Citations

OBJECTIVE: A definition of refractory septic shock is necessary to guide diagnosis, management, prognostication, research, and future guidelines for this most severe form of the disease. We sought to achieve consensus on clinical criteria that would be used to define refractory septic shock. DESIGN: Review of literature, expert panel position statements, and Delphi rounds with an international expert group. SETTING: Consensus was defined as having at least 75% of panellists in agreement or disagreement on the three highest or lowest levels of a 7-point Likert scale or based on responses to single- or multiple-choice questions, respectively. SUBJECTS: A panel of multinational, multiprofessional and multidisciplinary critical care experts assembled by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (57 invitations and 56 participants). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A five-round Delphi process was conducted for consensus and stability. The steering committee proposed 34 statements, and five of them were rejected by panel experts after round 2. Among 29 statements selected from eight domains, consensus was reached for 13. The panel agreed on the need for a comprehensive consensus set of clinical criteria for refractory septic shock. Markers of organ dysfunction (75%, 2 rounds), tissue perfusion (91.1%, 2 rounds) including lactate (94.6%, 2 rounds) and capillary refill time (76.8%, 2 rounds), assessment of fluid-responsiveness after initial resuscitation (92.9%, 5 rounds), and use of vasoactive drugs at norepinephrine equivalents greater than 0.5 µg/kg/min (75.0%, 3 rounds), were selected as clinical criteria of refractory septic shock. The use of critical care ultrasound (CCUS) (92.9%, 3 rounds) was the single diagnostic modality that reached a consensus-based agreement. CONCLUSIONS: A consensus for 13 criteria to frame the definition of refractory septic shock was reached. Refractory septic shock is characterised by persistently elevated lactate concentrations and or prolonged capillary refill time in patients with septic shock who are fluid unresponsive, require a norepinephrine base equivalent dose greater than 0.5 micrograms per kilogram per minute, and undergo CCUS assessment when mixed shock is suspected.

