Procalcitonin biomarker kinetics fails to predict treatment response in perioperative abdominal infection with septic shock

International audienceIntroduction: Procalcitonin (PCT) biomarker is suggested to tailor antibiotic therapy in the medical intensive care unit (ICU) but studies in perioperative medicine are scarce. The aim of this study was to determine whether PCT reported thresholds are associated with the initial treatment response in perioperative septic shock secondary to intra-abdominal infection. Methods: This single ICU, observational study included patients with perioperative septic shocks secondary to intra-abdominal infection. Demographics, PCT at days 0, 1, 3, 5, treatment response and outcome were collected. Treatment failure included death related to the initial infection, second source control treatment or a new onset intra-abdominal infection. The primary endpoint was to assess whether PCT thresholds (0.5 ng/ml or a drop from the peak of at least 80%) predict the initial treatment response. Results: We included 101 consecutive cases. Initial treatment failed in 36 patients with a subsequent mortality of 75%. Upon admission, PCT was doubled when treatment ultimately failed (21.7 ng/ml +/- 38.7 vs. 41.7 ng/ml +/- 75.7; P = 0.04). Although 95% of the patients in whom PCT dropped down below 0.5 ng/ml responded to treatment, 50% of the patients in whom PCT remained above 0.5 ng/ml also responded successfully to treatment. Moreover, despite a PCT drop of at least 80%, 40% of patients had treatment failure. Conclusions: In perioperative intra-abdominal infections with shock, PCT decrease to 0.5 ng/ml lacked sensitivity to predict treatment response and its decrease of at least 80% from its peak failed to accurately predict treatment response. Studies in perioperative severe infections are needed before using PCT to tailor antibiotic use in this population

Spontaneous breathing trial and post-extubation work of breathing in morbidly obese critically ill patients

Figure S5. difference in the work of breathing expressed in J/l between each test and the post-extubation period. Dashed line represents the absence of difference between the test and the post-extubation period. (JPG 44 kb

Psychometric comparison of three behavioural scales for the assessment of pain in critically ill patients unable to self-report

International audienc

Another step for noninvasive ventilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients!

The use of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients who are not eligible for the technique because of their incapability to spontaneously eliminate accumulated secretions associated with hypercapnic encephalopathy is not recommended and is often considered a contraindication. In a case-control study, an experienced team reported the feasibility and safety of the use of NPPV with early fibreoptic bronchoscopy in selected acutely decompensated COPD patients with hypercapnic encephalopathy, and reported the patients' inability to spontaneously clear copious secretions. The reported data suggest that this innovative therapeutic may be considered as a potential alternative to endotracheal intubation

The pain, agitation, and delirium practice guidelines for adult critically ill patients: a post-publication perspective

The recently published Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the Intensive Care Unit differ from earlier guidelines in the following ways: literature searches were performed in eight databases by a professional librarian; psychometric validation of assessment scales was considered in their recommendation; discrepancies in recommendation votes by guideline panel members are available in online supplements; and all recommendations were made exclusively on the basis of evidence available until December of 2010. Pain recognition and management remains challenging in the critically ill. Patient outcomes improve with routine pain assessment, use of co-analgesics and administration as well as dose adjustment of opiates to patient needs. Thoracic epidurals help ease patients undergoing abdominal aortic surgery. Little data exists to guide clinicians as to the type or dose of co-analgesics; no opiate choice is associated with better patient outcomes. Lighter or no sedation is beneficial, and interruption is desirable in patients who require deep sedation for specific pathologic states. Delirium screening is probably useful; no treatment modality can be unequivocally recommended, and the benefit of prophylaxis is established only for early mobilization. The details of these recommendations, as well as more recent publications that complement the guidelines, are provided in this commentary

Sodium bicarbonate for severe metabolic acidaemia – Authors' reply

International audienc

High-flow nasal cannulae for respiratory support in adult intensive care patients

