Anders Oldner

Lower versus Higher Hemoglobin Threshold for Transfusion in Septic Shock

BACKGROUND Blood transfusions are frequently given to patients with septic shock. However, the benefits and harms of different hemoglobin thresholds for transfusion have not been established. METHODS In this multicenter, parallel-group trial, we randomly assigned patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) who had septic shock and a hemoglobin concentration of 9 g per deciliter or less to receive 1 unit of leukoreduced red cells when the hemoglobin level was 7 g per deciliter or less (lower threshold) or when the level was 9 g per deciliter or less (higher threshold) during the ICU stay. The primary outcome measure was death by 90 days after randomization. RESULTS We analyzed data from 998 of 1005 patients (99.3%) who underwent randomization. The two intervention groups had similar baseline characteristics. In the ICU, the lower-threshold group received a median of 1 unit of blood (interquartile range, 0 to 3) and the higher-threshold group received a median of 4 units (interquartile range, 2 to 7). At 90 days after randomization, 216 of 502 patients (43.0%) assigned to the lower-threshold group, as compared with 223 of 496 (45.0%) assigned to the higher-threshold group, had died (relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.78 to 1.09; P=0.44). The results were similar in analyses adjusted for risk factors at baseline and in analyses of the per-protocol populations. The numbers of patients who had ischemic events, who had severe adverse reactions, and who required life support were similar in the two intervention groups. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with septic shock, mortality at 90 days and rates of ischemic events and use of life support were similar among those assigned to blood transfusion at a higher hemoglobin threshold and those assigned to blood transfusion at a lower threshold; the latter group received fewer transfusions. (Funded by the Danish Strategic Research Council and others; TRISS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01485315.).

Transfusion requirements in septic shock (TRISS) trial - comparing the effects and safety of liberal versus restrictive red blood cell transfusion in septic shock patients in the ICU: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundTransfusion of red blood cells (RBC) is recommended in septic shock and the majority of these patients receive RBC transfusion in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, benefit and harm of RBCs have not been established in this group of high-risk patients.Methods/DesignThe Transfusion Requirements in Septic Shock (TRISS) trial is a multicenter trial with assessor-blinded outcome assessment, randomising 1,000 patients with septic shock in 30 Scandinavian ICUs to receive transfusion with pre-storage leuko-depleted RBC suspended in saline-adenine-glucose and mannitol (SAGM) at haemoglobin level (Hb) of 7 g/dl or 9 g/dl, stratified by the presence of haematological malignancy and centre. The primary outcome measure is 90-day mortality. Secondary outcome measures are organ failure, ischaemic events, severe adverse reactions (SARs: anaphylactic reaction, acute haemolytic reaction and transfusion-related circulatory overload, and acute lung injury) and mortality at 28 days, 6 months and 1 year.The sample size will enable us to detect a 9% absolute difference in 90-day mortality assuming a 45% event rate with a type 1 error rate of 5% and power of 80%. An interim analysis will be performed after 500 patients, and the Data Monitoring and Safety Committee will recommend the trial be stopped if a group difference in 90-day mortality with P ≤0.001 is present at this point.DiscussionThe TRISS trial may bridge the gap between clinical practice and the lack of efficacy and safety data on RBC transfusion in septic shock patients. The effect of restrictive versus liberal RBC transfusion strategy on mortality, organ failure, ischaemic events and SARs will be evaluated.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01485315. Registration date 30 November 2011. First patient was randomised 3 December 2011.

A practice survey on vasopressor and inotropic drug therapy in Scandinavian intensive care units

Background: This practice survey was performed to analyse the indications for use of vasopressor/inotropic drugs, preferred drugs and doses as well as concomitant monitoring and desired haemodynamic target values in Scandinavian ICUs. An internet‐based reporting system was implemented.

Shock treatment in a cohort of Scandinavian intensive care units in 2014

Shock is common in intensive care units, and treatment includes fluids, vasopressor and/or inotropic drugs, guided by hemodynamic monitoring. The aim of this study was to identify current practice for treatment of shock in Scandinavian intensive care units.

Heparin-binding protein as a biomarker of post-injury sepsis in trauma patients

Heparin‐binding protein (HBP) is a neutrophil‐derived protein advocated as a biomarker in sepsis. We evaluated plasma HBP as a predictor of post‐injury sepsis in trauma patients.

The use of fluids and cardiovascular acting drugs in nordic intensive care units 2014 - an internet- based cross-sectional practice survey

Shock is common in the intensive care units (ICUs) and is treated with fluids and vasoactive drugs. In 2003 a Scandinavian practice survey was performed documenting an extensive use of colloids and dopamine (1). In the last decade new research has questioned these practices (2,3). Hemodynamic monitoring and evaluation is also under debate.