Mortality and quality of life in the five years after severe sepsis

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

The practice of glycaemic control in intensive care units: A multicentre survey of nursing and medical professionals.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To determine the views of nurses and physicians working in intensive care units (ICU) about the aims of glycaemic control and use of their protocols. BACKGROUND: Evidence about the optimal aims and methods for glycaemic control in ICU is controversial, and current local protocols guiding practice differ between ICUs, both nationally and internationally. The views of professionals on glycaemic control can influence their practice. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, multicentre, survey-based study. METHODS: An online short survey was sent to all physicians and nurses of seven ICUs, including questions on effective glycaemic control, treatment of hypoglycaemia and deviations from protocols' instructions. STROBE reporting guidelines were followed. RESULTS: Over half of the 40 respondents opined that a patient spending <75% admission time within the target glycaemic levels constituted poor glycaemic control. Professionals with more than 5 years of experience were more likely to rate a patient spending 50%-74% admission time within target glycaemic levels as poor than less experienced colleagues. Physicians were more likely to rate a patient spending <50% admission time within target as poor than nurses. There was general agreement on how professionals would rate most deviations from their protocols. Nurses were more likely to rate insulin infusions restarted late and incorrect dosage of rescue glucose as major deviations than physicians. Most professionals agreed on when they would treat hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSIONS: When surveyed on various aspects of glycaemic control, ICU nurses and physicians often agreed, although there were certain areas of disagreement, in which their profession and level of experience seemed to play a role. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Differing views on glycaemic control amongst professionals may affect their practice and, thus, could lead to health inequalities. Clinical leads and the multidisciplinary ICU team should assess and, if necessary, address these differing opinions.Nottingham University Hospitals (NUH) Charity and the NUH Department of Research and Innovation University of Nottingham School of Health Sciences director of research small grant

Steroid use in PROWESS severe sepsis patients treated with drotrecogin alfa (activated)

INTRODUCTION: In a study conducted by Annane, patients with septic shock and unresponsive to adrenocorticotropic hormone stimulation receiving low-dose steroid therapy had prolonged survival but not significantly improved 28-day mortality. The present study examines intravenous steroid use in PROWESS (Recombinant Human Activated Protein C Worldwide Evaluation in Severe Sepsis) patients meeting the Annane enrollment criteria (AEC). METHODS: Adrenocorticotropic hormone stimulation tests were not done in PROWESS. Steroids were allowed but their use was not directed. Patients were identified using AEC (all of: randomization to study drug treatment within 8 hours of shock onset; infection, fever, or hypothermia; tachycardia; systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg on vasopressors; mechanical ventilation; and one of urine <0.5 ml/kg per hour, lactic acidosis, or arterial oxygen tension/inspired fractional oxygen <280). We examined steroid use and mortality data; additional analyses were done outside the 8-hour window. RESULTS: Steroid-treated patients were older, had higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation scores and more organ dysfunctions, and were more commonly receiving mechanical ventilation. Among patients meeting AEC, regardless of steroid treatment (n = 97), mortality in the placebo and drotrecogin alfa (activated) groups was 38% (19/50) and 28% (13/47), respectively (relative risk [RR] = 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41–1.30). When using AEC but excluding the requirement for randomization within 8 hours of shock onset (n = 612), placebo mortality was 38% (118/313) and drotrecogin alfa (activated) mortality was 29% (88/299; RR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.62–0.98). Using AEC but excluding the 8-hour window and with steroids initiated at baseline and/or infusion (n = 228) resulted in mortality for placebo and drotrecogin alfa (activated) groups of 43% (51/118) and 33% (36/110), respectively (RR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.54–1.06). CONCLUSION: Patients with severe sepsis from the PROWESS trial who were likely to respond to low-dose steroids according to the AEC were those patients at a high risk for death. However, when using the AEC, regardless of steroid use, patients exhibited a survival benefit from treatment with drotrecogin alfa (activated)

Haemodynamic assessment and support in sepsis and septic shock in resource-limited settings

