Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Critically ill patients are subject to severe skeletal muscle wasting during intensive care unit (ICU) stay, resulting in impaired short- and long-term functional outcomes and health-related quality of life. Increased protein provision may improve functional outcomes in ICU patients by attenuating skeletal muscle breakdown. Supporting evidence is limited however and results in great variety in recommended protein targets. Methods The PRECISe trial is an investigator-initiated, bi-national, multi-center, quadruple-blinded randomized controlled trial with a parallel group design. In 935 patients, we will compare provision of isocaloric enteral nutrition with either a standard or high protein content, providing 1.3 or 2.0 g of protein/kg/day, respectively, when fed on target. All unplanned ICU admissions with initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation within 24 h of admission and an expected stay on ventilator support of at least 3 days are eligible. The study is designed to assess the effect of the intervention on functional recovery at 1, 3, and 6 months following ICU admission, including health-related quality of life, measures of muscle strength, physical function, and mental health. The primary endpoint of the trial is health-related quality of life as measured by the Euro-QoL-5D-5-level questionnaire Health Utility Score. Overall between-group differences will be assessed over the three time points using linear mixed-effects models. Discussion The PRECISe trial will evaluate the effect of protein on functional recovery including both patient-centered and muscle-related outcomes. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04633421 . Registered on November 18, 2020. First patient in (FPI) on November 19, 2020. Expected last patient last visit (LPLV) in October 2023.

Background Gastrointestinal (GI) dysfunction is frequent in the critically ill but can be overlooked as a result of the lack of standardization of the diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. We aimed to develop a research agenda for GI dysfunction for future research. We systematically reviewed the current knowledge on a broad range of subtopics from a specific viewpoint of GI dysfunction, highlighting the remaining areas of uncertainty and suggesting future studies. Methods This systematic scoping review and research agenda was conducted following successive steps: (1) identify clinically important subtopics within the field of GI function which warrant further research; (2) systematically review the literature for each subtopic using PubMed, CENTRAL and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; (3) summarize evidence for each subtopic; (4) identify areas of uncertainty; (5) formulate and refine study proposals that address these subtopics; and (6) prioritize study proposals via sequential voting rounds. Results Five major themes were identified: (1) monitoring, (2) associations between GI function and outcome, (3) GI function and nutrition, (4) management of GI dysfunction and (5) pathophysiological mechanisms. Searches on 17 subtopics were performed and evidence summarized. Several areas of uncertainty were identified, six of them needing consensus process. Study proposals ranked among the first ten included: prevention and management of diarrhoea; management of upper and lower feeding intolerance, including indications for post-pyloric feeding and opioid antagonists; acute gastrointestinal injury grading as a bedside tool; the role of intra-abdominal hypertension in the development and monitoring of GI dysfunction and in the development of non-occlusive mesenteric ischaemia; and the effect of proton pump inhibitors on the microbiome in critical illness. Conclusions Current evidence on GI dysfunction is scarce, partially due to the lack of precise definitions. The use of core sets of monitoring and outcomes are required to improve the consistency of future studies. We propose several areas for consensus process and outline future study projects.

