Explore the vast range of titles available.

Patients in ICUs often require pain relief and sedation to treat both the underlying medical condition and the unpleasantness associated with being in an ICU. This review provides guidance on the identification and treatment of delirium and sedation. Patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are treated with many interventions (most notably endotracheal intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation) that are observed or perceived to be distressing. Pain is the most common memory patients have of their ICU stay. 1 Agitation can precipitate accidental removal of endotracheal tubes or of intravascular catheters used for monitoring or administration of life-sustaining medications. Consequently, sedatives and analgesics are among the most commonly administered drugs in ICUs. Early intensive care practice evolved from intraoperative anesthetic care at a time when mechanical ventilation was delivered by rudimentary machines that were not capable of synchronizing with patients' . . .

The World Health Organization has adopted a resolution on improving the prevention, diagnosis, and management of sepsis. Millions of lives can be saved if politicians, policymakers, health care administrators, researchers, and clinicians take coordinated actions.

In a study of fluid resuscitation, patients received 6% hydroxyethyl starch (HES; 130/0.4) or saline until ICU discharge or death or for 90 days. There was no significant difference in 90-day mortality, although more patients in the HES group received renal-replacement therapy. The administration of intravenous fluids to increase intravascular volume is a frequent intervention in the intensive care unit (ICU), but the choice of resuscitation fluid remains controversial. 1 , 2 Globally, 0.9% sodium chloride (saline) is the most commonly used fluid, although colloids are administered as often as crystalloids, and hydroxyethyl starch (HES) is the most frequently used colloid. 3 Several studies have questioned the safety of HES in critically ill patients, with particular concern that its use increases the risk of acute kidney injury. 4 , 5 Most concern has focused on the use of concentrated HES solutions (10%) with a molecular weight of . . .

Sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction due to a dysregulated host response to infection. It is considered a major cause of health loss, but data for the global burden of sepsis are limited. As a syndrome caused by underlying infection, sepsis is not part of standard Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) estimates. Accurate estimates are important to inform and monitor health policy interventions, allocation of resources, and clinical treatment initiatives. We estimated the global, regional, and national incidence of sepsis and mortality from this disorder using data from GBD 2017. We used multiple cause-of-death data from 109 million individual death records to calculate mortality related to sepsis among each of the 282 underlying causes of death in GBD 2017. The percentage of sepsis-related deaths by underlying GBD cause in each location worldwide was modelled using mixed-effects linear regression. Sepsis-related mortality for each age group, sex, location, GBD cause, and year (1990–2017) was estimated by applying modelled cause-specific fractions to GBD 2017 cause-of-death estimates. We used data for 8·7 million individual hospital records to calculate in-hospital sepsis-associated case-fatality, stratified by underlying GBD cause. In-hospital sepsis-associated case-fatality was modelled for each location using linear regression, and sepsis incidence was estimated by applying modelled case-fatality to sepsis-related mortality estimates. In 2017, an estimated 48·9 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 38·9–62·9) incident cases of sepsis were recorded worldwide and 11·0 million (10·1–12·0) sepsis-related deaths were reported, representing 19·7% (18·2–21·4) of all global deaths. Age-standardised sepsis incidence fell by 37·0% (95% UI 11·8–54·5) and mortality decreased by 52·8% (47·7–57·5) from 1990 to 2017. Sepsis incidence and mortality varied substantially across regions, with the highest burden in sub-Saharan Africa, Oceania, south Asia, east Asia, and southeast Asia. Despite declining age-standardised incidence and mortality, sepsis remains a major cause of health loss worldwide and has an especially high health-related burden in sub-Saharan Africa. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the University of Pittsburgh, the British Columbia Children's Hospital Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and the Fleming Fund.

