Explore the vast range of titles available.

Glucose management in intensive care unit (ICU) patients has been a matter of debate for almost two decades. Compared to intermittent monitoring systems, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) can offer benefit in the prevention of severe hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia by enabling insulin infusions to be adjusted more rapidly and potentially more accurately because trends in glucose concentrations can be more readily identified. Increasingly, it is apparent that a single glucose target/range may not be optimal for all patients at all times and, as with many other aspects of critical care patient management, a personalized approach to glucose control may be more appropriate. Here we consider some of the evidence supporting different glucose targets in various groups of patients, focusing on those with and without diabetes and neurological ICU patients. We also discuss some of the reasons why, despite evidence of benefit, CGM devices are still not widely employed in the ICU and propose areas of research needed to help move CGM from the research arena to routine clinical use.

[...]alkalosis stimulates glycolysis by increasing the activity of phosphofructokinase, which is sensitive to both pH itself and to alkalosis-induced sympathetic hyperactivation; second, alkalosis-induced left shift in the hemoglobin dissociation curve decreases oxygen tissue extraction, which may explain the decrease in oxygen consumption observed in the seminal study by Bersin [3]. During exercise in man, experimental studies observed the same positive correlation between pH and lactate output, which was interpreted as a protective mechanism to regulate cellular acid production and protect muscle pH [4]. Hood VL, Schubert C, Keller U, Muller S. Effect of systemic pH on pHi and lactic acid generation in exhaustive forearm exercise.

PurposeTo compare the efficacy of an antibiotic protocol guided by serum procalcitonin (PCT) with that of standard antibiotic therapy in severe acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPDs) admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU).MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, randomized trial in France. Patients experiencing severe AECOPDs were assigned to groups whose antibiotic therapy was guided by (1) a 5-day PCT algorithm with predefined cutoff values for the initiation or stoppage of antibiotics (PCT group) or (2) standard guidelines (control group). The primary endpoint was 3-month mortality. The predefined noninferiority margin was 12%.ResultsA total of 302 patients were randomized into the PCT (n = 151) and control (n = 151) groups. Thirty patients (20%) in the PCT group and 21 patients (14%) in the control group died within 3 months of admission (adjusted difference, 6.6%; 90% CI − 0.3 to 13.5%). Among patients without antibiotic therapy at baseline (n = 119), the use of PCT significantly increased 3-month mortality [19/61 (31%) vs. 7/58 (12%), p = 0.015]. The in-ICU and in-hospital antibiotic exposure durations, were similar between the PCT and control group (5.2 ± 6.5 days in the PCT group vs. 5.4 ± 4.4 days in the control group, p = 0.85 and 7.9 ± 8 days in the PCT group vs. 7.7 ± 5.7 days in the control group, p = 0.75, respectively).ConclusionThe PCT group failed to demonstrate non-inferiority with respect to 3-month mortality and failed to reduce in-ICU and in-hospital antibiotic exposure in AECOPDs admitted to the ICU.

There is considerable physiological and clinical evidence of harm and increased risk of death associated with dysglycemia in critical care. However, glycemic control (GC) currently leads to increased hypoglycemia, independently associated with a greater risk of death. Indeed, recent evidence suggests GC is difficult to safely and effectively achieve for all patients. In this review, leading experts in the field discuss this evidence and relevant data in diabetology, including the artificial pancreas, and suggest how safe, effective GC can be achieved in critically ill patients in ways seeking to mimic normal islet cell function. The review is structured around the specific clinical hurdles of: understanding the patient’s metabolic state; designing GC to fit clinical practice, safety, efficacy, and workload; and the need for standardized metrics. These aspects are addressed by reviewing relevant recent advances in science and technology. Finally, we provide a set of concise recommendations to advance the safety, quality, consistency, and clinical uptake of GC in critical care. This review thus presents a roadmap toward better, more personalized metabolic care and improved patient outcomes.

