Conjoint Associate Professor Rakshit Panwar

Purpose: To study the efficacy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: Critically ill adults with COVID-19 were randomized to receive lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, combination therapy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine or no antiviral therapy (control). The primary endpoint was an ordinal scale of organ support-free days. Analyses used a Bayesian cumulative logistic model and expressed treatment effects as an adjusted odds ratio (OR) where an OR > 1 is favorable. Results: We randomized 694 patients to receive lopinavir-ritonavir (n = 255), hydroxychloroquine (n = 50), combination therapy (n = 27) or control (n = 362). The median organ support-free days among patients in lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, and combination therapy groups was 4 (¿¿1 to 15), 0 (¿¿1 to 9) and¿1 (¿¿1 to 7), respectively, compared to 6 (¿¿1 to 16) in the control group with in-hospital mortality of 88/249 (35%), 17/49 (35%), 13/26 (50%), respectively, compared to 106/353 (30%) in the control group. The three interventions decreased organ support-free days compared to control (OR [95% credible interval]: 0.73 [0.55, 0.99], 0.57 [0.35, 0.83] 0.41 [0.24, 0.72]), yielding posterior probabilities that reached the threshold futility (= 99.0%), and high probabilities of harm (98.0%, 99.9% and > 99.9%, respectively). The three interventions reduced hospital survival compared with control (OR [95% CrI]: 0.65 [0.45, 0.95], 0.56 [0.30, 0.89], and 0.36 [0.17, 0.73]), yielding high probabilities of harm (98.5% and 99.4% and 99.8%, respectively). Conclusion: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, or combination therapy worsened outcomes compared to no antiviral therapy.

Objective: The present study investigated outcomes in patients with vasoplegia after cardiac surgery treated with angiotensin II plus standard-of-care vasopressors. Vasoplegia is a common complication in cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Approximately 250,000 cardiac surgeries with cardiopulmonary bypass are performed in the United States annually, with vasoplegia occurring in 20%to-27% of patients. Design: Post-hoc analysis of the Angiotensin II for the Treatment of High-Output Shock (ATHOS-3) study. Setting: Multicenter, multinational study. Participants: Sixteen patients with vasoplegia after cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass were enrolled. Interventions: Angiotensin II plus standard-of-care vasopressors (n = 9) compared with placebo plus standard-of-care vasopressors (n = 7). Measurements and Main Results: The primary endpoint was mean arterial pressure response (mean arterial pressure =75 mmHg or an increase from baseline of =10 mmHg at hour 3 without an increase in the dose of standard-of-care vasopressors). Vasopressor sparing and safety also were assessed. Mean arterial pressure response was achieved in 8 (88.9%) patients in the angiotensin II group compared with 0 (0%) patients in the placebo group (p = 0.0021). At hour 12, the median standard-of-care vasopressor dose had decreased from baseline by 76.5% in the angiotensin II group compared with an increase of 7.8% in the placebo group (p = 0.0013). No venous or arterial thrombotic events were reported. Conclusion: Patients with vasoplegia after cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass rapidly responded to angiotensin II, permitting significant vasopressor sparing.

Rationale: A novel model of phenotypes based on set thresholds of respiratory system compliance (Crs) was recently postulated in context of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). In particular, the dissociation between the degree of hypoxemia and Crs was characterized as a distinct ARDS phenotype. Objectives: To determine whether such Crs-based phenotypes existed among patients with ARDS before the COVID-19 pandemic and to closely examine the Crs-mortality relationship. Methods: We undertook a secondary analysis of patients with ARDS, who were invasively ventilated on controlled modes and enrolled in a large, multinational, epidemiological study. We assessed Crs, degree of hypoxemia, and associated Crs-based phenotypic patterns with their characteristics and outcomes. Measurements and Main Results: Among 1,117 patients with ARDS who met inclusion criteria, the median Crs was 30 (interquartile range, 23-40) ml/cm H2O. One hundred thirty-six (12%) patients had preserved Crs (>50 ml/cm H2O; phenotype with low elastance [¿phenotype L¿]), and 827 (74%) patients had poor Crs (,40 ml/cm H2O; phenotype with high elastance [¿phenotype H¿]). Compared with those with phenotype L, patients with phenotype H were sicker and had more comorbidities and higher hospital mortality (32% vs. 45%; P, 0.05). A near complete dissociation between PaO2/FIO2 and Crs was observed. Of 136 patients with phenotype L, 58 (43%) had a PaO2/FIO2 , 150. In a multivariable-adjusted analysis, the Crs was independently associated with hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio per ml/cm H2O increase, 0.988; 95% confidence interval, 0.979-0.996; P = 0.005). Conclusions: A wide range of Crs was observed in non-COVID-19 ARDS. Approximately one in eight patients had preserved Crs. PaO2/FIO2 and Crs were dissociated. Lower Crs was independently associated with higher mortality. The Crs-mortality relationship lacked a clear transition threshold.

