Very high intact-protein formula successfully provides protein intake according to nutritional recommendations in overweight critically ill patients : a double-blind randomized trial

Background: Optimal energy and protein provision through enteral nutrition is essential for critically ill patients. However, in clinical practice, the intake achieved is often far below the recommended targets. Because no polymeric formula with sufficient protein content is available, adequate protein intake can be achieved only by supplemental amino acids or semi-elemental formula administration. In the present study, we investigated whether protein intake can be increased with a new, very high intact-protein formula (VHPF) for enteral feeding. Methods: In this randomized, controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial, 44 overweight (body mass index = 25 kg/m(2)) intensive care unit patients received either a VHPF (8 g/100 kcal) or a commercially available standard high protein formula (SHPF) (5 g/100 kcal). Protein and energy intake, gastrointestinal tolerance (gastric residual volume, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation), adverse events, and serious adverse events were recorded. Total serum amino acid levels were measured at baseline and day 5. Results: The primary outcome, protein intake at day 5, was 1.49 g/kg body weight (95% CI 1.21-1.78) and 0.76 g/kg body weight (95% CI 0.49-1.03, P < 0.001) for VHPF and SHPF, respectively. Daily protein intake was statistically significantly higher in the VHPF group compared with the SHPF group from day 2 to day 10. Protein intake in the VHPF group as a percentage of target (1.5 g/kg ideal body weight) was 74.7% (IQR 53.2-87.6%) and 111.6% (IQR 51.7-130.7%) during days 1-3 and days 4-10, respectively. Serum amino acid concentrations were higher at day 5 in the VHPF group than in the SHPF group (P = 0.031). No differences were found in energy intake, measures of gastrointestinal tolerance, and safety. Conclusions: Enteral feeding with VHPF (8 g/100 kcal) resulted in higher protein intake and plasma amino acid concentrations than an isocaloric SHPF (5 g/100 kcal), without an increase in energy intake. This VHPF facilitates feeding according to nutritional guidelines and is suitable as a first-line nutritional treatment for critically ill overweight patients

Hospital-acquired sinusitis is a common cause of fever of unknown origin in orotracheally intubated critically ill patients

INTRODUCTION: Sinusitis is a well recognised but insufficiently understood complication of critical illness. It has been linked to nasotracheal intubation, but its occurrence after orotracheal intubation is less clear. We studied the incidence of sinusitis in patients with fever of unknown origin (FUO) in our intensive care unit with the aim of establishing a protocol that would be applicable in everyday clinical practice. METHODS: Sinus X-rays (SXRs) were performed in all patients with fever for which an initial screening (physical examination, microbiological cultures and chest X-ray) revealed no obvious cause. All patients were followed with a predefined protocol, including antral drainage in all patients with abnormal or equivocal results on their SXR. RESULTS: Initial screening revealed probable causes of fever in 153 of 351 patients (43.6%). SXRs were taken in the other 198 patients (56.4%); 129 had obvious or equivocal abnormalities. Sinus drainage revealed purulent material and positive cultures (predominantly Pseudomonas and Klebsiella species) in 84 patients. Final diagnosis for the cause of fever in all 351 patients based on X-ray results, microbiological cultures, and clinical response to sinus drainage indicated sinusitis as the sole cause of fever in 57 (16.2%) and as contributing factor in 48 (13.8%) patients with FUO. This will underestimate the actual incidence because SXR and drainage were not performed in all patients. CONCLUSION: Physicians treating critically ill patients should be aware of the high risk of sinusitis and take appropriate preventive measures, including the removal of nasogastric tubes in patients requiring long-term mechanical ventilation. Routine investigation of FUO should include computed tomography scan, SXR or sinus ultrasonography, and drainage should be performed if any abnormalities are found

Potential impact of a new sepsis prediction model for the primary care setting: early health economic evaluation using an observational cohort

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the potential referral rate and cost impact at different cut-off points of a recently developed sepsis prediction model for general practitioners (GPs). DESIGN: Prospective observational study with decision tree modelling. SETTING: Four out-of-hours GP services in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 357 acutely ill adult patients assessed during home visits. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome is the cost per patient from a healthcare perspective in four scenarios based on different cut-off points for referral of the sepsis prediction model. Second, the number of hospital referrals for the different scenarios is estimated. The potential impact of referral of patients with sepsis on mortality and hospital admission was estimated by an expert panel. Using these study data, a decision tree with a time horizon of 1 month was built to estimate the referral rate and cost impact in case the model would be implemented. RESULTS: Referral rates at a low cut-off (score 2 or 3 on a scale from 0 to 6) of the prediction model were higher than observed for patients with sepsis (99% and 91%, respectively, compared with 88% observed). However, referral was also substantially higher for patients who did not need hospital assessment. As a consequence, cost-savings due to referral of patients with sepsis were offset by increased costs due to unnecessary referral for all cut-offs of the prediction model. CONCLUSIONS: Guidance for referral of adult patients with suspected sepsis in the primary care setting using any cut-off point of the sepsis prediction model is not likely to save costs. The model should only be incorporated in sepsis guidelines for GPs if improvement of care can be demonstrated in an implementation study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register (NTR 7026)

