Albumin Versus Gelatin Solution for the Treatment of Refractory Septic Shock: A Patient Baseline-Matched-Cohort Study

Objective: Although albumin solution is the colloid of choice to resuscitate septic shock patients who do not respond to crystalloid solutions, its usage is limited by its cost. Gelatin solution, is less expensive, but its efficacy has not yet been identified. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of gelatin and albumin solutions for septic shock resuscitation. Methods: This baseline-matched-cohort study, enrolled septic shock patients who had a mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) below 65 mmHg after receiving at least 30 mL per kilogram of crystalloid resuscitation fluid, and who required either an albumin or gelatin solution as fluid therapy. The primary outcome was the 28-day mortality. Results: In all, 224 patients who were administered either an albumin or gelatin solution were examined. After adjusting for differences in their baseline characteristics, 206 patients were included (104 receiving albumin, and 102 given gelatin). A comparison of the albumin and gelatin groups revealed no significant baseline differences in their respective mean APACHE II scores (22.8±8.5vs.23.2±8.1), MAPs (55.1±8.0vs.54.6±9.1mmHg), and lactate levels (5.6±4.7vs.6.3±4.9mmol/L). The 28-day mortality rates were 27.9% and 38.2% for the albumin and gelatin groups, respectively, with adjusted p=0.02. Moreover, the accumulation of fluid intake over output at 72 hours was significantly lower for the albumin than the gelatin group (5,964.5±4,959.7 vs. 8,133.2±3,743.2 ml; p=0.01). The RRT rate was higher for the albumin group (30.8% vs. 15.7%; p=0.01). Conclusion: Albumin resuscitation associated with lower 28-day mortality than gelatin resuscitation. The patients in the albumin group had a higher RRT rate and a lower fluid accumulation as at 72 hours

Serum lactate levels in cirrhosis and non-cirrhosis patients with septic shock

Background In septic shock patients with cirrhosis, impaired liver function might decrease lactate elimination and produce a higher lactate level. This study investigated differences in initial lactate, lactate clearance, and lactate utility between cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic septic shock patients. Methods This is a retrospective cohort study conducted at a referral, university-affiliated medical center. We enrolled adults admitted during 2012–2018 who satisfied the septic shock diagnostic criteria of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign: 2012. Patients previously diagnosed with cirrhosis by an imaging modality were classified into the cirrhosis group. The initial lactate levels and levels 6 hours after resuscitation were measured and used to calculate lactate clearance. We compared initial lactate, lactate at 6 hours, and lactate clearance between the cirrhosis and non-cirrhosis groups. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Results Overall 777 patients were enrolled, of whom 91 had previously been diagnosed with cirrhosis. Initial lactate and lactate at 6 hours were both significantly higher in cirrhosis patients, but there was no difference between the groups in lactate clearance. A receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for predictors of in-hospital mortality revealed cut-off values for initial lactate, lactate at 6 hours, and lactate clearance of >4 mmol/L, >2 mmol/L, and 5 mmol/L, >5 mmol/L, and <20%, respectively. Neither lactate level nor lactate clearance was an independent risk factor for in-hospital mortality among cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic septic shock patients. Conclusions The initial lactate level and lactate at 6 hours were significantly higher in cirrhosis patients than in non-cirrhosis patients

