An international tool to measure perceived stressors in intensive care units: the PS-ICU scale.

Background The intensive care unit is increasingly recognized as a stressful environment for healthcare professionals. This context has an impact on the health of these professionals but also on the quality of their personal and professional life. However, there is currently no validated scale to measure specific stressors perceived by healthcare professionals in intensive care. The aim of this study was to construct and validate in three languages a perceived stressors scale more specific to intensive care units (ICU). Results We conducted a three-phase study between 2016 and 2019: (1) identification of stressors based on the verbatim of 165 nurses and physicians from 4 countries (Canada, France, Italy, and Spain). We identified 99 stressors, including those common to most healthcare professions (called generic), as well as stressors more specific to ICU professionals (called specific); (2) item elaboration and selection by a panel of interdisciplinary experts to build a provisional 99-item version of the scale. This version was pre-tested with 70 professionals in the 4 countries and enabled us to select 50 relevant items; (3) test of the validity of the scale in 497 ICU healthcare professionals. Factor analyses identified six dimensions: lack of fit with families and organizational functioning; patient- and family-related emotional load; complex/at risk situations and skill-related issues; workload and human resource management issues; difficulties related to team working; and suboptimal care situations. Correlations of the PS-ICU scale with a generic stressors measure (i.e., the Job Content Questionnaire) tested its convergent validity, while its correlations with the Maslach Burnout Inventory-HSS examined its concurrent validity. We also assessed the test–retest reliability of PS-ICU with intraclass correlation coefficients. Conclusions The perceived stressors in intensive care units (PS-ICU) scale have good psychometric properties in all countries. It includes six broad dimensions covering generic or specific stressors to ICU, and thus, enables the identification of work situations that are likely to generate high levels of stress at the individual and unit levels. For future studies, this tool will enable the implementation of targeted corrective actions on which intervention research can be based. It also enables national and international comparisons of stressors’ impact.post-print925 K

Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

OBJECTIVE: Circulatory shock is a life-threatening syndrome resulting in multiorgan failure and a high mortality rate. The aim of this consensus is to provide support to the bedside clinician regarding the diagnosis, management and monitoring of shock. METHODS: The European Society of Intensive Care Medicine invited 12 experts to form a Task Force to update a previous consensus (Antonelli et al.: Intensive Care Med 33:575-590, 2007). The same five questions addressed in the earlier consensus were used as the outline for the literature search and review, with the aim of the Task Force to produce statements based on the available literature and evidence. These questions were: (1) What are the epidemiologic and pathophysiologic features of shock in the intensive care unit ? (2) Should we monitor preload and fluid responsiveness in shock ? (3) How and when should we monitor stroke volume or cardiac output in shock ? (4) What markers of the regional and microcirculation can be monitored, and how can cellular function be assessed in shock ? (5) What is the evidence for using hemodynamic monitoring to direct therapy in shock ? Four types of statements were used: definition, recommendation, best practice and statement of fact. RESULTS: Forty-four statements were made. The main new statements include: (1) statements on individualizing blood pressure targets; (2) statements on the assessment and prediction of fluid responsiveness; (3) statements on the use of echocardiography and hemodynamic monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus provides 44 statements that can be used at the bedside to diagnose, treat and monitor patients with shock

Serum procalcitonin elevation in critically ill patients at the onset of bacteremia caused by either gram negative or gram positive bacteria

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the ICU, bacteremia is a life-threatening infection whose prognosis is highly dependent on early recognition and treatment with appropriate antibiotics. Procalcitonin levels have been shown to distinguish between bacteremia and noninfectious inflammatory states accurately and quickly in critically ill patients. However, we still do not know to what extent the magnitude of PCT elevation at the onset of bacteremia varies according to the Gram stain result.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Review of the medical records of every patient treated between May, 2004 and December, 2006 who had bacteremia caused by either Gram positive (GP) or Gram negative (GN) bacteria, and whose PCT dosage at the onset of infection was available.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>97 episodes of either GN bacteremia (<it>n </it>= 52) or GP bacteremia (<it>n </it>= 45) were included. Procalcitonin levels were found to be markedly higher in patients with GN bacteremia than in those with GP bacteremia, whereas the SOFA score value in the two groups was similar. Moreover, in the study population, a high PCT value was found to be independently associated with GN bacteremia. A PCT level of 16.0 ng/mL yielded an 83.0% positive predictive value and a 74.0% negative predictive value for GN-related bacteremia in the study cohort (AUROCC = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71–0.88).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In a critically ill patient with clinical sepsis, GN bacteremia could be associated with higher PCT values than those found in GP bacteremia, regardless of the severity of the disease.</p

