Attributable mortality due to nosocomial sepsis in Brazilian hospitals: a case-control study

BACKGROUND

Nosocomial sepsis is a major healthcare issue, but there are few data on estimates of its attributable mortality. We aimed to estimate attributable mortality fraction (AF) due to nosocomial sepsis.

METHODS

Matched 1:1 case-control study in 37 hospitals in Brazil. Hospitalized patients in participating hospitals were included. Cases were hospital non-survivors and controls were hospital survivors, which were matched by admission type and date of discharge. Exposure was defined as occurrence of nosocomial sepsis, defined as antibiotic prescription plus presence of organ dysfunction attributed to sepsis without an alternative reason for organ failure; alternative definitions were explored. Main outcome measurement was nosocomial sepsis-attributable fractions, estimated using inversed-weight probabilities methods using generalized mixed model considering time-dependency of sepsis occurrence.

RESULTS

3588 patients from 37 hospitals were included. Mean age was 63 years and 48.8% were female at birth. 470 sepsis episodes occurred in 388 patients (311 in cases and 77 in control group), with pneumonia being the most common source of infection (44.3%). Average AF for sepsis mortality was 0.076 (95% CI 0.068-0.084) for medical admissions; 0.043 (95% CI 0.032-0.055) for elective surgical admissions; and 0.036 (95% CI 0.017-0.055) for emergency surgeries. In a time-dependent analysis, AF for sepsis rose linearly for medical admissions, reaching close to 0.12 on day 28; AF plateaued earlier for other admission types (0.04 for elective surgery and 0.07 for urgent surgery). Alternative sepsis definitions yield different estimates.

CONCLUSION

The impact of nosocomial sepsis on outcome is more pronounced in medical admissions and tends to increase over time. The results, however, are sensitive to sepsis definitions.

Antivirals for adult patients hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a randomised, phase II/III, multicentre, placebo-controlled, adaptive study, with multiple arms and stages. COALITION COVID-19 BRAZIL IX - REVOLUTIOn trial

Background

Repurposed drugs for treatment of new onset disease may be an effective therapeutic shortcut. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of repurposed antivirals compared to placebo in lowering SARS-CoV2 viral load of COVID-19 patients.

Methods

REVOLUTIOn is a randomised, parallel, blinded, multistage, superiority and placebo controlled randomised trial conducted in 35 centres in Brazil. We include patients aged 18 years or older admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptoms onset 9 days or less and SpO₂ 94% or lower at room air were eligible. All participants were randomly allocated to receive either atazanavir, daclatasvir or sofosbuvir/daclatasvir or placebo for 10 days. The primary outcome was the decay rate (slope) of the SARS-CoV-2 viral load logarithm assessed in the modified intention to-treat population. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04468087.

Findings

Between February 09, 2021, and August 04, 2021, 255 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to atazanavir (n = 64), daclatasvir (n = 66), sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (n = 67) or placebo (n = 58). Compared to placebo group, the change from baseline to day 10 in log viral load was not significantly different for any of the treatment groups (0.05 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.12], -0.02 [95% CI, -0.09 to 0.06], and -0.03 [95% CI, -0.11 to 0.04] for atazanavir, daclatasvir and sofosbuvir/daclatasvir groups respectively). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events between treatment groups.

Interpretation

No significant reduction in viral load was observed from the use of atazanavir, daclatasvir or sofosbuvir/daclatasvir compared to placebo in hospitalised COVID-19 patients who need oxygen support with symptoms onset 9 days or less.

Funding

Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (MCTI) - Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPQ); Cia Latino-Americana de Medicamentos (Clamed); Cia Industrial H. Carlos Schneider (Ciser); Hospital Research Foundation Incorporation, Australia, HCor São Paulo; Blanver Farmoquímica; Instituto de Tecnologia em Fármacos (Farmanguinhos) da Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (Fiocruz); Coordenação Geral de Planejamento Estratégico (Cogeplan)/Fiocruz; and Fundação de apoio a Fiocruz (Fiotec, VPGDI-054-FIO-20-2-13).

Hierarchical endpoint analysis using win ratio in critical care: An exploration using the balanced solutions in intensive care study (BaSICS)

PURPOSE

To reanalyze the results of the Balanced Solutions in Intensive Care Study (BaSICS) through hierarchical endpoint analysis with win ratio.

METHODS

All patients with full data in BaSICS trial were elected for the analysis. BaSICS compared balanced solutions (Plasma Lye 148) versus 0.9% saline in critically ill patients requiring fluid challenge. The win ratio was defined as a hierarchical endpoint of 90-day mortality, recepit of kidney replacement therapy, hospital length-of-stay (LOS), and intensive care unit (ICU) LOS. Both unstratified and stratified (by admission type: planned admission, unplanned admission with sepsis, and unplanned admission without sepsis) approaches were used. A subgroup analysis was performed in patients with traumatic brain injury.