The story of critical care in Asia: a narrative review

Background Asia has more critically ill people than any other part of our planet. The aim of this article is to review the development of critical care as a specialty, critical care societies and education and research, the epidemiology of critical illness as well as epidemics and pandemics, accessibility and cost and quality of critical care, culture and end-of-life care, and future directions for critical care in Asia. Main body Although the first Asian intensive care units (ICUs) surfaced in the 1960s and the 1970s and specialisation started in the 1990s, multiple challenges still exist, including the lack of intensivists, critical care nurses, and respiratory therapists in many countries. This is aggravated by the brain drain of skilled ICU staff to high-income countries. Critical care societies have been integral to the development of the discipline and have increasingly contributed to critical care education, although critical care research is only just starting to take off through collaboration across groups. Sepsis, increasingly aggravated by multidrug resistance, contributes to a significant burden of critical illness, while epidemics and pandemics continue to haunt the continent intermittently. In particular, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has highlighted the central role of critical care in pandemic response. Accessibility to critical care is affected by lack of ICU beds and high costs, and quality of critical care is affected by limited capability for investigations and treatment in low- and middle-income countries. Meanwhile, there are clear cultural differences across countries, with considerable variations in end-of-life care. Demand for critical care will rise across the continent due to ageing populations and rising comorbidity burdens. Even as countries respond by increasing critical care capacity, the critical care community must continue to focus on training for ICU healthcare workers, processes anchored on evidence-based medicine, technology guided by feasibility and impact, research applicable to Asian and local settings, and rallying of governments for support for the specialty. Conclusions Critical care in Asia has progressed through the years, but multiple challenges remain. These challenges should be addressed through a collaborative approach across disciplines, ICUs, hospitals, societies, governments, and countries

Management of adult sepsis in resource-limited settings: global expert consensus statements using a Delphi method.

Purpose To generate consensus and provide expert clinical practice statements for the management of adult sepsis in resource-limited settings. Methods An international multidisciplinary Steering Committee with expertise in sepsis management and including a Delphi methodologist was convened by the Asia Pacific Sepsis Alliance (APSA). The committee selected an international panel of clinicians and researchers with expertise in sepsis management. A Delphi process based on an iterative approach was used to obtain the final consensus statements. Results A stable consensus was achieved for 30 (94%) of the statements by 41 experts after four survey rounds. These include consensus on managing patients with sepsis outside a designated critical care area, triggers for escalating clinical management and criteria for safe transfer to another facility. The experts agreed on the following: in the absence of serum lactate, clinical parameters such as altered mental status, capillary refill time and urine output may be used to guide resuscitation; special considerations regarding the volume of fluid used for resuscitation, especially in tropical infections, including the use of simple tests to assess fluid responsiveness when facilities for advanced hemodynamic monitoring are limited; use of Ringer’s lactate or Hartmann’s solution as balanced salt solutions; epinephrine when norepinephrine or vasopressin are unavailable; and the administration of vasopressors via a peripheral vein if central venous access is unavailable or not feasible. Similarly, where facilities for investigation are unavailable, there was consensus for empirical antimicrobial administration without delay when sepsis was strongly suspected, as was the empirical use of antiparasitic agents in patients with suspicion of parasitic infections. Conclusion Using a Delphi method, international experts reached consensus to generate expert clinical practice statements providing guidance to clinicians worldwide on the management of sepsis in resource-limited settings. These statements complement existing guidelines where evidence is lacking and add relevant aspects of sepsis management that are not addressed by current international guidelines. Future studies are needed to assess the effects of these practice statements and address remaining uncertainties

Continuous vancomycin infusion versus intermittent infusion in critically Ill patients: The research protocol

Background: Methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcal and Enterococcal infections are important problems in intensive care units (ICUs). Vancomycin is a drug of choice, and continuous administration has long been proposed as an alternative method with better therapeutic benefits. This study aims to examine information on the benefits of continuous vancomycin infusion (CVI) compared with the intermittent vancomycin infusion (IVI) method. Method: A quasi-experimental study with a propensity score-matched historical control involves adult patients in medical or surgical ICUs. In the experimental group, 31 patients for whom vancomycin is indicated will be enrolled to receive CVI for at least 48 hours with therapeutic drug monitoring according to the study protocol. For the historical control group, data of patients who received IVI between January 2018 and October 2020 will be retrospectively reviewed. Capability to achieve serum vancomycin therapeutic target within 48 hours, 96 hours, the incidence of supra- and subtherapeutic level, treatment successfulness, mortality, and incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) between the two infusion methods will be analyzed before and after one-to-two propensity score matching. Ethics and dissemination: The study was approved by the institutional review boards of Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University (COA no. Si 027/2021). We plan to disseminate the results in peer-reviewed critical care medicine or infectious disease-related journals and national and international conferences. Trial registration: TCTR20210122005. Registered on January 22, 2021, with Thai Clinical Trials Registry</jats:p