Thrombocytopenia and platelet transfusions in ICU patients: an international inception cohort study (PLOT-ICU)

Purpose Thrombocytopenia (platelet count < 150 × 109/L) is common in intensive care unit (ICU) patients and is likely associated with worse outcomes. In this study we present international contemporary data on thrombocytopenia in ICU patients. Methods We conducted a prospective cohort study in adult ICU patients in 52 ICUs across 10 countries. We assessed frequencies of thrombocytopenia, use of platelet transfusions and clinical outcomes including mortality. We evaluated pre-selected potential risk factors for the development of thrombocytopenia during ICU stay and associations between thrombocytopenia at ICU admission and 90-day mortality using pre-specified logistic regression analyses. Results We analysed 1166 ICU patients; the median age was 63 years and 39.5% were female. Overall, 43.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 40.4–46.1) had thrombocytopenia; 23.4% (20–26) had thrombocytopenia at ICU admission, and 19.8% (17.6–22.2) developed thrombocytopenia during their ICU stay. Non-AIDS-, non-cancer-related immune deficiency, liver failure, male sex, septic shock, and bleeding at ICU admission were associated with the development of thrombocytopenia during ICU stay. Among patients with thrombocytopenia, 22.6% received platelet transfusion(s), and 64.3% of in-ICU transfusions were prophylactic. Patients with thrombocytopenia had higher occurrences of bleeding and death, fewer days alive without the use of life-support, and fewer days alive and out of hospital. Thrombocytopenia at ICU admission was associated with 90-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio 1.7; 95% CI 1.19–2.42). Conclusion Thrombocytopenia occurred in 43% of critically ill patients and was associated with worse outcomes including increased mortality. Platelet transfusions were given to 23% of patients with thrombocytopenia and most were prophylactic.publishedVersio

Restriction of Intravenous Fluid in ICU Patients with Septic Shock.

BACKGROUND Intravenous fluids are recommended for the treatment of patients who are in septic shock, but higher fluid volumes have been associated with harm in patients who are in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS In this international, randomized trial, we assigned patients with septic shock in the ICU who had received at least 1 liter of intravenous fluid to receive restricted intravenous fluid or standard intravenous fluid therapy; patients were included if the onset of shock had been within 12 hours before screening. The primary outcome was death from any cause within 90 days after randomization. RESULTS We enrolled 1554 patients; 770 were assigned to the restrictive-fluid group and 784 to the standard-fluid group. Primary outcome data were available for 1545 patients (99.4%). In the ICU, the restrictive-fluid group received a median of 1798 ml of intravenous fluid (interquartile range, 500 to 4366); the standard-fluid group received a median of 3811 ml (interquartile range, 1861 to 6762). At 90 days, death had occurred in 323 of 764 patients (42.3%) in the restrictive-fluid group, as compared with 329 of 781 patients (42.1%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.7 to 4.9; P = 0.96). In the ICU, serious adverse events occurred at least once in 221 of 751 patients (29.4%) in the restrictive-fluid group and in 238 of 772 patients (30.8%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, -1.7 percentage points; 99% CI, -7.7 to 4.3). At 90 days after randomization, the numbers of days alive without life support and days alive and out of the hospital were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Among adult patients with septic shock in the ICU, intravenous fluid restriction did not result in fewer deaths at 90 days than standard intravenous fluid therapy. (Funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and others; CLASSIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03668236.)

Additional file 1 of Understanding what matters most to patients in acute care in seven countries, using the flash mob study design

Additional file 1: Figure S1. Developmental process of framework. Table S1. Framework for coding. Table S2. Top ten answers to the question ‘what matters most’. Table S3. Top ten answers to the question ‘why is this important’. Table S4. Differences in what matters and why between sex, age groups, length of stay and if patients feel the doctor knows what matters or not. Table S5. Differences in what matters and why to patients between countries. List of local collaborators

Bacterial etiology of community-acquired pneumonia in immunocompetent hospitalized patients and appropriateness of empirical treatment recommendations: an international point-prevalence study

An accurate knowledge of the epidemiology of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is key for selecting appropriate antimicrobial treatments. Very few etiological studies assessed the appropriateness of empiric guideline recommendations at a multinational level. This study aims at the following: (i) describing the bacterial etiologic distribution of CAP and (ii) assessing the appropriateness of the empirical treatment recommendations by clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for CAP in light of the bacterial pathogens diagnosed as causative agents of CAP. Secondary analysis of the GLIMP, a point-prevalence international study which enrolled adults hospitalized with CAP in 2015. The analysis was limited to immunocompetent patients tested for bacterial CAP agents within 24 h of admission. The CAP CPGs evaluated included the following: the 2007 and 2019 American Thoracic Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America (ATS/IDSA), the European Respiratory Society (ERS), and selected country-specific CPGs. Among 2564 patients enrolled, 35.3% had an identifiable pathogen. Streptococcus pneumoniae (8.2%) was the most frequently identified pathogen, followed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (4.1%) and Klebsiella pneumoniae (3.4%). CPGs appropriately recommend covering more than 90% of all the potential pathogens causing CAP, with the exception of patients enrolled from Germany, Pakistan, and Croatia. The 2019 ATS/IDSA CPGs appropriately recommend covering 93.6% of the cases compared with 90.3% of the ERS CPGs (p < 0.01). S. pneumoniae remains the most common pathogen in patients hospitalized with CAP. Multinational CPG recommendations for patients with CAP seem to appropriately cover the most common pathogens and should be strongly encouraged for the management of CAP patients.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Aspiration risk factors, microbiology, and empiric antibiotics for patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia

Background: Aspiration community-acquired pneumonia (ACAP) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in patients with aspiration risk factors (AspRFs) are infections associated with anaerobes, but limited evidence suggests their pathogenic role. Research question: What are the aspiration risk factors, microbiology patterns, and empiric anti-anaerobic use in patients hospitalized with CAP? Study design and methods: This is a secondary analysis of GLIMP, an international, multicenter, point-prevalence study of adults hospitalized with CAP. Patients were stratified into three groups: (1) ACAP, (2) CAP/AspRF+ (CAP with AspRF), and (3) CAP/AspRF- (CAP without AspRF). Data on demographics, comorbidities, microbiological results, and anti-anaerobic antibiotics were analyzed in all groups. Patients were further stratified in severe and nonsevere CAP groups. Results: We enrolled 2,606 patients with CAP, of which 193 (7.4%) had ACAP. Risk factors independently associated with ACAP were male, bedridden, underweight, a nursing home resident, and having a history of stroke, dementia, mental illness, and enteral tube feeding. Among non-ACAP patients, 1,709 (70.8%) had CAP/AspRF+ and 704 (29.2%) had CAP/AspRF-. Microbiology patterns including anaerobes were similar between CAP/AspRF-, CAP/AspRF+ and ACAP (0.0% vs 1.03% vs 1.64%). Patients with severe ACAP had higher rates of total gram-negative bacteria (64.3% vs 44.3% vs 33.3%, P = .021) and lower rates of total gram-positive bacteria (7.1% vs 38.1% vs 50.0%, P 50% in all groups) independent of AspRFs or ACAP received specific or broad-spectrum anti-anaerobic coverage antibiotics. Interpretation: Hospitalized patients with ACAP or CAP/AspRF+ had similar anaerobic flora compared with patients without aspiration risk factors. Gram-negative bacteria were more prevalent in patients with severe ACAP. Despite having similar microbiological flora between groups, a large proportion of CAP patients received anti-anaerobic antibiotic coverage