Rasmus Ehrenfried Berthelsen

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.

Background: Fluid overload is a risk factor for mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Administration of loop diuretics is the predominant treatment of fluid overload, but evidence for its benefit is very uncertain when assessed in a systematic review of randomised clinical trials. The GODIF trial will assess the benefits and harms of goal directed fluid removal with furosemide versus placebo in ICU patients with fluid overload.Methods: An investigator‐initiated, international, randomised, stratified, blinded, parallel‐group trial allocating 1000 adult ICU patients with fluid overload to infusion of furosemide versus placebo. The goal is to achieve a neutral fluid balance. The primary outcome is days alive and out of hospital 90 days after randomisation. Secondary outcomes are all‐cause mortality at day 90 and 1‐year after randomisation; days alive at day 90 without life support; number of participants with one or more serious adverse events or reactions; health‐related quality of life and cognitive function at 1‐year follow‐up. A sample size of 1000 participants is required to detect an improvement of 8% in days alive and out of hospital 90 days after randomisation with a power of 90% and a risk of type 1 error of 5%. The conclusion of the trial will be based on the point estimate and 95% confidence interval; dichotomisation will not be used. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04180397.Perspective: The GODIF trial will provide important evidence of possible benefits and harms of fluid removal with furosemide in adult ICU patients with fluid overload.

Part of the pathophysiology in septic shock is a progressive activation of the endothelium and platelets leading to widespread microvascular injury with capillary leakage, microthrombi and consumption coagulopathy. Modulating the inflammatory response of endothelium and thrombocytes might attenuate this vicious cycle and improve outcome. The CO-ILEPSS trial was a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, pilot trial. Patients admitted to the intensive care unit with septic shock were randomised and allocated in a 2:1 ratio to active treatment with dual therapy of iloprost 1 ng/kg/min and eptifibatide 0.5 μg/kg/min for 48 h or placebo. The primary outcomes were changes in biomarkers reflecting endothelial activation and disruption, platelet consumption and fibrinolysis. We compared groups with mixed models, post hoc Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Mann-Whitney U test. We included 24 patients of which 18 (12 active, 6 placebo) completed the full 7-day trial period and were included in the per-protocol analyses of the primary outcomes. Direct comparison between groups showed no differences in the primary outcomes. Analyses of within-group delta values revealed that biomarkers of endothelial activation and disruption changed differently between groups with increasing levels of thrombomodulin (p = 0.03) and nucleosomes (p = 0.02) in the placebo group and decreasing levels of sE-Selectin (p = 0.007) and sVEGFR1 (p = 0.005) in the active treatment group. Platelet count decreased the first 48 h in the placebo group (p = 0.049) and increased from baseline to day 7 in the active treatment group (p = 0.023). Levels of fibrin monomers declined in the active treatment group within the first 48 h (p = 0.048) and onwards (p = 0.03). Furthermore, there was a significant reduction in SOFA score from 48 h (p = 0.024) and onwards in the active treatment group. Intention-to-treat analyses of all included patients showed no differences in serious adverse events including bleeding, use of blood products or mortality. Our results could indicate benefit from the experimental treatment with reduced endothelial injury, reduced platelet consumption and ensuing reduction in fibrinolytic biomarkers along with improved SOFA score. The results of the CO-ILEPSS trial are exploratory and hypothesis generating and warrant further investigation in a large-scale trial. Clinicaltrials.com, NCT02204852 (July 30, 2014); EudraCT no. 2014-002440-41

Background: Accumulation of fluids is frequent in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with acute kidney injury and may be associated with increased mortality and decreased renal recovery. We present the results of a pilot trial assessing the feasibility of forced fluid removal in ICU patients with acute kidney injury and fluid accumulation of more than 10% ideal bodyweight.Methods: The FFAKI‐trial was a pilot trial of forced fluid removal vs standard care in adult ICU patients with moderate to high risk acute kidney injury and 10% fluid accumulation. Fluid removal was done with furosemide and/or continuous renal replacement therapy aiming at net negative fluid balance > 1 mL/kg ideal body weight/hour until cumulative fluid balance calculated from ICU admission reached less than 1000 mL.Results: After 20 months, we stopped the trial prematurely due to a low inclusion rate with 23 (2%) included patients out of the 1144 screened. Despite the reduced sample size, we observed a marked reduction in cumulative fluid balance 5 days after randomisation (mean difference −5814 mL, 95% CI −2063 to −9565, P = .003) with forced fluid removal compared to standard care. While the trial was underpowered for clinical endpoints, no point estimates suggested harm from forced fluid removal.Conclusions: Forced fluid removal aiming at 1 mL/kg ideal body weight/hour may be an effective treatment of fluid accumulation in ICU patients with acute kidney injury. A definitive trial using our inclusion criteria seems less feasible based on our inclusion rate of only 2%.