Background: Recommendations for haemodynamic assessment and support in sepsis and septic shock in resource-limited settings are largely lacking. Methods: A task force of six international experts in critical care medicine, all of them members of the Global Intensive Care Working Group of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and with extensive bedside experience in resource-limited intensive care units, reviewed the literature and provided recommendations regarding haemodynamic assessment and support, keeping aspects of efficacy and effectiveness, availability and feasibility and affordability and safety in mind. Results: We suggest using capillary refill time, skin mottling scores and skin temperature gradients; suggest a passive leg raise test to guide fluid resuscitation; recommend crystalloid solutions as the initial fluid of choice; recommend initial fluid resuscitation with 30 ml/kg in the first 3 h, but with extreme caution in settings where there is a lack ofmechanical ventilation; recommend against an early start of vasopressors; suggest starting a vasopressor in patients with persistent hypotension after initial fluid resuscitation with at least 30ml/kg, but earlier when there is lack of vasopressors and mechanical ventilation; recommend using norepinephrine (noradrenaline) as a first-line vasopressor; suggest starting an inotrope with persistence of plasma lactate \u3e2 mmol/L or persistence of skin mottling or prolonged capillary refill time when plasma lactate cannot be measured, and only after initial fluid resuscitation; suggest the use of dobutamine as a first-line inotrope; recommend administering vasopressors through a central venous line and suggest administering vasopressors and inotropes via a central venous line using a syringe or infusion pump when available. Conclusion: Recommendations for haemodynamic assessment and support in sepsis and septic shock in resource-limited settings have been developed by a task force of six international experts in critical care medicine with extensive practical experience in resource-limited settings

Rescue treatment with terlipressin in children with refractory septic shock: a clinical study

INTRODUCTION: Refractory septic shock has dismal prognosis despite aggressive therapy. The purpose of the present study is to report the effects of terlipressin (TP) as a rescue treatment in children with catecholamine refractory hypotensive septic shock. METHODS: We prospectively registered the children with severe septic shock and hypotension resistant to standard intensive care, including a high dose of catecholamines, who received compassionate therapy with TP in nine pediatric intensive care units in Spain, over a 12-month period. The TP dose was 0.02 mg/kg every four hours. RESULTS: Sixteen children (age range, 1 month–13 years) were included. The cause of sepsis was meningococcal in eight cases, Staphylococcus aureus in two cases, and unknown in six cases. At inclusion the median (range) Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction score was 23.5 (12–52) and the median (range) Pediatric Risk of Mortality score was 24.5 (16–43). All children had been treated with a combination of at least two catecholamines at high dose rates. TP treatment induced a rapid and sustained improvement in the mean arterial blood pressure that allowed reduction of the catecholamine infusion rate after one hour in 14 out of 16 patients. The mean (range) arterial blood pressure 30 minutes after TP administration increased from 50.5 (37–93) to 77 (42–100) mmHg (P < 0.05). The noradrenaline infusion rate 24 hours after TP treatment decreased from 2 (1–4) to 1 (0–2.5) µg/kg/min (P < 0.05). Seven patients survived to the sepsis episode. The causes of death were refractory shock in three cases, withdrawal of therapy in two cases, refractory arrhythmia in three cases, and multiorgan failure in one case. Four of the survivors had sequelae: major amputations (lower limbs and hands) in one case, minor amputations (finger) in two cases, and minor neurological deficit in one case. CONCLUSION: TP is an effective vasopressor agent that could be an alternative or complementary therapy in children with refractory vasodilatory septic shock. The addition of TP to high doses of catecholamines, however, can induce excessive vasoconstriction. Additional studies are needed to define the safety profile and the clinical effectiveness of TP in children with septic shock

Determining optimal outcome measures in a trial investigating no routine gastric residual volume measurement in critically ill children

Background Choosing trial outcome measures is important. When outcomes are not clinically relevant or important to parents/patients, trial evidence is less likely to be implemented into practice. This study aimed to determine optimal outcome measures for a trial of no routine gastric residual volume measurement in critically ill children. Methods: A mixed methods approach: a focused literature review, parent and clinician interviews, a modified two-round Delphi and a stakeholder consensus meeting. Results: The review generated 13 outcomes. 14 Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) parents proposed 3 additional outcomes, these 16 were then rated by 28 clinicians in Delphi round 1. Six further outcomes were proposed, and 22 outcomes were rated in the second round. No items were voted ‘consensus out’. The 18 ‘no-consensus’ items were voted in a face-to-face meeting by 30 participants. The final 12 outcome measures were: Time to reach energy targets; ventilator associated pneumonia; vomiting; time enteral feeds withheld per 24 hour; necrotizing enterocolitis; length of invasive ventilation; PICU length of stay; mortality; change in weight and markers of feed intolerance: parenteral nutrition administered; feed formula altered and changing to post-pyloric feeds all secondary to feed intolerance. Conclusion: We have identified 12 outcomes for a trial of no gastric residual volume measurement through a multi-stage process, seeking views of parents and clinicians. Clinical Relevancy statement: Twelve relevant outcomes have been identified for a trial of no routine gastric residual volume measurement in critically ill children

