BACKGROUNDPatients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in the intensive care unit (ICU) are treated with supplemental oxygen, but the benefits and harms of different oxygenation targets are unclear. We hypothesized that using a lower target for partial pressure of arterial oxygen (Pao 2 ) would result in lower mortality than using a higher target. METHODSIn this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 2928 adult patients who had recently been admitted to the ICU (≤12 hours before randomization) and who were receiving at least 10 liters of oxygen per minute in an open system or had a fraction of inspired oxygen of at least 0.50 in a closed system to receive oxygen therapy targeting a Pao 2 of either 60 mm Hg (lower-oxygenation group) or 90 mm Hg (higheroxygenation group) for a maximum of 90 days. The primary outcome was death within 90 days. RESULTSAt 90 days, 618 of 1441 patients (42.9%) in the lower-oxygenation group and 613 of 1447 patients (42.4%) in the higher-oxygenation group had died (adjusted risk ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.94 to 1.11; P = 0.64). At 90 days, there was no significant between-group difference in the percentage of days that patients were alive without life support or in the percentage of days they were alive after hospital discharge. The percentages of patients who had new episodes of shock, myocardial ischemia, ischemic stroke, or intestinal ischemia were similar in the two groups (P = 0.24). CONCLUSIONSAmong adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in the ICU, a lower oxygenation target did not result in lower mortality than a higher target at 90 days.

No abstract

BACKGROUNDIntravenous fluids are recommended for the treatment of patients who are in septic shock, but higher fluid volumes have been associated with harm in patients who are in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODSIn this international, randomized trial, we assigned patients with septic shock in the ICU who had received at least 1 liter of intravenous fluid to receive restricted intravenous fluid or standard intravenous fluid therapy; patients were included if the onset of shock had been within 12 hours before screening. The primary outcome was death from any cause within 90 days after randomization. RESULTSWe enrolled 1554 patients; 770 were assigned to the restrictive-fluid group and 784 to the standard-fluid group. Primary outcome data were available for 1545 patients (99.4%). In the ICU, the restrictive-fluid group received a median of 1798 ml of intravenous fluid (interquartile range, 500 to 4366); the standard-fluid group received a median of 3811 ml (interquartile range, 1861 to 6762). At 90 days, death had occurred in 323 of 764 patients (42.3%) in the restrictive-fluid group, as compared with 329 of 781 patients (42.1%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], −4.7 to 4.9; P = 0.96). In the ICU, serious adverse events occurred at least once in 221 of 751 patients (29.4%) in the restrictive-fluid group and in 238 of 772 patients (30.8%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, −1.7 percentage points; 99% CI, −7.7 to 4.3). At 90 days after randomization, the numbers of days alive without life support and days alive and out of the hospital were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONSAmong adult patients with septic shock in the ICU, intravenous fluid restriction did not result in fewer deaths at 90 days than standard intravenous fluid therapy. (Funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and others; CLASSIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03668236.

Background Most data on intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID‐19 originate in selected populations from stressed healthcare systems with shorter term follow‐up. We present characteristics, interventions and longer term outcomes of the entire, unselected cohort of all ICU patients with COVID‐19 in Denmark where the ICU capacity was not exceeded. Methods We identified all patients with SARS‐CoV‐2 admitted to any Danish ICU from 10 March to 19 May 2020 and registered demographics, chronic comorbidities, use of organ support, length of stay, and vital status from patient files. Risk factors for death were analyzed using adjusted Cox regression analysis. Results There were 323 ICU patients with confirmed COVID‐19. Median age was 68 years, 74% were men, 50% had hypertension, 21% diabetes, and 20% chronic pulmonary disease; 29% had no chronic comorbidity. Invasive mechanical ventilation was used in 82%, vasopressors in 83%, renal replacement therapy in 26%, and extra corporeal membrane oxygenation in 8%. ICU stay was median 13 days (IQR 6‐22) and hospital stay 19 days (11‐30). Median follow‐up was 79 days. At end of follow‐up, 118 had died (37%), 15 (4%) were still in hospital hereof 4 in ICU as of 16 June 2020. Risk factors for mortality included male gender, age, chronic pulmonary disease, active cancer, and number of co‐morbidities. Conclusions In this nationwide, population‐based cohort of ICU patients with COVID‐19, longer term survival was high despite high age and substantial use of organ support. Male gender, age, and chronic co‐morbidities, in particular chronic pulmonary disease, were associated with increased risk of death.

IMPORTANCE Previous trials have suggested that vasopressin and methylprednisolone administered during in-hospital cardiac arrest might improve outcomes.OBJECTIVE To determine whether the combination of vasopressin and methylprednisolone administered during in-hospital cardiac arrest improves return of spontaneous circulation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted at 10 hospitals in Denmark. A total of 512 adult patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest were included between October 15, 2018, and January 21, 2021. The last 90-day follow-up was on April 21, 2021.INTERVENTION Patients were randomized to receive a combination of vasopressin and methylprednisolone (n = 245) or placebo (n = 267). The first dose of vasopressin (20 IU) and methylprednisolone (40 mg), or corresponding placebo, was administered after the first dose of epinephrine. Additional doses of vasopressin or corresponding placebo were administered after each additional dose of epinephrine for a maximum of 4 doses. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was return of spontaneous circulation. Secondary outcomes included survival and favorable neurologic outcome at 30 days (Cerebral Performance Category score of 1 or 2). RESULTS Among 512 patients who were randomized, 501 met all inclusion and no exclusion criteria and were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 71 [13] years; 322 men [64%]). One hundred of 237 patients (42%) in the vasopressin and methylprednisolone group and 86 of 264 patients (33%) in the placebo group achieved return of spontaneous circulation (risk ratio, 1.30 [95% CI, 1.03-1.63]; risk difference, 9.6% [95% CI, 1.1%-18.0%]; P = .03). At 30 days, 23 patients (9.7%) in the intervention group and 31 patients (12%) in the placebo group were alive (risk ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.50-1.37]; risk difference: −2.0% [95% CI, −7.5% to 3.5%]; P = .48). A favorable neurologic outcome was observed in 18 patients (7.6%) in the intervention group and 20 patients (7.6%) in the placebo group at 30 days (risk ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.55-1.83]; risk difference, 0.0% [95% CI, −4.7% to 4.9%]; P > .99). In patients with return of spontaneous circulation, hyperglycemia occurred in 77 (77%) in the intervention group and 63 (73%) in the placebo group. Hypernatremia occurred in 28 (28%) and 27 (31%), in the intervention and placebo groups, respectively.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest, administration of vasopressin and methylprednisolone, compared with placebo, significantly increased the likelihood of return of spontaneous circulation. However, there is uncertainty whether this treatment results in benefit or harm for long-term survival.