection, new renal replacement therapy, ICU and hospital mortality, and patient-important GI bleeding. Tertiary outcomes are total red blood cells transfused, peak serum creatinine level in the ICU, and duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU and hospital stay. The sample size is 4800 patients; one interim analysis was conducted after 2400 patients had complete 90-day follow-up; the Data Monitoring Committee recommended continuing the trial.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

All participating centres receive research ethics approval before initiation by hospital, region or country, including, but not limited to - Australia: Northern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee and Mater Misericordiae Ltd Human Research Ethics Committee; Brazil: Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa; Canada: Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board; Kuwait: Ministry of Health Standing Committee for Coordination of Health and Medical Research; Pakistan: Maroof Institutional Review Board; Saudi Arabia: Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs Institutional Review Board: United Kingdom: Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee; United States: Institutional Review Board of the Nebraska Medical Centre. The results of this trial will inform clinical practice and guidelines worldwide.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03374800.

Replacing protein via enteral nutrition in a stepwise approach in critically ill patients: the REPLENISH randomized clinical trial protocol

BACKGROUND

Protein intake is recommended in critically ill patients to mitigate the negative effects of critical illness-induced catabolism and muscle wasting. However, the optimal dose of enteral protein remains unknown. We hypothesize that supplemental enteral protein (1.2 g/kg/day) added to standard enteral nutrition formula to achieve high amount of enteral protein (range 2-2.4 g/kg/day) given from ICU day 5 until ICU discharge or ICU day 90 as compared to no supplemental enteral protein to achieve moderate amount enteral protein (0.8-1.2 g/kg/day) would reduce all-cause 90-day mortality in adult critically ill mechanically ventilated patients.

METHODS

The REPLENISH (Replacing Protein Via Enteral Nutrition in a Stepwise Approach in Critically Ill Patients) trial is an open-label, multicenter randomized clinical trial. Patients will be randomized to the supplemental protein group or the control group. Patients in both groups will receive the primary enteral formula as per the treating team, which includes a maximum protein 1.2 g/kg/day. The supplemental protein group will receive, in addition, supplemental protein at 1.2 g/kg/day starting the fifth ICU day. The control group will receive the primary formula without supplemental protein. The primary outcome is 90-day all-cause mortality. Other outcomes include functional and quality of life assessments at 90 days. The trial will enroll 2502 patients.

DISCUSSION

The study has been initiated in September 2021. Interim analysis is planned at one third and two thirds of the target sample size. The study is expected to be completed by the end of 2025.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04475666 . Registered on July 17, 2020.

Effect of Helmet Noninvasive Ventilation vs Usual Respiratory Support on Mortality Among Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Due to COVID-19: The HELMET-COVID Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Helmet noninvasive ventilation has been used in patients with COVID-19 with the premise that helmet interface is more effective than mask interface in delivering prolonged treatments with high positive airway pressure, but data about its effectiveness are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether helmet noninvasive ventilation compared with usual respiratory support reduces mortality in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a multicenter, pragmatic, randomized clinical trial that was conducted in 8 sites in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait between February 8, 2021, and November 16, 2021. Adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (n = 320) due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were included. The final follow-up date for the primary outcome was December 14, 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to receive helmet noninvasive ventilation (n = 159) or usual respiratory support (n = 161), which included mask noninvasive ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen, and standard oxygen.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. There were 12 prespecified secondary outcomes, including endotracheal intubation, barotrauma, skin pressure injury, and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

Among 322 patients who were randomized, 320 were included in the primary analysis, all of whom completed the trial. Median age was 58 years, and 187 were men (58.4%). Within 28 days, 43 of 159 patients (27.0%) died in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group compared with 42 of 161 (26.1%) in the usual respiratory support group (risk difference, 1.0% [95% CI, -8.7% to 10.6%]; relative risk, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.72-1.49]; P = .85). Within 28 days, 75 of 159 patients (47.2%) required endotracheal intubation in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group compared with 81 of 161 (50.3%) in the usual respiratory support group (risk difference, -3.1% [95% CI, -14.1% to 7.8%]; relative risk, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.75-1.17]). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in any of the prespecified secondary end points. Barotrauma occurred in 30 of 159 patients (18.9%) in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 25 of 161 (15.5%) in the usual respiratory support group. Skin pressure injury occurred in 5 of 159 patients (3.1%) in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 10 of 161 (6.2%) in the usual respiratory support group. There were 2 serious adverse events in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 1 in the usual respiratory support group.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Results of this study suggest that helmet noninvasive ventilation did not significantly reduce 28-day mortality compared with usual respiratory support among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia. However, interpretation of the findings is limited by imprecision in the effect estimate, which does not exclude potentially clinically important benefit or harm.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04477668.