Objectives To assess the diagnostic performances of chest CT for triage of patients in multiple emergency departments during COVID-19 epidemic, in comparison with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. Method From March 3 to April 4, 2020, 694 consecutive patients from three emergency departments of a large university hospital, for which a hospitalization was planned whatever the reasons, i.e., COVID- or non-COVID-related, underwent a chest CT and one or several RT-PCR tests. Chest CTs were rated as “Surely COVID+,” “Possible COVID+,” or “COVID−” by experienced radiologists. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated using the final RT-PCR test as standard of reference. The delays for CT reports and RT-PCR results were recorded and compared. Results Among the 694 patients, 287 were positive on the final RT-PCR exam. Concerning the 694 chest CT, 308 were rated as “Surely COVID+”, 34 as “Possible COVID+,” and 352 as “COVID−.” When considering only the “Surely COVID+” CT as positive, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV reached 88.9%, 90.2%, 88%, 84.1%, and 92.7%, respectively, with respect to final RT-PCR test. The mean delay for CT reports was three times shorter than for RT-PCR results (187 ± 148 min versus 573 ± 327 min, p  < 0.0001). Conclusion During COVID-19 epidemic phase, chest CT is a rapid and most probably an adequately reliable tool to refer patients requiring hospitalization to the COVID+ or COVID− hospital units, when response times for virological tests are too long. Key Points • In a large university hospital in Lyon , France , the accuracy , sensitivity , specificity , PPV , and NPV of chest CT for COVID-19 reached 88.9 %, 90.2 %, 88 %, 84.1 %, and 92.7 %, respectively , using RT-PCR as standard of reference. • The mean delay for CT reports was three times shorter than for RT-PCR results ( 187  ±  148 min versus 573  ±  327 min , p  <  0.0001 ). • Due to high accuracy of chest CT for COVID-19 and shorter time for CT reports than RT-PCR results , chest CT can be used to orient patients suspected to be positive towards the COVID + unit to decrease congestion in the emergency departments.

Most vascular catheter-related infections (CRIs) occur extraluminally in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Chlorhexidine-impregnated and strongly adherent dressings may decrease catheter colonization and CRI rates. To determine if chlorhexidine-impregnated and strongly adherent dressings decrease catheter colonization and CRI rates. In a 2:1:1 assessor-masked randomized trial in patients with vascular catheters inserted for an expected duration of 48 hours or more in 12 French ICUs, we compared chlorhexidine dressings, highly adhesive dressings, and standard dressings from May 2010 to July 2011. Coprimary endpoints were major CRI with or without catheter-related bloodstream infection (CR-BSI) with chlorhexidine versus nonchlorhexidine dressings and catheter colonization rate with highly adhesive nonchlorhexidine versus standard nonchlorhexidine dressings. Catheter-colonization, CR-BSIs, and skin reactions were secondary endpoints. A total of 1,879 patients (4,163 catheters and 34,339 catheter-days) were evaluated. With chlorhexidine dressings, the major-CRI rate was 67% lower (0.7 per 1,000 vs. 2.1 per 1,000 catheter-days; hazard ratio [HR], 0.328; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.174-0.619; P = 0.0006) and the CR-BSI rate 60% lower (0.5 per 1,000 vs. 1.3 per 1,000 catheter-days; HR, 0.402; 95% CI, 0.186-0.868; P = 0.02) than with nonchlorhexidine dressings; decreases were noted in catheter colonization and skin colonization rates at catheter removal. The contact dermatitis rate was 1.1% with and 0.29% without chlorhexidine. Highly adhesive dressings decreased the detachment rate to 64.3% versus 71.9% (P < 0.0001) and the number of dressings per catheter to two (one to four) versus three (one to five) (P < 0.0001) but increased skin colonization (P < 0.0001) and catheter colonization (HR, 1.650; 95% CI, 1.21-2.26; P = 0.0016) without influencing CRI or CR-BSI rates. A large randomized trial demonstrated that chlorhexidine-gel-impregnated dressings decreased the CRI rate in patients in the ICU with intravascular catheters. Highly adhesive dressings decreased dressing detachment but increased skin and catheter colonization. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01189682).

Several remarks have been raised regarding the variables and cut-points used in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score. This study revisited the SOFA score and created a new simplified and accurate sa-SOFA score. The study grouped four prospective cohorts (2005–2016) of patients with Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome. It collected 28-day mortality, sociodemographic characteristics, and the SOFA score with all variable values at Day 1. A logistic regression analysis was used to select the most relevant variables and a minimum p value approach with a 10-fold cross-validation were used to find the optimal partition of selected variables. The minimum number of cut-points (2, 3, or 4) was also tested by comparing the distributions of areas under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves. Among the 1436 participants, 416 died within 28 days (28.9%). The sa-SOFA kept one variable per dimension and two cut-points per variable. The AUROC curves that investigated the abilities of the sa-SOFA and SOFA scores to predict 28-day mortality were 0.739 [0.712–0.768] and 0.687 [0.656–0.717], respectively (p-value of DeLong test <0.001). Keeping the conventional SOFA dimension variables, the new sa-SOFA proved to be simpler and more accurate in predicting 28-day mortality. •The SOFA was designed in the nineties according to that time clinical practices.•ICU care progress requires that the SOFA variables and cut-points be revisited.•The simpler sa-SOFA keeps the same variables but reduces the number of cut-points.•The sa-SOFA proved to be more accurate in predicting the 28th day mortality.

Septic shock is characterized by a dysregulated host response to infection and is associated with a mortality of 45 to 50%. In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 1241 patients, hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone reduced 90-day mortality.