Paul J Young1,2, Rinaldo Bellomo3, Gordon R Bernard4, Daniel J Niven5, Frederique Schortgen6, Manoj Saxena7,8, Richard Beasley9, Mark Weatherall10. 1. Intensive Care Unit, Wellington Hospital, Capital and Coast District Health Board, Wellington, New Zealand. Paul.Young@ccdhb.org.nz. 2. Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand. Paul.Young@ccdhb.org.nz. 3. Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia. 4. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. 5. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. 6. Adult Intensive Care Unit, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Créteil, Créteil, France. 7. The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia. 8. Bankstown Hospital, University of New South Wales, South Western Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 9. Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand. 10. University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Abstract
PURPOSE: One potential way to protect patients from the physiological demands that are a consequence of fever is to aim to prevent fever and to treat it assiduously when it occurs. Our primary hypothesis was that more active fever management would increase survival among patient subgroups with limited physiological reserves such as older patients, patients with higher illness acuity, and those requiring organ support. METHODS: We conducted an individual-level patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to compare the outcomes of ICU patients who received more active fever management with the outcomes of patients who received less active fever management. The primary outcome variable of interest was the unadjusted time to death after randomisation. RESULTS: Of 1413 trial participants, 707 were assigned to more active fever management and 706 were assigned to less active fever management. There was no statistically significant heterogeneity in the effect of more active compared with less active fever management on survival in any of the pre-specified subgroups that were chosen to identify patients with limited physiological reserves. Overall, more active fever management did not result in a statistically significant difference in survival time compared with less active fever management [hazard ratio 0.91; (95% CI 0.75-1.10), P = 0.32]. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings do not support the hypothesis that more active fever management increases survival compared with less active fever management overall or in patients with limited physiological reserves.
PURPOSE: One potential way to protect patients from the physiological demands that are a consequence of fever is to aim to prevent fever and to treat it assiduously when it occurs. Our primary hypothesis was that more active fever management would increase survival among patient subgroups with limited physiological reserves such as older patients, patients with higher illness acuity, and those requiring organ support. METHODS: We conducted an individual-level patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to compare the outcomes of ICU patients who received more active fever management with the outcomes of patients who received less active fever management. The primary outcome variable of interest was the unadjusted time to death after randomisation. RESULTS: Of 1413 trial participants, 707 were assigned to more active fever management and 706 were assigned to less active fever management. There was no statistically significant heterogeneity in the effect of more active compared with less active fever management on survival in any of the pre-specified subgroups that were chosen to identify patients with limited physiological reserves. Overall, more active fever management did not result in a statistically significant difference in survival time compared with less active fever management [hazard ratio 0.91; (95% CI 0.75-1.10), P = 0.32]. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings do not support the hypothesis that more active fever management increases survival compared with less active fever management overall or in patients with limited physiological reserves.
Authors: Paul Jeffrey Young; Manoj Saxena; Richard Beasley; Rinaldo Bellomo; Michael Bailey; David Pilcher; Simon Finfer; David Harrison; John Myburgh; Kathryn Rowan Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-01-31 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Paul Young; Manoj Saxena; Rinaldo Bellomo; Ross Freebairn; Naomi Hammond; Frank van Haren; Mark Holliday; Seton Henderson; Diane Mackle; Colin McArthur; Shay McGuinness; John Myburgh; Mark Weatherall; Steve Webb; Richard Beasley Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-10-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: G R Bernard; A P Wheeler; J A Russell; R Schein; W R Summer; K P Steinberg; W J Fulkerson; P E Wright; B W Christman; W D Dupont; S B Higgins; B B Swindell Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1997-03-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Anne M Drewry; Enyo A Ablordeppey; Ellen T Murray; Carolyn R T Stoll; Sonya R Izadi; Catherine M Dalton; Angela C Hardi; Susan A Fowler; Brian M Fuller; Graham A Colditz Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Manoj K Saxena; Colman Taylor; Laurent Billot; Severine Bompoint; John Gowardman; Jason A Roberts; Jeffery Lipman; John Myburgh Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Paul J Young; Michael J Bailey; Frances Bass; Richard W Beasley; Ross C Freebairn; Naomi E Hammond; Frank M P van Haren; Meg L Harward; Seton J Henderson; Diane M Mackle; Colin J McArthur; Shay P McGuinness; John A Myburgh; Manoj K Saxena; Anne M Turner; Steve A R Webb; Rinaldo Bellomo Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Anne M Drewry; Nicholas M Mohr; Enyo A Ablordeppey; Catherine M Dalton; Rebecca J Doctor; Brian M Fuller; Marin H Kollef; Richard S Hotchkiss Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2022-02-07 Impact factor: 9.296
Authors: Ralf Erkens; Bernhard Wernly; Maryna Masyuk; Johanna M Muessig; Marcus Franz; Paul Christian Schulze; Michael Lichtenauer; Malte Kelm; Christian Jung Journal: Med Princ Pract Date: 2019-12-02 Impact factor: 1.927
Authors: Nathaniel Bonfanti; Emily Gundert; Anne M Drewry; Kristina Goff; Roger Bedimo; Erik Kulstad Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Daniel O Thomas-Rüddel; Peter Hoffmann; Daniel Schwarzkopf; Christian Scheer; Friedhelm Bach; Marcus Komann; Herwig Gerlach; Manfred Weiss; Matthias Lindner; Hendrik Rüddel; Philipp Simon; Sven-Olaf Kuhn; Reinhard Wetzker; Michael Bauer; Konrad Reinhart; Frank Bloos Journal: Crit Care Date: 2021-10-21 Impact factor: 9.097