Explore the vast range of titles available.

IntroductionInternational guidelines include early nutritional support (≤48 hour after admission), 20–25 kcal/kg/day, and 1.2–2 g/kg/day protein at the acute phase of critical illness. Recent data challenge the appropriateness of providing standard amounts of calories and protein during acute critical illness. Restricting calorie and protein intakes seemed beneficial, suggesting a role for metabolic pathways such as autophagy, a potential key mechanism in safeguarding cellular integrity, notably in the muscle, during critical illness. However, the optimal calorie and protein supply at the acute phase of severe critical illness remains unknown. NUTRIREA-3 will be the first trial to compare standard calorie and protein feeding complying with guidelines to low-calorie low-protein feeding. We hypothesised that nutritional support with calorie and protein restriction during acute critical illness decreased day 90 mortality and/or dependency on intensive care unit (ICU) management in mechanically ventilated patients receiving vasoactive amine therapy for shock, compared with standard calorie and protein targets.Methods and analysisNUTRIREA-3 is a randomised, controlled, multicentre, open-label trial comparing two parallel groups of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and vasoactive amine therapy for shock and given early nutritional support according to one of two strategies: early calorie-protein restriction (6 kcal/kg/day-0.2–0.4 g/kg/day) or standard calorie-protein targets (25 kcal/kg/day, 1.0–1.3 g/kg/day) at the acute phase defined as the first 7 days in the ICU. We will include 3044 patients in 61 French ICUs. Two primary end-points will be evaluated: day 90 mortality and time to ICU discharge readiness. The trial will be considered positive if significant between-group differences are found for one or both alternative primary endpoints. Secondary outcomes include hospital-acquired infections and nutritional, clinical and functional outcomes.Ethics and disseminationThe NUTRIREA-3 study has been approved by the appropriate ethics committee. Patients are included after informed consent. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT03573739.

In this narrative review, we discuss the relevant issues of therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) in critically ill patients. For many conditions, the optimal indication, device type, frequency, duration, type of replacement fluid and criteria for stopping TPE are uncertain. TPE is a potentially lifesaving but also invasive procedure with risk of adverse events and complications and requires close monitoring by experienced teams. In the intensive care unit (ICU), the indications for TPE can be divided into (1) absolute, well-established, and evidence-based, for which TPE is recognized as first-line therapy, (2) relative, for which TPE is a recognized second-line treatment (alone or combined) and (3) rescue therapy, where TPE is used with a limited or theoretical evidence base. New indications are emerging and ongoing knowledge gaps, notably regarding the use of TPE during critical illness, support the establishment of a TPE registry dedicated to intensive care medicine.

Background In immunocompromised patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (ARF), initial management aims primarily to avoid invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Methods To assess the impact of initial management on IMV and mortality rates, we performed a multinational observational prospective cohort study in 16 countries (68 centers). Results A total of 1611 patients were enrolled (hematological malignancies 51.9%, solid tumors 35.2%, systemic diseases 17.3%, and solid organ transplantation 8.8%). The main ARF etiologies were bacterial (29.5%), viral (15.4%), and fungal infections (14.7%), or undetermined (13.2%). On admission, 915 (56.8%) patients were not intubated. They received standard oxygen ( N  = 496, 53.9%), high-flow oxygen (HFNC, N  = 187, 20.3%), noninvasive ventilation (NIV, N  = 153, 17.2%), and NIV + HFNC ( N  = 79, 8.6%). Factors associated with IMV included age (hazard ratio = 0.92/year, 95% CI 0.86–0.99), day-1 SOFA (1.09/point, 1.06–1.13), day-1 PaO 2 /FiO 2 (1.47, 1.05–2.07), ARF etiology ( Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (2.11, 1.42–3.14), invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (1.85, 1.21–2.85), and undetermined cause (1.46, 1.09–1.98). After propensity score matching, HFNC, but not NIV, had an effect on IMV rate (HR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.59–1.00, p  = 0.05). ICU, hospital, and day-90 mortality rates were 32.4, 44.1, and 56.4%, respectively. Factors independently associated with hospital mortality included age (odds ratio = 1.18/year, 1.09–1.27), direct admission to the ICU (0.69, 0.54–0.87), day-1 SOFA excluding respiratory score (1.12/point, 1.08–1.16), PaO 2 /FiO 2  < 100 (1.60, 1.03–2.48), and undetermined ARF etiology (1.43, 1.04–1.97). Initial oxygenation strategy did not affect mortality; however, IMV was associated with mortality, the odds ratio depending on IMV conditions: NIV + HFNC failure (2.31, 1.09–4.91), first-line IMV (2.55, 1.94–3.29), NIV failure (3.65, 2.05–6.53), standard oxygen failure (4.16, 2.91–5.93), and HFNC failure (5.54, 3.27–9.38). Conclusion HFNC has an effect on intubation but not on mortality rates. Failure to identify ARF etiology is associated with higher rates of both intubation and mortality. This suggests that in addition to selecting the appropriate oxygenation device, clinicians should strive to identify the etiology of ARF.

PurposeHospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) is a critical concern in hospitals with ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP) remaining the most common infection in the ICU, often due to Staphylococcus aureus, an increasingly difficult to treat pathogen. Anti-infective monoclonal antibodies (mAb) may provide new, promising treatment options. This randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study aimed at assessing the safety and pharmacokinetics of AR-301, an S. aureus alpha toxin-neutralizing mAb, and exploring its clinical and microbiologic outcomes when used adjunctively with standard-of-care antibiotics.MethodsEligibility in this trial required microbiologically confirmed severe S. aureus pneumonia, including HABP, VABP or CABP, treated in the ICU and an APACHE II score ≤ 30. Standard-of-care antibiotics selected by the investigators were administered to all patients in the study following clinical and microbiologic confirmation of S. aureus pneumonia. Adjunctive treatment of AR-301 was to start < 36 h after onset of severe pneumonia. AR-301 was administered to four sequentially ascending dose cohorts. The placebo cohort received antibiotics and a placebo buffer. Clinical outcomes were adjudicated by a blinded committee. S. aureus eradication was declared based on a negative follow-up culture and presumed to be negative when no culture was obtained in the presence of clinical improvement.ResultsThirteen ICUs enrolled 48 patients, with pneumonia attributable to MRSA in six subjects. The study drug displayed a favorable safety profile: Of 343 AEs reported, 8 (2.3%) were deemed related, none serious. In a post hoc subgroup analysis of VABP patients receiving AR-301, ventilation duration was shorter for AR-301-treated patients compared with the placebo group. Overall, there was a trend toward a better and faster microbiologic eradication at day 28. The PK profile of AR-301 is consistent with that of a human IgG1 mAb, with a plasma half-life of about 25 days.ConclusionsAdjunctive treatment of severe S. aureus HABP with anti-staphylococcal mAbs appears feasible and suggests some clinical benefits, but larger randomized studies are needed to better define its safety and efficacy.

Background Critical-illness survivors may experience post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and quality-of-life impairments. Resilience may protect against psychological trauma but has not been adequately studied after critical illness. We assessed resilience and its associations with PTSD and quality of life, and also identified factors associated with greater resilience. Methods This prospective, multicentre, study in patients recruited at 41 French ICUs was done in parallel with the NUTRIREA-3 trial in patients given mechanical ventilation and vasoactive amines for shock. Three months to one year after intensive-care-unit admission, survivors completed the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-25), Impact of Event-Revised scale for PTSD symptoms (IES-R), SF-36 quality-of-life scale, Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS), and Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (B-IPQ). Results Of the 382 included patients, 203 (53.1%) had normal or high resilience (CD-RISC-25 ≥ 68). Of these resilient patients, 26 (12.8%) had moderate to severe PTSD symptoms (IES-R ≥ 24) vs. 45 (25.4%) patients with low resilience ( p  = 0.002). Resilient patients had higher SF-36 scores. Factors independently associated with higher CD-RISC-25 scores were higher MSPSS score indicating stronger social support (OR, 1.027; 95%CI 1.008–1.047; p  = 0.005) and lower B-IPQ scores indicating a more threatening perception of the illness (OR, 0.973; 95%CI 0.950–0.996; p  = 0.02). Conclusions Resilient patients had a lower prevalence of PTSD symptoms and higher quality of life scores, compared to patients with low resilience. Higher scores for social support and illness perception were independently associated with greater resilience. Thus, our findings suggest that interventions to strengthen social support and improve illness perception may help to improve resilience. Such interventions should be evaluated in trials with PTSD mitigation and quality-of-life improvement as the target outcomes.

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) have immune regulatory properties that may ameliorate pathophysiological processes in sepsis. We determined the effect of allogeneic adipose-derived MSCs (Cx611) on the host response during sepsis due to community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) by measuring 29 plasma biomarkers and blood transcriptomes at six time points in 82 patients randomised to two intravenous infusions of Cx611 or placebo. Cx611 treatment enhanced several endothelial cell and procoagulant response plasma biomarkers, and led to increased expression of pathways related to innate immunity, haemostasis and apoptosis. Cx611 infusion in sepsis due to CABP is associated with broad host response alterations.

