Garces, Juan Pablo Domecq

Introduction Sepsis is a global health priority with nearly 50 million cases annually. Cardiovascular dysfunction is common, frequently manifesting as hypotension that persists despite fluid resuscitation. Most affected patients require the use of intravenous (IV) vasoactive agents, typically necessitating intensive care unit (ICU)-level monitoring, invasive interventions and contributing substantially to healthcare costs. Midodrine, an oral alpha-1 agonist approved for orthostatic hypotension, has increasingly been used off-label as a vasopressor-sparing (reducing IV vasopressor use) strategy in sepsis, despite limited and inconsistent evidence. This pragmatic, randomised, open-label trial evaluates the efficacy and safety of midodrine in patients with sepsis-associated hypotension. We hypothesise that, compared with standard care, midodrine administration will reduce the duration of IV vasopressor use. Methods and analysis A total of 308 adult patients with sepsis-associated hypotension will be enrolled (154 per arm). The intervention group will, in addition to standard of care, receive enteral midodrine 10 mg three times daily. Outcomes will be ascertained pragmatically via electronic health record-based data retrieval and adjudicated by research coordinators blinded to treatment assignment. The primary outcome is time alive and off IV vasopressors in the first 28 days (in hours) after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include cumulative vasopressor exposure; use and duration of central venous access; cumulative fluid balance over the first 48 hours and up to 7 days of ICU stay; ICU and hospital length of stay; and ICU-, hospital-, and organ support-free days through day 28. Safety outcomes include adverse events potentially attributable to midodrine during hospitalisation including acute kidney injury. Primary analyses will follow an intention-to-treat framework, including all randomised participants according to their assigned treatment groups. Primary and secondary outcomes will be compared using a van Elteren test stratified by randomisation factors. A predefined secondary Bayesian analysis of the primary outcome will provide complementary estimates of treatment effect. Safety outcomes will be summarised descriptively without formal between-arm hypothesis testing. Ethics and dissemination The Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board approved this protocol and required written informed consent from all participants (IRB# 24–0 00 121). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and international conference presentations. Trial registration number NCT06319248 .

Introduction: Life-support limits (i.e., code status), the first step in the continuum of palliation and end-of-life (EoL) care, stem from decisions made by patients and their providers to align care near the EoL with patients’ wishes. The pandemic created health care strain that may have influenced life-support limitation practices among patients with serious COVID-19. In this study, we examine variations in life-support limitations (do-not-resuscitate, DNR; do-not-intubate, DNI) depending on the hospital and period of hospitalization. Methods: We included all adults admitted to a hospital in the United States with COVID-19 from January 2020 to December 2021 using the VIRUS registry. Our outcome was any life-support limitation on admission (DNR, DNI, or both) using regression modeling. Main exposures were hospital and period of hospitalization (early vs. late pandemic). Covariates included age, sex, race/ethnicity, comorbidities, and hospitalization diagnoses. Results: There were 42,383 patients from 75 hospitals in the US. The median age was 63 (interquartile range: 50–75), 46.5% were female, and 37.5% were non-Hispanic White. The life-support limitation rate was 7.9%, and the palliative care consultation rate was 2.3%. The odds of life-support limitation were 1.86 (95% CI: 1.6–2.1) depending on the hospital, but the period of hospitalization was not associated with odds of life-support limitation. Older age was associated with the greatest increased odds (4.1 per standard deviation ∼ 17.9 years, 95% CI: 3.9–4.4), followed by comorbidities including paralysis (2.4, 95% CI: 1.8–3.0) and dementia (2.3, 95% CI: 2.0–2.6). Conclusions: After adjusting for patient-level factors, we report significant inter-hospital but no temporal variation in life-support limitation upon admission with COVID-19. Future studies should investigate specific practices that led to health care resilience to temporal practice variations in life-support limitation during the pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: Conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess prevalence and timing of acute kidney injury (AKI) development after acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and its association with mortality. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Ovid PsycINFO database, Scopus, and Web of Science thought April 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Titles and abstracts were screened independently and in duplicate to identify eligible studies. Randomized controlled trials and prospective or retrospective cohort studies reporting the development of AKI following ARDS were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data using a pre piloted abstraction form. We used Review Manager 5.4 software (Cochrane Library, Oxford, United Kingdom) and Open Meta software (Brown University, Providence, RI) for statistical analyses. DATA SYNTHESIS: Among the 3646 studies identified and screened, 17 studies comprising 9359 ARDS patients met the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. AKI developed in 3287 patients (40%) after the diagnosis of ARDS. The incidence of AKI at least 48 hours after ARDS diagnosis was 20% (95% CI, 0.18–0.21%). The pooled risk ratio (RR) for the hospital (or 30-d) mortality among ARDS patients who developed AKI was 1.93 (95% CI, 1.71–2.18). AKI development after ARDS was identified as an independent risk factor for mortality in ARDS patients, with a pooled odds ratio from multivariable analysis of 3.69 (95% CI, 2.24–6.09). Furthermore, two studies comparing mortality between patients with late vs. early AKI initiation after ARDS revealed higher mortality in late AKI patients with RR of 1.46 (95% CI, 1.19–1.8). However, the certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low to very low. CONCLUSIONS: While our findings highlight a significant association between ARDS and subsequent development of AKI, the low to very low certainty of evidence underscores the need for cautious interpretation. This systematic review identified a significant knowledge gap, necessitating further research to establish a more definitive understanding of this relationship and its clinical implications.