Appropriateness of treatment recommendations for PPI in hospital discharge letters

International audienc

Stress-related cardiomyopathies

Stress-related cardiomyopathies can be observed in the four following situations: Takotsubo cardiomyopathy or apical ballooning syndrome; acute left ventricular dysfunction associated with subarachnoid hemorrhage; acute left ventricular dysfunction associated with pheochromocytoma and exogenous catecholamine administration; acute left ventricular dysfunction in the critically ill. Cardiac toxicity was mediated more by catecholamines released directly into the heart via neural connection than by those reaching the heart via the bloodstream. The mechanisms underlying the association between this generalized autonomic storm secondary to a life-threatening stress and myocardial toxicity are widely discussed. Takotsubo cardiomyopathy has been reported all over the world and has been acknowledged by the American Heart Association as a form of reversible cardiomyopathy. Four "Mayo Clinic" diagnostic criteria are required for the diagnosis of Takotsubo cardiomyopathy: 1) transient left ventricular wall motion abnormalities involving the apical and/or midventricular myocardial segments with wall motion abnormalities extending beyond a single epicardial coronary artery distribution; 2) absence of obstructive epicardial coronary artery disease that could be responsible for the observed wall motion abnormality; 3) ECG abnormalities, such as transient ST-segment elevation and/or diffuse T wave inversion associated with a slight troponin elevation; and 4) the lack of proven pheochromocytoma and myocarditis. ECG changes and LV dysfunction occur frequently following subarachnoid hemorrhage and ischemic stroke. This entity, referred as neurocardiogenic stunning, was called neurogenic stress-related cardiomyopathy. Stress-related cardiomyopathy has been reported in patients with pheochromocytoma and in patients receiving intravenous exogenous catecholamine administration. The role of a huge increase in endogenous and/or exogenous catecholamine level in critically ill patients (severe sepsis, post cardiac resuscitation, post tachycardia) to explain the onset of myocardial dysfunction was discussed. Further research is needed to understand this complex interaction between heart and brain and to identify risk factors and therapeutic and preventive strategies

Enteral versus parenteral early nutrition in ventilated adults with shock: a randomised, controlled, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group study (NUTRIREA-2)

BACKGROUND: Whether the route of early feeding affects outcomes of patients with severe critical illnesses is controversial. We hypothesised that outcomes were better with early first-line enteral nutrition than with early first-line parenteral nutrition. METHODS: In this randomised, controlled, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group study (NUTRIREA-2 trial) done at 44 French intensive-care units (ICUs), adults (18 years or older) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and vasopressor support for shock were randomly assigned (1:1) to either parenteral nutrition or enteral nutrition, both targeting normocaloric goals (20-25 kcal/kg per day), within 24 h after intubation. Randomisation was stratified by centre using permutation blocks of variable sizes. Given that route of nutrition cannot be masked, blinding of the physicians and nurses was not feasible. Patients receiving parenteral nutrition could be switched to enteral nutrition after at least 72 h in the event of shock resolution (no vasopressor support for 24 consecutive hours and arterial lactate &lt;2 mmol/L). The primary endpoint was mortality on day 28 after randomisation in the intention-to-treat-population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01802099. FINDINGS: After the second interim analysis, the independent Data Safety and Monitoring Board deemed that completing patient enrolment was unlikely to significantly change the results of the trial and recommended stopping patient recruitment. Between March 22, 2013, and June 30, 2015, 2410 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned; 1202 to the enteral group and 1208 to the parenteral group. By day 28, 443 (37%) of 1202 patients in the enteral group and 422 (35%) of 1208 patients in the parenteral group had died (absolute difference estimate 2·0%; [95% CI -1·9 to 5·8]; p=0·33). Cumulative incidence of patients with ICU-acquired infections did not differ between the enteral group (173 [14%]) and the parenteral group (194 [16%]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·89 [95% CI 0·72-1·09]; p=0·25). Compared with the parenteral group, the enteral group had higher cumulative incidences of patients with vomiting (406 [34%] vs 246 [20%]; HR 1·89 [1·62-2·20]; p&lt;0·0001), diarrhoea (432 [36%] vs 393 [33%]; 1·20 [1·05-1·37]; p=0·009), bowel ischaemia (19 [2%] vs five [&lt;1%]; 3·84 [1·43-10·3]; p=0·007), and acute colonic pseudo-obstruction (11 [1%] vs three [&lt;1%]; 3·7 [1·03-13·2; p=0·04). INTERPRETATION: In critically ill adults with shock, early isocaloric enteral nutrition did not reduce mortality or the risk of secondary infections but was associated with a greater risk of digestive complications compared with early isocaloric parenteral nutrition. FUNDING: La Roche-sur-Yon Departmental Hospital and French Ministry of Health