Introduction: Fluid therapy is a ubiquitous intervention in patients admitted to the intensive care unit, but positive fluid balance may be associated with poor outcomes and particular in patients with acute kidney injury. Studies describing this have defined fluid overload either at specific time points or considered patients with a positive mean daily fluid balance as fluid overloaded. We wished to detail this further and performed joint model analyses of the association between daily fluid balance and outcome represented by mortality and renal recovery in patients admitted with acute kidney injury.Method: We did a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to the intensive care unit with acute kidney injury during a 2‐year observation period. We used serum creatinine measurements to identify patients with acute kidney injury and collected sequential daily fluid balance during the first 5 days of admission to the intensive care unit. We used joint modelling techniques to correlate the development of fluid overload with survival and renal recovery adjusted for age, gender and disease severity.Results: The cohort contained 863 patients with acute kidney injury of whom 460 (53%) and 254 (29%) developed 5% and 10% fluid overload, respectively. We found that both 5% and 10% fluid overload was correlated with reduced survival and renal recovery.Conclusion: Joint model analyses of fluid accumulation in patients admitted to the intensive care unit with acute kidney injury confirm that even a modest degree of fluid overload (5%) may be negatively associated with both survival and renal recovery.

Intravenous administration of fluids is an essential part of critical care. While some fluid administration is likely beneficial, there is increasing observational evidence that the development of fluid overload is associated with increased mortality. There are no randomised trials to confirm this association in patients with acute kidney injury. We aim to perform a pilot trial to test the feasibility of forced fluid removal compared to standard care in patients with acute kidney injury and severe fluid overload, the FFAKI trial. Then FFAKI trial is a pilot, multicentre, randomised clinical trial recruiting adult intensive care patients with acute kidney injury and fluid overload, defined as more than 10% of ideal bodyweight. Patients are randomised with concealed allocation to either standard care or forced fluid removal with a therapeutic target of negative net fluid balance ≥1 mL/kg/h. The safety of fluid removal is continually evaluated according to predefined criteria of hypoperfusion: lactate ≥4 mmol/L, mean arterial pressure <50 mmHg or mottling beyond the edge of the kneecaps. If patients fulfil one of these criteria, fluid removal is suspended until hypoperfusion has resolved. The primary outcome measure is fluid balance at 5 days after randomisation and secondary outcomes include mean daily fluid balance, fluid balance at discharge from the intensive care unit, time to neutral fluid balance, number of serious adverse reactions and number of protocol violations. All patients are followed for 90 days. The FFAKI trial started in October 2015 and, when completed, will provide data to evaluate whether a large trial of forced fluid removal in critically ill patients is feasible. Our primary outcome will show if the experimental intervention leads to a clinically relevant difference in fluid balance, which could prove beneficial in intensive care patients with acute kidney injury. EudraCT, identifier: 2015-001701-13. Registered on 19 September 2015; ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02458157 . Registered on 21 May 2015; Danish Ethics Committee, identifier: H-15009589H. Registered on 22 September 2015; Danish Health and Medicines Authority, identifier: 2015070013. Registered on 11 August 2015.

Purpose We assessed the effects of a protocol restricting resuscitation fluid vs. a standard care protocol after initial resuscitation in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock. Methods We randomised 151 adult patients with septic shock who had received initial fluid resuscitation in nine Scandinavian ICUs. In the fluid restriction group fluid boluses were permitted only if signs of severe hypoperfusion occurred, while in the standard care group fluid boluses were permitted as long as circulation continued to improve. Results The co-primary outcome measures, resuscitation fluid volumes at day 5 and during ICU stay, were lower in the fluid restriction group than in the standard care group [mean differences −1.2 L (95 % confidence interval −2.0 to −0.4); p < 0.001 and −1.4 L (−2.4 to −0.4) respectively; p < 0.001]. Neither total fluid inputs and balances nor serious adverse reactions differed statistically significantly between the groups. Major protocol violations occurred in 27/75 patients in the fluid restriction group. Ischaemic events occurred in 3/75 in the fluid restriction group vs. 9/76 in the standard care group (odds ratio 0.32; 0.08–1.27; p = 0.11), worsening of acute kidney injury in 27/73 vs. 39/72 (0.46; 0.23–0.92; p = 0.03), and death by 90 days in 25/75 vs. 31/76 (0.71; 0.36–1.40; p = 0.32). Conclusions A protocol restricting resuscitation fluid successfully reduced volumes of resuscitation fluid compared with a standard care protocol in adult ICU patients with septic shock. The patient-centred outcomes all pointed towards benefit with fluid restriction, but our trial was not powered to show differences in these exploratory outcomes. Trial registration NCT02079402.

Emergency abdominal surgery carries a 15% to 20% short-term mortality rate. Postoperative medical complications are strongly associated with increased mortality. Recent research suggests that timely recognition and effective management of complications may reduce mortality. The aim of the present trial is to evaluate the effect of postoperative intermediate care following emergency major abdominal surgery in high-risk patients. The InCare trial is a randomised, parallel-group, non-blinded clinical trial with 1:1 allocation. Patients undergoing emergency laparotomy or laparoscopic surgery with a perioperative Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 10 or above, who are ready to be transferred to the surgical ward within 24 h of surgery are allocated to either intermediate care for 48 h, or surgical ward care. The primary outcome measure is all-cause 30-day mortality. We aim to enrol 400 patients in seven Danish hospitals. The sample size allows us to detect or refute a 34% relative risk reduction of mortality with 80% power. This trial evaluates the benefits and possible harm of intermediate care. The results may potentially influence the survival of many high-risk surgical patients. As a pioneer trial in the area, it will provide important data on the feasibility of future large-scale randomised clinical trials evaluating different levels of postoperative care. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01209663