Immobilisation predicts adverse outcomes in patients in the surgical intensive care unit (SICU). Attempts to mobilise critically ill patients early after surgery are frequently restricted, but we tested whether early mobilisation leads to improved mobility, decreased SICU length of stay, and increased functional independence of patients at hospital discharge. We did a multicentre, international, parallel-group, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial in SICUs of five university hospitals in Austria (n=1), Germany (n=1), and the USA (n=3). Eligible patients (aged 18 years or older, who had been mechanically ventilated for <48 h, and were expected to require mechanical ventilation for ≥24 h) were randomly assigned (1:1) by use of a stratified block randomisation via restricted web platform to standard of care (control) or early, goal-directed mobilisation using an inter-professional approach of closed-loop communication and the SICU optimal mobilisation score (SOMS) algorithm (intervention), which describes patients’ mobilisation capacity on a numerical rating scale ranging from 0 (no mobilisation) to 4 (ambulation). We had three main outcomes hierarchically tested in a prespecified order: the mean SOMS level patients achieved during their SICU stay (primary outcome), and patient's length of stay on SICU and the mini-modified functional independence measure score (mmFIM) at hospital discharge (both secondary outcomes). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01363102). Between July 1, 2011, and Nov 4, 2015, we randomly assigned 200 patients to receive standard treatment (control; n=96) or intervention (n=104). Intention-to-treat analysis showed that the intervention improved the mobilisation level (mean achieved SOMS 2·2 [SD 1·0] in intervention group vs 1·5 [0·8] in control group, p<0·0001), decreased SICU length of stay (mean 7 days [SD 5–12] in intervention group vs 10 days [6–15] in control group, p=0·0054), and improved functional mobility at hospital discharge (mmFIM score 8 [4–8] in intervention group vs 5 [2–8] in control group, p=0·0002). More adverse events were reported in the intervention group (25 cases [2·8%]) than in the control group (ten cases [0·8%]); no serious adverse events were observed. Before hospital discharge 25 patients died (17 [16%] in the intervention group, eight [8%] in the control group). 3 months after hospital discharge 36 patients died (21 [22%] in the intervention group, 15 [17%] in the control group). Early, goal-directed mobilisation improved patient mobilisation throughout SICU admission, shortened patient length of stay in the SICU, and improved patients’ functional mobility at hospital discharge. Jeffrey and Judy Buzen.

Intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired weakness often develops in patients who are undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation. Early active mobilization may mitigate ICU-acquired weakness, increase survival, and reduce disability. We randomly assigned 750 adult patients in the ICU who were undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation to receive increased early mobilization (sedation minimization and daily physiotherapy) or usual care (the level of mobilization that was normally provided in each ICU). The primary outcome was the number of days that the patients were alive and out of the hospital at 180 days after randomization. The median number of days that patients were alive and out of the hospital was 143 (interquartile range, 21 to 161) in the early-mobilization group and 145 days (interquartile range, 51 to 164) in the usual-care group (absolute difference, -2.0 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], -10 to 6; P = 0.62). The mean (±SD) daily duration of active mobilization was 20.8±14.6 minutes and 8.8±9.0 minutes in the two groups, respectively (difference, 12.0 minutes per day; 95% CI, 10.4 to 13.6). A total of 77% of the patients in both groups were able to stand by a median interval of 3 days and 5 days, respectively (difference, -2 days; 95% CI, -3.4 to -0.6). By day 180, death had occurred in 22.5% of the patients in the early-mobilization group and in 19.5% of those in the usual-care group (odds ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.65). Among survivors, quality of life, activities of daily living, disability, cognitive function, and psychological function were similar in the two groups. Serious adverse events were reported in 7 patients in the early-mobilization group and in 1 patient in the usual-care group. Adverse events that were potentially due to mobilization (arrhythmias, altered blood pressure, and desaturation) were reported in 34 of 371 patients (9.2%) in the early-mobilization group and in 15 of 370 patients (4.1%) in the usual-care group (P = 0.005). Among adults undergoing mechanical ventilation in the ICU, an increase in early active mobilization did not result in a significantly greater number of days that patients were alive and out of the hospital than did the usual level of mobilization in the ICU. The intervention was associated with increased adverse events. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the Health Research Council of New Zealand; TEAM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03133377.).

