Explore the vast range of titles available.

The preferential use of the oral/enteral route in critically ill patients over gut rest is uniformly recommended and applied. This article provides practical guidance on enteral nutrition in compliance with recent American and European guidelines. Low-dose enteral nutrition can be safely started within 48 h after admission, even during treatment with small or moderate doses of vasopressor agents. A percutaneous access should be used when enteral nutrition is anticipated for ≥ 4 weeks. Energy delivery should not be calculated to match energy expenditure before day 4–7, and the use of energy-dense formulas can be restricted to cases of inability to tolerate full-volume isocaloric enteral nutrition or to patients who require fluid restriction. Low-dose protein (max 0.8 g/kg/day) can be provided during the early phase of critical illness, while a protein target of > 1.2 g/kg/day could be considered during the rehabilitation phase. The occurrence of refeeding syndrome should be assessed by daily measurement of plasma phosphate, and a phosphate drop of 30% should be managed by reduction of enteral feeding rate and high-dose thiamine. Vomiting and increased gastric residual volume may indicate gastric intolerance, while sudden abdominal pain, distension, gastrointestinal paralysis, or rising abdominal pressure may indicate lower gastrointestinal intolerance.

Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) has posed unprecedented healthcare system challenges, some of which will lead to transformative change. It is obvious to healthcare workers and policymakers alike that an effective critical care surge response must be nested within the overall care delivery model. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted key elements of emergency preparedness. These include having national or regional strategic reserves of personal protective equipment, intensive care unit (ICU) devices, consumables and pharmaceuticals, as well as effective supply chains and efficient utilization protocols. ICUs must also be prepared to accommodate surges of patients and ICU staffing models should allow for fluctuations in demand. Pre-existing ICU triage and end-of-life care principles should be established, implemented and updated. Daily workflow processes should be restructured to include remote connection with multidisciplinary healthcare workers and frequent communication with relatives. The pandemic has also demonstrated the benefits of digital transformation and the value of remote monitoring technologies, such as wireless monitoring. Finally, the pandemic has highlighted the value of pre-existing epidemiological registries and agile randomized controlled platform trials in generating fast, reliable data. The COVID-19 pandemic is a reminder that besides our duty to care, we are committed to improve. By meeting these challenges today, we will be able to provide better care to future patients.

Introduction Data are lacking on impact of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among survivors. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey of MERS survivors who required hospitalization in Saudi Arabia during 2016–2017, approximately 1 year after diagnosis. The Short-Form General Health Survey 36 (SF-36) was administered by telephone interview to assess 8 quality of life domains for MERS survivors and a sample of survivors of severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) without MERS. We compared mean SF-36 scores of MERS and non-MERS SARI survivors using independent t-test, and compared categorical variables using chi-square test. Adjusted analyses were performed using multiple linear regression. Results Of 355 MERS survivors, 83 were eligible and 78 agreed to participate. MERS survivors were younger than non-MERS SARI survivors (mean ± SD): (44.9 years ±12.9) vs (50.0 years ±13.6), p  = 0.031. Intensive care unit (ICU) admissions were similar for MERS and non-MERS SARI survivors (46.2% vs. 57.1%), p  = 0.20. After adjusting for potential confounders, there were no significant differences between MERS and non-MERS SARI survivors in physical component or mental component summary scores. MERS ICU survivors scored lower than MERS survivors not admitted to an ICU for physical function ( p  = 0.05), general health ( p  = 0.01), vitality ( p  = 0.03), emotional role ( p  = 0.03) and physical component summary ( p  < 0.02). Conclusions Functional scores were similar for MERS and non-MERS SARI survivors. However, MERS survivors of critical illness reported lower quality of life than survivors of less severe illness. Efforts are needed to address the long-term medical and psychological needs of MERS survivors.

In this trial, high-frequency oscillatory ventilation was compared with conventional ventilation with a lung-protective protocol. When the study was stopped early, hospital mortality was 47% with HFOV versus 35% with the control ventilation strategy. The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a common complication of critical illness. 1 , 2 Mortality is high, and survivors often have long-term complications. 3 , 4 Although mechanical ventilation is life-sustaining for patients with ARDS, it can perpetuate lung injury. Basic research suggests that repetitive overstretching or collapse of lung units with each respiratory cycle can generate local and systemic inflammation, contributing to multiorgan failure and death. 5 Consistent with these findings are data from clinical trials that support the use of smaller tidal volumes (6 vs. 12 ml per kilogram of predicted body weight) 6 and higher levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). . . .

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major medical and socio-economic problem, and is the leading cause of death in children and young adults. The critical care management of severe TBI is largely derived from the \"Guidelines for the Management of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury\" that have been published by the Brain Trauma Foundation. The main objectives are prevention and treatment of intracranial hypertension and secondary brain insults, preservation of cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), and optimization of cerebral oxygenation. In this review, the critical care management of severe TBI will be discussed with focus on monitoring, avoidance and minimization of secondary brain insults, and optimization of cerebral oxygenation and CPP.

Background There is conflicting evidence about the relationship between the dose of enteral caloric intake and survival in critically ill patients. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the effect of lower versus higher dose of enteral caloric intake in adult critically ill patients on outcome. Methods We reviewed MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus from inception through November 2015. We included randomized and quasi-randomized studies in which there was a significant difference in the caloric intake in adult critically ill patients, including trials in which caloric restriction was the primary intervention (caloric restriction trials) and those with other interventions (non-caloric restriction trials). Two reviewers independently extracted data on study characteristics, caloric intake, and outcomes with hospital mortality being the primary outcome. Results Twenty-one trials mostly with moderate bias risk were included (2365 patients in the lower caloric intake group and 2352 patients in the higher caloric group). Lower compared with higher caloric intake was not associated with difference in hospital mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.953; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.838–1.083), ICU mortality (RR 0.885; 95 % CI 0.751–1.042), total nosocomial infections (RR 0.982; 95 % CI 0.878–1.077), mechanical ventilation duration, or length of ICU or hospital stay. Blood stream infections (11 trials; RR 0.718; 95 % CI 0.519–0.994) and incident renal replacement therapy (five trials; RR 0.711; 95 % CI 0.545–0.928) were lower with lower caloric intake. The associations between lower compared with higher caloric intake and primary and secondary outcomes, including pneumonia, were not different between caloric restriction and non-caloric restriction trials, except for the hospital stay which was longer with lower caloric intake in the caloric restriction trials. Conclusions We found no association between the dose of caloric intake in adult critically ill patients and hospital mortality. Lower caloric intake was associated with lower risk of blood stream infections and incident renal replacement therapy (five trials only). The heterogeneity in the design, feeding route and timing and caloric dose among the included trials could limit our interpretation. Further studies are needed to clarify our findings.