mortality Archives - Critical Care Science (CCS)
, , , Abstract
Critical Care Science. 2024;36:e20240116en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240116-en
, , , To investigate a cohort of sepsis survivors readmitted within 30 days postdischarge, explore the one-year mortality rate based on different causes of readmission and identify factors associated with increased one-year mortality risk among all sepsis survivors readmitted within this timeframe.
This was a single-center retrospective cohort study involving adult sepsis survivors who were readmitted within 30 days of discharge. Patients were categorized into 3 groups based on the cause of readmission: same-source infectious readmission, different-source infectious readmission, and noninfectious readmission. The outcome of interest was all-cause one-year mortality. Cox proportional hazard analysis was performed to compare factors associated with one-year mortality.
Of the 1,666 patients admitted with sepsis, 243 (14.5%) were readmitted within 30 days. Readmissions were due to same-source infections (40.7%), different-source infections (21.4%), or noninfectious causes (37.9%). All-cause one-year mortality was 46.9%, with no difference between the groups. Age (HR 1.02; 95%CI: 1.003 - 1.04; p = 0.01), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (HR 1.1; 95%CI: 1.02 - 1.18; p = 0.01), discharge to a care facility during index admission (HR 1.6; 95%CI: 1.04 - 2.40; p = 0.03), and malignancy (HR 2.3; 95%CI: 1.5 - 3.7; p < 0.001) were associated with one-year mortality.
Thirty-day readmission in sepsis survivors was common and was associated with a 46.9% one-year mortality rate regardless of readmission cause. Quality improvement patient safety initiatives based on local institutional factors may allow for targeted interventions to improve sepsis survivor outcomes.
Abstract
Critical Care Science. 2024;36:e20240116en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240116-en
, , , To investigate a cohort of sepsis survivors readmitted within 30 days postdischarge, explore the one-year mortality rate based on different causes of readmission and identify factors associated with increased one-year mortality risk among all sepsis survivors readmitted within this timeframe.
This was a single-center retrospective cohort study involving adult sepsis survivors who were readmitted within 30 days of discharge. Patients were categorized into 3 groups based on the cause of readmission: same-source infectious readmission, different-source infectious readmission, and noninfectious readmission. The outcome of interest was all-cause one-year mortality. Cox proportional hazard analysis was performed to compare factors associated with one-year mortality.
Of the 1,666 patients admitted with sepsis, 243 (14.5%) were readmitted within 30 days. Readmissions were due to same-source infections (40.7%), different-source infections (21.4%), or noninfectious causes (37.9%). All-cause one-year mortality was 46.9%, with no difference between the groups. Age (HR 1.02; 95%CI: 1.003 - 1.04; p = 0.01), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (HR 1.1; 95%CI: 1.02 - 1.18; p = 0.01), discharge to a care facility during index admission (HR 1.6; 95%CI: 1.04 - 2.40; p = 0.03), and malignancy (HR 2.3; 95%CI: 1.5 - 3.7; p < 0.001) were associated with one-year mortality.
Thirty-day readmission in sepsis survivors was common and was associated with a 46.9% one-year mortality rate regardless of readmission cause. Quality improvement patient safety initiatives based on local institutional factors may allow for targeted interventions to improve sepsis survivor outcomes.
, , , Abstract
Critical Care Science. 2024;36:e20240149en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240149-en
, , , To identify the relative importance of several clinical variables present at intensive care unit admission on the short- and long-term mortality of critically ill patients with cancer after unplanned intensive care unit admission.
This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with cancer with unplanned intensive care unit admission from January 2017 to December 2018. We developed models to analyze the relative importance of well-known predictors of mortality in patients with cancer admitted to the intensive care unit compared with mortality at 28, 90, and 360 days after intensive care unit admission, both in the full cohort and stratified by the type of cancer when the patient was admitted to the intensive care unit.