PurposeTo assess the benefit-to-risk balance of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.MethodsIn 16 ICUs, we prospectively collected adverse events during or within 24 h after BAL and assessed the BAL input for decision making in consecutive adult patients. The occurrence of a clinical adverse event at least of grade 3, i.e., sufficiently severe to need therapeutic action(s), including modification(s) in respiratory support, defined poor BAL tolerance. The BAL input for decision making was declared satisfactory if it allowed to interrupt or initiate one or several treatments.ResultsWe included 483 BAL in 483 patients [age 63 years (interquartile range (IQR) 53–72); female gender: 162 (33.5%); simplified acute physiology score II: 48 (IQR 37-61); immunosuppression 244 (50.5%)]. BAL was begun in non-intubated patients in 105 (21.7%) cases. Sixty-seven (13.9%) patients reached the grade 3 of adverse event or higher. Logistic regression showed that a BAL performed by a non-experienced physician (non-pulmonologist, or intensivist with less than 10 years in the specialty or less than 50 BAL performed) was the main predictor of poor BAL tolerance in non-intubated patients [OR: 3.57 (95% confidence interval 1.04–12.35); P = 0.04]. A satisfactory BAL input for decision making was observed in 227 (47.0%) cases and was not predictable using logistic regression.ConclusionsAdverse events related to BAL in ICU patients are not infrequent nor necessarily benign. Our findings call for an extreme caution, when envisaging a BAL in ICU patients and for a mandatory accompaniment of the less experienced physicians.

Purpose To develop an instrument designed specifically to assess the experience of relatives of patients who die in the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods The instrument was developed using a mixed methodology and validated in a prospective multicentre study. Relatives of patients who died in 41 ICUs completed the questionnaire by telephone 21 days after the death, then completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Impact of Event Scale-Revised and Inventory of Complicated Grief after 3, 6, and 12 months. Results A total of 600 relatives were included, 475 in the main cohort and 125 in the reliability cohort. The 15-item questionnaire, named CAESAR, covered the patient’s preferences and values, interactions with/around the patient and family satisfaction. We defined three groups based on CAESAR score tertiles: lowest (≤59, n  = 107, 25.9 %), middle ( n  = 185, 44.8 %) and highest (≥69, n  = 121, 29.3 %). Factorial analysis showed a single dimension. Cronbach’s alpha in the main and reliability cohorts was 0.88 (0.85–0.90) and 0.85 (0.79–0.89), respectively. Compared to a high CAESAR score, a low CAESAR score was associated with greater risks of anxiety and depression at 3 months [1.29 (1.13–1.46), p  = 0.001], post-traumatic stress-related symptoms at 3 [1.34 (1.17–1.53), p  < 0.001], 6 [OR = 1.24 (1.06–1.44), p  = 0.008] and 12 [OR = 1.26 (1.06–1.50), p  = 0.01] months and complicated grief at 6 [OR = 1.40 (1.20–1.63), p  < 0.001] and 12 months [OR = 1.27 (1.06–1.52), p  = 0.01]. Conclusions The CAESAR score 21 days after death in the ICU is strongly associated with post-ICU burden in the bereaved relatives. The CAESAR score should prove a useful primary endpoint in trials of interventions to improve relatives’ well-being.

Background As an increasing number of deaths occur in the intensive care unit (ICU), studies have sought to describe, understand, and improve end-of-life care in this setting. Most of these studies are centered on the patient’s and/or the relatives’ experience. Our study aimed to develop an instrument designed to assess the experience of physicians and nurses of patients who died in the ICU, using a mixed methodology and validated in a prospective multicenter study. Methods Physicians and nurses of patients who died in 41 ICUs completed the job strain and the CAESAR questionnaire within 24 h after the death. The psychometric validation was conducted using two datasets: a learning and a reliability cohort. Results Among the 475 patients included in the main cohort, 398 nurse and 417 physician scores were analyzed. The global score was high for both nurses [62/75 (59; 66)] and physicians [64/75 (61; 68)]. Factors associated with higher CAESAR-Nurse scores were absence of conflict with physicians, pain control handled with physicians, death disclosed to the family at the bedside, and invasive care not performed. As assessed by the job strain instrument, low decision control was associated with lower CAESAR score (61 (58; 65) versus 63 (60; 67), p  = 0.002). Factors associated with higher CAESAR-Physician scores were room dedicated to family information, information delivered together by nurse and physician, families systematically informed of the EOL decision, involvement of the nurse during implementation of the EOL decision, and open visitation. They were also higher when a decision to withdraw or withhold treatment was made, no cardiopulmonary resuscitation was performed, and the death was disclosed to the family at the bedside. Conclusion We described and validated a new instrument for assessing the experience of physicians and nurses involved in EOL in the ICU. This study shows important areas for improving practices.