BACKGROUND: Patients who are undergoing mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) often receive a high fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) and have a high arterial oxygen tension. The conservative use of oxygen may reduce oxygen exposure, diminish lung and systemic oxidative injury, and thereby increase the number of ventilator-free days (days alive and free from mechanical ventilation). METHODS: We randomly assigned 1000 adult patients who were anticipated to require mechanical ventilation beyond the day after recruitment in the ICU to receive conservative or usual oxygen therapy. In the two groups, the default lower limit for oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry (Spo2) was 90%. In the conservativeoxygen group, the upper limit of the Spo2 alarm was set to sound when the level reached 97%, and the Fio2 was decreased to 0.21 if the Spo2 was above the acceptable lower limit. In the usual-oxygen group, there were no specific measures limiting the Fio2 or the Spo2. The primary outcome was the number of ventilatorfree days from randomization until day 28. RESULTS: The number of ventilator-free days did not differ significantly between the conservative-oxygen group and the usual-oxygen group, with a median duration of 21.3 days (interquartile range, 0 to 26.3) and 22.1 days (interquartile range, 0 to 26.2), respectively, for an absolute difference of -0.3 days (95% confidence interval [CI], -2.1 to 1.6; P = 0.80). The conservative-oxygen group spent more time in the ICU with an Fio2 of 0.21 than the usual-oxygen group, with a median duration of 29 hours (interquartile range, 5 to 78) and 1 hour (interquartile range, 0 to 17), respectively (absolute difference, 28 hours; 95% CI, 22 to 34); the conservative-oxygen group spent less time with an Spo2 exceeding 96%, with a duration of 27 hours (interquartile range, 11 to 63.5) and 49 hours (interquartile range, 22 to 112), respectively (absolute difference, 22 hours; 95% CI, 14 to 30). At 180 days, mortality was 35.7% in the conservative-oxygen group and 34.5% in the usual-oxygen group, for an unadjusted odds ratio of 1.05 (95% CI, 0.81 to 1.37). CONCLUSIONS: In adults undergoing mechanical ventilation in the ICU, the use of conservative oxygen therapy, as compared with usual oxygen therapy, did not significantly affect the number of ventilator-free days.

Purpose: Liberal use of oxygen may contribute to secondary brain injury in patients with hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy (HIE). However, there are limited data on the effect of different oxygen regimens on survival and neurological disability in HIE patients. Methods: We undertook a post-hoc analysis of the 166 patients with suspected HIE enrolled in a trial comparing conservative oxygen therapy with usual oxygen therapy in 1000 mechanically ventilated ICU patients. The primary endpoint for the current analysis was death or unfavourable neurological outcome at day 180. Key secondary outcomes were day 180 mortality, and cause-specific mortality. Results: Patients with HIE allocated to conservative oxygen spent less time in the ICU with an SpO2 = 97% (26¿h [interquartile range (IQR) 13¿45 vs. 35¿h [IQR 19¿70], absolute difference, 9¿h; 95% CI -¿21.4 to 3.4). A total of 43 of 78 patients (55.1%) assigned to conservative oxygen and 49 of 72 patients (68.1%) assigned to usual oxygen died or had an unfavourable neurological outcome at day 180; odds ratio 0.58; 95% CI 0.3¿1.12; P = 0.1 adjusted odds ratio 0.54; 95% CI 0.23¿1.26; P = 0.15. A total of 37 of 86 patients (43%) assigned to conservative oxygen and 46 of 78 (59%) assigned to usual oxygen had died by day 180; odds ratio 0.53; 95% CI 0.28¿0.98; P = 0.04; adjusted odds ratio 0.56; 95% CI 0.25¿1.23; P = 0.15. Cause-specific mortality was similar by treatment group. Conclusions: Conservative oxygen therapy was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in death or unfavourable neurological outcomes at day 180. The potential for important benefit or harm from conservative oxygen therapy in HIE patients is not excluded by these data.

