25 research outputs found
The utility of scoring systems in critically ill cirrhotic patients admitted to a general intensive care unit
Purpose: This study aimed to establish which prognostic scoring tool provides the greatest discriminative
ability when assessing critically ill cirrhotic patients in a general intensive care unit (ICU) setting.<p></p>
Methods: This was a 12-month, single-centered prospective cohort study performed in a general,
nontransplant ICU. Forty clinical and demographic variables were collected on admission to calculate 8
prospective scoring tools. Patients were followed up to obtain ICU and inhospital mortality. Receiver
operating characteristic curve analysis was used to determine the discriminative ability of the scores.
Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify any independent predictors of mortality in these
patients. The incorporation of any significant variables into the scoring tools was assessed.<p></p>
Results: Fifty-nine cirrhotic patients were admitted over the study period, with an ICU mortality of 31%. All
scores other than the renal-specific Acute Kidney Injury Network score had similar discriminative abilities,
producing area under the curves of between 0.70 and 0.76. None reached the clinically applicable level of 0.8.
The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was the best performing score.
Lactate and ascites were individual predictors of ICU mortality with statistically significant odds ratios of 1.69
and 5.91, respectively. When lactate was incorporated into the Child-Pugh score, its prognostic accuracy
increased to a clinically applicable level (area under the curve, 0.86).<p></p>
Conclusions: This investigation suggests that established prognostic scoring systems should be used with
caution when applied to the general, nontransplant ICU as compared to specialist centers. Our data suggest
that serum arterial lactate may improve the prognostic ability of these scores
The influence of alcohol abuse on agitation, delirium and sedative requirements of patients admitted to a general intensive care unit
Purpose: Patients with alcohol-related disease constitute an increasing proportion of those admitted to intensive care
unit. There is currently limited evidence regarding the impact of alcohol use on levels of agitation, delirium and sedative
requirements in intensive care unit. This study aimed to determine whether intensive care unit-admitted alcohol-abuse
patients have different sedative requirements, agitation and delirium levels compared to patients with no alcohol issues.
Methods: This retrospective analysis of a prospectively acquired database (June 2012–May 2013) included 257 patients.
Subjects were stratified into three risk categories: alcohol dependency (n ¼ 69), at risk (n ¼ 60) and low risk (n ¼ 128)
according to Fast Alcohol Screening Test scores and World Health Organisation criteria for alcohol-related disease. Data
on agitation and delirium were collected using validated retrospective chart-screening methods and sedation data were
extracted and then log-transformed to fit the regression model.
Results: Incidence of agitation (p ¼ 0.034) and delirium (p ¼ 0.041) was significantly higher amongst alcohol-dependent
patients compared to low-risk patients as was likelihood of adverse events (p ¼ 0.007). In contrast, at-risk patients were
at no higher risk of these outcomes compared to the low-risk group. Alcohol-dependent patients experienced suboptimal
sedation levels more frequently and received a wider range of sedatives (p ¼ 0.019) but did not receive higher daily
doses of any sedatives.
Conclusions: Our analysis demonstrates that when admitted to intensive care unit, it is those who abuse alcohol most
severely, alcohol-dependent patients, rather than at-risk drinkers who have a significantly increased risk of agitation,
delirium and suboptimal sedation. These patients may require closer assessment and monitoring for these outcomes
whilst admitted
Do alcohol use disorders impact on long term outcomes from intensive care?
Introduction:
There is limited evidence regarding the impact of alcohol use disorders on long term outcomes from intensive care. The aims of this study were to analyse the nature and complications of alcohol related admissions to intensive care and determine whether alcohol use disorders impact on survival at six months post ICU discharge.<p></p>
Method:
This was an 18 month prospective observational cohort study in a 20 bedded mixed ICU, in a large teaching hospital in Scotland. On admission patients were allocated to one of three alcohol groups: low risk, harmful/hazardous, or alcohol dependency.<p></p>
Results:
34.4% of patients were admitted with an alcohol use disorder. Those with an alcohol related admission (either harmful/hazardous or alcohol dependent) had an increased odds of developing septic shock during their admission, compared with the low risk group (OR 1.67; 95% CI 1.13-2.47, p = 0.01). After adjustment for all lifestyle factors which were significantly different between the groups, alcohol dependence was associated with more than a twofold increased odds of ICU mortality (OR 2.28; 95% CI 1.2-4.69, p = 0.01) and hospital mortality (OR 2.43; 95% CI 1.28-4.621, p = 0.004). After adjustment for deprivation category and age, alcohol dependence was associated with an almost two fold increased odds of mortality at six months post ICU discharge (HR 1.86; CI 1.30-2.70, p = 0.001).<p></p>
Conclusion:
Alcohol use disorders are a significant risk factor for the development of septic shock in intensive care. Further, alcohol dependency is independently associated with poorer long term outcomes from intensive care.<p></p>
Defining the characteristics and expectations of fluid bolus therapy : A worldwide perspective
Purpose: The purpose of the study is to understand what clinicians believe defines fluid bolus therapy (FBT) and the expected response to such intervention. Methods: We asked intensive care specialists in 30 countries to participate in an electronic questionnaire of their practice, definition, and expectations of FBT. Results: We obtained 3138 responses. Despite much variation, more than 80% of respondents felt that more than 250 mL of either colloid or crystalloid fluid given over less than 30 minutes defined FBT, with crystalloids most acceptable. The most acceptable crystalloid and colloid for use as FBT were 0.9% saline and 4% albumin solution, respectively. Most respondents believed that one or more of the following physiological changes indicates a response to FBT: a mean arterial pressure increase greater than 10 mm Hg, a heart rate decrease greater than 10 beats per minute, an increase in urinary output by more than 10 mL/h, an increase in central venous oxygen saturation greater than 4%, or a lactate decrease greater than 1 mmol/L. Conclusions: Despite wide variability between individuals and countries, clear majority views emerged to describe practice, define FBT, and identify a response to it. Further investigation is now required to describe actual FBT practice and to identify the magnitude and duration of the physiological response to FBT and its relationship to patient-centered outcomes. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Peer reviewe
Validation and analysis of prognostic scoring systems for critically ill patients with cirrhosis admitted to ICU
Defining the characteristics and expectations of fluid bolus therapy: a worldwide perspective
Purpose: The purpose of the study is to understand what clinicians believe defines fluid bolus therapy (FBT) and the expected response to such intervention.