Invasive mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults involves adjusting the fraction of inspired oxygen to maintain arterial oxygen saturation. The oxygen-saturation target that will optimize clinical outcomes in this patient population remains unknown. In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, cluster-crossover trial conducted in the emergency department and medical intensive care unit at an academic center, we assigned adults who were receiving mechanical ventilation to a lower target for oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry (Spo ) (90%; goal range, 88 to 92%), an intermediate target (94%; goal range, 92 to 96%), or a higher target (98%; goal range, 96 to 100%). The primary outcome was the number of days alive and free of mechanical ventilation (ventilator-free days) through day 28. The secondary outcome was death by day 28, with data censored at hospital discharge. A total of 2541 patients were included in the primary analysis. The median number of ventilator-free days was 20 (interquartile range, 0 to 25) in the lower-target group, 21 (interquartile range, 0 to 25) in the intermediate-target group, and 21 (interquartile range, 0 to 26) in the higher-target group (P = 0.81). In-hospital death by day 28 occurred in 281 of the 808 patients (34.8%) in the lower-target group, 292 of the 859 patients (34.0%) in the intermediate-target group, and 290 of the 874 patients (33.2%) in the higher-target group. The incidences of cardiac arrest, arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, stroke, and pneumothorax were similar in the three groups. Among critically ill adults receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, the number of ventilator-free days did not differ among groups in which a lower, intermediate, or higher Spo target was used. (Supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; PILOT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03537937.).

Intravenous fluids are recommended for the treatment of patients who are in septic shock, but higher fluid volumes have been associated with harm in patients who are in the intensive care unit (ICU). In this international, randomized trial, we assigned patients with septic shock in the ICU who had received at least 1 liter of intravenous fluid to receive restricted intravenous fluid or standard intravenous fluid therapy; patients were included if the onset of shock had been within 12 hours before screening. The primary outcome was death from any cause within 90 days after randomization. We enrolled 1554 patients; 770 were assigned to the restrictive-fluid group and 784 to the standard-fluid group. Primary outcome data were available for 1545 patients (99.4%). In the ICU, the restrictive-fluid group received a median of 1798 ml of intravenous fluid (interquartile range, 500 to 4366); the standard-fluid group received a median of 3811 ml (interquartile range, 1861 to 6762). At 90 days, death had occurred in 323 of 764 patients (42.3%) in the restrictive-fluid group, as compared with 329 of 781 patients (42.1%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.7 to 4.9; P = 0.96). In the ICU, serious adverse events occurred at least once in 221 of 751 patients (29.4%) in the restrictive-fluid group and in 238 of 772 patients (30.8%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, -1.7 percentage points; 99% CI, -7.7 to 4.3). At 90 days after randomization, the numbers of days alive without life support and days alive and out of the hospital were similar in the two groups. Among adult patients with septic shock in the ICU, intravenous fluid restriction did not result in fewer deaths at 90 days than standard intravenous fluid therapy. (Funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and others; CLASSIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03668236.).

Abstract Rationale Intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired weakness is a frequent complication of critical illness. It is unclear whether it is a marker or mediator of poor outcomes. Objectives To determine acute outcomes, 1-year mortality, and costs of ICU-acquired weakness among long-stay (≥8 d) ICU patients and to assess the impact of recovery of weakness at ICU discharge. Methods Data were prospectively collected during a randomized controlled trial. Impact of weakness on outcomes and costs was analyzed with a one-to-one propensity-score-matching for baseline characteristics, illness severity, and risk factor exposure before assessment. Among weak patients, impact of persistent weakness at ICU discharge on risk of death after 1 year was examined with multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis. Measurements and Main Results A total of 78.6% were admitted to the surgical ICU; 227 of 415 (55%) long-stay assessable ICU patients were weak; 122 weak patients were matched to 122 not-weak patients. As compared with matched not-weak patients, weak patients had a lower likelihood for live weaning from mechanical ventilation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.709 [0.549–0.888]; P = 0.009), live ICU (HR, 0.698 [0.553–0.861]; P = 0.008) and hospital discharge (HR, 0.680 [0.514–0.871]; P = 0.007). In-hospital costs per patient (+30.5%, +5,443 Euro per patient; P = 0.04) and 1-year mortality (30.6% vs. 17.2%; P = 0.015) were also higher. The 105 of 227 (46%) weak patients not matchable to not-weak patients had even worse prognosis and higher costs. The 1-year risk of death was further increased if weakness persisted and was more severe as compared with recovery of weakness at ICU discharge (P < 0.001). Conclusions After careful matching the data suggest that ICU-acquired weakness worsens acute morbidity and increases healthcare-related costs and 1-year mortality. Persistence and severity of weakness at ICU discharge further increased 1-year mortality. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00512122).