Actively implementing an evidence-based feeding guideline for critically ill patients (NEED): a multicenter, cluster-randomized, controlled trial.

BackgroundPrevious cluster-randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of implementing evidence-based guidelines for nutrition therapy in critical illness do not consistently demonstrate patient benefits. A large-scale, sufficiently powered study is therefore warranted to ascertain the effects of guideline implementation on patient-centered outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, cluster-randomized, parallel-controlled trial in intensive care units (ICUs) across China. We developed an evidence-based feeding guideline. ICUs randomly allocated to the guideline group formed a local "intervention team", which actively implemented the guideline using standardized educational materials, a graphical feeding protocol, and live online education outreach meetings conducted by members of the study management committee. ICUs assigned to the control group remained unaware of the guideline content. All ICUs enrolled patients who were expected to stay in the ICU longer than seven days. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 28 days of enrollment.ResultsForty-eight ICUs were randomized to the guideline group and 49 to the control group. From March 2018 to July 2019, the guideline ICUs enrolled 1399 patients, and the control ICUs enrolled 1373 patients. Implementation of the guideline resulted in significantly earlier EN initiation (1.20 vs. 1.55 mean days to initiation of EN; difference - 0.40 [95% CI - 0.71 to - 0.09]; P = 0.01) and delayed PN initiation (1.29 vs. 0.80 mean days to start of PN; difference 1.06 [95% CI 0.44 to 1.67]; P = 0.001). There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality (14.2% vs. 15.2%; difference - 1.6% [95% CI - 4.3% to 1.2%]; P = 0.42) between groups.ConclusionsIn this large-scale, multicenter trial, active implementation of an evidence-based feeding guideline reduced the time to commencement of EN and overall PN use but did not translate to a reduction in mortality from critical illness.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN12233792 . Registered November 20th, 2017

Actively implementing an evidence-based feeding guideline for critically ill patients (NEED): a multicenter, cluster-randomized, controlled trial (vol 26, 46, 2022)

BackgroundPrevious cluster-randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of implementing evidence-based guidelines for nutrition therapy in critical illness do not consistently demonstrate patient benefits. A large-scale, sufficiently powered study is therefore warranted to ascertain the effects of guideline implementation on patient-centered outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, cluster-randomized, parallel-controlled trial in intensive care units (ICUs) across China. We developed an evidence-based feeding guideline. ICUs randomly allocated to the guideline group formed a local "intervention team", which actively implemented the guideline using standardized educational materials, a graphical feeding protocol, and live online education outreach meetings conducted by members of the study management committee. ICUs assigned to the control group remained unaware of the guideline content. All ICUs enrolled patients who were expected to stay in the ICU longer than seven days. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 28 days of enrollment.ResultsForty-eight ICUs were randomized to the guideline group and 49 to the control group. From March 2018 to July 2019, the guideline ICUs enrolled 1399 patients, and the control ICUs enrolled 1373 patients. Implementation of the guideline resulted in significantly earlier EN initiation (1.20 vs. 1.55 mean days to initiation of EN; difference - 0.40 [95% CI - 0.71 to - 0.09]; P = 0.01) and delayed PN initiation (1.29 vs. 0.80 mean days to start of PN; difference 1.06 [95% CI 0.44 to 1.67]; P = 0.001). There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality (14.2% vs. 15.2%; difference - 1.6% [95% CI - 4.3% to 1.2%]; P = 0.42) between groups.ConclusionsIn this large-scale, multicenter trial, active implementation of an evidence-based feeding guideline reduced the time to commencement of EN and overall PN use but did not translate to a reduction in mortality from critical illness.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN12233792 . Registered November 20th, 2017