Methods: We asked intensive care specialists in 30 countries to participate in an electronic questionnaire of their practice, definition, and expectations of FBT.
Results: We obtained 3138 responses. Despite much variation, more than 80% of respondents felt that more than 250 mL of either colloid or crystalloid fluid given over less than 30 minutes defined FBT, with crystalloids most acceptable. The most acceptable crystalloid and colloid for use as FBT were 0.9% saline and 4% albumin solution, respectively. Most respondents believed that one or more of the following physiological changes indicates a response to FBT: a mean arterial pressure increase greater than 10 mm Hg, a heart rate decrease greater than 10 beats per minute, an increase in urinary output by more than 10 mL/h, an increase in central venous oxygen saturation greater than 4%, or a lactate decrease greater than 1 mmol/L.
Conclusions: Despite wide variability between individuals and countries, clear majority views emerged to describe practice, define FBT, and identify a response to it. Further investigation is now required to describe actual FBT practice and to identify the magnitude and duration of the physiological response to FBT and its relationship to patient-centered outcomes.Facultad de Ciencias Médica
Genetic mechanisms of critical illness in COVID-19.
Host-mediated lung inflammation is present1, and drives mortality2, in the critical illness caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Host genetic variants associated with critical illness may identify mechanistic targets for therapeutic development3. Here we report the results of the GenOMICC (Genetics Of Mortality In Critical Care) genome-wide association study in 2,244 critically ill patients with COVID-19 from 208 UK intensive care units. We have identified and replicated the following new genome-wide significant associations: on chromosome 12q24.13 (rs10735079, P = 1.65 × 10-8) in a gene cluster that encodes antiviral restriction enzyme activators (OAS1, OAS2 and OAS3); on chromosome 19p13.2 (rs74956615, P = 2.3 × 10-8) near the gene that encodes tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2); on chromosome 19p13.3 (rs2109069, P = 3.98 × 10-12) within the gene that encodes dipeptidyl peptidase 9 (DPP9); and on chromosome 21q22.1 (rs2236757, P = 4.99 × 10-8) in the interferon receptor gene IFNAR2. We identified potential targets for repurposing of licensed medications: using Mendelian randomization, we found evidence that low expression of IFNAR2, or high expression of TYK2, are associated with life-threatening disease; and transcriptome-wide association in lung tissue revealed that high expression of the monocyte-macrophage chemotactic receptor CCR2 is associated with severe COVID-19. Our results identify robust genetic signals relating to key host antiviral defence mechanisms and mediators of inflammatory organ damage in COVID-19. Both mechanisms may be amenable to targeted treatment with existing drugs. However, large-scale randomized clinical trials will be essential before any change to clinical practice
Recommended from our members
Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.
Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707
SARS-CoV-2 Omicron is an immune escape variant with an altered cell entry pathway
Vaccines based on the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 are a cornerstone of the public health response to COVID-19. The emergence of hypermutated, increasingly transmissible variants of concern (VOCs) threaten this strategy. Omicron (B.1.1.529), the fifth VOC to be described, harbours multiple amino acid mutations in spike, half of which lie within the receptor-binding domain. Here we demonstrate substantial evasion of neutralization by Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 variants in vitro using sera from individuals vaccinated with ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273. These data were mirrored by a substantial reduction in real-world vaccine effectiveness that was partially restored by booster vaccination. The Omicron variants BA.1 and BA.2 did not induce cell syncytia in vitro and favoured a TMPRSS2-independent endosomal entry pathway, these phenotypes mapping to distinct regions of the spike protein. Impaired cell fusion was determined by the receptor-binding domain, while endosomal entry mapped to the S2 domain. Such marked changes in antigenicity and replicative biology may underlie the rapid global spread and altered pathogenicity of the Omicron variant
Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19
IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19.
Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022).
INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes.
RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570