Goal-directed fluid removal with furosemide versus placebo in intensive care patients with fluid overload: A randomised,blinded trial (GODIF trial—First version)

Background

Salt and water accumulation leading to fluid overload is associated with increased mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, but diuretics' effects on patient outcomes are uncertain. In this first version of the GODIF trial, we aimed to assess the effects of goal-directed fluid removal with furosemide versus placebo in adult ICU patients with fluid overload.

Methods

We conducted a multicentre, randomised, stratified, parallel-group, blinded, placebo-controlled trial in clinically stable, adult ICU patients with at least 5% fluid overload. Participants were randomised to furosemide versus placebo infusion aiming at achieving neutral cumulative fluid balance as soon as possible. The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of the hospital at 90 days.

Results

The trial was terminated after the enrolment of 41 of 1000 participants because clinicians had difficulties using cumulative fluid balance as the only estimate of fluid status (32% of participants had their initially registered cumulative fluid balance adjusted and 29% experienced one or more protocol violations). The baseline cumulative fluid balance was 6956 ml in the furosemide group and 6036 ml in the placebo group; on day three, the cumulative fluid balances were 1927 ml and 5139 ml. The median number of days alive and out of hospital at day 90 was 50 days in the furosemide group versus 45 days in the placebo group (mean difference 1 day, 95% CI -19 to 21, p-value .94).

Conclusions

The use of cumulative fluid balance as the only estimate of fluid status appeared too difficult to use in clinical practice. We were unable to provide precise estimates for any outcomes as only 4.1% of the planned sample size was randomised.     

Frequency of Automatic Stimulations in Responsive Vagal Nerve Stimulation in Patients With Refractory Epilepsy

BackgroundIn vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy, the release of VNS model 106 (AspireSR) allowed for responsive VNS (rVNS). rVNS utilizes a cardiac-based seizure detection algorithm to detect seizure-induced tachycardia to trigger additional stimulation. There are some studies suggesting clinical benefits of rVNS over traditional VNS, but the performance and significance of autostimulation mode in clinical practice are poorly understood.ObjectivesTo assess the effect of initiation of rVNS therapy and altered stimulation settings on the number of daily stimulations and energy consumption in VNS therapy and to compare autostimulation performance in different epilepsy types.Materials and MethodsRetrospective follow-up of 30 patients with drug-resistant epilepsy treated with rVNS including 17 new implantations and 13 battery replaces at a single center in Finland. Our data consist of 208 different stimulation periods, that is, episodes with defined stimulation settings and both autostimulation and total stimulation performance-related data along with clinical follow-up.ResultsThe variation in autostimulation frequency was highly dependent on the duration of the OFF-time and autostimulation threshold (p < 0.05). There was a large additional effect of autostimulation mode on therapy time and energy consumption with longer OFF-times, but a minor effect with shorter OFF-times. Significantly more autostimulations were triggered in the temporal lobe and multifocal epilepsies than in extratemporal lobe epilepsies.ConclusionsThe initiation of autostimulation mode in VNS therapy increased the total number of stimulations. Shortening the OFF-time leads to a decreased number and share of automatic activations. Epilepsy type may affect autostimulation activity.     

Low-dose hydrocortisone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia (COVID STEROID) trial—Protocol and statistical analysis plan

Introduction

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 has caused a pandemic of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) with many patients developing hypoxic respiratory failure. Corticosteroids reduce the time on mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit and potentially also mortality in similar patient populations. However, corticosteroids have undesirable effects, including longer time to viral clearance. Clinical equipoise on the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 exists.

Methods

The COVID STEROID trial is an international, randomised, stratified, blinded clinical trial. We will allocate 1000 adult patients with COVID-19 receiving ≥10 L/min of oxygen or on mechanical ventilation to intravenous hydrocortisone 200 mg daily vs placebo (0.9% saline) for 7 days. The primary outcome is days alive without life support (ie mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, and renal replacement therapy) at day 28. Secondary outcomes are serious adverse reactions at day 14; days alive without life support at day 90; days alive and out of hospital at day 90; all-cause mortality at day 28, day 90, and 1 year; and health-related quality of life at 1 year. We will conduct the statistical analyses according to this protocol, including interim analyses for every 250 patients followed for 28 days. The primary outcome will be compared using the Kryger Jensen and Lange test in the intention to treat population and reported as differences in means and medians with 95% confidence intervals.

Discussion

The COVID STEROID trial will provide important evidence to guide the use of corticosteroids in COVID-19 and severe hypoxia.