You searched for:"Alexandre Biasi Cavalcanti"
We found (32) results for your search.Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2014;26(3):215-239
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20140034
Perspectives on invasive and noninvasive ventilatory support for critically ill patients are evolving, as much evidence indicates that ventilation may have positive effects on patient survival and the quality of the care provided in intensive care units in Brazil. For those reasons, the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine (Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB) and the Brazilian Thoracic Society (Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia - SBPT), represented by the Mechanical Ventilation Committee and the Commission of Intensive Therapy, respectively, decided to review the literature and draft recommendations for mechanical ventilation with the goal of creating a document for bedside guidance as to the best practices on mechanical ventilation available to their members. The document was based on the available evidence regarding 29 subtopics selected as the most relevant for the subject of interest. The project was developed in several stages, during which the selected topics were distributed among experts recommended by both societies with recent publications on the subject of interest and/or significant teaching and research activity in the field of mechanical ventilation in Brazil. The experts were divided into pairs that were charged with performing a thorough review of the international literature on each topic. All the experts met at the Forum on Mechanical Ventilation, which was held at the headquarters of AMIB in São Paulo on August 3 and 4, 2013, to collaboratively draft the final text corresponding to each sub-topic, which was presented to, appraised, discussed and approved in a plenary session that included all 58 participants and aimed to create the final document.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2009;21(2):219-225
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2009000200016
Randomized controlled trials are scientific investigations considered as the gold-standard to evaluate therapeutic interventions. Randomized controlled trials may examine the safety and efficacy of new drugs and therapeutic procedures or compare the effects of two or more drugs or any other intervention. In this article, we present the essential features of these studies, as well as, factors which may bias randomized controlled trials. We also present criteria to critically appraise articles reporting randomized controlled trials, explain how to interpret the results and how to apply them to clinical practice.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2018;30(3):253-263
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20180041
ANDROMEDA-SHOCK is an international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing peripheral perfusion-targeted resuscitation to lactate-targeted resuscitation in patients with septic shock in order to test the hypothesis that resuscitation targeting peripheral perfusion will be associated with lower morbidity and mortality.
To report the statistical analysis plan for the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK trial.
We describe the trial design, primary and secondary objectives, patients, methods of randomization, interventions, outcomes, and sample size. We describe our planned statistical analysis for the primary, secondary and tertiary outcomes. We also describe the subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Finally, we provide details for presenting our results, including mock tables showing baseline characteristics, the evolution of hemodynamic and perfusion variables, and the effects of treatments on outcomes.
According to the best trial practice, we report our statistical analysis plan and data management plan prior to locking the database and initiating the analyses. We anticipate that this procedure will prevent analysis bias and enhance the utility of the reported results.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2018;30(3):264-285
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20180058
To investigate the existing capacity for renal replacement therapy and site-specific practices for managing acute kidney injury at centers participating in the BaSICS trial.
A questionnaire was provided to the chairs of 61 intensive care units enrolled in a randomized clinical trial in Brazil. A total of 124 physicians completed the questionnaire.
Approximately 15% of the patients admitted to the analyzed intensive care units received renal replacement therapy at the time of data collection. At least one renal replacement method was available in all of the analyzed units. Continuous methods were available more frequently at the private units than at the public units. The time from indication to onset of treatment was longer at the public units than at private units. The main obstacles to treatment initiation at public intensive care units were related to the availability of equipment and personnel, while the main bottleneck at private units was the nephrologist assessment. A considerable proportion of the participants stated that they would change their approach to renal replacement therapy if there were no limitations on the availability of methods in their units.
There was wide variation in the availability of resources for renal replacement therapy and in the management of acute kidney injury in Brazilian intensive care units. This information should be taken into account when planning clinical trials focused on this topic in Brazil.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2021;33(1):31-37
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20210003
The long-term effects caused by COVID-19 are unknown. The present study aims to assess factors associated with health-related quality of life and long-term outcomes among survivors of hospitalization for COVID-19 in Brazil.
This is a multicenter prospective cohort study nested in five randomized clinical trials designed to assess the effects of specific COVID-19 treatments in over 50 centers in Brazil. Adult survivors of hospitalization due to proven or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection will be followed-up for a period of 1 year by means of structured telephone interviews. The primary outcome is the 1-year utility score of health-related quality of life assessed by the EuroQol-5D3L. Secondary outcomes include all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, rehospitalizations, return to work or study, physical functional status assessed by the Lawton-Brody Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, dyspnea assessed by the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale, need for long-term ventilatory support, symptoms of anxiety and depression assessed by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder assessed by the Impact of Event Scale-Revised, and self-rated health assessed by the EuroQol-5D3L Visual Analog Scale. Generalized estimated equations will be performed to test the association between five sets of variables (1- demographic characteristics, 2- premorbid state of health, 3- characteristics of acute illness, 4- specific COVID-19 treatments received, and 5- time-updated postdischarge variables) and outcomes.