Prevalence of skin pressure injury in critical care patients in the UK: results of a single-day point prevalence evaluation in adult critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVES: Hospital-acquired pressure injuries (PIs) are a source of morbidity and mortality, and many are potentially preventable. DESIGN: This study prospectively evaluated the prevalence and the associated factors of PIs in adult critical care patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) in the UK. SETTING: This service evaluation was part of a larger, international, single-day point prevalence study of PIs in adult ICU patients. Training was provided to healthcare givers using an electronic platform to ensure standardised recognition and staging of PIs across all sites. PARTICIPANTS: The characteristics of the ICUs were recorded before the survey; deidentified patient data were collected using a case report form and uploaded onto a secure online platform. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Factors associated with ICU-acquired PIs in the UK were analysed descriptively and using mixed multiple logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Data from 1312 adult patients admitted to 94 UK ICUs were collected. The proportion of individuals with at least one PI was 16% (211 out of 1312 patients), of whom 8.8% (n=115/1312) acquired one or more PIs in the ICU and 7.3% (n=96/1312) prior to ICU admission. The total number of PIs was 311, of which 148 (47.6%) were acquired in the ICU. The location of majority of these PIs was the sacral area, followed by the heels. Braden score and prior length of ICU stay were associated with PI development. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence and the stage of severity of PIs were generally low in adult critically ill patients admitted to participating UK ICUs during the study period. However, PIs are a problem in an important minority of patients. Lower Braden score and longer length of ICU stay were associated with the development of injuries; most ICUs assess risk using tools which do not account for this. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03270345

Conservative versus liberal oxygenation targets in critically ill children: the randomised multiple-centre pilot Oxy-PICU trial

BACKGROUND: Oxygen saturation monitoring for children receiving respiratory support is standard worldwide. No randomised clinical trials have compared peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO_{2}) targets for critically ill children. The harm of interventions to raise SpO_{2} to > 94% may exceed their benefits. METHODS: We undertook an open, parallel-group randomised trial of children > 38 weeks completed gestation and  94%) or a conservative oxygenation group (SpO_{2} = 88–92% inclusive). Outcomes were measures of feasibility: recruitment rate, protocol adherence and acceptability, between-group separation of SpO_{2} and safety. The Oxy-PICU trial was registered before recruitment: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03040570. RESULTS: A total of 159 children met the inclusion criteria, of whom 119 (75%) were randomised between April and July 2017, representing a rate of 10 patients per month per site. The mean time to randomisation from first contact with an intensive care team was 1.9 (SD 2.2) h. Consent to continue in the study was obtained in 107 cases (90%); the children’s parents/legal representatives were supportive of the consent process. The median (interquartile range, IQR) of time-weighted individual mean SpO_{2} was 94.9% (92.6–97.1) in the conservative oxygenation group and 97.5% (96.2–98.4) in the liberal group [difference 2.7%, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.3–4.0%, p < 0.001]. Median (IQR) time-weighted individual mean FiO_{2} was 0.28 (0.24–0.37) in the conservative group and 0.37 (0.30–0.42) in the liberal group (difference 0.08, 95% CI 0.03–0.13, p < 0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in length of stay, duration of organ support or mortality. Two prespecified serious adverse events (cardiac arrests) occurred, both in the liberal oxygenation group. CONCLUSION: A definitive clinical trial of peripheral oxygen saturation targets is feasible in critically ill children

Restricted fluid bolus volume in early septic shock: Results of the Fluids in Shock pilot trial

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. Objective To determine the feasibility of Fluids in Shock, a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of restricted fluid bolus volume (10 mL/kg) versus recommended practice (20 mL/kg). Design Nine-month pilot RCT with embedded mixed-method perspectives study. Setting 13 hospitals in England. Patients Children presenting to emergency departments with suspected infection and shock after 20 mL/kg fluid. Interventions Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to further 10 or 20 mL/kg fluid boluses every 15 min for up to 4 hours if still in shock. Main outcome measures These were based on progression criteria, including recruitment and retention, protocol adherence, separation, potential trial outcome measures, and parent and staff perspectives. Results Seventy-five participants were randomised; two were withdrawn. 23 (59%) of 39 in the 10 mL/kg arm and 25 (74%) of 34 in the 20 mL/kg arm required a single trial bolus before the shock resolved. 79% of boluses were delivered per protocol in the 10 mL/kg arm and 55% in the 20 mL/kg arm. The volume of study bolus fluid after 4 hours was 44% lower in the 10 mL/kg group (mean 14.5 vs 27.5 mL/kg). The Paediatric Index of Mortality-2 score was 2.1 (IQR 1.6-2.7) in the 10 mL/kg group and 2.0 (IQR 1.6-2.5) in the 20 mL/kg group. There were no deaths. Length of hospital stay, paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admissions and PICU-free days at 30 days did not differ significantly between the groups. In the perspectives study, the trial was generally supported, although some problems with protocol adherence were described. Conclusions Participants were not as unwell as expected. A larger trial is not feasible in its current design in the UK. Trial registration number ISRCTN15244462