OBJECTIVES: Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in immunocompromised patients remains the leading cause of admission to the ICU, with high case fatality. The response to the initial oxygenation strategy may be predictive of outcome. This study aims to assess the response to the evolutionary profiles of oxygenation strategy and the association with survival. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of EFRAIM study with a nonparametric longitudinal clustering technique (longitudinal K-mean). SETTING AND PATIENTS: Multinational, observational prospective cohort study performed in critically ill immunocompromised patients admitted for an acute respiratory failure. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 1547 patients who did not require invasive mechanical ventilation (iMV) at ICU admission were included. Change in ventilatory support was assessed and three clusters of change in oxygenation modality over time were identified. Cluster A: 12.3% iMV requirement and high survival rate, n = 717 patients (46.3%); cluster B: 32.9% need for iMV, 97% ICU mortality, n = 499 patients (32.3%); and cluster C: 37.5% need for iMV, 0.3% ICU mortality, n = 331 patients (21.4%). These clusters demonstrated a high discrimination. After adjustment for confounders, clusters B and C were independently associated with need for iMV (odds ratio [OR], 9.87; 95% CI, 7.26–13.50 and OR, 19.8; 95% CI, 13.7–29.1). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified three distinct highly performing clusters of response to initial oxygenation strategy, which reliably predicted the need for iMV requirement and hospital mortality.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory failure (ARF) remains the most frequent reason for ICU admission in patients who are immunocompromised. This study reports etiologies and outcomes of ARF in subjects with solid tumors. METHODS: This study was a post hoc analysis of the EFRAIM study, a prospective multinational cohort study that included 1611 subjects who were immunocompromised and with ARF admitted to the ICU. Subjects with solid tumors admitted to the ICU with ARF were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Among the subjects from the EFRAIM cohort, 529 subjects with solid tumors (32.8%) were included in the analysis. At ICU admission, the median (interquartile range) Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 5 (3–9). The types of solid tumor were mostly lung cancer ( n = 111, 21%), breast cancer ( n = 52, 9.8%), and digestive cancer ( n = 47, 8.9%). A majority, 379 subjects (71.6%) were full code at ICU admission. The ARF was caused by bacterial or viral infection ( n = 220, 41.6%), extrapulmonary sepsis ( n = 62, 11.7%), or related to cancer or treatment toxicity ( n = 83, 15.7%), or fungal infection ( n = 23, 4.3%). For 63 subjects (11.9%), the ARF etiology remained unknown after an extensive diagnostic workup. The hospital mortality rate was 45.7% ( n = 232/508). Hospital mortality was independently associated with chronic cardiac failure (odds ratio 1.78, 95% CI 1.09–2.92; P = .02), lung cancer (odds ratio 2.50, 95% CI 1.51–4.19; P < .001), day 1 Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (odds ratio 1.97, 95% CI 1.32-2.96; P < .001). ARF etiologies other than infectious, related to cancer, or treatment toxicity were associated with better outcomes (odds ratio 0.32, 95% CI 0.16–0.61; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Infectious diseases remained the most frequent cause of ARF in subjects with solid tumors admitted to the ICU. Hospital mortality was related to severity at ICU admission, previous comorbidities, and ARF etiologies related to non-malignant causes or pulmonary embolism. Lung tumor was also independently associated with higher mortality.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the “Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness and Injury” decision support tool during ICU admission and rounding is associated with improvements in nonadherence to evidence-based daily care processes and outcomes in variably resourced ICUs. DESIGN, SETTINGS, PATIENTS: This before-after study was performed in 34 ICUs (15 countries) from 2013 to 2017. Data were collected for 3 months before and 6 months after Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness and Injury implementation. INTERVENTIONS: Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness and Injury implementation using remote simulation training. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The coprimary outcomes, modified from the original protocol before data analysis, were nonadherence to 10 basic care processes and ICU and hospital length of stay. There were 1,447 patients in the preimplementation phase and 2,809 patients in the postimplementation phase. After adjusting for center effect, Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness and Injury implementation was associated with reduced nonadherence to care processes (adjusted incidence rate ratio [95% CI]): deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis (0.74 [0.68–0.81), peptic ulcer prophylaxis (0.46 [0.38–0.57]), spontaneous breathing trial (0.81 [0.76–0.86]), family conferences (0.86 [0.81–0.92]), and daily assessment for the need of central venous catheters (0.85 [0.81–0.90]), urinary catheters (0.84 [0.80–0.88]), antimicrobials (0.66 [0.62–0.71]), and sedation (0.62 [0.57–0.67]). Analyses adjusted for baseline characteristics showed associations of Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness and Injury implementation with decreased ICU length of stay (adjusted ratio of geometric means [95% CI]) 0.86 [0.80–0.92]), hospital length of stay (0.92 [0.85–0.97]), and hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [95% CI], 0.81 (0.69–0.95). CONCLUSIONS: A quality-improvement intervention with remote simulation training to implement a decision support tool was associated with decreased nonadherence to daily care processes, shorter length of stay, and decreased mortality.

ABSTRACT Background: The routine use of empiric combination therapy with aminoglycosides during critical illness is associated with uncertain benefit and increased risk of acute kidney injury. This study aimed to assess the benefits of aminoglycosides in immunocompromised patients with suspected bacterial pneumonia and sepsis. Methods: Secondary analysis of a prospective multicenter study. Adult immunocompromised patients with suspected bacterial pneumonia and sepsis or septic shock were included. Primary outcome was hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were needed for renal replacement therapy (RRT). Mortality was also assessed in neutropenic patients and in those with confirmed bacterial pneumonia. Results were further analyzed in a cohort matched on risk of receiving aminoglycosides combination. Results: Five hundred thirty-five patients were included in this analysis, of whom 187 (35%) received aminoglycosides in addition to another antibiotic effective against gram-negative bacteria. Overall hospital mortality was 59.6% (58.3% vs. 60.3% in patients receiving and not receiving combination therapy; P = 0.71). Lack of association between mortality and aminoglycosides was confirmed after adjustment for confounders and center effect (adjusted OR 1.14 [0.69–1.89]) and in a propensity matched cohort (adjusted OR = 0.89 [0.49–1.61]). No association was found between aminoglycosides and need for RRT (adjusted OR = 0.83 [0.49–1.39], P = 0.477), nor between aminoglycoside use and outcome in neutropenic patients or in patients with confirmed bacterial pneumonia (adjusted OR 0.66 [0.23–1.85] and 1.25 [0.61–2.57], respectively). Conclusion: Aminoglycoside combination therapy was not associated with hospital mortality or need for renal replacement therapy in immunocompromised patients with pulmonary sepsis.