Practice and perception--a nationwide survey of therapy habits in sepsis

OBJECTIVE: To simultaneously determine perceived vs. practiced adherence to recommended interventions for the treatment of severe sepsis or septic shock. DESIGN: One-day cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Representative sample of German intensive care units stratified by hospital size. PATIENTS: Adult patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Practice recommendations were selected by German Sepsis Competence Network (SepNet) investigators. External intensivists visited intensive care units randomly chosen and asked the responsible intensive care unit director how often these recommendations were used. Responses "always" and "frequently" were combined to depict perceived adherence. Thereafter patient files were audited. Three hundred sixty-six patients on 214 intensive care units fulfilled the criteria and received full support. One hundred fifty-two patients had acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome. Low-tidal volume ventilation 8 mL/kg predicted body weight. Mean tidal volume was 10.0 +/- 2.4 mL/kg predicted body weight. Perceived adherence to low-tidal volume ventilation was 79.9%. Euglycemia (4.4-6.1 mmol/L) was documented in 6.2% of 355 patients. A total of 33.8% of patients had blood glucose levels 8.3 mmol/L). Among 207 patients receiving insulin therapy, 1.9% were euglycemic, 20.8% had blood glucose levels < or = 8.3 mmol/L, and 1.0% were hypoglycemic. Overall, mean maximal glucose level was 10.0 +/- 3.6 mmol/L. Perceived adherence to strict glycemic control was 65.9%. Although perceived adherence to recommendations was higher in academic and larger hospitals, actual practice was not significantly influenced by hospital size or university affiliation. CONCLUSIONS: This representative survey shows that current therapy of severe sepsis in German intensive care units complies poorly with practice recommendations. Intensive care unit directors perceive adherence to be higher than it actually is. Implementation strategies involving all intensive care unit staff are needed to overcome this gap between current evidence-based knowledge, practice, and perception

Randomized Clinical Study of Temporary Transvenous Phrenic Nerve Stimulation in Difficult-to-Wean Patients

Rationale: Diaphragm dysfunction is frequently observed in critically ill patients with difficult weaning from mechanical ventilation. Objectives: To evaluate the effects of temporary transvenous diaphragm neurostimulation on weaning outcome and maximal inspiratory pressure. Methods: Multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled study. Patients aged >= 18 years on invasive mechanical ventilation for >= 4 days and having failed at least two weaning attempts received temporary transvenous diaphragm neurostimulation using a multielectrode stimulating central venous catheter (bilateral phrenic stimulation) and standard of care (treatment) (n = 57) or standard of care (control) (n= 55). In seven patients, the catheter could not be inserted, and in seven others, pacing therapy could not be delivered; consequently, data were available for 43 patients. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients successfully weaned. Other endpoints were mechanical ventilation duration, 30-day survival, maximal inspiratory pressure, diaphragm-thickening fraction, adverse events, and stimulation-related pain. Measurements and Main Results: The incidences of successful weaning were 82% (treatment) and 74% (control) (absolute difference [95% confidence interval (CI)], 7% [-10 to 25]), P = 0.59. Mechanical ventilation duration (mean +/- SD) was 12.7 +/- 9.9 days and 14.1 +/- 10.8 days, respectively, P = 0.50; maximal inspiratory pressure increased by 16.6 cm H2O and 4.8 cm H2O, respectively (difference [95% CI], 11.8 [5 to 19]), P = 0.001; and right hemidiaphragm thickening fraction during unassisted spontaneous breathing was +17% and -14%, respectively, P = 0.006, without correlation with changes in maximal inspiratory pressure. Serious adverse event frequency was similar in both groups. Median stimulation-related pain in the treatment group was 0 (no pain). Conclusions: Temporary transvenous diaphragm neurostimulation did not increase the proportion of successful weaning from mechanical ventilation. It was associated with a significant increase in maximal inspiratory pressure, suggesting reversal of the course of diaphragm dysfunction