Gordon Pelegrin – Page 2

Week 17 – PROSEVA

“Prone Positioning in Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome”

by the PROSEVA Study Group

N Engl J Med. 2013 June 6; 368(23):2159-2168 [free full text]
—

Prone positioning had been used for many years in ICU patients with ARDS in order to improve oxygenation. Per Dr. Sonti’s Georgetown Critical Care Top 40, the physiologic basis for benefit with proning lies in the idea that atelectatic regions of lung typically occur in the most dependent portion of an ARDS patient, with hyperinflation affecting the remaining lung. Periodic reversal of these regions via moving the patient from supine to prone and vice versa ensures no one region of the lung will have extended exposure to either atelectasis or overdistention. Although the oxygenation benefits have been long noted, the PROSEVA trial established mortality benefit.

Population: Patients were selected from 26 ICUs in France and 1 in Spain which had daily practice with prone positioning for at least 5 years.

Inclusion: ARDS patients intubated and ventilated <36hr with severe ARDS (defined as PaO2:FiO2 ratio <150, PEEP>5, and TV of about 6ml/kg of predicted body weight)

(NB: by the Berlin definition for ARDS, severe ARDS is defined as PaO2:FiO2 ratio <100)

Intervention: Proning patients within 36 hours of mechanical ventilation for at least 16 consecutive hours (N=237)

Control: Leaving patients in a semirecumbent (supine) position (N=229)

Outcome:

Primary: mortality at day 28

Secondary: mortality at day 90, rate of successful (no reintubation or use of noninvasive ventilation x48hr) extubation, time to successful extubation, length of stay in the ICU, complications, use of noninvasive ventilation, tracheotomy rate, number of days free from organ dysfunction, ventilator settings, measurements of ABG, and respiratory system mechanics during the first week after randomization

Results:
At the time of randomization in the study, the majority of characteristics were similar between the two groups, although the authors noted differences in the SOFA score and the use of neuromuscular blockers and vasopressors. The supine group at baseline had a higher SOFA score indicating more severe organ failure, and also had higher rate of vasopressor usage. The prone group had a higher rate of usage of neuromuscular blockade.

The primary outcome of 28 day mortality was significantly lower in the prone group than in the supine group, at 16.0% vs 32.8% (P<0.001, NNT = 6.0). This mortality decrease was still statistically significant when adjusted for the SOFA score.

Secondary outcomes were notable for a significantly higher rate of successful extubation in the prone group (hazard ratio 0.45; 95% CI 0.29-0.7, P<0.001). Additionally, the PaO2:FiO2 ratio was significantly higher in the supine group, whereas the PEEP and FiO2 were significantly lower. The remainder of secondary outcomes were statistically similar.

Discussion:
PROSEVA showed a significant mortality benefit with early use of prone positioning in severe ARDS. This mortality benefit was considerably larger than seen in past meta-analyses, which was likely due to this study selecting specifically for patients with severe disease as well as specifying longer prone-positioning sessions than employed in prior studies. Critics have noted the unexpected difference in baseline characteristics between the two arms of the study. While these critiques are reasonable, the authors mitigate at least some of these complaints by adjusting the mortality for the statistically significant differences. With such a radical mortality benefit it might be surprising that more patients are not proned at our institution. One reason is that relatively few of our patients have severe ARDS. Additionally, proning places a high demand on resources and requires a coordinated effort of multiple staff. All treatment centers in this study had specially-trained staff that had been performing proning on a daily basis for at least 5 years, and thus were very familiar with the process. With this in mind, we consider the use of proning in patients meeting criteria for severe ARDS.

References and further reading:
1. 2 Minute Medicine
2. Wiki Journal Club
3. Georgetown Critical Care Top 40, pages 8-9
4. Life in the Fastlane, Critical Care Compendium, “Prone Position and Mechanical Ventilation”
5. PulmCCM.org, “ICU Physiology in 1000 Words: The Hemodynamics of Prone”

Summary by Gordon Pelegrin, MD

Week 15 – TRICC

“A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial of Transfusion Requirements in Critical Care”

N Engl J Med. 1999 Feb 11; 340(6): 409-417. [free full text]
—

Although intuitively a hemoglobin closer to normal physiologic concentration seems like it would be beneficial, the vast majority of the time in inpatient settings we use a hemoglobin concentration of >7g/dL as our threshold for transfusion in anemia. Historically, higher hemoglobin cutoffs were used, often aiming to keep Hgb >10g/dL. In 1999, the landmark TRICC trial was published showing no mortality benefit in the liberal transfusion strategy and even harm in certain subgroup analysis.

Population:

Inclusion: critically ill patients expected to be in ICU > 24h, Hgb ≤ 9g/dL within 72hr of ICU admission, and clinically euvolemic after fluid resuscitation

Exclusion criteria: age < 16, inability to receive blood products, active bleed, chronic anemia, pregnancy, brain death, consideration of withdrawal of care, and admission after routine cardiac procedure.

Intervention: liberal strategy (transfuse to Hgb goal 10-12g/dL, N=420)

Comparison: restrictive strategy (transfuse to Hgb goal 7-9g/dL, N=418)

Primary outcome: 30-day all-cause mortality

Secondary outcomes: 60-day all-cause mortality, mortality during hospital stay (ICU plus step-down), multiple-organ dysfunction score, change in organ dysfunction from baseline

Subgroup analyses: patients with APACHE II score ≤ 20 (i.e. less-ill patients), patients younger than 55, cardiac disease, severe infection/septic shock, and trauma

Results:
The primary outcome of 30-day mortality was similar between the two groups (18.7% vs. 23.3%, p = 0.11). Secondary outcomes of mortality rates during hospitalization were lower in the restrictive strategy (22.2% vs. 28.1%, p = 0.05). 60-day all-cause mortality trended towards lower in the restrictive strategy although did not reach statistical significance (22.7% vs. 26.5 %, p = 0.23). Between the two groups there was no significant difference in multiple-organ dysfunction score or change in organ dysfunction from baseline.

