Jørn Wetterslev

Targeted Temperature Management at 33°C versus 36°C after Cardiac Arrest

BACKGROUND Unconscious survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest have a high risk of death or poor neurologic function. Therapeutic hypothermia is recommended by international guidelines, but the supporting evidence is limited, and the target temperature associated with the best outcome is unknown. Our objective was to compare two target temperatures, both intended to prevent fever. METHODS In an international trial, we randomly assigned 950 unconscious adults after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of presumed cardiac cause to targeted temperature management at either 33°C or 36°C. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality through the end of the trial. Secondary outcomes included a composite of poor neurologic function or death at 180 days, as evaluated with the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) scale and the modified Rankin scale. RESULTS In total, 939 patients were included in the primary analysis. At the end of the trial, 50% of the patients in the 33°C group (235 of 473 patients) had died, as compared with 48% of the patients in the 36°C group (225 of 466 patients) (hazard ratio with a temperature of 33°C, 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89 to 1.28; P=0.51). At the 180-day follow-up, 54% of the patients in the 33°C group had died or had poor neurologic function according to the CPC, as compared with 52% of patients in the 36°C group (risk ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.16; P=0.78). In the analysis using the modified Rankin scale, the comparable rate was 52% in both groups (risk ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.14; P=0.87). The results of analyses adjusted for known prognostic factors were similar. CONCLUSIONS In unconscious survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of presumed cardiac cause, hypothermia at a targeted temperature of 33°C did not confer a benefit as compared with a targeted temperature of 36°C. (Funded by the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation and others; TTM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01020916.).

Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.42 versus Ringer's acetate in severe sepsis.

BACKGROUND Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) [corrected] is widely used for fluid resuscitation in intensive care units (ICUs), but its safety and efficacy have not been established in patients with severe sepsis. METHODS In this multicenter, parallel-group, blinded trial, we randomly assigned patients with severe sepsis to fluid resuscitation in the ICU with either 6% HES 130/0.42 (Tetraspan) or Ringers acetate at a dose of up to 33 ml per kilogram of ideal body weight per day. The primary outcome measure was either death or end-stage kidney failure (dependence on dialysis) at 90 days after randomization. RESULTS Of the 804 patients who underwent randomization, 798 were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. The two intervention groups had similar baseline characteristics. At 90 days after randomization, 201 of 398 patients (51%) assigned to HES 130/0.42 had died, as compared with 172 of 400 patients (43%) assigned to Ringers acetate (relative risk, 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.36; P=0.03); 1 patient in each group had end-stage kidney failure. In the 90-day period, 87 patients (22%) assigned to HES 130/0.42 were treated with renal-replacement therapy versus 65 patients (16%) assigned to Ringers acetate (relative risk, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.80; P=0.04), and 38 patients (10%) and 25 patients (6%), respectively, had severe bleeding (relative risk, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.94 to 2.48; P=0.09). The results were supported by multivariate analyses, with adjustment for known risk factors for death or acute kidney injury at baseline. CONCLUSIONS Patients with severe sepsis assigned to fluid resuscitation with HES 130/0.42 had an increased risk of death at day 90 and were more likely to require renal-replacement therapy, as compared with those receiving Ringers acetate. (Funded by the Danish Research Council and others; 6S ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00962156.).

Trial sequential analysis reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta-analyses

OBJECTIVES To evaluate meta-analyses with trial sequential analysis (TSA). TSA adjusts for random error risk and provides the required number of participants (information size) in a meta-analysis. Meta-analyses not reaching information size are analyzed with trial sequential monitoring boundaries analogous to interim monitoring boundaries in a single trial. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We applied TSA on meta-analyses performed in Cochrane Neonatal reviews. We calculated information sizes and monitoring boundaries with three different anticipated intervention effects of 30% relative risk reduction (TSA(30%)), 15% (TSA(15%)), or a risk reduction suggested by low-bias risk trials of the meta-analysis corrected for heterogeneity (TSA(LBHIS)). RESULTS A total of 174 meta-analyses were eligible; 79 out of 174 (45%) meta-analyses were statistically significant (P<0.05). In the significant meta-analyses, TSA(30%) showed firm evidence in 61%. TSA(15%) and TSA(LBHIS) found firm evidence in 33% and 73%, respectively. The remaining significant meta-analyses had potentially spurious evidence of effect. In the 95 statistically nonsignificant (P>or=0.05) meta-analyses, TSA(30%) showed absence of evidence in 80% (insufficient information size). TSA(15%) and TSA(LBHIS) found that 95% and 91% had absence of evidence. The remaining nonsignificant meta-analyses had evidence of lack of effect. CONCLUSION TSA reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta-analyses.

