Year in review in Intensive Care Medicine 2012. II: Pneumonia and infection, sepsis, coagulation, hemodynamics, cardiovascular and microcirculation, critical care organization, imaging, ethics and legal issues.

Journal ArticleSCOPUS: re.jSCOPUS: re.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

An investigation into the effects of commencing haemodialysis in the critically ill

<b>Introduction:</b> We have aimed to describe haemodynamic changes when haemodialysis is instituted in the critically ill. 3 hypotheses are tested: 1)The initial session is associated with cardiovascular instability, 2)The initial session is associated with more cardiovascular instability compared to subsequent sessions, and 3)Looking at unstable sessions alone, there will be a greater proportion of potentially harmful changes in the initial sessions compared to subsequent ones. <b>Methods:</b> Data was collected for 209 patients, identifying 1605 dialysis sessions. Analysis was performed on hourly records, classifying sessions as stable/unstable by a cutoff of >+/-20% change in baseline physiology (HR/MAP). Data from 3 hours prior, and 4 hours after dialysis was included, and average and minimum values derived. 3 time comparisons were made (pre-HD:during, during HD:post, pre-HD:post). Initial sessions were analysed separately from subsequent sessions to derive 2 groups. If a session was identified as being unstable, then the nature of instability was examined by recording whether changes crossed defined physiological ranges. The changes seen in unstable sessions could be described as to their effects: being harmful/potentially harmful, or beneficial/potentially beneficial. <b>Results:</b> Discarding incomplete data, 181 initial and 1382 subsequent sessions were analysed. A session was deemed to be stable if there was no significant change (>+/-20%) in the time-averaged or minimum MAP/HR across time comparisons. By this definition 85/181 initial sessions were unstable (47%, 95% CI SEM 39.8-54.2). Therefore Hypothesis 1 is accepted. This compares to 44% of subsequent sessions (95% CI 41.1-46.3). Comparing these proportions and their respective CI gives a 95% CI for the standard error of the difference of -4% to 10%. Therefore Hypothesis 2 is rejected. In initial sessions there were 92/1020 harmful changes. This gives a proportion of 9.0% (95% CI SEM 7.4-10.9). In the subsequent sessions there were 712/7248 harmful changes. This gives a proportion of 9.8% (95% CI SEM 9.1-10.5). Comparing the two unpaired proportions gives a difference of -0.08% with a 95% CI of the SE of the difference of -2.5 to +1.2. Hypothesis 3 is rejected. Fisher’s exact test gives a result of p=0.68, reinforcing the lack of significant variance. <b>Conclusions:</b> Our results reject the claims that using haemodialysis is an inherently unstable choice of therapy. Although proportionally more of the initial sessions are classed as unstable, the majority of MAP and HR changes are beneficial in nature

Reducing mortality in sepsis: new directions

Considerable progress has been made in the past few years in the development of therapeutic interventions that can reduce mortality in sepsis. However, encouraging physicians to put the results of new studies into practice is not always simple. A roundtable was thus convened to provide guidance for clinicians on the integration and implementation of new interventions into the intensive care unit (ICU). Five topics were selected that have been shown in randomized, controlled trials to reduce mortality: limiting the tidal volume in acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome, early goal-directed therapy, use of drotrecogin alfa (activated), use of moderate doses of steroids, and tight control of blood sugar. One of the principal investigators for each study was invited to participate in the roundtable. The discussions and questions that followed the presentation of data by each panel member enabled a consensus recommendation to be derived regarding when each intervention should be used. Each new intervention has a place in the management of patients with sepsis. Furthermore, and importantly, the therapies are not mutually exclusive; many patients will need a combination of several approaches – an 'ICU package'. The present article provides guidelines from experts in the field on optimal patient selection and timing for each intervention, and provides advice on how to integrate new therapies into ICU practice, including protocol development, so that mortality rates from this disease process can be reduced

Emergency nurses’ experiences of the implementation of early goal-directed fluid resuscitation therapy in the management of sepsis

Background: Severe sepsis is a life-threatening condition caused by the body’s overwhelming immune response to an infection. It can lead to organ failure and death if immediate treatment, such as intravenous (IV) fluids and antibiotics, are not commenced within the first hour. While a large number of studies have analysed the administration of first-dose antibiotics, the time-critical initiation of IV fluids has not always been given its deserved priority. To date, studies have not explored factors that inhibit timely IV fluid administration and the experience of emergency nurses relating to initiating early goal-directed fluid resuscitation (EGDFR). Purpose: To explore the experiences of emergency nurses related to initiating EGDFR in the care of patients with sepsis Methods: A qualitative exploratory approach, encompassing face-to-face semi-structured interviews, was used for data collection. Ten registered nurses were interviewed, who were currently practicing in emergency settings across New South Wales (NSW). Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis framework guided the data analysis. Findings: Three themes and associated subthemes were identified. The three themes are (i) Nurses’ perceptions and experiences regarding IV fluid administration in sepsis, (ii) Challenges related to initiating IV fluid, and (iii) Strategies to improve compliance with EGDFR. Participants described various factors they found that inhibited timely initiation of IV fluids, including busyness of the department, delayed diagnosis of sepsis, complex patient presentations and limited scope of nurses’ practice to initiate IV fluids. Conclusion: It is anticipated that the outcomes of this research will provide an impetus for re-evaluating current protocol guidelines to provide a positive impact on the scope of emergency nurse practice for initiating EGDFR