Disease severity adversely affects delivery of dialysis in acute renal failure

Background/Aims: Methods of intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) dose quantification in acute renal failure (ARF) are not well defined. This observational study was designed to evaluate the impact of disease activity on delivered single pool Kt/V-urea in ARF patients. Methods: 100 patients with severe ARF (acute intrinsic renal disease in 18 patients, nephrotoxic acute tubular necrosis in 38 patients, and septic ARF in 44 patients) were analyzed during four consecutive sessions of IHD, performed for 3.5-5 h every other day or daily. Target IHD dose was a single pool Kt/V-urea of 1.2 or more per dialysis session for all patients. Prescribed Kt/V-urea was calculated from desired dialyzer clearance (K), desired treatment time (t) and anthropometric estimates for urea distribution volume (V). The desired clearance (K) was estimated from prescribed blood flow rate and manufacturer's charts of in vivo data obtained in maintenance dialysis patients. Delivered single pool Kt/V-urea was calculated using the Daugirdas equation. Results: None of the patients had prescription failure of the target dose. The delivered IHD doses were substantially lower than the prescribed Kt/V values, particularly in ARF patients with sepsis/septic shock. Stratification according to disease severity revealed that all patients with isolated ARF, but none with 3 or more organ failures and none who needed vasopressive support received the target dose. Conclusion: Prescription of target IHD dose by single pool Kt/V-urea resulted in suboptimal dialysis dose delivery in critically ill patients. Numerous patient-related and treatment-immanent factors acting in concert reduced the delivered dose. Copyright (C) 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel

Comparison of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome between monomicrobial and polymicrobial Pseudomonas aeruginosa nosocomial bloodstream infections

BACKGROUND: Some studies of nosocomial bloodstream infection (nBSI) have demonstrated a higher mortality for polymicrobial bacteremia when compared to monomicrobial nBSI. The purpose of this study was to compare differences in systemic inflammatory response and mortality between monomicrobial and polymicrobial nBSI with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. METHODS: We performed a historical cohort study on 98 adults with P. aeruginosa (Pa) nBSI. SIRS scores were determined 2 days prior to the first positive blood culture through 14 days afterwards. Monomicrobial (n = 77) and polymicrobial BSIs (n = 21) were compared. RESULTS: 78.6% of BSIs were caused by monomicrobial P. aeruginosa infection (MPa) and 21.4% by polymicrobial P. aeruginosa infection (PPa). Median APACHE II score on the day of BSI was 22 for MPa and 23 for PPa BSIs. Septic shock occurred in 33.3% of PPa and in 39.0% of MPa (p = 0.64). Progression to septic shock was associated with death more frequently in PPa (OR 38.5, CI95 2.9–508.5) than MPa (OR 4.5, CI95 1.7–12.1). Maximal SIR (severe sepsis, septic shock or death) was seen on day 0 for PPa BSI vs. day 1 for MPa. No significant difference was noted in the incidence of organ failure, 7-day or overall mortality between the two groups. Univariate analysis revealed that APACHE II score ≥20 at BSI onset, Charlson weighted comorbidity index ≥3, burn injury and respiratory, cardiovascular, renal and hematologic failure were associated with death, while age, malignant disease, diabetes mellitus, hepatic failure, gastrointestinal complications, inappropriate antimicrobial therapy, infection with imipenem resistant P. aeruginosa and polymicrobial nBSI were not. Multivariate analysis revealed that hematologic failure (p < 0.001) and APACHE II score ≥20 at BSI onset (p = 0.005) independently predicted death. CONCLUSION: In this historical cohort study of nBSI with P. aeruginosa, the incidence of septic shock and organ failure was high in both groups. Additionally, patients with PPa BSI were not more acutely ill, as judged by APACHE II score prior to blood culture positivity than those with MPa BSI. Using multivariable logistic regression analysis, the development of hematologic failure and APACHE II score ≥20 at BSI onset were independent predictors of death; however, PPa BSI was not

Hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile-associated disease in the intensive care unit setting: epidemiology, clinical course and outcome

