5 research outputs found

    Initial management of diabetic ketoacidosis and prognosis according to diabetes type: a French multicentre observational retrospective study

    No full text
    International audienceBACKGROUND: Guidelines for the management of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) do not consider the type of underlying diabetes. We aimed to compare the occurrence of metabolic adverse events and the recovery time for DKA according to diabetes type.METHODS: Multicentre retrospective study conducted at five adult intermediate and intensive care units in Paris and its suburbs, France. All patients admitted for DKA between 2013 and 2014 were included. Patients were grouped and compared according to the underlying type of diabetes into three groups: type 1 diabetes, type 2 or secondary diabetes, and DKA as the first presentation of diabetes. Outcomes of interest were the rate of metabolic complications (hypoglycaemia or hypokalaemia) and the recovery time.RESULTS: Of 122 patients, 60 (49.2%) had type 1 diabetes, 28 (22.9%) had type 2 or secondary diabetes and 34 (27.9%) presented with DKA as the first presentation of diabetes (newly diagnosed diabetes). Despite having received lower insulin doses, hypoglycaemia was more frequent in patients with type 1 diabetes (76.9%) than in patients with type 2 or secondary diabetes (50.0%) and in patients with newly diagnosed diabetes (54.6%) (p = 0.026). In contrast, hypokalaemia was more frequent in the latter group (82.4%) than in patients with type 1 diabetes (57.6%) and type 2 or secondary diabetes (51.9%) (p = 0.022). The median recovery times were not significantly different between groups.CONCLUSIONS: Rates of metabolic complications associated with DKA treatment differ significantly according to underlying type of diabetes. Decreasing insulin dose may limit those complications. DKA treatment recommendations should take into account the type of diabetes

    Non-invasive ventilation versus high-flow nasal oxygen for postextubation respiratory failure in ICU: a post-hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial

    No full text
    International audienceAbstract Background In intensive care units (ICUs), patients experiencing post-extubation respiratory failure have poor outcomes. The use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) to treat post-extubation respiratory failure may increase the risk of death. This study aims at comparing mortality between patients treated with NIV alternating with high-flow nasal oxygen or high-flow nasal oxygen alone. Methods Post-hoc analysis of a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial focusing on patients who experienced post-extubation respiratory failure within the 7 days following extubation. Patients were classified in the NIV group or the high-flow nasal oxygen group according to oxygenation strategy used after the onset of post-extubation respiratory failure. Patients reintubated within the first hour after extubation and those promptly reintubated without prior treatment were excluded. The primary outcome was mortality at day 28 after the onset of post-extubation respiratory failure. Results Among 651 extubated patients, 158 (25%) experienced respiratory failure and 146 were included in the analysis. Mortality at day 28 was 18% (15/84) using NIV alternating with high-flow nasal oxygen and 29% (18/62) with high flow nasal oxygen alone (difference, − 11% [95% CI, − 25 to 2]; p = 0.12). Among the 46 patients with hypercapnia at the onset of respiratory failure, mortality at day 28 was 3% (1/33) with NIV and 31% (4/13) with high-flow nasal oxygen alone (difference, − 28% [95% CI, − 54 to − 6]; p = 0.006). The proportion of patients reintubated 48 h after the onset of post-extubation respiratory failure was 44% (37/84) with NIV and 52% (32/62) with high-flow nasal oxygen alone ( p = 0.21). Conclusions In patients with post-extubation respiratory failure, NIV alternating with high-flow nasal oxygen might not increase the risk of death. Trial registration number The trial was registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov with the registration number NCT03121482 the 20th April 2017

    Pressure-Support Ventilation vs T-Piece During Spontaneous Breathing Trials Before Extubation Among Patients at High Risk of Extubation Failure

    No full text
    International audienceBackgroundSpontaneous breathing trial (SBT) using a T-piece remains the most frequently performed trial before extubation in ICUs.Research QuestionWe aimed at determining whether initial SBT using pressure-support ventilation (PSV) could increase successful extubation rates among patients at high risk of extubation failure.Study Design and MethodsPost hoc analysis of a multicenter trial focusing on reintubation in patients at high-risk of extubation failure. The initial SBT was performed using PSV or T-piece according to the physician/center decision. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients successfully extubated 72 hours after initial SBT, that is, extubated after initial SBT and not reintubated within the following 72 hours.ResultsAmong the 641 patients included in the original study, initial SBT was performed using PSV (7.0 cm H2O in median without positive end-expiratory pressure) in 243 patients (38%) and using a T-piece in 398 patients (62%). The proportion of patients successfully extubated 72 hours after initial SBT was 67% (162/243) using PSV and 56% (223/398) using T-piece (absolute difference 10.6%; 95% CI, 2.8 to 28.1; P = .0076). The proportion of patients extubated after initial SBT was 77% (186/283) using PSV and 63% (249/398) using T-piece (P = .0002), whereas reintubation rates within the following 72 hours did not significantly differ (13% vs 10%, respectively; P = .4259). Performing an initial SBT using PSV was independently associated with successful extubation (adjusted OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.30 to 2.18; P = .0061).InterpretationIn patients at high risk of extubation failure in the ICU, performing an initial SBT using PSV may hasten extubation without an increased risk of reintubation

    Pressure-Support Ventilation vs T-Piece During Spontaneous Breathing Trials Before Extubation Among Patients at High Risk of Extubation Failure

    No full text
    corecore