Purpose: Sepsis is a common reason for intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality in ICU patients. Despite increasing interest in treatment strategies limiting oxygen exposure in ICU patients, no trials have compared conservative vs. usual oxygen in patients with sepsis. Methods: We undertook a post hoc analysis of the 251 patients with sepsis enrolled in a trial that compared conservative oxygen therapy with usual oxygen therapy in 1000 mechanically ventilated ICU patients. The primary end point for the current analysis was 90-day mortality. Key secondary outcomes were cause-specific mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, ventilator-free days, vasopressor-free days, and the proportion of patients receiving renal replacement therapy in the ICU. Results: Patients with sepsis allocated to conservative oxygen therapy spent less time in the ICU with an SpO2 = 97% (23.5¿h [interquartile range (IQR) 8¿70] vs. 47¿h [IQR 11¿93], absolute difference, 23¿h; 95% CI 8¿38), and more time receiving an FiO2 of 0.21 than patients allocated to usual oxygen therapy (20.5¿h [IQR 1¿79] vs. 0¿h [IQR 0¿10], absolute difference, 20¿h; 95% CI 14¿26). At 90-days, 47 of 130 patients (36.2%) assigned to conservative oxygen and 35 of 120 patients (29.2%) assigned to usual oxygen had died (absolute difference, 7 percentage points; 95% CI - 4.6 to 18.6% points; P = 0.24; interaction P = 0.35 for sepsis vs. non-sepsis). There were no statistically significant differences between groups for secondary outcomes but point estimates of treatment effects consistently favored usual oxygen therapy. Conclusions: Point estimates for the treatment effect of conservative oxygen therapy on 90-day mortality raise the possibility of clinically important harm with this intervention in patients with sepsis; however, our post hoc analysis was not powered to detect the effects suggested and our data do not exclude clinically important benefit or harm from conservative oxygen therapy in this patient group. Clinical Trials Registry: ICU-ROX Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number ACTRN12615000957594.

Rationale: There are no prospective observational studies exploring the relationship between relative hypotension and adverse kidneyrelated outcomes among critically ill patients with shock. Objectives: To investigate the magnitude of relative hypotension during vasopressor support among critically ill patients with shock and to determine whether such relative hypotension is associated with new significant acute kidney injury (AKI) or major adverse kidney events (MAKE) within 14 days of vasopressor initiation. Methods: At seven multidisciplinary ICUs, 302 patients, aged >40 years and requiring >4 hours of vasopressor support for nonhemorrhagic shock, were prospectively enrolled.Weassessed the time-weighted average of the mean perfusion pressure (MPP) deficit (i.e., the percentage difference between patients' preillness basal MPP and achievedMPP)during vasopressor support and the percentage of time points with an MPP deficit.20% as key exposure variables. New significant AKI was defined as an AKI-stage increase of two or more (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcome creatinine-based criteria). Measurements and Main Results: The median MPP deficit was 19% (interquartile range, 13-25), and 54% (interquartile range, 19-82) of time points were spent with an MPP deficit.20%. Seventy-three (24%) patients developed new significant AKI; 86 (29%) patients developed MAKE. For every percentage increase in the time-weighted average MPP deficit, multivariable-adjusted odds of developing new significant AKI and MAKE increased by 5.6% (95% confidence interval, 2.2-9.1; P = 0.001) and 5.9% (95% confidence interval, 2.2-9.8; P = 0.002), respectively. Likewise, for every one-unit increase in the percentage of time points with an MPP deficit.20%, multivariable-adjusted odds of developing new significant AKI andMAKEincreased by 1.2% (0.3-2.2; P = 0.008) and 1.4% (0.4-2.4; P = 0.004), respectively. Conclusions: Vasopressor-treated patients with shock are often exposed to a significant degree and duration of relative hypotension, which is associated with new-onset, adverse kidney-related outcomes.

