RESUMO
Objective: It remains unclear whether balanced solutions improve patient-centred outcomes in critically ill patients overall and whether the treatment effect is heterogeneous, with evidence that some populations of patients may be helped and others harmed. To provide the most up-to-date and comprehensive assessment of the totality of the evidence, we will perform an ongoing living systematic review with aggregated and individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) comparing the use of balanced solutions with saline in critically ill adults. Design: Living systematic review using aggregated and individual patient data from randomised controlled trials. Data sources: We will conduct annual searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials. gov, the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), Japan's University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Center, and the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC). The first search was completed on 1 March 2022 and will be repeated annually. Authors of eligible trials will be invited to provide individual data for the IPDMA. The initial analysis will use all data received up to 30 June 2022. Review methods: We will include randomised controlled trials in adults treated in an intensive care unit that allocated individuals or clusters of patients to a balanced crystalloid solution or 0.9% saline for intravenous fluid therapy. Studies that used colloids as part of the intervention or that recruited only elective surgical patients will be excluded. The primary endpoint will be in-hospital mortality. The key secondary endpoint will be survival at longest follow-up for each trial. Data will be synthesised using both a random effect Bayesian meta-analysis and using hierarchical Bayesian models for individual patient data. Discussion: The use of balanced crystalloid solutions may reduce mortality and improve other outcomes in some critically ill patients. We will assess the totality of current and future evidence by performing an ongoing living systematic review with aggregated data and IPDMA. Protocol registration: CRD42022299282.
RESUMO
Widely-varying published and presented analyses of the Benchmark Evidence From South American Trials: Treatment of Intracranial Pressure (BEST TRIP) randomized controlled trial of intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring have suggested denying trial generalizability, questioning the need for ICP monitoring in severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI), re-assessing current clinical approaches to monitored ICP, and initiating a general ICP-monitoring moratorium. In response to this dissonance, 23 clinically-active, international opinion leaders in acute-care sTBI management met to draft a consensus statement to interpret this study. A Delphi method-based approach employed iterative pre-meeting polling to codify the group's general opinions, followed by an in-person meeting wherein individual statements were refined. Statements required an agreement threshold of more than 70% by blinded voting for approval. Seven precisely-worded statements resulted, with agreement levels of 83% to 100%. These statements, which should be read in toto to properly reflect the group's consensus positions, conclude that the BEST TRIP trial: 1) studied protocols, not ICP-monitoring per se; 2) applies only to those protocols and specific study groups and should not be generalized to other treatment approaches or patient groups; 3) strongly calls for further research on ICP interpretation and use; 4) should be applied cautiously to regions with much different treatment milieu; 5) did not investigate the utility of treating monitored ICP in the specific patient group with established intracranial hypertension; 6) should not change the practice of those currently monitoring ICP; and 7) provided a protocol, used in non-monitored study patients, that should be considered when treating without ICP monitoring. Consideration of these statements can clarify study interpretation.