Among 3,592 patients, 3,136 (87.3%) had solid tumors, and metastatic disease was observed in 60.8% of those patients. A total of 1,196 (33.3%), 1,738 (48.4%), and 2,435 patients (67.8%) died at 28, 90, and 360 days, respectively. An impaired functional status was the greatest contribution to mortality in the short term for all patients and in the short and long term for the subgroups of patients with solid tumors. For patients with hematologic malignancies, the use of mechanical ventilation was the most important variable associated with mortality in all study periods. The SOFA score at admission was important for mortality prediction only for patients with solid metastatic tumors and hematological malignancies. The use of vasopressors and renal replacement therapy had a small importance in predicting mortality at every time point analyzed after the SOFA score was accounted for.
Healthcare providers must consider performance status, the use of mechanical ventilation, and the severity of illness when discussing prognosis, preferences for care, and end-of-life care planning with patients or their families during intensive care unit stays.
Abstract
Critical Care Science. 2024;36:e20240149en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240149-en
, , , To identify the relative importance of several clinical variables present at intensive care unit admission on the short- and long-term mortality of critically ill patients with cancer after unplanned intensive care unit admission.
This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with cancer with unplanned intensive care unit admission from January 2017 to December 2018. We developed models to analyze the relative importance of well-known predictors of mortality in patients with cancer admitted to the intensive care unit compared with mortality at 28, 90, and 360 days after intensive care unit admission, both in the full cohort and stratified by the type of cancer when the patient was admitted to the intensive care unit.
Among 3,592 patients, 3,136 (87.3%) had solid tumors, and metastatic disease was observed in 60.8% of those patients. A total of 1,196 (33.3%), 1,738 (48.4%), and 2,435 patients (67.8%) died at 28, 90, and 360 days, respectively. An impaired functional status was the greatest contribution to mortality in the short term for all patients and in the short and long term for the subgroups of patients with solid tumors. For patients with hematologic malignancies, the use of mechanical ventilation was the most important variable associated with mortality in all study periods. The SOFA score at admission was important for mortality prediction only for patients with solid metastatic tumors and hematological malignancies. The use of vasopressors and renal replacement therapy had a small importance in predicting mortality at every time point analyzed after the SOFA score was accounted for.
Healthcare providers must consider performance status, the use of mechanical ventilation, and the severity of illness when discussing prognosis, preferences for care, and end-of-life care planning with patients or their families during intensive care unit stays.
, , , , , Abstract
Critical Care Science. 2024;36:e20240030en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240030-en
, , , , , , , , Determine how each organ component of the SOFA score differs in its contribution to mortality risk and how that contribution may change over time.
We performed multivariate logistic regression analysis to assess the contribution of each organ component to mortality risk on Days 1 and 7 of an intensive care unit stay. We used data from two publicly available datasets, eICU Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD) (208 hospitals) and Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) (1 hospital). The odds ratio of each SOFA component that contributed to mortality was calculated. Mortality was defined as death either in the intensive care unit or within 72 hours of discharge from the intensive care unit.
A total of 7,871 intensive care unit stays from eICU-CRD and 4,926 intensive care unit stays from MIMIC-IV were included. Liver dysfunction was most predictive of mortality on Day 1 in both cohorts (OR 1.3; 95%CI 1.2 - 1.4; OR 1.3; 95%CI 1.2 - 1.4, respectively). In the eICU-CRD cohort, central nervous system dysfunction was most predictive of mortality on Day 7 (OR 1.4; 95%CI 1.4 - 1.5). In the MIMIC-IV cohort, respiratory dysfunction (OR 1.4; 95%CI 1.3 - 1.5) and cardiovascular dysfunction (OR 1.4; 95%CI 1.3 - 1.5) were most predictive of mortality on Day 7.
The SOFA score may be an oversimplification of how dysfunction of different organ systems contributes to mortality over time. Further research at a more granular timescale is needed to explore how the SOFA score can evolve and be ameliorated.
Abstract
Critical Care Science. 2024;36:e20240030en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240030-en
, , , , , , , , Determine how each organ component of the SOFA score differs in its contribution to mortality risk and how that contribution may change over time.