RESULTS

A total of 10,490 patients were included in the analysis, resulting in 27,587,566 unique combinations for unstratified WR. Unstratified Win ratio was 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.97; 1.07), which was similar to stratified WR. No stratum in the stratified analysis resulted in significant results. Subgroup analysis confirmed the possible harm of balanced solutions in traumatic brain injury patients (WR 0.80; 95% confidence interval 0.64; 0.99).

CONCLUSION

In this reanalysis of BaSICS, a win ratio analysis largely replicated the results of the main trial, yielding neutral results except for the subgroup of patients with traumatic brain injury where a signal of harm was found.

Association between Type of Fluid Received Prior to Enrollment, Type of Admission, and Effect of Balanced Crystalloid in Critically Ill Adults: A Secondary Exploratory Analysis of the BaSICS Clinical Trial

Rationale: The effects of balanced crystalloid versus saline on clinical outcomes for ICU patients may be modified by the type of fluid that patients received for initial resuscitation and by the type of admission. Objectives: To assess whether the results of a randomized controlled trial could be affected by fluid use before enrollment and admission type. Methods: Secondary post hoc analysis of the BaSICS (Balanced Solution in Intensive Care Study) trial, which compared a balanced solution (Plasma-Lyte 148) with 0.9% saline in the ICU. Patients were categorized according to fluid use in the 24 hours before enrollment in four groups (balanced solutions only, 0.9% saline only, a mix of both, and no fluid before enrollment) and according to admission type (planned, unplanned with sepsis, and unplanned without sepsis). The association between 90-day mortality and the randomization group was assessed using a hierarchical logistic Bayesian model. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 10,520 patients were included. There was a low probability that the balanced solution was associated with improved 90-day mortality in the whole trial population (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; 89% credible interval [CrI], 0.66-10.51; probability of benefit, 0.58); however, probability of benefit was high for patients who received only balanced solutions before enrollment (regardless of admission type, OR, 0.78; 89% CrI, 0.56-1.03; probability of benefit, 0.92), mostly because of a benefit in unplanned admissions due to sepsis (OR, 0.70; 89% CrI, 0.50-0.97; probability of benefit, 0.96) and planned admissions (OR, 0.79; 89% CrI, 0.65-0.97; probability of benefit, 0.97). Conclusions: There is a high probability that balanced solution use in the ICU reduces 90-day mortality in patients who exclusively received balanced fluids before trial enrollment. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02875873).

Effect of Slower vs Faster Intravenous Fluid Bolus Rates on Mortality in Critically Ill Patients: The BaSICS Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Slower intravenous fluid infusion rates could reduce the formation of tissue edema and organ dysfunction in critically ill patients; however, there are no data to support different infusion rates during fluid challenges for important outcomes such as mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of a slower infusion rate vs control infusion rate on 90-day survival in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Unblinded randomized factorial clinical trial in 75 ICUs in Brazil, involving 11 052 patients requiring at least 1 fluid challenge and with 1 risk factor for worse outcomes were randomized from May 29, 2017, to March 2, 2020. Follow-up was concluded on October 29, 2020. Patients were randomized to 2 different infusion rates (reported in this article) and 2 different fluid types (balanced fluids or saline, reported separately).

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to receive fluid challenges at 2 different infusion rates; 5538 to the slower rate (333 mL/h) and 5514 to the control group (999 mL/h). Patients were also randomized to receive balanced solution or 0.9% saline using a factorial design.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was 90-day survival.

RESULTS

Of all randomized patients, 10 520 (95.2%) were analyzed (mean age, 61.1 years [SD, 17.0 years]; 44.2% were women) after excluding duplicates and consent withdrawals. Patients assigned to the slower rate received a mean of 1162 mL on the first day vs 1252 mL for the control group. By day 90, 1406 of 5276 patients (26.6%) in the slower rate group had died vs 1414 of 5244 (27.0%) in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.96-1.11; P = .46). There was no significant interaction between fluid type and infusion rate (P = .98).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients in the intensive care unit requiring fluid challenges, infusing at a slower rate compared with a faster rate did not reduce 90-day mortality. These findings do not support the use of a slower infusion rate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02875873.

Effect of Intravenous Fluid Treatment With a Balanced Solution vs 0.9% Saline Solution on Mortality in Critically Ill Patients: The BaSICS Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Intravenous fluids are used for almost all intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Clinical and laboratory studies have questioned whether specific fluid types result in improved outcomes, including mortality and acute kidney injury.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of a balanced solution vs saline solution (0.9% sodium chloride) on 90-day survival in critically ill patients.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Double-blind, factorial, randomized clinical trial conducted at 75 ICUs in Brazil. Patients who were admitted to the ICU with at least 1 risk factor for worse outcomes, who required at least 1 fluid expansion, and who were expected to remain in the ICU for more than 24 hours were randomized between May 29, 2017, and March 2, 2020; follow-up concluded on October 29, 2020. Patients were randomized to 2 different fluid types (a balanced solution vs saline solution reported in this article) and 2 different infusion rates (reported separately).