Aim: The effect of conservative versus liberal oxygen therapy on mortality rates in post cardiac arrest patients is uncertain. Methods: We undertook an individual patient data meta-analysis of patients randomised in clinical trials to conservative or liberal oxygen therapy after a cardiac arrest. The primary end point was mortality at last follow-up. Results: Individual level patient data were obtained from seven randomised clinical trials with a total of 429 trial participants included. Four trials enrolled patients in the pre-hospital period. Of these, two provided protocol-directed oxygen therapy for 60 min, one provided it until the patient was handed over to the emergency department staff, and one provided it for a total of 72 h or until the patient was extubated. Three trials enrolled patients after intensive care unit (ICU) admission and generally continued protocolised oxygen therapy for a longer period, often until ICU discharge. A total of 90 of 221 patients (40.7%) assigned to conservative oxygen therapy and 103 of 206 patients (50%) assigned to liberal oxygen therapy had died by this last point of follow-up; absolute difference; odds ratio (OR) adjusted for study only; 0.67; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.99; P = 0.045; adjusted OR, 0.58; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.96; P = 0.04. Conclusion: Conservative oxygen therapy was associated with a statistically significant reduction in mortality at last follow-up compared to liberal oxygen therapy but the certainty of available evidence was low or very low due to bias, imprecision, and indirectness. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019138931.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Maintaining an optimal blood pressure (BP) during shock is a fundamental tenet of critical care. Optimal BP targets may be different for different patients. In current practice, too often, uniform BP targets are pursued which may result in inadvertently accepting a degree of untreated relative hypotension, i.e., the deficit between patients' usual premorbid basal BP and the achieved BP, during vasopressor support. Relative hypotension is a common but an under-recognized and an under-treated sign among patients with potential shock state. From a physiological perspective, any relative reduction in the net perfusion pressure across an organ (e.g., renal) vasculature has a potential to overwhelm autoregulatory mechanisms, which are already under stress during shock. Such perfusion pressure deficit may consequently impact organs' ability to function or recover from an injured state. This review discusses such pathophysiologic mechanisms in detail with a particular focus on the risk of new-onset acute kidney injury (AKI). To review current literature, databases of Medline, Embase, and Google scholar were searched to retrieve articles that either adjusted BP targets based on patients' premorbid BP levels or considered relative hypotension as an exposure endpoint and assessed its association with clinical outcomes among acutely ill patients. There were no randomized controlled trials. Only seven studies could be identified and these were reviewed in detail. These studies indicated a significant association between the degree of relative hypotension that was inadvertently accepted in real-world practice and new-onset organ dysfunction or subsequent AKI. However, this is not a high-quality evidence. Therefore, well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate whether adoption of individualized BP targets, which are initially guided by patient's premorbid basal BP and then tailored according to clinical response, is superior to conventional BP targets for vasopressor therapy, particularly among patients with vasodilatory shock states.

BACKGROUND Vasodilatory shock that does not respond to high-dose vasopressors is associated with high mortality. We investigated the effectiveness of angiotensin II for the treatment of patients with this condition. METHODS We randomly assigned patients with vasodilatory shock who were receiving more than 0.2 µg of norepinephrine per kilogram of body weight per minute or the equivalent dose of another vasopressor to receive infusions of either angiotensin II or placebo. The primary end point was a response with respect to mean arterial pressure at hour 3 after the start of infusion, with response defined as an increase from baseline of at least 10 mm Hg or an increase to at least 75 mm Hg, without an increase in the dose of background vasopressors. RESULTS A total of 344 patients were assigned to one of the two regimens; 321 received a study intervention (163 received angiotensin II, and 158 received placebo) and were included in the analysis. The primary end point was reached by more patients in the angiotensin II group (114 of 163 patients, 69.9%) than in the placebo group (37 of 158 patients, 23.4%) (odds ratio, 7.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.76 to 13.3; P<0.001). At 48 hours, the mean improvement in the cardiovascular Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (scores range from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating more severe dysfunction) was greater in the angiotensin II group than in the placebo group (-1.75 vs. -1.28, P = 0.01). Serious adverse events were reported in 60.7% of the patients in the angiotensin II group and in 67.1% in the placebo group. Death by day 28 occurred in 75 of 163 patients (46%) in the angiotensin II group and in 85 of 158 patients (54%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.07; P = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS Angiotensin II effectively increased blood pressure in patients with vasodilatory shock that did not respond to high doses of conventional vasopressors.