We performed multivariate logistic regression analysis to assess the contribution of each organ component to mortality risk on Days 1 and 7 of an intensive care unit stay. We used data from two publicly available datasets, eICU Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD) (208 hospitals) and Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) (1 hospital). The odds ratio of each SOFA component that contributed to mortality was calculated. Mortality was defined as death either in the intensive care unit or within 72 hours of discharge from the intensive care unit.
A total of 7,871 intensive care unit stays from eICU-CRD and 4,926 intensive care unit stays from MIMIC-IV were included. Liver dysfunction was most predictive of mortality on Day 1 in both cohorts (OR 1.3; 95%CI 1.2 - 1.4; OR 1.3; 95%CI 1.2 - 1.4, respectively). In the eICU-CRD cohort, central nervous system dysfunction was most predictive of mortality on Day 7 (OR 1.4; 95%CI 1.4 - 1.5). In the MIMIC-IV cohort, respiratory dysfunction (OR 1.4; 95%CI 1.3 - 1.5) and cardiovascular dysfunction (OR 1.4; 95%CI 1.3 - 1.5) were most predictive of mortality on Day 7.
The SOFA score may be an oversimplification of how dysfunction of different organ systems contributes to mortality over time. Further research at a more granular timescale is needed to explore how the SOFA score can evolve and be ameliorated.
, , Abstract
Critical Care Science. 2024;36:e20240236en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240236-en
, , , To elucidate the impact of lymphopenia on critical COVID-19 patient outcomes.
We conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study across five hospitals in Portugal and Brazil from 2020 to 2021. The study included adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. Patients were categorized into two groups based on their lymphocyte counts within 48 hours of intensive care unit admission: the Lymphopenia Group (lymphocyte serum count < 1 × 109/L) and the Nonlymphopenia Group. Multivariate logistic regression, propensity score matching, Kaplan‒Meier survival curve analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis were used.
A total of 912 patients were enrolled, with 191 (20.9%) in the Nonlymphopenia Group and 721 (79.1%) in the Lymphopenia Group. Lymphopenia patients displayed significantly elevated disease severity indices, including Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 scores, at intensive care unit admission (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). Additionally, they presented heightened requirements for vasopressor support (p = 0.045) and prolonged intensive care unit and in-hospital stays (both p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis after propensity score matching revealed a significant contribution of lymphopenia to mortality, with an odds ratio of 1,621 (95%CI: 1,275 - 2,048; p < 0.001). Interaction models revealed an increase of 8% in mortality for each decade of longevity in patients with concomitant lymphopenia. In the subanalysis utilizing three-group stratification, the Severe Lymphopenia Group had the highest mortality rate, not only in direct comparisons but also in Kaplan‒Meier survival analysis (log-rank test p = 0.0048).
Lymphopenia in COVID-19 patients is associated with increased disease severity and an increased risk of mortality, underscoring the need for prompt support for critically ill high-risk patients. These findings offer important insights into improving patient care strategies for COVID-19 patients.
Abstract
Critical Care Science. 2024;36:e20240236en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240236-en
, , , To elucidate the impact of lymphopenia on critical COVID-19 patient outcomes.
We conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study across five hospitals in Portugal and Brazil from 2020 to 2021. The study included adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. Patients were categorized into two groups based on their lymphocyte counts within 48 hours of intensive care unit admission: the Lymphopenia Group (lymphocyte serum count < 1 × 109/L) and the Nonlymphopenia Group. Multivariate logistic regression, propensity score matching, Kaplan‒Meier survival curve analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis were used.