The study protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of all participant institutions. The results will be disseminated through conferences and peer-reviewed journals.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2022;34(3):319-326
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20220101-en
To evaluate the effectiveness of the Welch Allyn Connex® Spot Monitor/Hillrom Connecta™ solution in activating the rapid response team in a timely manner compared to manual activation.
The Hillrom study is a single-center, open-label, superiority, cluster-randomized, parallel-group (1:1 allocation ratio) clinical trial that will be conducted in a tertiary hospital. Two sets of three wards with 28 beds will be included (one as the intervention cluster and the other as the control). The wards will be randomly assigned to use the Welch Allyn Connex® Spot Monitor/Hillrom Connecta™ automated solution (intervention cluster) or to maintain the usual routine (control cluster) regarding rapid response team activation. The primary outcome will be the absolute number of episodes of rapid response team triggering in an appropriate time; as secondary outcomes, clinical features (mortality, cardiac arrest, need for intensive care unit admission and duration of hospitalization) will be assessed according to clusters in an exploratory way. A sample size of 216 rapid response team activations was estimated to identify a possible difference between the groups. The protocol has been approved by the institutional Research Ethics Committee.
The Welch Allyn Connex® Spot Monitor/Hillrom Connecta™ automated solution is expected to be more effective in triggering the nurse call system to activate the rapid response team in a timely and adequate manner compared to manual triggering (usual practice).
NCT04648579
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2022;34(3):335-341
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20220040-en
To compare the lung mechanics and outcomes between COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome.
We combined data from two randomized trials in acute respiratory distress syndrome, one including only COVID-19 patients and the other including only patients without COVID-19, to determine whether COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome is associated with higher 28-day mortality than non-COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome and to examine the differences in lung mechanics between these two types of acute respiratory distress syndrome.
A total of 299 patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and 1,010 patients with non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome were included in the main analysis. The results showed that non-COVID-19 patients used higher positive end-expiratory pressure (12.5cmH2O; SD 3.2 versus 11.7cmH2O SD 2.8; p < 0.001), were ventilated with lower tidal volumes (5.8mL/kg; SD 1.0 versus 6.5mL/kg; SD 1.2; p < 0.001) and had lower static respiratory compliance adjusted for ideal body weight (0.5mL/cmH2O/kg; SD 0.3 versus 0.6mL/cmH2O/kg; SD 0.3; p = 0.01). There was no difference between groups in 28-day mortality (52.3% versus 58.9%; p = 0.52) or mechanical ventilation duration in the first 28 days among survivors (13 [IQR 5 - 22] versus 12 [IQR 6 - 26], p = 0.46).
This analysis showed that patients with non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome have different lung mechanics but similar outcomes to COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome patients. After propensity score matching, there was no difference in lung mechanics or outcomes between groups.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2020;32(3):337-347
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20200060
Pro-inflammatory markers play a significant role in the disease severity of patients with COVID-19. Thus, anti-inflammatory therapies are attractive agents for potentially combating the uncontrolled inflammatory cascade in these patients. We designed a trial testing tocilizumab versus standard of care intending to improve the outcomes by inhibiting interleukin-6, an important inflammatory mediator in COVID-19.
This open-label multicentre randomized controlled trial will compare clinical outcomes of tocilizumab plus standard of care versus standard of care alone in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. Two of the following four criteria are required for protocol enrolment: D-dimer > 1,000ng/mL; C reactive protein > 5mg/dL, ferritin > 300mg/dL, and lactate dehydrogenase > upper limit of normal. The primary objective will be to compare the clinical status on day 15, as measured by a 7-point ordinal scale applied in COVID-19 trials worldwide. The primary endpoint will be assessed by an ordinal logistic regression assuming proportional odds ratios adjusted for stratification variables (age and sex).
The TOCIBRAS protocol was approved by local and central (national) ethical committees in Brazil following current national and international guidelines/directives. Each participating center had the study protocol approved by their institutional review boards before initiating protocol enrolment. The data derived from this trial will be published regardless of the results. If proven active, this strategy could alleviate the consequences of the inflammatory response in COVID-19 patients and improve their clinical outcomes.