Helmet noninvasive ventilation for COVID-19 patients (Helmet-COVID): statistical analysis plan for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive respiratory support is frequently needed for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). Helmet noninvasive ventilation has multiple advantages over other oxygen support modalities but data about effectiveness are limited.

METHODS

In this multicenter randomized trial of helmet noninvasive ventilation for COVID-19 patients, 320 adult ICU patients (aged ≥14 years or as per local standards) with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fraction of inspired oxygen < 200 despite supplemental oxygen with a partial/non-rebreathing mask at a flow rate of 10 L/min or higher) will be randomized to helmet noninvasive ventilation with usual care or usual care alone, which may include mask noninvasive ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen, or standard oxygen therapy. The primary outcome is death from any cause within 28 days after randomization. The trial has 80% power to detect a 15% absolute risk reduction in 28-day mortality from 40 to 25%. The primary outcome will be compared between the helmet and usual care group in the intention-to-treat using the chi-square test. Results will be reported as relative risk  and 95% confidence interval. The first patient was enrolled on February 8, 2021. As of August 1, 2021, 252 patients have been enrolled from 7 centers in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

DISCUSSION

We developed a detailed statistical analysis plan to guide the analysis of the Helmet-COVID trial, which is expected to conclude enrollment in November 2021.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04477668 . Registered on July 20, 2020.

Helmet Non-Invasive Ventilation for COVID-19 Patients (Helmet-COVID): study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) delivered by helmet has been used for respiratory support of patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia. The aim of this study was to compare helmet NIV with usual care versus usual care alone to reduce mortality.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel randomised controlled trial that compares helmet NIV with usual care to usual care alone in a 1:1 ratio. A total of 320 patients will be enrolled in this study. The primary outcome is 28-day all-cause mortality. The primary outcome will be compared between the two study groups in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol cohorts. An interim analysis will be conducted for both safety and effectiveness.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Approvals are obtained from the institutional review boards of each participating institution. Our findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences and meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04477668.

Implementation of new ECMO centers during the COVID-19 pandemic: experience and results from the Middle East and India

Purpose

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients has increased during the course of the pandemic. As uncertainty existed regarding patient’s outcomes, early guidelines recommended against establishing new ECMO centers. We aimed to explore the epidemiology and outcomes of ECMO for COVID-19 related cardiopulmonary failure in five countries in the Middle East and India and to evaluate the results of ECMO in 5 new centers.

Methods

This is a retrospective, multicenter international, observational study conducted in 19 ECMO centers in five countries in the Middle East and India from March 1, 2020, to September 30, 2020. We included patients with COVID-19 who received ECMO for refractory hypoxemia and severe respiratory acidosis with or without circulatory failure. Data collection included demographic data, ECMO-related specific data, pre-ECMO patient condition, 24 h post-ECMO initiation data, and outcome. The primary outcome was survival to home discharge. Secondary outcomes included mortality during ECMO, survival to decannulation, and outcomes stratified by center type.

Results

Three hundred and seven COVID-19 patients received ECMO support during the study period, of whom 78 (25%) were treated in the new ECMO centers. The median age was 45 years (interquartile range IQR 37–52), and 81% were men. New center patients were younger, were less frequently male, had received higher PEEP, more frequently inotropes and prone positioning before ECMO and were less frequently retrieved from a peripheral center on ECMO. Survival to home discharge was 45%. In patients treated in new and established centers, survival was 55 and 41% (p = 0.03), respectively. Multivariable analysis retained only a SOFA score < 12 at ECMO initiation as associated with survival (odds ratio, OR 1.93 (95% CI 1.05–3.58), p = 0.034), but not treatment in a new center (OR 1.65 (95% CI 0.75–3.67)).

