Adeline Max

Survival in neutropenic patients with severe sepsis or septic shock.

Objective:To determine whether the survival gains achieved in critically ill cancer patients in recent years exist in the subset with neutropenia and severe sepsis or septic shock. Design:Retrospective 11-yr study (1998–2008). Setting:Medical intensive care unit in a teaching hospital. Patients:Four hundred twenty-eight intensive care unit patients with cancer, neutropenia, and severe sepsis or septic shock. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. Results:The main underlying diseases were acute leukemia (35.7%), lymphoma (31.7%), and solid tumors (16.5%). Two hundred thirty-seven (55.5%) patients had microbiologically documented infections, 141 (32.9%) clinically documented infections, and 50 (11.9%) fever of unknown origin. Acute noninfectious conditions were diagnosed in 175 of 428 (41%) patients, including 26 of 50 (52%) patients with fever of unknown origin, 66 of 141 (47%) patients with clinically documented infections, and 83 of 237 (35%) patients with microbiologically documented infections. Early indwelling catheter removal was performed routinely in the 107 (25%) patients without clinical evidence of a septic focus at intensive care unit admission. Early beta-lactam plus aminoglycoside therapy was used in 391 (91.3%) patients. Hospital mortality was 49.8%. Hospital mortality decreased from 58.7% (108 of 184) in 1998–2003 to 43% in 2004–2008 (105 of 244, p = .006). Multivariate analysis identified nine independent predictors of hospital mortality, of which six were associated with higher mortality (older age; need for vasopressors; neurologic, respiratory, or hepatic dysfunction; and acute noninfectious condition) and three with lower mortality (intensive care unit admission after 2003, combination antibiotic therapy including an aminoglycoside, and early indwelling catheter removal). Conclusion:In neutropenic patients with severe sepsis or septic shock, survival improved over time. Aminoglycoside use and early catheter removal in patients with undocumented sepsis may improve survival. Acute noninfectious conditions are associated with increased mortality, underlining the need for thorough and repeated clinical assessments.

Determinants of Procedural Pain Intensity in the Intensive Care Unit. The Europain® Study

RATIONALE Intensive care unit (ICU) patients undergo several diagnostic and therapeutic procedures every day. The prevalence, intensity, and risk factors of pain related to these procedures are not well known. OBJECTIVES To assess self-reported procedural pain intensity versus baseline pain, examine pain intensity differences across procedures, and identify risk factors for procedural pain intensity. METHODS Prospective, cross-sectional, multicenter, multinational study of pain intensity associated with 12 procedures. Data were obtained from 3,851 patients who underwent 4,812 procedures in 192 ICUs in 28 countries. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Pain intensity on a 0-10 numeric rating scale increased significantly from baseline pain during all procedures (P < 0.001). Chest tube removal, wound drain removal, and arterial line insertion were the three most painful procedures, with median pain scores of 5 (3-7), 4.5 (2-7), and 4 (2-6), respectively. By multivariate analysis, risk factors independently associated with greater procedural pain intensity were the specific procedure; opioid administration specifically for the procedure; preprocedural pain intensity; preprocedural pain distress; intensity of the worst pain on the same day, before the procedure; and procedure not performed by a nurse. A significant ICU effect was observed, with no visible effect of country because of its absorption by the ICU effect. Some of the risk factors became nonsignificant when each procedure was examined separately. CONCLUSIONS Knowledge of risk factors for greater procedural pain intensity identified in this study may help clinicians select interventions that are needed to minimize procedural pain. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01070082).

Overview of medical errors and adverse events

Safety is a global concept that encompasses efficiency, security of care, reactivity of caregivers, and satisfaction of patients and relatives. Patient safety has emerged as a major target for healthcare improvement. Quality assurance is a complex task, and patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) are more likely than other hospitalized patients to experience medical errors, due to the complexity of their conditions, need for urgent interventions, and considerable workload fluctuation. Medication errors are the most common medical errors and can induce adverse events. Two approaches are available for evaluating and improving quality-of-care: the room-for-improvement model, in which problems are identified, plans are made to resolve them, and the results of the plans are measured; and the monitoring model, in which quality indicators are defined as relevant to potential problems and then monitored periodically. Indicators that reflect structures, processes, or outcomes have been developed by medical societies. Surveillance of these indicators is organized at the hospital or national level. Using a combination of methods improves the results. Errors are caused by combinations of human factors and system factors, and information must be obtained on how people make errors in the ICU environment. Preventive strategies are more likely to be effective if they rely on a system-based approach, in which organizational flaws are remedied, rather than a human-based approach of encouraging people not to make errors. The development of a safety culture in the ICU is crucial to effective prevention and should occur before the evaluation of safety programs, which are more likely to be effective when they involve bundles of measures.