Background High-flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) deliver high flows of blended humidified air and oxygen via wide-bore nasal cannulae and may be useful in providing respiratory support for adult patients experiencing acute respiratory failure in the intensive care unit (ICU). Objectives We evaluated studies that included participants 16 years of age and older who were admitted to the ICU and required treatment with HFNC. We assessed the safety and efficacy of HFNC compared with comparator interventions in terms of treatment failure, mortality, adverse events, duration of respiratory support, hospital and ICU length of stay, respiratory effects, patient-reported outcomes, and costs of treatment. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Web of Science, proceedings from four conferences, and clinical trials registries; and we handsearched reference lists of relevant studies. We conducted searches from January 2000 to March 2016 and reran the searches in December 2016. We added four new studies of potential interest to a list of ‘Studies awaiting classification' and will incorporate them into formal review findings during the review update. Selection criteria We included randomized controlled studies with a parallel or cross-over design comparing HFNC use in adult ICU patients versus other forms of non-invasive respiratory support (low-flow oxygen via nasal cannulae or mask, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP)). Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Main results We included 11 studies with 1972 participants. Participants in six studies had respiratory failure, and in five studies required oxygen therapy after extubation. Ten studies compared HFNC versus low-flow oxygen devices; one of these also compared HFNC versus CPAP, and another compared HFNC versus BiPAP alone. Most studies reported randomization and allocation concealment inadequately and provided inconsistent details of outcome assessor blinding. We did not combine data for CPAP and BiPAP comparisons with data for low-flow oxygen devices; study data were insufficient for separate analysis of CPAP and BiPAP for most outcomes. For the primary outcomes of treatment failure (1066 participants; six studies) and mortality (755 participants; three studies), investigators found no differences between HFNC and low-flow oxygen therapies (risk ratio (RR), Mantel-Haenszel (MH), random-effects 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.27; and RR, MH, random-effects 0.63, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.06, respectively). We used the GRADE approach to downgrade the certainty of this evidence to low because of study risks of bias and different participant indications. Reported adverse events included nosocomial pneumonia, oxygen desaturation, visits to general practitioner for respiratory complications, pneumothorax, acute pseudo-obstruction, cardiac dysrhythmia, septic shock, and cardiorespiratory arrest. However, single studies reported adverse events, and we could not combine these findings; one study reported fewer episodes of oxygen desaturation with HFNC but no differences in all other reported adverse events. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for adverse events to low because of limited data. Researchers noted no differences in ICU length of stay (mean difference (MD), inverse variance (IV), random-effects 0.15, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.34; four studies; 770 participants), and we downgraded quality to low because of study risks of bias and different participant indications. We found no differences in oxygenation variables: partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) (MD, IV, random-effects 7.31, 95% CI -23.69 to 41.31; four studies; 510 participants); PaO2 (MD, IV, random-effects 2.79, 95% CI -5.47 to 11.05; three studies; 355 participants); and oxygen saturation (SpO2) up to 24 hours (MD, IV, random-effects 0.72, 95% CI -0.73 to 2.17; four studies; 512 participants). Data from two studies showed that oxygen saturation measured after 24 hours was improved among those treated with HFNC (MD, IV, random-effects 1.28, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.55; 445 participants), but this difference was small and was not clinically significant. Along with concern about risks of bias and differences in participant indications, review authors noted a high level of unexplained statistical heterogeneity in oxygenation effect estimates, and we downgraded the quality of evidence to very low. Meta-analysis of three comparable studies showed no differences in carbon dioxide clearance among those treated with HFNC (MD, IV, random-effects -0.75, 95% CI -2.04 to 0.55; three studies; 590 participants). Two studies reported no differences in atelectasis; we did not combine these findings. Data from six studies (867 participants) comparing HFNC versus low-flow oxygen showed no differences in respiratory rates up to 24 hours according to type of oxygen delivery device (MD, IV, random-effects -1.51, 95% CI -3.36 to 0.35), and no difference after 24 hours (MD, IV, random-effects -2.71, 95% CI -7.12 to 1.70; two studies; 445 participants). Improvement in respiratory rates when HFNC was compared with CPAP or BiPAP was not clinically important (MD, IV, random-effects -0.89, 95% CI -1.74 to -0.05; two studies; 834 participants). Results showed no differences in patient-reported measures of comfort according to oxygen delivery devices in the short term (MD, IV, random-effects 0.14, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.93; three studies; 462 participants) and in the long term (MD, IV, random-effects -0.36, 95% CI -3.70 to 2.98; two studies; 445 participants); we downgraded the certainty of this evidence to low. Six studies measured dyspnoea on incomparable scales, yielding inconsistent study data. No study in this review provided data on positive end-expiratory pressure measured at the pharyngeal level, work of breathing, or cost comparisons of treatment. Authors' conclusions We were unable to demonstrate whether HFNC was a more effective or safe oxygen delivery device compared with other oxygenation devices in adult ICU patients. Meta-analysis could be performed for few studies for each outcome, and data for comparisons with CPAP or BiPAP were very limited. In addition, we identified some risks of bias among included studies, differences in patient groups, and high levels of statistical heterogeneity for some outcomes, leading to uncertainty regarding the results of our analysis. Consequently, evidence is insufficient to show whether HFNC provides safe and efficacious respiratory support for adult ICU patients