Purpose Critical illness is associated with long-term increased mortality and impaired quality of life (QoL). We assessed whether multidisciplinary consultations would improve outcome at 12 months (M12) after intensive care unit (ICU) discharge.Methods We performed an open, multicenter, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial. Eligible are patients discharged alive from ICU in 11 French hospitals between 2012 and 2018. The intervention group had a multidisciplinary face-to-face consultation involving an intensivist, a psychologist, and a social worker at ICU discharge and then at M3 and M6 (optional). The control group had standard post-ICU follow-up. A consultation was scheduled at M12 for all patients. The QoL was assessed using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Level (Euro-QoL-5D-5L) which includes five dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain, and anxiety/depression), each ranging from 1 to 5 (1: no, 2: slight, 3: moderate, 4: severe, and 5: extreme problems). The primary endpoint was poor clinical outcome defined as death or severe-to-extreme impairment of at least one EuroQoL-5D-5L dimension at M12. The information was collected by a blinded investigator by phone. Secondary outcomes were functional, psychological, and cognitive status at M12 consultation.Results 540 patients were included (standard, n = 272; multidisciplinary, n = 268). The risk for a poor outcome was significantly greater in the multidisciplinary group than in the standard group [adjusted odds ratio 1.49 (95% confidence interval, (1.04–2.13)]. Seventy-two (13.3%) patients died at M12 (standard, n = 32; multidisciplinary, n = 40). The functional, psychological, and cognitive scores at M12 did not statistically differ between groups.Conclusions A hospital-based, face-to-face, intensivist-led multidisciplinary consultation at ICU discharge then at 3 and 6 months was associated with poor outcome 1 year after ICU.

This randomized, double-blind trial involving critically ill patients compared balanced multielectrolyte solution with saline as fluid therapy in the ICU. There was no evidence that the risk of death or acute kidney injury was lower with the use of BMES than with saline.

Abstract Rationale Saline is the intravenous fluid most commonly administered to critically ill adults, but it may be associated with acute kidney injury and death. Whether use of balanced crystalloids rather than saline affects patient outcomes remains unknown. Objectives To pilot a cluster-randomized, multiple-crossover trial using software tools within the electronic health record to compare saline to balanced crystalloids. Methods This was a cluster-randomized, multiple-crossover trial among 974 adults admitted to a tertiary medical intensive care unit from February 3, 2015 to May 31, 2015. The intravenous crystalloid used in the unit alternated monthly between saline (0.9% sodium chloride) and balanced crystalloids (lactated Ringer’s solution or Plasma-Lyte A). Enrollment, fluid delivery, and data collection were performed using software tools within the electronic health record. The primary outcome was the difference between study groups in the proportion of isotonic crystalloid administered that was saline. The secondary outcome was major adverse kidney events within 30 days (MAKE30), a composite of death, dialysis, or persistent renal dysfunction. Measurements and Main Results Patients assigned to saline (n = 454) and balanced crystalloids (n = 520) were similar at baseline and received similar volumes of crystalloid by 30 days (median [interquartile range]: 1,424 ml [500–3,377] vs. 1,617 ml [500–3,628]; P = 0.40). Saline made up a larger proportion of the isotonic crystalloid given in the saline group than in the balanced crystalloid group (91% vs. 21%; P < 0.001). MAKE30 did not differ between groups (24.7% vs. 24.6%; P = 0.98). Conclusions An electronic health record–embedded, cluster-randomized, multiple-crossover trial comparing saline with balanced crystalloids can produce well-balanced study groups and separation in crystalloid receipt. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 02345486).