Escherichia coli endocarditis in an hemodialysis patient.

International audienc

Syndrome cytokinique lié à HHV8 mimant un choc septique

International audienc

Optimizing PO2 during peripheral veno-arterial ECMO: a narrative review

During refractory cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest, veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is used to restore a circulatory output. However, it also impacts significantly arterial oxygenation. Recent guidelines of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) recommend targeting postoxygenator partial pressure of oxygen (PPOSTO2) around 150 mmHg. In this narrative review, we intend to summarize the rationale and evidence for this PPOSTO2 target recommendation. Because this is the most used configuration, we focus on peripheral VA-ECMO. To date, clinicians do not know how to set the sweep gas oxygen fraction (FSO2). Because of the oxygenator's performance, arterial hyperoxemia is common during VA-ECMO support. Interpretation of oxygenation is complex in this setting because of the dual circulation phenomenon, depending on both the native cardiac output and the VA-ECMO blood flow. Such dual circulation results in dual oxygenation, with heterogeneous oxygen partial pressure (PO2) along the aorta, and heterogeneous oxygenation between organs, depending on the mixing zone location. Data regarding oxygenation during VA-ECMO are scarce, but several observational studies have reported an association between hyperoxemia and mortality, especially after refractory cardiac arrest. While hyperoxemia should be avoided, there are also more and more studies in non-ECMO patients suggesting the harm of a too restrictive oxygenation strategy. Finally, setting FSO2 to target strict normoxemia is challenging because continuous monitoring of postoxygenator oxygen saturation is not widely available. The threshold of PPOSTO2 around 150 mmHg is supported by limited evidence but aims at respecting a safe margin, avoiding both hypoxemia and severe hyperoxemia

Optimizing PO2 during peripheral veno-arterial ECMO: a narrative review

During refractory cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest, veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is used to restore a circulatory output. However, it also impacts significantly arterial oxygenation. Recent guidelines of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) recommend targeting postoxygenator partial pressure of oxygen (P(POST)O(2)) around 150 mmHg. In this narrative review, we intend to summarize the rationale and evidence for this P(POST)O(2) target recommendation. Because this is the most used configuration, we focus on peripheral VA-ECMO. To date, clinicians do not know how to set the sweep gas oxygen fraction (F(S)O(2)). Because of the oxygenator’s performance, arterial hyperoxemia is common during VA-ECMO support. Interpretation of oxygenation is complex in this setting because of the dual circulation phenomenon, depending on both the native cardiac output and the VA-ECMO blood flow. Such dual circulation results in dual oxygenation, with heterogeneous oxygen partial pressure (PO(2)) along the aorta, and heterogeneous oxygenation between organs, depending on the mixing zone location. Data regarding oxygenation during VA-ECMO are scarce, but several observational studies have reported an association between hyperoxemia and mortality, especially after refractory cardiac arrest. While hyperoxemia should be avoided, there are also more and more studies in non-ECMO patients suggesting the harm of a too restrictive oxygenation strategy. Finally, setting F(S)O(2) to target strict normoxemia is challenging because continuous monitoring of postoxygenator oxygen saturation is not widely available. The threshold of P(POST)O(2) around 150 mmHg is supported by limited evidence but aims at respecting a safe margin, avoiding both hypoxemia and severe hyperoxemia

Telemedicine and type 1 diabetes: is technology per se sufficient to improve glycaemic control?

International audienceAIM: In the TELEDIAB-1 study, the Diabeo system (a smartphone coupled to a website) improved HbA1c by 0.9% vs controls in patients with chronic, poorly controlled type 1 diabetes. The system provided two main functions: automated advice on the insulin doses required; and remote monitoring by teleconsultation. The question is: how much did each function contribute to the improvement in HbA1c? METHODS: Each patient received a smartphone with an insulin dose advisor (IDA) and with (G3 group) or without (G2 group) the telemonitoring/teleconsultation function. Patients were classified as "high users" if the proportion of "informed" meals using the IDA exceeded 67% (median) and as "low users" if not. Also analyzed was the respective impact of the IDA function and teleconsultations on the final HbA1c levels. RESULTS: Among the high users, the proportion of informed meals remained stable from baseline to the end of the study 6months later (from 78.1+/-21.5% to 73.8+/-25.1%; P=0.107), but decreased in the low users (from 36.6+/-29.4% to 26.7+/-28.4%; P=0.005). As expected, HbA1c improved in high users from 8.7% [range: 8.3-9.2%] to 8.2% [range: 7.8-8.7%] in patients with (n=26) vs without (n=30) the benefit of telemonitoring/teleconsultation (-0.49+/-0.60% vs -0.52+/-0.73%, respectively; P=0.879). However, although HbA1c also improved in low users from 9.0% [8.5-10.1] to 8.5% [7.9-9.6], those receiving support via teleconsultation tended to show greater improvement than the others (-0.93+/-0.97 vs -0.46+/-1.05, respectively; P=0.084). CONCLUSION: The Diabeo system improved glycaemic control in both high and low users who avidly used the IDA function, while the greatest improvement was seen in the low users who had the motivational support of teleconsultations

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

International audienceBackgroundWhether 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.MethodsIn 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 <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.FindingsAfter 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<0·0001), diarrhoea (432 [36%] vs 393 [33%]; 1·20 [1·05–1·37]; p=0·009), bowel ischaemia (19 [2%] vs five [<1%]; 3·84 [1·43–10·3]; p=0·007), and acute colonic pseudo-obstruction (11 [1%] vs three [<1%]; 3·7 [1·03–13·2; p=0·04).InterpretationIn 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.FundingLa Roche-sur-Yon Departmental Hospital and French Ministry of Health.Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved