Dataset Information

Diuretics decrease fluid balance in patients on invasive mechanical ventilation: the randomized-controlled single blind, IRIHS study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Fluid overload has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. The goal of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of a diuretic strategy to overcome positive fluid balance in patients on invasive mechanical ventilation.

Methods

Design: Multicenter, single-blind, randomized-controlled study. Patients were randomized into a diuretic (furosemide) or a control group. Patients were eligible in case of fluid overload defined as in-ICU weight increase ≥ 3%, invasive mechanical ventilation (FiO₂ ≤ 60% and PEEP ≤ 10 cm H₂O on inclusion) and hemodynamic stabilization. The primary outcome was fluid balance, defined as weight variation from reference weight to successful extubation. The main secondary outcome was the safety of diuretic.

Results

171 patients were randomized. After 5 exclusions, 166 patients were included in the analysis: 77 in the diuretic and 89 in the control group. Fluid balance was 1.4 [- 2.5 to 4.5] kg in the diuretic and 6.4 [0.5-11.2] kg in the control group (p < 0.001). In the multiple imputation analysis, fluid balance was significantly decreased in the diuretic group (mean difference = - 4.8 95% CI [- 7.3 to - 2.5], p < 0.001). Eleven (14%) patients died in the diuretic group and 16 (18%) patients in the control group (p = 0.5). There was a worsening of Acute Kidney Injury in 67 (75.3%) patients of the control group versus 46 (59.7%) patients in the diuretic group (p = 0.03).

Conclusions

In this multicenter randomized-controlled study, protocolized diuretic therapy reduced fluid accumulation in patients receiving mechanical ventilation and was well tolerated with a favorable safety profile. Trial registration NCT02345681, Registered January 26 2015, Prospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02345681?term=02345681&draw=2&rank=1 .

SUBMITTER: Cinotti R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7943707 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PURPOSE:A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to answer the question 'In adults with respiratory failure requiring invasive ventilation for more than 24 h, does a weaning strategy with early extubation to non-invasive ventilation (NIV) compared to invasive ventilation weaning reduce all-cause hospital mortality?' METHODS:We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that evaluated the use of non-invasive ventilation, compared to invasive ventilation, as a weaning strategy in adults mechanically ventilated for at least 24 h. The EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) bibliographic databases were searched from inception to February 2018. Bayesian hierarchical models were used to perform the meta-analysis. The primary outcome was mortality at hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included mortality (30, 60, 90 and 180 days), quality of life, duration of invasive ventilation, weaning failure, length of stay [intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital] and adverse events. RESULTS:Twenty-five relevant studies involving 1609 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Studies had moderate to high risk of bias due to risk of performance and detection bias. Mortality at hospital discharge was lower in the NIV weaning group compared to the invasive weaning group [pooled odds ratio (OR) 0.58, 95% highest density interval (HDI) 0.29-0.89]. Subgroup analyses showed lower pooled mortality at hospital discharge rates in NIV weaning than those in the control group in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients (pooled OR 0.43, 95% HDI 0.13-0.81) and the effect is less certain in the mixed ICU population (pooled OR 0.88, 95% HDI 0.25-1.48). NIV weaning reduced the duration of invasive ventilation in patients [standardised mean difference (SMD) -?1.34, 95% HDI -?1.92 to -?0.77] and ICU length of stay (SMD -?0.70, 95% HDI -?0.94 to -?0.46). Reported rates of ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) were lower in the NIV group. NIV weaning did not reduce overall hospital length of stay or long-term mortality. There were insufficient data to compare other adverse events and health-related quality of life. CONCLUSIONS:The use of NIV in weaning from mechanical ventilation decreases hospital mortality, the incidence of VAP and ICU length of stay. NIV as a weaning strategy appears to be most beneficial in patients with COPD.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the effectiveness and safety of ciprofol for sedating patients in ICUs who required mechanical ventilation (MV).DesignA multicenter, single-blind, randomized, noninferiority trial.SettingTwenty-one centers across China from December 2020 to June 2021.PatientsA total of 135 ICU patients 18 to 80 years old with endotracheal intubation and undergoing MV, who were expected to require sedation for 6-24 hours.InterventionsOne hundred thirty-five ICU patients were randomly allocated into ciprofol ( n = 90) and propofol ( n = 45) groups in a 2:1 ratio. Ciprofol or propofol were IV infused at loading doses of 0.1 mg/kg or 0.5 mg/kg, respectively, over 4 minutes ± 30 seconds depending on the physical condition of each patient. Ciprofol or propofol were then immediately administered at an initial maintenance dose of 0.3 mg/kg/hr or 1.5 mg/kg/hr, to achieve the target sedation range of Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (+1 to -2). Besides, continuous IV remifentanil analgesia was administered (loading dose: 0.5-1 μg/kg, maintenance dose: 0.02-0.15 μg/kg/min).Measurements and main resultsOf the 135 patients enrolled, 129 completed the study. The primary endpoint-sedation success rates of ciprofol and propofol groups were 97.7% versus 97.8% in the full analysis set (FAS) and were both 100% in per-protocol set (PPS). The noninferiority margin was set as 8% and confirmed with a lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the inter-group difference of -5.98% and -4.32% in the FAS and PPS groups. Patients who received ciprofol had a longer recovery time ( p = 0.003), but there were no differences in the remaining secondary endpoints (all p > 0.05). The occurrence rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) or drug-related TEAEs were not significantly different between the groups (all p > 0.05).ConclusionsCiprofol was well tolerated, with a noninferior sedation profile to propofol in Chinese ICU patients undergoing MV for a period of 6-24 hours.

Project description:PurposeEpidemiologic studies have documented lower rates of active smokers compared to former or non-smokers in symptomatic patients affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We assessed the efficacy and safety of nicotine administered by a transdermal patch in critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.MethodsIn this multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 18 intensive care units in France, we randomly assigned adult patients (non-smokers, non-vapers or who had quit smoking/vaping for at least 12 months) with proven COVID-19 pneumonia receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for up to 72 h to receive transdermal patches containing either nicotine at a daily dose of 14 mg or placebo until 48 h following successful weaning from mechanical ventilation or for a maximum of 30 days, followed by 3-week dose tapering by 3.5 mg per week. Randomization was stratified by centre, non- or former smoker status and Sequential Organ Function Assessment score (< or ≥ 7). The primary outcome was day-28 mortality. Main prespecified secondary outcomes included 60-day mortality, time to successful extubation, days alive and free from mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, vasopressor support or organ failure at day 28.ResultsBetween November 6th 2020, and April 2nd 2021, 220 patients were randomized from 18 active recruiting centers. After excluding 2 patients who withdrew consent, 218 patients (152 [70%] men) were included in the analysis: 106 patients to the nicotine group and 112 to the placebo group. Day-28 mortality did not differ between the two groups (30 [28%] of 106 patients in the nicotine group vs 31 [28%] of 112 patients in the placebo group; odds ratio 1.03 [95% confidence interval, CI 0.57-1.87]; p = 0.46). The median number of day-28 ventilator-free days was 0 (IQR 0-14) in the nicotine group and 0 (0-13) in the placebo group (with a difference estimate between the medians of 0 [95% CI -3-7]). Adverse events likely related to nicotine were rare (3%) and similar between the two groups.ConclusionIn patients having developed severe COVID-19 pneumonia requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, transdermal nicotine did not significantly reduce day-28 mortality. There is no indication to use nicotine in this situation.