A total of 912 patients were enrolled, with 191 (20.9%) in the Nonlymphopenia Group and 721 (79.1%) in the Lymphopenia Group. Lymphopenia patients displayed significantly elevated disease severity indices, including Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 scores, at intensive care unit admission (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). Additionally, they presented heightened requirements for vasopressor support (p = 0.045) and prolonged intensive care unit and in-hospital stays (both p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis after propensity score matching revealed a significant contribution of lymphopenia to mortality, with an odds ratio of 1,621 (95%CI: 1,275 - 2,048; p < 0.001). Interaction models revealed an increase of 8% in mortality for each decade of longevity in patients with concomitant lymphopenia. In the subanalysis utilizing three-group stratification, the Severe Lymphopenia Group had the highest mortality rate, not only in direct comparisons but also in Kaplan‒Meier survival analysis (log-rank test p = 0.0048).
Lymphopenia in COVID-19 patients is associated with increased disease severity and an increased risk of mortality, underscoring the need for prompt support for critically ill high-risk patients. These findings offer important insights into improving patient care strategies for COVID-19 patients.
, , , , , Abstract
Critical Care Science. 2024;36:e20240253en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240253-en
, , , , , , To identify the influence of obesity on mortality, time to weaning from mechanical ventilation and mobility at intensive care unit discharge in patients with COVID-19.
This retrospective cohort study was carried out between March and August 2020. All adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit in need of ventilatory support and confirmed to have COVID-19 were included. The outcomes included mortality, time on mechanical ventilation, and mobility at intensive care unit discharge.
Four hundred and twenty-nine patients were included, 36.6% of whom were overweight and 43.8% of whom were obese. Compared with normal body mass index patients, overweight and obese patients had lower mortality (p = 0.002) and longer intensive care unit survival (log-rank p < 0.001). Compared with patients with a normal body mass index, overweight patients had a 36% lower risk of death (p = 0.04), while patients with obesity presented a 23% lower risk (p < 0.001). There was no association between obesity and time on mechanical ventilation. The level of mobility at intensive care unit discharge did not differ between groups and showed a moderate inverse correlation with length of stay in the intensive care unit (r = -0.461; p < 0.001).
Overweight and obese patients had lower mortality and higher intensive care unit survival rates. The duration of mechanical ventilation and mobility level at intensive care unit discharge did not differ between the groups.
Abstract
Critical Care Science. 2024;36:e20240253en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240253-en
, , , , , , To identify the influence of obesity on mortality, time to weaning from mechanical ventilation and mobility at intensive care unit discharge in patients with COVID-19.
This retrospective cohort study was carried out between March and August 2020. All adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit in need of ventilatory support and confirmed to have COVID-19 were included. The outcomes included mortality, time on mechanical ventilation, and mobility at intensive care unit discharge.
Four hundred and twenty-nine patients were included, 36.6% of whom were overweight and 43.8% of whom were obese. Compared with normal body mass index patients, overweight and obese patients had lower mortality (p = 0.002) and longer intensive care unit survival (log-rank p < 0.001). Compared with patients with a normal body mass index, overweight patients had a 36% lower risk of death (p = 0.04), while patients with obesity presented a 23% lower risk (p < 0.001). There was no association between obesity and time on mechanical ventilation. The level of mobility at intensive care unit discharge did not differ between groups and showed a moderate inverse correlation with length of stay in the intensive care unit (r = -0.461; p < 0.001).
Overweight and obese patients had lower mortality and higher intensive care unit survival rates. The duration of mechanical ventilation and mobility level at intensive care unit discharge did not differ between the groups.
, , , , , Abstract
Critical Care Science. 2024;36:e20240208en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240208-en
, , , , , , , To evaluate the association between driving pressure and tidal volume based on predicted body weight and mortality in a cohort of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by COVID-19.
This was a prospective, observational study that included patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to COVID-19 admitted to two intensive care units. We performed multivariable analyses to determine whether driving pressure and tidal volume/kg predicted body weight on the first day of mechanical ventilation, as independent variables, are associated with hospital mortality.