Nurses' worry or concern and early recognition of deteriorating patients on general wards in acute care hospitals: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION: Nurses often recognize deterioration in patients through intuition rather than through routine measurement of vital signs. Adding the 'worry or concern' sign to the Rapid Response System provides opportunities for nurses to act upon their intuitive feelings. Identifying what triggers nurses to be worried or concerned might help to put intuition into words, and potentially empower nurses to act upon their intuitive feelings and obtain medical assistance in an early stage of deterioration. The aim of this systematic review is to identify the signs and symptoms that trigger nurses' worry or concern about a patient's condition. METHODS: We searched the databases PubMed, CINAHL, Psychinfo and Cochrane Library (Clinical Trials) using synonyms related to the three concepts: 'nurses', 'worry/concern' and 'deterioration'. We included studies concerning adult patients on general wards in acute care hospitals. The search was performed from the start of the databases until 14 February 2014. RESULTS: The search resulted in 4,006 records, and 18 studies (five quantitative, nine qualitative and four mixed-methods designs) were included in the review. A total of 37 signs and symptoms reflecting the nature of the criterion worry or concern emerged from the data and were summarized in 10 general indicators. The results showed that worry or concern can be present with or without change in vital signs. CONCLUSIONS: The signs and symptoms we found in the literature reflect the nature of nurses' worry or concern, and nurses may incorporate these signs in their assessment of the patient and their decision to call for assistance. The fact that it is present before changes in vital signs suggests potential for improving care in an early stage of deterioration.status: publishe

Development of a clinical prediction rule for sepsis in primary care: protocol for the TeSD-IT study.

Background: Early recognition and treatment of sepsis is crucial to prevent detrimental outcomes. General practitioners (GPs) are often the first healthcare providers to encounter seriously ill patients. The aim of this study is to assess the value of clinical information and additional tests to develop a clinical prediction rule to support early diagnosis and management of sepsis by GPs. Methods: We will perform a diagnostic study in the setting of out-of-hours home visits in four GP cooperatives in the Netherlands. Acutely ill adult patients suspected of a serious infection will be screened for eligibility by the GP. The following candidate predictors will be prospectively recorded: (1) age, (2) body temperature, (3) systolic blood pressure, (4) heart rate, (5) respiratory rate, (6) peripheral oxygen saturation, (7) mental status, (8) history of rigors, and (9) rate of progression. After clinical assessment by the GP, blood samples will be collected in all patients to measure C-reactive protein, lactate, and procalcitonin. All patients will receive care as usual. The primary outcome is the presence or absence of sepsis within 72 h after inclusion, according to an expert panel. The need for hospital treatment for any indication will be assessed by the expert panel as a secondary outcome. Multivariable logistic regression will be used to design an optimal prediction model first and subsequently derive a simplified clinical prediction rule that enhances feasibility of using the model in daily clinical practice. Bootstrapping will be performed for internal validation of both the optimal model and simplified prediction rule. Performance of both models will be compared to existing clinical prediction rules for sepsis. Discussion: This study will enable us to develop a clinical prediction rule for the recognition of sepsis in a high-risk primary care setting to aid in the decision which patients have to be immediately referred to a hospital and who can be safely treated at home. As clinical signs and blood samples will be obtained prospectively, near-complete data will be available for analyses. External validation will be needed before implementation in routine care and to determine in which pre-hospital settings care can be improved using the prediction rule. Trial registration: The study is registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry (registration number NTR7026).status: Published onlin

Potential impact of a new sepsis prediction model for the primary care setting: early health economic evaluation using an observational cohort

Objectives To estimate the potential referral rate and cost impact at different cut-off points of a recently developed sepsis prediction model for general practitioners (GPs).Design Prospective observational study with decision tree modelling.Setting Four out-of-hours GP services in the Netherlands.Participants 357 acutely ill adult patients assessed during home visits.Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome is the cost per patient from a healthcare perspective in four scenarios based on different cut-off points for referral of the sepsis prediction model. Second, the number of hospital referrals for the different scenarios is estimated. The potential impact of referral of patients with sepsis on mortality and hospital admission was estimated by an expert panel. Using these study data, a decision tree with a time horizon of 1 month was built to estimate the referral rate and cost impact in case the model would be implemented.Results Referral rates at a low cut-off (score 2 or 3 on a scale from 0 to 6) of the prediction model were higher than observed for patients with sepsis (99% and 91%, respectively, compared with 88% observed). However, referral was also substantially higher for patients who did not need hospital assessment. As a consequence, cost-savings due to referral of patients with sepsis were offset by increased costs due to unnecessary referral for all cut-offs of the prediction model.Conclusions Guidance for referral of adult patients with suspected sepsis in the primary care setting using any cut-off point of the sepsis prediction model is not likely to save costs. The model should only be incorporated in sepsis guidelines for GPs if improvement of care can be demonstrated in an implementation study.Trial registration number Dutch Trial Register (NTR 7026)