Inappropriate Care in European ICUs: Confronting Views From Nurses and Junior and Senior Physicians

BACKGROUND ICU care providers often feel that the care given to a patient may be inconsistent with their professional knowledge or beliefs. This study aimed to assess differences in, and reasons for, perceived inappropriate care (PIC) across ICU care providers with varying levels of decision-making power. METHODS We present subsequent analysis from the Appropricus Study, a cross-sectional study conducted on May 11, 2010, which included 1,218 nurses and 180 junior and 227 senior physicians in 82 European adult ICUs. The study was designed to evaluate PIC. The current study focuses on differences across health-care providers regarding the reasons for PIC in real patient situations. RESULTS By multivariate analysis, nurses were found to have higher PIC rates compared with senior and junior physicians. However, nurses and senior physicians were more distressed by perceived disproportionate care than were junior physicians (33%, 25%, and 9%, respectively; P = .026). A perceived mismatch between level of care and prognosis (mostly excessive care) was the most common cause of PIC. The main reasons for PIC were prognostic uncertainty among physicians, poor team and family communication, the fact that no one was taking the initiative to challenge the inappropriateness of care, and financial incentives to provide excessive care among nurses. Senior physicians, compared with nurses and junior physicians, more frequently reported pressure from the referring physician as a reason. Family-related factors were reported by similar proportions of participants in the three groups. CONCLUSIONS ICU care providers agree that excessive care is a true issue in the ICU. However, they differ in the reasons for the PIC, reflecting the roles each caregiver has in the ICU. Nurses charge physicians with a lack of initiative and poor communication, whereas physicians more often ascribe prognostic uncertainty. Teaching ICU physicians to deal with prognostic uncertainty in more adequate ways and to promote ethical discussions in their teams may be pivotal to improving moral distress and the quality of patient care.

Original ResearchCritical CareInappropriate Care in European ICUs: Confronting Views From Nurses and Junior and Senior Physicians

BACKGROUND ICU care providers often feel that the care given to a patient may be inconsistent with their professional knowledge or beliefs. This study aimed to assess differences in, and reasons for, perceived inappropriate care (PIC) across ICU care providers with varying levels of decision-making power. METHODS We present subsequent analysis from the Appropricus Study, a cross-sectional study conducted on May 11, 2010, which included 1,218 nurses and 180 junior and 227 senior physicians in 82 European adult ICUs. The study was designed to evaluate PIC. The current study focuses on differences across health-care providers regarding the reasons for PIC in real patient situations. RESULTS By multivariate analysis, nurses were found to have higher PIC rates compared with senior and junior physicians. However, nurses and senior physicians were more distressed by perceived disproportionate care than were junior physicians (33%, 25%, and 9%, respectively; P = .026). A perceived mismatch between level of care and prognosis (mostly excessive care) was the most common cause of PIC. The main reasons for PIC were prognostic uncertainty among physicians, poor team and family communication, the fact that no one was taking the initiative to challenge the inappropriateness of care, and financial incentives to provide excessive care among nurses. Senior physicians, compared with nurses and junior physicians, more frequently reported pressure from the referring physician as a reason. Family-related factors were reported by similar proportions of participants in the three groups. CONCLUSIONS ICU care providers agree that excessive care is a true issue in the ICU. However, they differ in the reasons for the PIC, reflecting the roles each caregiver has in the ICU. Nurses charge physicians with a lack of initiative and poor communication, whereas physicians more often ascribe prognostic uncertainty. Teaching ICU physicians to deal with prognostic uncertainty in more adequate ways and to promote ethical discussions in their teams may be pivotal to improving moral distress and the quality of patient care.

The strategy of antibiotic use in critically ill neutropenic patients

Suspicion of sepsis in neutropenic patients requires immediate antimicrobial treatment. The initial regimen in critically ill patients should cover both Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa. However, the risk of selecting multidrug-resistant pathogens should be considered when using broad-spectrum antibiotics for a prolonged period of time. The choice of the first-line empirical drugs should take into account the underlying malignancy, local bacterial ecology, clinical presentation and severity of acute illness. This review provides an up-to-date guide that will assist physicians in choosing the best strategy regarding the use of antibiotics in neutropenic patients, with a special focus on critically ill patients, based on the above-mentioned considerations and on the most recent international guidelines and literature.

Patient Recollection of Icu Procedural Pain and Post Icu Burden: The Memory Study*

Objective:To assess patients’ recollections of in-ICU procedural pain and its impact on post-ICU burden. Design:Prospective longitudinal study of patients who underwent ICU procedures. Setting:Thirty-four ICUs in France and Belgium. Patients:Two hundred thirty-six patients who had undergone ICU procedures. Intervention:None. Measurements and Main Results:Patients were interviewed 3–16 months after hospitalization about: 1) recall of procedural pain intensity and pain distress (on 0–10 numeric rating scale); 2) current pain; that is, having pain in the past week that was not present before hospitalization; and 3) presence of traumatic stress (Impact of Events Scale). For patients who could rate recalled procedural pain intensity (n = 56) and pain distress (n = 43), both were significantly higher than their median (interquartile range) in ICU procedural pain scores (pain intensity: 5 [4–7] vs 3 [2.5–5], p < 0.001; pain distress: 5 [2–6] vs 2 [0–6], p = 0.003, respectively.) Current pain was reported in 14% of patients. When comparing patients with and without current pain, patients with current pain recalled even greater ICU procedural pain intensity and pain distress scores than patients without current pain: pain intensity, 8 (6–8) versus 5 (3.25–7); p = 0.002 and pain distress, 7 (5–8) versus 4 (2–6); p = 0.01, respectively. Patients with current pain also had significantly higher Impact of Events Scale scores than those without current pain (8.5 [3.5–24] vs 2 [0–10]; p < 0.001). Conclusion:Many patients remembered ICU, with far fewer able to rate procedure-associated pain. For those able to do so, recalled pain intensity and pain distress scores were significantly greater than reported in ICU. One in seven patients was having current pain, recalling even higher ICU procedural pain scores and greater traumatic stress when compared with patients without current pain. Studies are needed to assess the impact of ICU procedural pain on post-ICU pain recall, pain status over time, and the relationship between postdischarge pain status and post-ICU burden.