We included 231 patients. The mean age was 64 (53 - 74) years, and the mean Simplified Acute and Physiology Score 3 score was 45 (39 - 54). The hospital mortality rate was 51.9%. Driving pressure was independently associated with hospital mortality (odds ratio 1.21, 95%CI 1.04 - 1.41 for each cm H2O increase in driving pressure, p = 0.01). Based on a double stratification analysis, we found that for the same level of tidal volume/kg predicted body weight, the risk of hospital death increased with increasing driving pressure. However, changes in tidal volume/kg predicted body weight were not associated with mortality when they did not lead to an increase in driving pressure.
In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by COVID-19, exposure to higher driving pressure, as opposed to higher tidal volume/kg predicted body weight, is associated with greater mortality. These results suggest that driving pressure might be a primary target for lung-protective mechanical ventilation in these patients.
Abstract
Critical Care Science. 2024;36:e20240208en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240208-en
, , , , , , , To evaluate the association between driving pressure and tidal volume based on predicted body weight and mortality in a cohort of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by COVID-19.
This was a prospective, observational study that included patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to COVID-19 admitted to two intensive care units. We performed multivariable analyses to determine whether driving pressure and tidal volume/kg predicted body weight on the first day of mechanical ventilation, as independent variables, are associated with hospital mortality.
We included 231 patients. The mean age was 64 (53 - 74) years, and the mean Simplified Acute and Physiology Score 3 score was 45 (39 - 54). The hospital mortality rate was 51.9%. Driving pressure was independently associated with hospital mortality (odds ratio 1.21, 95%CI 1.04 - 1.41 for each cm H2O increase in driving pressure, p = 0.01). Based on a double stratification analysis, we found that for the same level of tidal volume/kg predicted body weight, the risk of hospital death increased with increasing driving pressure. However, changes in tidal volume/kg predicted body weight were not associated with mortality when they did not lead to an increase in driving pressure.
In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by COVID-19, exposure to higher driving pressure, as opposed to higher tidal volume/kg predicted body weight, is associated with greater mortality. These results suggest that driving pressure might be a primary target for lung-protective mechanical ventilation in these patients.
, , , , , Abstract
Critical Care Science. 2024;36:e20240176en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240176-en
, , , , , To systematically review the effect of the prone position on endotracheal intubation and mortality in nonintubated COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.
We registered the protocol (CRD42021286711) and searched for four databases and gray literature from inception to December 31, 2022. We included observational studies and clinical trials. There was no limit by date or the language of publication. We excluded case reports, case series, studies not available in full text, and those studies that included children < 18-years-old.
We included ten observational studies, eight clinical trials, 3,969 patients, 1,120 endotracheal intubation events, and 843 deaths. All of the studies had a low risk of bias (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Risk of Bias 2 tools). We found that the conscious prone position decreased the odds of endotracheal intubation by 44% (OR 0.56; 95%CI 0.40 - 0.78) and mortality by 43% (OR 0.57; 95%CI 0.39 - 0.84) in nonintubated COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. This protective effect on endotracheal intubation and mortality was more robust in those who spent > 8 hours/day in the conscious prone position (OR 0.43; 95%CI 0.26 - 0.72 and OR 0.38; 95%CI 0.24 - 0.60, respectively). The certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE criteria was moderate.
The conscious prone position decreased the odds of endotracheal intubation and mortality, especially when patients spent over 8 hours/day in the conscious prone position and treatment in the intensive care unit. However, our results should be cautiously interpreted due to limitations in evaluating randomized clinical trials, nonrandomized clinical trials and observational studies. However, despite systematic reviews with meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials, we must keep in mind that these studies remain heterogeneous from a clinical and methodological point of view.
Abstract
Critical Care Science. 2024;36:e20240176en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240176-en
, , , , , To systematically review the effect of the prone position on endotracheal intubation and mortality in nonintubated COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.
We registered the protocol (CRD42021286711) and searched for four databases and gray literature from inception to December 31, 2022. We included observational studies and clinical trials. There was no limit by date or the language of publication. We excluded case reports, case series, studies not available in full text, and those studies that included children < 18-years-old.
