Epidemiology of intra-abdominal infection and sepsis in critically ill patients: “AbSeS”, a multinational observational cohort study and ESICM Trials Group Project

Purpose: To describe the epidemiology of intra-abdominal infection in an international cohort of ICU patients according to a new system that classifies cases according to setting of infection acquisition (community-acquired, early onset hospital-acquired, and late-onset hospital-acquired), anatomical disruption (absent or present with localized or diffuse peritonitis), and severity of disease expression (infection, sepsis, and septic shock). Methods: We performed a multicenter (n = 309), observational, epidemiological study including adult ICU patients diagnosed with intra-abdominal infection. Risk factors for mortality were assessed by logistic regression analysis. Results: The cohort included 2621 patients. Setting of infection acquisition was community-acquired in 31.6%, early onset hospital-acquired in 25%, and late-onset hospital-acquired in 43.4% of patients. Overall prevalence of antimicrobial resistance was 26.3% and difficult-to-treat resistant Gram-negative bacteria 4.3%, with great variation according to geographic region. No difference in prevalence of antimicrobial resistance was observed according to setting of infection acquisition. Overall mortality was 29.1%. Independent risk factors for mortality included late-onset hospital-acquired infection, diffuse peritonitis, sepsis, septic shock, older age, malnutrition, liver failure, congestive heart failure, antimicrobial resistance (either methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-resistant enterococci, extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Gram-negative bacteria, or carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria) and source control failure evidenced by either the need for surgical revision or persistent inflammation. Conclusion: This multinational, heterogeneous cohort of ICU patients with intra-abdominal infection revealed that setting of infection acquisition, anatomical disruption, and severity of disease expression are disease-specific phenotypic characteristics associated with outcome, irrespective of the type of infection. Antimicrobial resistance is equally common in community-acquired as in hospital-acquired infection

The impact of genetic factors on response to anaesthetics

ABSTRACT In recent years, exceptional progress has been observed in pharmacogenetics, i.e. investigations of inherited conditioning of the organism's response to drugs or xenobiotics. On the other hand, modern molecular biology techniques have been implemented, making it possible to perform studies determining the involvement of genetic factors in differing responses to agents employed in general anaesthesia. Unexpected and incorrect response of the organism to the administration of specific anaesthetics is most commonly associated with a genetic defect of the metabolic pathway of a given agent or its receptor. The majority of agents used in anaesthesia are metabolised in the liver by the cytochrome P450 superfamily enzymes (CYPs) and phase II drug-metabolising enzymes: glutathione S-transferases (GSTs), sulphotransferases (SULTs), UDPglucuronosyltransferases (UGTs) and NAD(P)H:quinone oxidoreductase (NQO1). Propofol is presently widely used for gastrointestinal (GI) and several other procedures. Among genes associated with metabolism of the most commonly applied anaesthetics such as propofol and sevoflurane, the following ones can be mentioned: CYP2E1, CYP2B6, CYP2C9, GSTP1, UGT1A9, SULT1A1 and NQO1. Moreover, the basic mechanism of propofol action involves its interaction with an ionotropic receptor GABAA inhibiting transfer of nerve impulses. Molecular studies have shown that polymorphic changes in GABRG2 receptor gene turn out to be important in the propofol anaesthesia. Planning of optimal anaesthesia can be considerably assisted by the determination of genetic factors of prognostic value taking advantage of genotyping and making it possible to select anaesthetics and reduce risk of side effects as well as undesirable actions

The Influence of Geography, Religion, Religiosity and Institutional Factors on Worldwide End-of-Life Care for the Critically Ill: The WELPICUS Study.

