Suppr超能文献

在感染性休克中进行保守与自由的液体治疗 - CLASSIC 试验的二次贝叶斯分析方案。

Conservative vs. liberal fluid therapy in septic shock - Protocol for secondary Bayesian analyses of the CLASSIC trial.

机构信息

Department of Intensive Care, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Collaboration for Research in Intensive Care (CRIC), Copenhagen, Denmark.

出版信息

Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2022 Jul;66(6):767-771. doi: 10.1111/aas.14058. Epub 2022 Apr 6.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Clinical equipoise exists regarding intravenous (IV) fluid volumes in sepsis. The Conservative vs. Liberal Approach to fluid therapy of Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial investigates the effect of restricted vs. standard IV fluid therapy in 1554 adult intensive care unit patients with septic shock.

METHODS

This protocol describes secondary Bayesian analyses of the primary outcome (90-day all-cause mortality) and three secondary outcomes at day 90. We will analyse all binary outcomes with adjusted Bayesian logistic regressions and present results as conditional relative risks and risk differences with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). The secondary count outcome will be analysed using adjusted Bayesian linear regression with results summarised as conditional mean differences and ratios of means with 95% Crls. We will use weakly informative priors for the primary analyses, and sceptical and evidence-based priors in the sensitivity analyses. Exact probabilities will be presented for any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm and no clinically important difference. We will assess whether heterogeneity of treatment effects on mortality is present using Bayesian hierarchical models in subgroups and on the continuous scale using models with interactions according to five baseline variables assessing the overall severity of illness and the degree of circulatory and renal impairment.

DISCUSSION

The outlined analyses will supplement the primary analysis of the CLASSIC trial by describing probabilities of beneficial and harmful effects and evaluating heterogeneity of treatment effects in a framework that may be easier to interpret for researchers and clinicians.

摘要

背景

关于脓毒症患者的静脉输液量,临床存在均衡状态。在重症监护室脓毒性休克中限制与自由补液疗法的对比(CLASSIC)试验中,研究了限制与标准静脉输液疗法对 1554 例成年重症监护室脓毒性休克患者的影响。

方法

本方案描述了对主要结局(90 天全因死亡率)和 90 天时三个次要结局的二次贝叶斯分析。我们将使用调整后的贝叶斯逻辑回归分析所有二项结局,并以条件相对风险和风险差异(95%可信区间[CrI])呈现结果。次要计数结局将使用调整后的贝叶斯线性回归进行分析,结果以条件均值差异和均值比(95%CrI)进行总结。我们将对主要分析使用弱信息先验,对敏感性分析使用怀疑和基于证据的先验。对于任何有益/有害、临床重要的有益/有害和无临床重要差异,将呈现确切概率。我们将使用贝叶斯层次模型在亚组和连续尺度上评估死亡率的治疗效果是否存在异质性,使用具有交互作用的模型根据五个基线变量评估整体疾病严重程度和循环及肾功能损害程度。

讨论

所概述的分析将通过描述有益和有害效果的概率以及在可能更容易为研究人员和临床医生解释的框架中评估治疗效果的异质性,对 CLASSIC 试验的主要分析进行补充。

相似文献

1
Conservative vs. liberal fluid therapy in septic shock - Protocol for secondary Bayesian analyses of the CLASSIC trial.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2022 Jul;66(6):767-771. doi: 10.1111/aas.14058. Epub 2022 Apr 6.
2
Conservative vs liberal fluid therapy in septic shock (CLASSIC) trial-Protocol and statistical analysis plan.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2019 Oct;63(9):1262-1271. doi: 10.1111/aas.13434. Epub 2019 Jul 24.
3
Effects of IV fluid restriction according to site-specific intensity of standard fluid treatment-protocol.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2024 Aug;68(7):975-982. doi: 10.1111/aas.14423. Epub 2024 Apr 4.
4
Restrictive versus standard IV fluid therapy in adult ICU patients with septic shock-Bayesian analyses of the CLASSIC trial.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2024 Feb;68(2):236-246. doi: 10.1111/aas.14345. Epub 2023 Oct 23.
5
Agents intervening against delirium in the intensive care unit trial-Protocol for a secondary Bayesian analysis.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2022 Aug;66(7):898-903. doi: 10.1111/aas.14091. Epub 2022 May 31.
7
Albumin administration in septic shock-Protocol for post-hoc analyses of data from a multicentre RCT.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2023 Sep;67(8):1128-1136. doi: 10.1111/aas.14280. Epub 2023 May 29.

引用本文的文献

1
Agents intervening against delirium in the intensive care unit trial-Protocol for a secondary Bayesian analysis.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2022 Aug;66(7):898-903. doi: 10.1111/aas.14091. Epub 2022 May 31.

本文引用的文献

1
Stan: A Probabilistic Programming Language.
J Stat Softw. 2017;76. doi: 10.18637/jss.v076.i01. Epub 2017 Jan 11.
5
Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021.
Intensive Care Med. 2021 Nov;47(11):1181-1247. doi: 10.1007/s00134-021-06506-y. Epub 2021 Oct 2.
7
Bayesian and heterogeneity of treatment effect analyses of the HOT-ICU trial-A secondary analysis protocol.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2020 Oct;64(9):1376-1381. doi: 10.1111/aas.13669. Epub 2020 Aug 5.
9
Heterogeneity of treatment effect of prophylactic pantoprazole in adult ICU patients: a post hoc analysis of the SUP-ICU trial.
Intensive Care Med. 2020 Apr;46(4):717-726. doi: 10.1007/s00134-019-05903-8. Epub 2020 Jan 14.
10
To test or to estimate? P-values versus effect sizes.
Transpl Int. 2020 Jan;33(1):50-55. doi: 10.1111/tri.13535. Epub 2019 Oct 21.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验