We included ten observational studies, eight clinical trials, 3,969 patients, 1,120 endotracheal intubation events, and 843 deaths. All of the studies had a low risk of bias (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Risk of Bias 2 tools). We found that the conscious prone position decreased the odds of endotracheal intubation by 44% (OR 0.56; 95%CI 0.40 - 0.78) and mortality by 43% (OR 0.57; 95%CI 0.39 - 0.84) in nonintubated COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. This protective effect on endotracheal intubation and mortality was more robust in those who spent > 8 hours/day in the conscious prone position (OR 0.43; 95%CI 0.26 - 0.72 and OR 0.38; 95%CI 0.24 - 0.60, respectively). The certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE criteria was moderate.
The conscious prone position decreased the odds of endotracheal intubation and mortality, especially when patients spent over 8 hours/day in the conscious prone position and treatment in the intensive care unit. However, our results should be cautiously interpreted due to limitations in evaluating randomized clinical trials, nonrandomized clinical trials and observational studies. However, despite systematic reviews with meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials, we must keep in mind that these studies remain heterogeneous from a clinical and methodological point of view.
, , , Abstract
Critical Care Science. 2023;35(4):345-354
DOI 10.5935/2965-2774.20230162-en
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , The optimal target for blood glucose concentration in critically ill patients is unclear. We will perform a systematic review and meta-analysis with aggregated and individual patient data from randomized controlled trials, comparing intensive glucose control with liberal glucose control in critically ill adults.
MEDLINE®, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, and clinical trials registries (World Health Organization, clinical trials.gov). The authors of eligible trials will be invited to provide individual patient data. Published trial-level data from eligible trials that are not at high risk of bias will be included in an aggregated data meta-analysis if individual patient data are not available.
Inclusion criteria: randomized controlled trials that recruited adult patients, targeting a blood glucose of ≤ 120mg/dL (≤ 6.6mmol/L) compared to a higher blood glucose concentration target using intravenous insulin in both groups. Excluded studies: those with an upper limit blood glucose target in the intervention group of > 120mg/dL (> 6.6mmol/L), or where intensive glucose control was only performed in the intraoperative period, and those where loss to follow-up exceeded 10% by hospital discharge.
In-hospital mortality during index hospital admission. Secondary endpoints: mortality and survival at other timepoints, duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, vasoactive agents, and renal replacement therapy. A random effect Bayesian meta-analysis and hierarchical Bayesian models for individual patient data will be used.
This systematic review with aggregate and individual patient data will address the clinical question, ‘what is the best blood glucose target for critically ill patients overall?’
Abstract
Critical Care Science. 2023;35(4):345-354
DOI 10.5935/2965-2774.20230162-en
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , The optimal target for blood glucose concentration in critically ill patients is unclear. We will perform a systematic review and meta-analysis with aggregated and individual patient data from randomized controlled trials, comparing intensive glucose control with liberal glucose control in critically ill adults.
MEDLINE®, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, and clinical trials registries (World Health Organization, clinical trials.gov). The authors of eligible trials will be invited to provide individual patient data. Published trial-level data from eligible trials that are not at high risk of bias will be included in an aggregated data meta-analysis if individual patient data are not available.
Inclusion criteria: randomized controlled trials that recruited adult patients, targeting a blood glucose of ≤ 120mg/dL (≤ 6.6mmol/L) compared to a higher blood glucose concentration target using intravenous insulin in both groups. Excluded studies: those with an upper limit blood glucose target in the intervention group of > 120mg/dL (> 6.6mmol/L), or where intensive glucose control was only performed in the intraoperative period, and those where loss to follow-up exceeded 10% by hospital discharge.
In-hospital mortality during index hospital admission. Secondary endpoints: mortality and survival at other timepoints, duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, vasoactive agents, and renal replacement therapy. A random effect Bayesian meta-analysis and hierarchical Bayesian models for individual patient data will be used.
This systematic review with aggregate and individual patient data will address the clinical question, ‘what is the best blood glucose target for critically ill patients overall?’