Serafim, Laura Piccolo

ABSTRACT Objective: The aim of the study is to develop a predictive model for in-hospital mortality in critically ill patients with cirrhosis and sepsis, using clinical and laboratory data. Design: This is a retrospective cohort study. Setting: Medical and mixed intensive care units (ICUs) of a tertiary medical center. Patients: Cirrhotic adults were admitted with sepsis to the ICUs from January of 2007 to May of 2017. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Of 2,595 ICU admissions of patients with cirrhosis, 277 with first ICU admission for sepsis were included in the analysis, and 37% died in the hospital. Patients who stayed in the ICU for at least 6 h (n = 275) were considered for the multivariate model. Ten-fold cross-validation was used to estimate best parameter values and model performance, and the final model was chosen as the model maximizing area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve. Variables in order of impact were Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) III score, initial serum lactate, conjugated bilirubin, serum creatinine, model for end-stage liver disease score, age, body mass index, and serum hemoglobin. The final best model from cross-validation presented an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.75, using a cut-point of 50% estimated probability, sensitivity and specificity were 0.46 and 0.90, respectively, with positive predictive value of 0.72 and negative predictive value of 0.74. These results were similar to the APACHE III only model (AUC = 0.74, sensitivity = 0.43, specificity = 0.89, positive predictive value = 0.69, negative predictive value = 0.73). Conclusion: The combination of initial serum lactate level, conjugated bilirubin, initial serum creatinine, model for end-stage liver disease score, age, body mass index, and serum hemoglobin did not yield meaningful improvement in the AUC and did not provide advantage over the APACHE III score for the prediction of in-hospital mortality in critically ill patients with cirrhosis and sepsis.

Background: The Sepsis-3 guidelines have incorporated serum lactate levels of >2 mmol/L in septic shock definition to account for higher observed mortality. Further evidence is needed to support this threshold in cirrhosis, as well as target mean arterial pressure (MAP) during resuscitation. Methods: This observational cohort study investigated the association between initial serum lactate and resuscitation MAP levels on in-hospital mortality in patients with and without cirrhosis. Patients admitted to the intensive care unit for the treatment of septic shock between 2006 and 2021 in a quaternary academic center were included. Patients with cirrhosis documented on imaging and International Classification of Disease codes (n=595) were compared to patients without cirrhosis (n=575). The association of intensive care unit admission lactate levels and median 2-hour MAP with in-hospital mortality and the need for continuous renal replacement therapy was assessed. The association between median 24-hour MAP and in-hospital mortality was analyzed post hoc. Results: Within the cirrhosis group, admission lactate levels of 2–4 and >4 mmol/L were associated with increased in-hospital mortality compared to lactate <2 mmol/L [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.69, CI: 1.03–2.81, aOR: 4.02, CI: 2.53–6.52]. Median 24-hour MAP 60–65 and <60 mm Hg were also associated with increased in-hospital mortality compared with MAP >65 mm Hg (aOR: 2.84, CI: 1.64–4.92 and aOR: 7.34, CI: 3.17–18.76). In the noncirrhosis group, associations with in-hospital mortality were weaker for lactate 2–4 and >4 mmol/L (aOR: 1.32, CI: 0.77–2.27 and aOR: 2.25, CI: 1.40–3.67) and median 24-hour MAP 60–65 and <60 mm Hg (aOR: 1.70, CI: 0.65–4.14 and aOR: 4.41, CI: 0.79–29.38). Conclusions: These findings support utilizing lactate >2 mmol/L in the definition of septic shock, as well as a target MAP of >65 mm Hg during resuscitation in patients with cirrhosis.

Abstract Lifestyle interventions are pivotal for successful management of type 2 diabetes (T2D), however, the proportion of people with T2D adhering to physical activity advice has not been thoroughly studied. The purpose of this systematic review was to summarise the evidence on adherence to exercise or physical activity components in lifestyle interventions in those with T2D. We searched MEDLINE EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Scopus on 12 November 2019. Eligible studies enrolled adults with T2D and reported the proportion of adherence to lifestyle interventions as a primary or secondary outcome. We included 11 studies (nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling 1717 patients and two nonrandomised studies enrolling 62 patients). Only one of the studies had low risk of bias. The proportion of participants adhering to physical activity varied from 32% to 100% with a median of 58%. Adherence was higher in interventions using supervised training and lowest in interventions using remote coaching and the adherence rate in observational studies was higher compared to RCTs (92% vs. 55%; p < 0.01). Study duration, risk of bias, or participants' sex, were not associated with adherence to physical activity. The proportion of those with T2D adhering to physical activity interventions for T2D varies widely and most of the included studies had a high risk of bias. These findings have important implications for planning and power analysis of future trials and when counselling patients about lifestyle interventions including physical activity or exercise components.

Sepsis in patients with cirrhosis is associated with high mortality. An impaired immune response accounts for the increased infection risk observed in these patients. Hemodynamic and systemic changes suggestive of sepsis may be observed in patients with cirrhosis in the absence of infection; therefore, diagnosis and treatment of sepsis may be delayed. The optimal management of the critically ill patient with sepsis and cirrhosis has not been well established and is generally extrapolated from consensus guidelines and expert recommendations made for management of patients without cirrhosis with sepsis. Despite the lack of strong evidence, we propose a contemporary pragmatic approach to sepsis management in patients with cirrhosis, including the choice of fluids, vasopressors, and antibiotics.