Estimating required information size by quantifying diversity in random-effects model meta-analyses

BackgroundThere is increasing awareness that meta-analyses require a sufficiently large information size to detect or reject an anticipated intervention effect. The required information size in a meta-analysis may be calculated from an anticipated a priori intervention effect or from an intervention effect suggested by trials with low-risk of bias.MethodsInformation size calculations need to consider the total model variance in a meta-analysis to control type I and type II errors. Here, we derive an adjusting factor for the required information size under any random-effects model meta-analysis.ResultsWe devise a measure of diversity (D2) in a meta-analysis, which is the relative variance reduction when the meta-analysis model is changed from a random-effects into a fixed-effect model. D2 is the percentage that the between-trial variability constitutes of the sum of the between-trial variability and a sampling error estimate considering the required information size. D2 is different from the intuitively obvious adjusting factor based on the common quantification of heterogeneity, the inconsistency (I2), which may underestimate the required information size. Thus, D2 and I2 are compared and interpreted using several simulations and clinical examples. In addition we show mathematically that diversity is equal to or greater than inconsistency, that is D2 ≥ I2, for all meta-analyses.ConclusionWe conclude that D2 seems a better alternative than I2 to consider model variation in any random-effects meta-analysis despite the choice of the between trial variance estimator that constitutes the model. Furthermore, D2 can readily adjust the required information size in any random-effects model meta-analysis.

Apparently conclusive meta-analyses may be inconclusive—Trial sequential analysis adjustment of random error risk due to repetitive testing of accumulating data in apparently conclusive neonatal meta-analyses

BACKGROUND Random error may cause misleading evidence in meta-analyses. The required number of participants in a meta-analysis (i.e. information size) should be at least as large as an adequately powered single trial. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) may reduce risk of random errors due to repetitive testing of accumulating data by evaluating meta-analyses not reaching the information size with monitoring boundaries. This is analogous to sequential monitoring boundaries in a single trial. METHODS We selected apparently conclusive (P </= 0.05) Cochrane neonatal meta-analyses. We applied heterogeneity-adjusted and unadjusted TSA on these meta-analyses by calculating the information size, the monitoring boundaries, and the cumulative Z-statistic after each trial. We identified the proportion of meta-analyses that did not reach the required information size and the proportion of these meta-analyses in which the Z-curve did not cross the monitoring boundaries. RESULTS Of 54 apparently conclusive meta-analyses, 39 (72%) did not reach the heterogeneity-adjusted information size required to accept or reject an intervention effect of 25% relative risk reduction. Of these 39, 19 meta-analyses (49%) were considered inconclusive, because the cumulative Z-curve did not cross the monitoring boundaries. The median number of participants required to reach the required information size was 1591 (range, 339-6149). TSA without heterogeneity adjustment largely confirmed these results. CONCLUSIONS Many apparently conclusive Cochrane neonatal meta-analyses may become inconclusive when the statistical analyses take into account the risk of random error due to repetitive testing.

Can trial sequential monitoring boundaries reduce spurious inferences from meta-analyses?

BACKGROUND Results from apparently conclusive meta-analyses may be false. A limited number of events from a few small trials and the associated random error may be under-recognized sources of spurious findings. The information size (IS, i.e. number of participants) required for a reliable and conclusive meta-analysis should be no less rigorous than the sample size of a single, optimally powered randomized clinical trial. If a meta-analysis is conducted before a sufficient IS is reached, it should be evaluated in a manner that accounts for the increased risk that the result might represent a chance finding (i.e. applying trial sequential monitoring boundaries). METHODS We analysed 33 meta-analyses with a sufficient IS to detect a treatment effect of 15% relative risk reduction (RRR). We successively monitored the results of the meta-analyses by generating interim cumulative meta-analyses after each included trial and evaluated their results using a conventional statistical criterion (alpha = 0.05) and two-sided Lan-DeMets monitoring boundaries. We examined the proportion of false positive results and important inaccuracies in estimates of treatment effects that resulted from the two approaches. RESULTS Using the random-effects model and final data, 12 of the meta-analyses yielded P > alpha = 0.05, and 21 yielded P </= alpha = 0.05. False positive interim results were observed in 3 out of 12 meta-analyses with P > alpha = 0.05. The monitoring boundaries eliminated all false positives. Important inaccuracies in estimates were observed in 6 out of 21 meta-analyses using the conventional P </= alpha = 0.05 and 0 out of 21 using the monitoring boundaries. CONCLUSIONS Evaluating statistical inference with trial sequential monitoring boundaries when meta-analyses fall short of a required IS may reduce the risk of false positive results and important inaccurate effect estimates.

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.).