Subgroup analysis was most notable for finding statistically significant benefits for the restrictive strategy in the patients with APACHE II score ≤ 20 and patients younger than 55. In these patients, a restrictive strategy showed decrease in 30-day mortality and a lower multiple-organ dysfunction score. In the subgroups of primary disease process (i.e. cardiac disease, severe infection/septic shock, and trauma) there was no significant difference.

Complications in the ICU were monitored, and there was a significant increase in cardiac events (primarily pulmonary edema) in the liberal strategy compared to the restrictive strategy.

Discussion/Implication:
TRICC showed no difference in 30-day mortality between a restrictive and liberal transfusion strategy. Secondary outcomes were notable for a decrease in inpatient mortality with the restrictive strategy. Furthermore, subgroup analysis showed benefit in various metrics for a restrictive transfusion strategy when adjusting for younger and less-ill patients. This evidence laid the groundwork for our current standard of transfusing to hemoglobin >7g/dL. A restrictive strategy has also been supported by more recent studies. In 2014 the Transfusion Thresholds in Septic Shock (TRISS) study showed no change in 90-day mortality with a restrictive strategy. Additionally, in 2013 the Transfusion Strategy for Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding study showed reduced 40-day mortality in the restrictive strategy. However, it excluded patients who had massive exsanguination or low rebleeding risk, thus making it difficult to generalize to our patient population. Currently, the Surviving Sepsis Campaign endorses only transfusing RBCs when Hgb <7g/dL unless there are extenuating circumstances such as MI, severe hypoxemia, or active hemorrhage.

References and Further reading:
1. TRISS @ Wiki Journal Club, full text, Georgetown Critical Care Top 40 pages 14-15
2. Transfusion strategy for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding @ Wiki Journal Club, full text
3. “Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016”
4. Wiki Journal Club

Summary by Gordon Pelegrin, MD

Week 8 – CORTICUS

“Hydrocortisone Therapy for Patients with Septic Shock”

N Engl J Med. 2008 Jan 10;358(2):111-24. [free full text]
—

Steroid therapy in septic shock has been a hotly debated topic since the 1980s. The Annane trial in 2002 suggested that there was a mortality benefit to early steroid therapy and so for almost a decade this became standard of care. In 2008 the CORTICUS trial was performed suggesting otherwise.

Population:
– inclusion criteria: ICU patients with septic shock onset with past 72 hrs (defined as SBP < 90 despite fluids or need for vasopressors, and hypoperfusion or organ dysfunction from sepsis)
– exclusion criteria: “underlying disease with a poor prognosis,” life expectancy < 24hrs, immunosuppression, recent corticosteroid use

Intervention: hydrocortisone 50mg IV q6h x5 days with taper

Comparison: placebo injections q6h x5 days plus taper

Outcome:

Primary: 28 day mortality among patients who did not have a response to ACTH stim test (cortisol rise < 9mcg/dL)

Secondary:
– 28 day mortality in patients who had a positive response to ACTH stim test
– 28 day mortality in all patients
– reversal of shock (defined as SBP ≥ 90 for at least 24hrs without vasopressors) in all patients
– time to reversal of shock in all patients

Results:
In ACTH non-responders (N=233): intervention vs. control 28 day mortality was 39.2% vs. 36.1% (p=0.69)

In ACTH responders (N=254): intervention vs. control 28 day mortality was 28.8% vs. 28.7% (p=1.00); reversal of shock 84.7%% vs. 76.5% (p=0.13)

Among all patients:
– intervention vs. control 28 day mortality was 34.3% vs. 31.5% (p=0.51)
– reversal of shock 79.7% vs. 74.2% (p=0.18)
– duration of time to reversal of shock was significantly shorter among patients receiving hydrocortisone (per Kaplan-Meier analysis, p<0.001; see Figure 2), median time to reversal 3.3 days vs. 5.8 days (95% CI 5.2 – 6.9)

Discussion:
The CORTICUS trial demonstrated no mortality benefit of steroid therapy in septic shock, regardless of a patient’s response to ACTH. Despite the lack of mortality benefit, it demonstrated an earlier resolution of shock with steroids. This lack of mortality benefit sharply contrasted with the previous Annane study. Several reasons have been posited for this including poor powering of the CORTICUS study (it did not reach the desired N=800), CORTICUS inclusion starting within 72 hrs of septic shock vs. Annane starting within 8 hrs, and Annane patients generally being sicker (including their inclusion criterion of mechanical ventilation). Subsequent meta-analyses disagree about the mortality benefit of steroids, but meta-regression analyses suggest benefit among the sickest patients. All studies agree about the improvement in shock reversal. The 2016 Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend IV hydrocortisone in septic shock in patients who continue to be hemodynamically unstable despite adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy.

Per Drs. Sonti and Vinayak of the GUH MICU (excerpted from their excellent Georgetown Critical Care Top 40): “Practically, we use steroids when reaching for a second pressor or if there is multiorgan system dysfunction. Our liver patients may have deficient cortisol production due to inadequate precursor lipid production; use of corticosteroids in these patients represents physiologic replacement rather than adjunct supplement.”

References / Further Reading:
1. Wiki Journal Club
2. 2 Minute Medicine
3. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock (2016), section “Corticosteroids”
4. Annane trial (2002) [free full text]
5. Georgetown Critical Care Top 40 [iTunes / iBooks link]
6. UpToDate,“Glucocorticoid therapy in septic shock”

Summary by Gordon Pelegrin, MD