Impact of early enteral versus parenteral nutrition on mortality in patients requiring mechanical ventilation and catecholamines: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (NUTRIREA-2)

BACKGROUND: Nutritional support is crucial to the management of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and the most commonly prescribed treatment in intensive care units (ICUs). International guidelines consistently indicate that enteral nutrition (EN) should be preferred over parenteral nutrition (PN) whenever possible and started as early as possible. However, no adequately designed study has evaluated whether a specific nutritional modality is associated with decreased mortality. The primary goal of this trial is to assess the hypothesis that early first-line EN, as compared to early first-line PN, decreases day 28 all-cause mortality in patients receiving IMV and vasoactive drugs for shock. METHODS/DESIGN: The NUTRIREA-2 study is a multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial comparing early PN versus early EN in critically ill patients requiring IMV for an expected duration of at least 48 hours, combined with vasoactive drugs, for shock. Patients will be allocated at random to first-line PN for at least 72 hours or to first-line EN. In both groups, nutritional support will be started within 24 hours after IMV initiation. Calorie targets will be 20 to 25 kcal/kg/day during the first week, then 25 to 30 kcal/kg/day thereafter. Patients receiving PN may be switched to EN after at least 72 hours in the event of shock resolution (no vasoactive drugs for 24 consecutive hours and arterial lactic acid level below 2 mmol/L). On day 7, all patients receiving PN and having no contraindications to EN will be switched to EN. In both groups, supplemental PN may be added to EN after day 7 in patients with persistent intolerance to EN and inadequate calorie intake. We plan to recruit 2,854 patients at 44 participating ICUs. DISCUSSION: The NUTRIREA-2 study is the first large randomized controlled trial designed to assess the hypothesis that early EN improves survival compared to early PN in ICU patients. Enrollment started on 22 March 2013 and is expected to end in November 2015. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01802099 (registered 27 February 2013)

Routine gastric residual volume measurement and energy target achievement in the PICU: A comparison study

Critically ill children frequently fail to achieve adequate energy intake and some care practices, such as the measurement of gastric residual volume (GRV) may contribute to this problem. We compared outcomes in two similar European Pediatric Intensive Care Units (PICUs): one which routinely measures GRV (PICU-GRV) to one unit that does not (PICU-noGRV). An observational pilot comparison study was undertaken. 87 children were included in the study, 42 (PICU-GRV) and 45 (PICU-noGRV). There were no significant differences in the percentage of energy targets achieved in the first four days of PICU admission although PICU-noGRV showed more consistent delivery of median (and IQR) energy targets, and less under and over feeding for PICU-GRV and PICU-noGRV Day 1 37 (14-72) vs 44 (0-100); Day 2 97 (53-126) vs 100 (100-100), Day 3 84 (45-112) vs 100 (100-100) , Day 4 101 (63-124) vs 100 (100-100). The incidence of vomiting was higher in PICU-GRV. No necrotising enterocolitis was confirmed in either unit and ventilator acquired pneumonia rates were not significantly different (7.01 vs 12 5.31 per 1000 ventilator days; p=0.70) between PICU-GRV and PICU-noGRV units. Conclusions: The practice of routine gastric residual measurement did not significantly impair energy targets in the first four days of PICU admission. However, not measuring GRV did not increase vomiting, ventilator acquired pneumonia or necrotising enterocolitis, which is the main reason clinicians cite for measuring GRV. What is known?•The practice of routinely measuring gastric residual volume is widespread in critical care units•This practice is increasingly being questioned in critically ill patients, both as a practice that increases •the likelihood of delivering inadequate enteral nutrition amounts and as a tool to assess feeding tolerance What is new? •Not routinely measuring gastric residual volume did not increase adverse events of ventilator acquired pneumonia, necrotising enterocolitis or vomiting •In the first four days of PICU stay, energy target achievement was not significantly different, but the rates of under and over feeding were higher in the routine GRV measurement uni