Conclusions

During pandemics, ECMO may provide favorable outcomes in highly selected patients as resources allow. Newly formed ECMO centers with appropriate supervision of regional experts may have satisfactory results.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-021-06451-w.

Achieving Safe Liberation During Weaning from VV-ECMO in Patients with Severe ARDS: The role of Tidal Volume and Inspiratory Effort

BACKGROUND

Weaning from venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) is not well studied. VV-ECMO can be discontinued when patients tolerate non-injurious mechanical ventilation (MV) during a sweep gas off trial (SGOT). However, predictors of safe liberation are unknown.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Can safe liberation from VV-ECMO be predicted at the bedside?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted 2 observational studies of adults weaned from VV-ECMO for severe ARDS at Toronto General Hospital. We analyzed MV settings, respiratory mechanics and clinical variables to predict safe liberation from VV-ECMO, defined a priori as avoidance of ECMO recannulation, increase MV support, need for rescue therapy or hemodynamic instability developed within 48 hours after decannulation.

RESULTS

During both studies, 83 patients were weaned from VV-ECMO, of whom 21 (25%) did not meet criteria for safe liberation. In the retrospective study, higher tidal volume per predicted body weight (V_Tpbw, OR 1.58, 95%CI 1.05-2.40, P=0.03) and heart rate (HR, OR 1.07, 95%CI 1.01-1.13, P=0.02) at the end of SGOT were significantly associated with increased odds of unsafe liberation when adjusted for age (OR 1.02, 95%CI 0.95-1.09, P=0.63) and SOFA (OR 1.16, 95%CI 0.86-1.56, P=0.34). Change in ventilatory ratio (VR) had an imprecise association (OR 2.71, 95%CI 0.93-7.92, P=0.06) with unsafe liberation when adjusted for age (OR 1.03, 95%CI 0.96-1.10, P=0.42), SOFA (OR 1.11, 95%CI 0.81-1.51, P=0.52) and heart rate (OR 1.07, 95%CI 1.01-1.13, P=0.02). In the prospective study, patients who had unsafe liberation from VV-ECMO also had significantly higher inspiratory efforts (esophageal pressure swings 9 [7-13] vs 18 [7-25] cmH₂O, p=0.03), and worse outcomes (longer MV duration, ICU and hospital length of stay).

INTERPRETATION

Patients with higher tidal volume, heart rate, ventilatory ratio, and esophageal pressures swings during SGOT were less likely to achieve safe liberation from VV-ECMO.

Optimal Strategy and Timing of Left Ventricular Venting During Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Life Support for Adults in Cardiogenic Shock

Background:

Veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (VA-ECLS) is widely used to treat refractory cardiogenic shock. However, increased left ventricular (LV) afterload in VA-ECLS can worsen pulmonary congestion and compromise myocardial recovery. Our objectives were to explore the efficacy, safety, and optimal timing of adjunctive LV venting strategies.

Methods:

A systematic search was performed on Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, CDSR, CCRCT, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, and WHO ICTRP from inception until January 2019 for all relevant studies, including LV venting. Data were analyzed for mortality and weaning from VA-ECLS on the basis of timing of LV venting, along with adverse complications.

Results:

A total of 7995 patients were included from 62 observational studies, wherein 3458 patients had LV venting during VA-ECLS. LV venting significantly improved weaning from VA-ECLS (odds ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.47–0.83]; P =0.001) and reduced short-term (30 day; risk ratio [RR], 0.86 [95% CI, 0.77–0.96]; P =0.008) but not in-hospital (RR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.83–1.01] P =0.09) or long-term (6 months; RR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.90–1.03]; P =0.27) mortality. Early (<12 hours; RR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.75–0.99]; P =0.03) but not late (≥12 hours; RR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.71–1.38]; P =0.93) LV venting significantly reduced short-term mortality. Patients with LV venting spent more time on VA-ECLS (3.6 versus 2.8 days, P <0.001), and mechanical ventilation (7.1 versus 4.6 days, P =0.013). With the exception of hemolysis (RR, 2.18 [95% CI, 1.58–3.01]; P <0.00001), overall adverse events did not differ.

Conclusions:

LV venting, especially if done early (<12 hours), appears to be associated with an increased success of weaning and reduced short-term mortality. Future studies are required to delineate the importance of any or early LV venting adjuncts on mortality and morbidity outcomes.