To evaluate the association between provider religion and religiosity and consensus about end-of-life care and explore if geographical and institutional factors contribute to variability in practice. Using a modified Delphi method 22 end-of-life issues consisting of 35 definitions and 46 statements were evaluated in 32 countries in North America, South America, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Asia, Australia and South Africa. A multidisciplinary, expert group from specialties treating patients at the end-of-life within each participating institution assessed the association between 7 key statements and geography, religion, religiosity and institutional factors likely influencing the development of consensus. Of 3049 participants, 1366 (45%) responded. Mean age of respondents was 45 ± 9 years and 55% were females. Following 2 Delphi rounds, consensus was obtained for 77 (95%) of 81 definitions and statements. There was a significant difference in responses across geographical regions. South African and North American respondents were more likely to encourage patients to write advance directives. Fewer Eastern European and Asian respondents agreed with withdrawing life-sustaining treatments without consent of patients or surrogates. While respondent's religion, years in practice or institution did not affect their agreement, religiosity, physician specialty and responsibility for end-of-life decisions did. Variability in agreement with key consensus statements about end-of-life care is related primarily to differences among providers, with provider-level variations related to differences in religiosity and specialty. Geography also plays a role in influencing some end-of-life practices. This information may help understanding ethical dilemmas and developing culturally sensitive end-of-life care strategies

Seeking worldwide professional consensus on the principles of end-of-life care for the critically ill. The Consensus for Worldwide End-of-Life Practice for Patients in Intensive Care Units (WELPICUS) study

Great differences in end-of-life practices in treating the critically ill around the world warrant agreement regarding the major ethical principles. This analysis determines the extent of worldwide consensus for end-of-life practices, delineates where there is and is not consensus, and analyzes reasons for lack of consensus. Critical care societies worldwide were invited to participate. Country coordinators were identified and draft statements were developed for major end-of-life issues and translated into six languages. Multidisciplinary responses using a web-based survey assessed agreement or disagreement with definitions and statements linked to anonymous demographic information. Consensus was prospectively defined as >80% agreement. Definitions and statements not obtaining consensus were revised based on comments of respondents, and then translated and redistributed. Of the initial 1,283 responses from 32 countries, consensus was found for 66 (81%) of the 81 definitions and statements; 26 (32%) had >90% agreement. With 83 additional responses to the original questionnaire (1,366 total) and 604 responses to the revised statements, consensus could be obtained for another 11 of the 15 statements. Consensus was obtained for informed consent, withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, legal requirements, intensive care unit therapies, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, shared decision making, medical and nursing consensus, brain death, and palliative care. Consensus was obtained for 77 of 81 (95%) statements. Worldwide consensus could be developed for the majority of definitions and statements about end-of-life practices. Statements achieving consensus provide standards of practice for end-of-life care; statements without consensus identify important areas for future research

Epidemiology and age-related mortality in critically ill patients with intra-abdominal infection or sepsis: an international cohort study

Objective: To describe epidemiology and age-related mortality in critically ill older adults with intra-abdominal infection. Methods: A secondary analysis was undertaken of a prospective, multi-national, observational study (Abdominal Sepsis Study, ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT03270345) including patients with intra-abdominal infection from 309 intensive care units (ICUs) in 42 countries between January and December 2016. Mortality was considered as ICU mortality, with a minimum of 28 days of observation when patients were discharged earlier. Relationships with mortality were assessed by logistic regression analysis. Results: The cohort included 2337 patients. Four age groups were defined: middle-aged patients [reference category; 40–59 years; n=659 (28.2%)], young-old patients [60–69 years; n=622 (26.6%)], middle-old patients [70–79 years; n=667 (28.5%)] and very old patients [≥80 years; n=389 (16.6%)]. Secondary peritonitis was the predominant infection (68.7%) and was equally prevalent across age groups. Mortality increased with age: 20.9% in middle-aged patients, 30.5% in young-old patients, 31.2% in middle-old patients, and 44.7% in very old patients (P<0.001). Compared with middle-aged patients, young-old age [odds ratio (OR) 1.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21–2.17], middle-old age (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.35–2.41) and very old age (OR 3.69, 95% CI 2.66–5.12) were independently associated with mortality. Other independent risk factors for mortality included late-onset hospital-acquired intra-abdominal infection, diffuse peritonitis, sepsis/septic shock, source control failure, liver disease, congestive heart failure, diabetes and malnutrition. Conclusions: For ICU patients with intra-abdominal infection, age >60 years was associated with mortality; patients aged ≥80 years had the worst prognosis. Comorbidities and overall disease severity further compromised survival. As all of these factors are non-modifiable, it remains unclear how to improve outcomes