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either a balanced solution (n = 5522) or 0.9% saline solution (n = 5530) for all intravenous fluids.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was 90-day survival.

RESULTS

Among 11 052 patients who were randomized, 10 520 (95.2%) were available for the analysis (mean age, 61.1 [SD, 17] years; 44.2% were women). There was no significant interaction between the 2 interventions (fluid type and infusion speed; P = .98). Planned surgical admissions represented 48.4% of all patients. Of all the patients, 60.6% had hypotension or vasopressor use and 44.3% required mechanical ventilation at enrollment. Patients in both groups received a median of 1.5 L of fluid during the first day after enrollment. By day 90, 1381 of 5230 patients (26.4%) assigned to a balanced solution died vs 1439 of 5290 patients (27.2%) assigned to saline solution (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.90-1.05]; P = .47). There were no unexpected treatment-related severe adverse events in either group.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Among critically ill patients requiring fluid challenges, use of a balanced solution compared with 0.9% saline solution did not significantly reduce 90-day mortality. The findings do not support the use of this balanced solution.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02875873.

Three-year effects of bariatric surgery on obstructive sleep apnea in patients with obesity grade 1 and 2: a sub-analysis of the GATEWAY trial

BACKGROUND

Most of the evidence on bariatric surgery on obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is based on observational studies and/or short-term follow-up in patients with obesity grade 3.

SUBJECTS/METHODS

This randomized study compared the effects of roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or usual care (UC) on OSA severity in patients with obesity grade 1-2. Mild, moderate, and severe OSA was defined by the apnea-hypopnoea index (AHI): 5-14.9; 15-29.9, and ≥30 events/h, respectively. OSA remission was defined by converting any form of OSA into normal AHI (<5 events/h).

RESULTS

After 3-year of follow-up, the body-mass index increased in the UC while decreased in the RYGB group: +1.7 (-1.9; 2.7) versus -10.6 (-12.7; -9.2) kg/m², respectively. The AHI increased by 5 (-4.2; 12.7) in the UC group while reduced in the RYGB group to -13.2 (-22.7; -7) events/h. UC significantly increase the frequency of moderate OSA (from 15.4 to 46.2%). In contrast, RYGB had a huge impact on reaching no OSA status (from 4.2 to 70.8%) in parallel to a decrease of moderate (from 41.7 to 8.3%) and severe OSA (from 20.8 to 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

RYGB is an attractive strategy for mid-term OSA remission or decrease moderate-to-severe forms of OSA in patients with obesity grade 1-2.

Abstract P374: 24-h Blood Pressure Profile, Non-dipping Status And Incidence Of Resistant Hypertension In Patients Randomized To Bariatric Surgery Versus Medical Therapy: The Gateway Randomized Trial

Background: Bariatric surgery represents an effective strategy for office blood pressure (BP) reduction in obese hypertensive patients. However, no previous study evaluated the impact of bariatric surgery on 24-h BP profile, non-dipping status and incidence of resistant hypertension (RH).

Methods: This is a sub-analysis of a randomized clinical trial including hypertensive patients with grade 1 and 2 obesity, aged 18 to 65 years, using at least 2 drugs at optimal doses or >2 at moderate doses. Patients were randomly allocated to either Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) with medical therapy (MT) or MT alone for 12 months. We analyzed the 24-h BP profile, non-dipping status (defined by <10% of systolic BP reduction during sleep as compared to the daytime period) and RH incidence.

Results: A total of 100 patients were included (76% female, age 43.8±9.2 years, BMI 36.9±2.7 Kg/m 2 ). The 24-h BP profile was similar at 12 months in both groups, but the RYGB group required less anti-hypertensive classes compared to the MT alone (Figure). The rate of non-dipping BP did not change significantly during the follow-up (RYGB: from 18/48 (37.5%) to 22/48 (45.8%); p=0.30; MT: from 16/33 (48.5%) to 15/33 (45.5%); p=0.80). In an exploratory analysis, the incidence of RH was similar at the baseline (RYGB 10% (5/50) and MT 16% (8/50); p=0.38). After 12 months, it changed significantly in the RYGB group: 0% (0/49) while remained stable in the MT group: 14.9% (7/47) (p<0.001).

Conclusions: RYGB significantly reduced anti-hypertensive medications while promoting similar 24-h BP profile and non-dipping BP status compared to the MT alone. RYGB may be an attractive strategy to reduce RH incidence in obese patients.