Pain distress: the negative emotion associated with procedures in ICU patients

PurposeThe intensity of procedural pain in intensive care unit (ICU) patients is well documented. However, little is known about procedural pain distress, the psychological response to pain.MethodsPost hoc analysis of a multicenter, multinational study of procedural pain. Pain distress was measured before and during procedures (0–10 numeric rating scale). Factors that influenced procedural pain distress were identified by multivariable analyses using a hierarchical model with ICU and country as random effects.ResultsA total of 4812 procedures were recorded (3851 patients, 192 ICUs, 28 countries). Pain distress scores were highest for endotracheal suctioning (ETS) and tracheal suctioning, chest tube removal (CTR), and wound drain removal (median [IQRs] = 4 [1.6, 1.7]). Significant relative risks (RR) for a higher degree of pain distress included certain procedures: turning (RR = 1.18), ETS (RR = 1.45), tracheal suctioning (RR = 1.38), CTR (RR = 1.39), wound drain removal (RR = 1.56), and arterial line insertion (RR = 1.41); certain pain behaviors (RR = 1.19–1.28); pre-procedural pain intensity (RR = 1.15); and use of opioids (RR = 1.15–1.22). Patient-related variables that significantly increased the odds of patients having higher procedural pain distress than pain intensity were pre-procedural pain intensity (odds ratio [OR] = 1.05); pre-hospital anxiety (OR = 1.76); receiving pethidine/meperidine (OR = 4.11); or receiving haloperidol (OR = 1.77) prior to the procedure.ConclusionsProcedural pain has both sensory and emotional dimensions. We found that, although procedural pain intensity (the sensory dimension) and distress (the emotional dimension) may closely covary, there are certain factors than can preferentially influence each of the dimensions. Clinicians are encouraged to appreciate the multidimensionality of pain when they perform procedures and use this knowledge to minimize the patient’s pain experience.

Weekly high-dose liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) in critically ill septic patients with multiple Candida colonization: The AmBiDex study

Background To demonstrate the feasibility and safety of weekly high-dose liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) (as a pre-emptive antifungal treatment) for 2 weeks in patients with septic shock and Candida colonization. Methods Pilot, multicentre, open-label, prospective study conducted in seven French ICUs. Non-immunocompromised patients, receiving mechanical ventilation were eligible if they presented ICU-acquired severe sepsis requiring newly administered antibacterial agents and Candida colonization in at least two sites. Exclusion criteria included the need for antifungal therapy and creatinine > 220 μmol/L. All patients were to receive a high-dose L-AmB (10 mg/kg/week) for two weeks. A follow-up period of 21 days following the second administration of L-AmB was conducted. Treated patients were compared to 69 matched untreated controls admitted in the same ICUs before the study period. Results Twenty-one patients were included in the study, of which 20 received at least one infusion of high-dose L-AmB. A total of 24 adverse events were identified in 13(61%) patients. Fourteen adverse events were categorized as serious in 8(38%) patients. In four cases the adverse events were considered as potentially related to study drug administration and resulted in L-AmB discontinuation in one patient. Few patients experienced severe renal toxicity since no patient presented with severe hypokalemia. No patients required renal replacement therapy. Compared to matched controls, no significant increase in serum creatinine levels in patients receiving high-dose L-AmB was reported. Conclusions Weekly administration of high-dose L-AmB has a manageable safety profile and is feasible in patients with ICU-acquired sepsis and multiple Candida colonization. Trials of L-AmB versus other antifungal agents used as pre-emptive antifungal therapy are warranted. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00697944

Antibiotic Therapy in Neutropenic Patients

In neutropenic patients, a fever and/or suspected infection requires immediate antimicrobial treatment. The choice of the first-line empirical drugs should take into account the risk of complications of the underlying malignancy; type of treatment; degree, duration, and type of immunosuppression; clinical presentation; and local bacterial ecology. The initial treatment should cover a broad range of organisms, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa. However, the risk of selecting multidrug-resistant pathogens should be considered when using broad-spectrum antibiotics for prophylactic or curative treatment. The aim of this review is to provide an up-to-date guide that will assist physicians in choosing the optimal antibiotic regimen in neutropenic patients based on the above-mentioned considerations and on the most recent international guidelines and literature.