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p><it>Clostridium difficile</it>-associated disease (CDAD) is a serious nosocomial infection, however few studies have assessed CDAD outcome in the intensive care unit (ICU). We evaluated the epidemiology, clinical course and outcome of hospital-acquired CDAD in the critical care setting.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We performed a historical cohort study on 58 adults with a positive <it>C. difficile </it>cytotoxin assay result occurring in intensive care units.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Sixty-two percent of patients had concurrent infections, 50% of which were bloodstream infections. The most frequently prescribed antimicrobials prior to CDAD were anti-anaerobic agents (60.3%). Septic shock occurred in 32.8% of CDAD patients. The in-hospital mortality was 27.6%. Univariate analysis revealed that SOFA score, at least one organ failure and age were predictors of mortality. Charlson score ≥3, gender, concurrent infection, and number of days with diarrhea before a positive <it>C. difficile </it>toxin assay were not significant predictors of mortality on univariate analysis. Independent predictors for death were SOFA score at infection onset (per 1-point increment, OR 1.40; CI95 1.13–1.75) and age (per 1-year increment, OR 1.10; CI95 1.02–1.19).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In ICU patients with CDAD, advanced age and increased severity of illness at the onset of infection, as measured by the SOFA score, are independent predictors of death.</p

Diagnosis of aortic graft infection : a case definition by the management of aortic graft infection collaboration (MAGIC)

Objective/Background The management of aortic graft infection (AGI) is highly complex and in the absence of a universally accepted case definition and evidence-based guidelines, clinical approaches and outcomes vary widely. The objective was to define precise criteria for diagnosing AGI. Methods A process of expert review and consensus, involving formal collaboration between vascular surgeons, infection specialists, and radiologists from several English National Health Service hospital Trusts with large vascular services (Management of Aortic Graft Infection Collaboration [MAGIC]), produced the definition. Results Diagnostic criteria from three categories were classified as major or minor. It is proposed that AGI should be suspected if a single major criterion or two or more minor criteria from different categories are present. AGI is diagnosed if there is one major plus any criterion (major or minor) from another category. (i) Clinical/surgical major criteria comprise intraoperative identification of pus around a graft and situations where direct communication between the prosthesis and a nonsterile site exists, including fistulae, exposed grafts in open wounds, and deployment of an endovascular stent-graft into an infected field (e.g., mycotic aneurysm); minor criteria are localized AGI features or fever ≥38°C, where AGI is the most likely cause. (ii) Radiological major criteria comprise increasing perigraft gas volume on serial computed tomography (CT) imaging or perigraft gas or fluid (≥7 weeks and ≥3 months, respectively) postimplantation; minor criteria include other CT features or evidence from alternative imaging techniques. (iii) Laboratory major criteria comprise isolation of microorganisms from percutaneous aspirates of perigraft fluid, explanted grafts, and other intraoperative specimens; minor criteria are positive blood cultures or elevated inflammatory indices with no alternative source. Conclusion This AGI definition potentially offers a practical and consistent diagnostic standard, essential for comparing clinical management strategies, trial design, and developing evidence-based guidelines. It requires validation that is planned in a multicenter, clinical service database supported by the Vascular Society of Great Britain & Ireland

Pre-validation of the WHO organ dysfunction based criteria for identification of maternal near miss

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To evaluate the performance of the WHO criteria for defining maternal near miss and identifying deaths among cases of severe maternal morbidity (SMM) admitted for intensive care.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>Between October 2002 and September 2007, 673 women with SMM were admitted, and among them 18 died. Variables used for the definition of maternal near miss according to WHO criteria and for the SOFA score were retrospectively evaluated. The identification of at least one of the WHO criteria in women who did not die defined the case as a near miss. Organ failure was evaluated through the maximum SOFA score above 2 for each one of the six components of the score, being considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of maternal near miss. The aggregated score (Total Maximum SOFA score) was calculated using the worst result of the maximum SOFA score. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of these WHO criteria for predicting maternal death and also for identifying cases of organ failure were estimated.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The WHO criteria identified 194 cases of maternal near miss and all the 18 deaths. The most prevalent criteria among cases of maternal deaths were the use of vasoactive drug and the use of mechanical ventilation (≥1 h). For the prediction of maternal deaths, sensitivity was 100% and specificity 70.4%. These criteria identified 119 of the 120 cases of organ failure by the maximum SOFA score (Sensitivity 99.2%) among 194 case of maternal near miss (61.34%). There was disagreement in 76 cases, one organ failure without any WHO criteria and 75 cases with no failure but with WHO criteria. The Total Maximum SOFA score had a good performance (area under the curve of 0.897) for prediction of cases of maternal near miss according to the WHO criteria.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The WHO criteria for maternal near miss showed to be able to identify all cases of death and almost all cases of organ failure. Therefore they allow evaluation of the severity of the complication and consequently enable clinicians to build a plan of care or to provide an early transfer for appropriate reference centers.</p