Background: Gastrointestinal motility is an important contributor to the effective uptake of water and nutrition. However, it is often impaired in acutely ill hospitalised patients.Amongst other indications, prokinetic agents are used to improve GI motility, but the body of evidence is not well described. Accordingly, we aim to systematically describe and explore the body of evidence on the use of prokinetic agents in hospitalised adults.Methods: In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews statement, we plan to conduct a scoping review of studies assessing the use of prokinetic agents, for any indication, in hospitalised adults. We plan to assess study design, population, agents, indications and outcomes across included studies. When applicable, we plan to assess the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.Results: We plan to provide descriptive analyses of the included studies accompanied by tabulated results and characterise knowledge gaps. Conclusion:The outlined scoping review will provide a summary of the body of evidence on the use, indications, effects and side effects of prokinetic agents in hospitalised adults.

Background: Gastrointestinal motility is important for adequate uptake of fluids and nutrition but is often impaired in hospitalised patients. Prokinetic agents enhance gastrointestinal motility and are prescribed for many hospitalised patients. In this scoping review, we aimed to systematically describe the body of evidence on the use of prokinetic agents in hospitalised patients. We hypothesised, that the body of evidence would be limited and derive from heterogeneous populations. Methods: We conducted this scoping review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews statement. We searched Medline, Embase, Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Library for studies assessing the use of prokinetic agents on any indication and outcome in adult hospitalised patients. We used a modified version of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. Results:We included 102 studies with a total of 8830 patients. Eighty-six studies were clinical trials (84%), and 52 (60%) of these were conducted in the intensive care unit, with feeding intolerance as the main indication. In the non-intensive care setting the indications were wider; most studies assessed use of prokinetic agents before gastroscopy to improve visualisation. The most studied prokinetic agent was metoclopramide (49% of studies) followed by erythromycin (31%). In total 147 outcomes were assessed with only 67% of the included studies assessing patient-centred outcomes, and with gastric emptying as the most frequently reported outcome. Overall, the data provided no firm evidence on the balance between the desirable and undesirable effects of prokinetic agents. Conclusions:In this scoping review, we found that the studies addressing prokinetic agents in hospitalised adults had considerable variations in indications, drugs and outcomes assessed, and that the certainty of evidence was judged to be low to very low.

Purpose To assess long-term outcomes of restrictive versus standard intravenous (IV) fluid therapy in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock included in the European Conservative versus Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy in Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC trial). Methods We conducted the pre-planned analyses of mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using EuroQol (EQ)-5D-5L index values and EQ visual analogue scale (VAS), and cognitive function using Mini Montreal Cognitive Assessment (Mini MoCA) test at 1-year. Deceased patients were assigned numerical zero for HRQoL as a state equal to death and zero for cognitive function outcomes as worst possible score, and we used multiple imputation for missing data on HRQoL and cognitive function. Results Among 1554 randomised patients, we obtained 1-year data on mortality in 97.9% of patients, HRQoL in 91.3%, and cognitive function in 86.3%. One-year mortality was 385/746 (51.3%) in the restrictive-fluid group versus 383/767 (49.9%) in the standard-fluid group, absolute risk difference 1.5%-points (99% confidence interval (CI) -4.8 to 7.8). Mean differences were 0.00 (99% CI -0.06 to 0.05) for EQ-5D-5L index values, -0.65 for EQ VAS (-5.40 to 4.08), and − 0.14 for Mini MoCA (-1.59 to 1.14) for the restrictive-fluid group versus the standard-fluid group. The results for survivors only were similar in both groups. Conclusions Among adult ICU patients with septic shock, restrictive versus standard IV fluid therapy resulted in similar survival, HRQoL and cognitive function at one year, but clinically important differences could not be ruled out.