Perioperative β blockers in patients having non-cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines on perioperative assessment recommend perioperative beta blockers for non-cardiac surgery, although results of some clinical trials seem not to support this recommendation. We aimed to critically review the evidence to assess the use of perioperative beta blockers in patients having non-cardiac surgery. METHODS We searched Pubmed and Embase for randomised controlled trials investigating the use of beta blockers in non-cardiac surgery. We extracted data for 30-day all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, heart failure, and myocardial ischaemia, safety outcomes of perioperative bradycardia, hypotension, and bronchospasm. FINDINGS 33 trials included 12 306 patients. beta blockers were not associated with any significant reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, or heart failure, but were associated with a decrease (odds ratio [OR] 0.65, 95% CI 0.54-0.79) in non-fatal myocardial infarction (number needed to treat [NNT] 63) and decrease (OR 0.36, 0.26-0.50) in myocardial ischaemia (NNT 16) at the expense of an increase (OR 2.01, 1.27-3.68) in non-fatal strokes (number needed to harm [NNH] 293). The beneficial effects were driven mainly by trials with high risk of bias. For the safety outcomes, beta blockers were associated with a high risk of perioperative bradycardia requiring treatment (NNH 22), and perioperative hypotension requiring treatment (NNH 17). We recorded no increased risk of bronchospasm. INTERPRETATION Evidence does not support the use of beta-blocker therapy for the prevention of perioperative clinical outcomes in patients having non-cardiac surgery. The ACC/AHA guidelines committee should soften their advocacy for this intervention until conclusive evidence is available.

Intraoperative and Postoperative Analgesic Efficacy and Adverse Effects of Intrathecal Opioids in Patients Undergoing Cesarean Section with Spinal Anesthesia A Qualitative and Quantitative Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

SPINAL anesthesia is commonly used for cesarean section, and it has become a popular practice to add opioids to spinal solutions to enhance and prolong intraoperative and postoperative analgesia. Morphine and fentanyl are the opioids most often used for this purpose, but there is not a general consensus about the benefits of the various regimens, and the incidence of side effects with different opioids and doses is controversial. Recently, a number of systematic reviews have been published in the field of pain and perioperative medicine. The aim of a systematic review is to summarize available information from controlled clinical trials to produce evidence-based estimates of the true clinical effect of an intervention. The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the effect of intrathecal opioids added to spinal anesthesia on intraoperative and postoperative pain and to evaluate adverse effects in patients scheduled for cesarean section, using evidence from all relevant randomized controlled and blinded trials.

Intensive glycaemic control for patients with type 2 diabetes: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials

Objective To assess the effect of targeting intensive glycaemic control versus conventional glycaemic control on all cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, microvascular complications, and severe hypoglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. Design Systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised trials. Data sources Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and CINAHL to December 2010; hand search of reference lists and conference proceedings; contacts with authors, relevant pharmaceutical companies, and the US Food and Drug Administration. Study selection Randomised clinical trials comparing targeted intensive glycaemic control with conventional glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Published and unpublished trials in all languages were included, irrespective of predefined outcomes. Data extraction Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data related to study methods, interventions, outcomes, risk of bias, and adverse events. Risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were estimated with fixed and random effects models. Results Fourteen clinical trials that randomised 28 614 participants with type 2 diabetes (15 269 to intensive control and 13 345 to conventional control) were included. Intensive glycaemic control did not significantly affect the relative risks of all cause (1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.13; 28 359 participants, 12 trials) or cardiovascular mortality (1.11, 0.92 to 1.35; 28 359 participants, 12 trials). Trial sequential analyses rejected a relative risk reduction above 10% for all cause mortality and showed insufficient data on cardiovascular mortality. The risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction may be reduced (relative risk 0.85, 0.76 to 0.95; P=0.004; 28 111 participants, 8 trials), but this finding was not confirmed in trial sequential analysis. Intensive glycaemic control showed a reduction of the relative risks for the composite microvascular outcome (0.88, 0.79 to 0.97; P=0.01; 25 600 participants, 3 trials) and retinopathy (0.80, 0.67 to 0.94; P=0.009; 10 793 participants, 7 trials), but trial sequential analyses showed that sufficient evidence had not yet been reached. The estimate of an effect on the risk of nephropathy (relative risk 0.83, 0.64 to 1.06; 27 769 participants, 8 trials) was not statistically significant. The risk of severe hypoglycaemia was significantly increased when intensive glycaemic control was targeted (relative risk 2.39, 1.71 to 3.34; 27 844 participants, 9 trials); trial sequential analysis supported a 30% increased relative risk of severe hypoglycaemia. Conclusion Intensive glycaemic control does not seem to reduce all cause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. Data available from randomised clinical trials remain insufficient to prove or refute a relative risk reduction for cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, composite microvascular complications, or retinopathy at a magnitude of 10%. Intensive glycaemic control increases the relative risk of severe hypoglycaemia by 30%.