Rationale: There are no randomized controlled trials comparing different oxygenation targets for intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Objectives: To determine whether a conservative oxygenation strategy is a feasible alternative to a liberal oxygenation strategy among ICU patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Methods: At four multidisciplinary ICUs, 103 adult patients deemed likely to require IMV for greater than or equal to 24 hours were randomly allocated to either a conservative oxygenation strategy with target oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry (SpO2) of 88-92% (n = 52) or a liberal oxygenation strategy with target SpO2 of greater than or equal to 96% (n = 51). MeasurementsandMainResults:Themean area under the curve and 95% confidence interval (CI) for SpO2 (93.4% [92.9-93.9%] vs. 97% [96.5-97.5%]), SaO2 (93.5% [93.1-94%] vs. 96.8% [96.3-97.3%]), PaO2 (70 [68-73] mm Hg vs. 92 [89-96] mm Hg), and FIO2 (0.26 [0.25-0.28] vs. 0.36 [0.34-0.39) in the conservative versus liberal oxygenation arm were significantly different (P < 0.0001 for all). There were no significant between-group differences in any measures of new organ dysfunction, or ICU or 90-day mortality. The percentage time spent with SpO2 less than 88% in conservative versus liberal arm was 1% versus 0.3% (P = 0.03), and percentage time spent with SpO2 greater than 98% in conservative versus liberal arm was 4% versus 22% (P < 0.001). The adjusted hazard ratio for 90-day mortality in the conservative arm was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.40-1.50; P = 0.44) overall and 0.49 (95% CI, 0.20-1.17; P = 0.10) in the prespecified subgroup of patients with a baseline PaO2/FIO2 less than 300. Conclusions: Our study supports the feasibility of a conservative oxygenation strategy in patients receiving IMV. Larger randomized controlled trials of this intervention appear justified.

Introduction. Activated Protein C [APC] improves outcome in immunocompetent patients with severe sepsis particularly in those who are perceived to have high mortality risk. Before embarking on a trial of APC administration in immunocompromised septic patients, a preliminary study on plasma levels of protein C in this cohort is essential. Objective. To assess serum Protein C concentrations in immunocompromised patients as compared to immunocompetent patients during sepsis, severe sepsis, septic shock and recovery. Methods. Prospective cohort study in a tertiary hospital. Patients satisfying inclusion criteria were enrolled after informed consent. Clinical variables were noted with sample collection when patients met criteria for sepsis, severe sepsis, septic shock and recovery. Protein C levels were measured using monoclonal antibody based fluorescence immunoassay. Results. Thirty one patients participated in this study (22 immunocompromised, 9 immunocompetent). Protein C levels were found to be significantly lower in the immunocompromised group compared to the immunocompetent group, particularly observed in severe sepsis [2.27 (95% CI: 1.63-2.9) vs 4.19 (95% CI: 2.87-5.52) mcg/ml] (p = 0.01) and sepsis [2.59 (95% CI: 1.98-3.21) vs 3.64 (95% CI: 2.83-4.45) mcg/ml] (p = 0.03). SOFA scores were similar in both the groups across sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock categories. Protein C levels improved significantly in recovery (p = 0.001) irrespective of immune status. Conclusion. Protein C levels were significantly lower in immunocompromised patients when compared to immunocompetent patients in severe sepsis and sepsis categories. Our study suggests a plausible role for APC in severely septic immunocompromised patients which need further elucidation. © 2009 Panwar et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.