PurposeSepsis is a common reason for intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality in ICU patients. Despite increasing interest in treatment strategies limiting oxygen exposure in ICU patients, no trials have compared conservative vs. usual oxygen in patients with sepsis.MethodsWe undertook a post hoc analysis of the 251 patients with sepsis enrolled in a trial that compared conservative oxygen therapy with usual oxygen therapy in 1000 mechanically ventilated ICU patients. The primary end point for the current analysis was 90-day mortality. Key secondary outcomes were cause-specific mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, ventilator-free days, vasopressor-free days, and the proportion of patients receiving renal replacement therapy in the ICU.ResultsPatients with sepsis allocated to conservative oxygen therapy spent less time in the ICU with an SpO2 ≥ 97% (23.5 h [interquartile range (IQR) 8–70] vs. 47 h [IQR 11–93], absolute difference, 23 h; 95% CI 8–38), and more time receiving an FiO2 of 0.21 than patients allocated to usual oxygen therapy (20.5 h [IQR 1–79] vs. 0 h [IQR 0–10], absolute difference, 20 h; 95% CI 14–26). At 90-days, 47 of 130 patients (36.2%) assigned to conservative oxygen and 35 of 120 patients (29.2%) assigned to usual oxygen had died (absolute difference, 7 percentage points; 95% CI − 4.6 to 18.6% points; P = 0.24; interaction P = 0.35 for sepsis vs. non-sepsis). There were no statistically significant differences between groups for secondary outcomes but point estimates of treatment effects consistently favored usual oxygen therapy.ConclusionsPoint estimates for the treatment effect of conservative oxygen therapy on 90-day mortality raise the possibility of clinically important harm with this intervention in patients with sepsis; however, our post hoc analysis was not powered to detect the effects suggested and our data do not exclude clinically important benefit or harm from conservative oxygen therapy in this patient group.Clinical Trials RegistryICU-ROX Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number ACTRN12615000957594.

Patients admitted to an ICU were randomly assigned to receive intermittent pneumatic compression plus pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone. Adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression did not result in a significantly lower incidence of proximal lower-limb deep-vein thrombosis.

The efficacy of drotrecogin alpha (activated) (DrotAA) for sepsis has been controversial. In this trial, there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 28 or 90 days between adults with sepsis who were treated with DrotAA and those treated with placebo. Recombinant human activated protein C, or drotrecogin alfa (activated) (DrotAA), was approved for the treatment of severe sepsis in 2001 on the basis of the Prospective Recombinant Human Activated Protein C Worldwide Evaluation in Severe Sepsis (PROWESS) study, 1 a phase 3 international, randomized, controlled trial that was stopped early for efficacy after the enrollment of 1690 patients with severe sepsis. Absolute mortality in the intention-to-treat population was reduced by 6.1 percentage points, a relative risk reduction of 19.4%. Subsequent subgroup analysis suggested that the mortality benefit was limited to patients with increased illness severity (i.e., those with more than one . . .

In the ADRENAL trial, among adult patients with septic shock, hydrocortisone did not lead to lower mortality than placebo. Now, a prespecified secondary analysis shows that hydrocortisone did not affect mortality 6 months after randomization.

The emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in December 2019 and the subsequent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has presented the world with the most serious health threat in living memory. The resultant pandemic has caused millions of deaths and unprecedented social and economic disruption. The response to the pandemic has also been unprecedented; countries have closed their borders, some have instituted draconian but effective public health measures, and the global scientific community has come together to produce robust research evidence and novel vaccines in record time. Mass vaccination programs are now underway, and while it is too early to know clearly their effectiveness in ending the pandemic, we can hope that this marks the beginning of the end.

PurposeStress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is commonly prescribed in the intensive care unit. However, data from systematic reviews and conventional meta-analyses are limited by imprecision and restricted to direct comparisons. We conducted a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to examine the safety and efficacy of drugs available for SUP in critically ill patients.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials through April 2017 for randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), and sucralfate for SUP in critically ill patients. No date or language restrictions were applied. Data on study characteristics, methods, outcomes, and risk of bias were abstracted by two reviewers.ResultsOf 96 potentially eligible studies, we included 57 trials enrolling 7293 patients. The results showed that PPIs are probably more effective for preventing clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding (CIB) than H2RAs [odds ratio (OR) 0.38; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.20, 0.73], sucralfate (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.13, 0.69), and placebo (OR 0.24; 95% CI 0.10, 0.60) (all moderate quality evidence). There were no convincing differences among H2RA, sucralfate, and placebo. PPIs probably increase the risk of developing pneumonia compared with H2RAs (OR 1.27; 95% CI 0.96, 1.68), sucralfate (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.20, 2.27), and placebo (OR 1.52; 95% CI 0.95, 2.42) (all moderate quality). Mortality is probably similar across interventions (moderate quality). Estimates of baseline risks of bleeding varied significantly across studies, and only one study reported on Clostridium difficile infection. Definitions of pneumonia varied considerably. Most studies on sucralfate predate pneumonia prevention strategies.ConclusionsOur results provide moderate quality evidence that PPIs are the most effective agents in preventing CIB, but they may increase the risk of pneumonia. The balance of benefits and harms leaves the routine use of SUP open to question.