Daniel Talmor

Intensive insulin therapy and mortality among critically ill patients: a meta-analysis including NICE-SUGAR study data

Background: Hyperglycemia is associated with increased mortality in critically ill patients. Randomized trials of intensive insulin therapy have reported inconsistent effects on mortality and increased rates of severe hypoglycemia. We conducted a meta-analysis to update the totality of evidence regarding the influence of intensive insulin therapy compared with conventional insulin therapy on mortality and severe hypoglycemia in the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods: We conducted searches of electronic databases, abstracts from scientific conferences and bibliographies of relevant articles. We included published randomized controlled trials conducted in the ICU that directly compared intensive insulin therapy with conventional glucose management and that documented mortality. We included in our meta-analysis the data from the recent NICE-SUGAR (Normoglycemia in Intensive Care Evaluation — Survival Using Glucose Algorithm Regulation) study. Results: We included 26 trials involving a total of 13 567 patients in our meta-analysis. Among the 26 trials that reported mortality, the pooled relative risk (RR) of death with intensive insulin therapy compared with conventional therapy was 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83–1.04). Among the 14 trials that reported hypoglycemia, the pooled RR with intensive insulin therapy was 6.0 (95% CI 4.5–8.0). The ICU setting was a contributing factor, with patients in surgical ICUs appearing to benefit from intensive insulin therapy (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44–0.91); patients in the other ICU settings did not (medical ICU: RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.78–1.28; mixed ICU: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86–1.12). The different targets of intensive insulin therapy (glucose level ≤ 6.1 mmol/L v. ≤ 8.3 mmol/L) did not influence either mortality or risk of hypoglycemia. Interpretation: Intensive insulin therapy significantly increased the risk of hypoglycemia and conferred no overall mortality benefit among critically ill patients. However, this therapy may be beneficial to patients admitted to a surgical ICU.

Higher vs lower positive end-expiratory pressure in patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis.

CONTEXT Trials comparing higher vs lower levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in adults with acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have been underpowered to detect small but potentially important effects on mortality or to explore subgroup differences. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the association of higher vs lower PEEP with patient-important outcomes in adults with acute lung injury or ARDS who are receiving ventilation with low tidal volumes and to investigate whether these associations differ across prespecified subgroups. DATA SOURCES Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1996-January 2010) plus a hand search of conference proceedings (2004-January 2010). STUDY SELECTION Two reviewers independently screened articles to identify studies randomly assigning adults with acute lung injury or ARDS to treatment with higher vs lower PEEP (with low tidal volume ventilation) and also reporting mortality. DATA EXTRACTION Data from 2299 individual patients in 3 trials were analyzed using uniform outcome definitions. Prespecified effect modifiers were tested using multivariable hierarchical regression, adjusting for important prognostic factors and clustering effects. RESULTS There were 374 hospital deaths in 1136 patients (32.9%) assigned to treatment with higher PEEP and 409 hospital deaths in 1163 patients (35.2%) assigned to lower PEEP (adjusted relative risk [RR], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86-1.04; P = .25). Treatment effects varied with the presence or absence of ARDS, defined by a value of 200 mm Hg or less for the ratio of partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen concentration (P = .02 for interaction). In patients with ARDS (n = 1892), there were 324 hospital deaths (34.1%) in the higher PEEP group and 368 (39.1%) in the lower PEEP group (adjusted RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-1.00; P = .049); in patients without ARDS (n = 404), there were 50 hospital deaths (27.2%) in the higher PEEP group and 44 (19.4%) in the lower PEEP group (adjusted RR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.98-1.92; P = .07). Rates of pneumothorax and vasopressor use were similar. CONCLUSIONS Treatment with higher vs lower levels of PEEP was not associated with improved hospital survival. However, higher levels were associated with improved survival among the subgroup of patients with ARDS.

Mechanical Ventilation Guided by Esophageal Pressure in Acute Lung Injury

BACKGROUND Survival of patients with acute lung injury or the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has been improved by ventilation with small tidal volumes and the use of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP); however, the optimal level of PEEP has been difficult to determine. In this pilot study, we estimated transpulmonary pressure with the use of esophageal balloon catheters. We reasoned that the use of pleural-pressure measurements, despite the technical limitations to the accuracy of such measurements, would enable us to find a PEEP value that could maintain oxygenation while preventing lung injury due to repeated alveolar collapse or overdistention. METHODS We randomly assigned patients with acute lung injury or ARDS to undergo mechanical ventilation with PEEP adjusted according to measurements of esophageal pressure (the esophageal-pressure-guided group) or according to the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network standard-of-care recommendations (the control group). The primary end point was improvement in oxygenation. The secondary end points included respiratory-system compliance and patient outcomes. RESULTS The study reached its stopping criterion and was terminated after 61 patients had been enrolled. The ratio of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen at 72 hours was 88 mm Hg higher in the esophageal-pressure-guided group than in the control group (95% confidence interval, 78.1 to 98.3; P=0.002). This effect was persistent over the entire follow-up time (at 24, 48, and 72 hours; P=0.001 by repeated-measures analysis of variance). Respiratory-system compliance was also significantly better at 24, 48, and 72 hours in the esophageal-pressure-guided group (P=0.01 by repeated-measures analysis of variance). CONCLUSIONS As compared with the current standard of care, a ventilator strategy using esophageal pressures to estimate the transpulmonary pressure significantly improves oxygenation and compliance. Multicenter clinical trials are needed to determine whether this approach should be widely adopted. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00127491.)

Implementation and outcomes of the Multiple Urgent Sepsis Therapies (MUST) protocol.

Objectives:To describe the effectiveness of a comprehensive, interdisciplinary sepsis treatment protocol with regard to both implementation and outcomes and to compare the mortality rates and therapies of patients with septic shock with similar historical controls. Design:Prospective, interventional cohort study with a historical control comparison group. Setting:Urban, tertiary care, university hospital with 46,000 emergency department visits and 4,100 intensive care unit admissions annually. Patients:Inclusion criteria were a) emergency department patients aged ≥18 yrs, b) suspected infection, and c) lactate of >4 mmol/L or septic shock. Exclusion criteria were a) emergent operation, b) prehospital cardiac arrest, and c) comfort measures only. Time period: protocol, November 10, 2003, through November 9, 2004; historical controls, February 1, 2000, through January 31, 2001. Intervention:A sepsis treatment pathway incorporating empirical antibiotics, early goal-directed therapy, drotrecogin alfa, steroids, intensive insulin therapy, and lung-protective ventilation. Measurements and Main Results:There were 116 protocol patients, with a mortality rate of 18% (11–25%), of which 79 patients had septic shock. Comparing these patients with 51 historical controls, protocol patients received more fluid (4.0 vs. 2.5 L crystalloid, p < .001), earlier antibiotics (90 vs. 120 mins, p < .013), more appropriate empirical coverage (97% vs. 88%, p < .05), more vasopressors in the first 6 hrs (80% vs. 45%, p < .001), tighter glucose control (mean morning glucose, 123 vs. 140, p < .001), and more frequent assessment of adrenal function (82% vs. 10%, p < .001), with a nonstatistically significant increase in dobutamine use (14% vs. 4%, p = .06) and red blood cell transfusions (30% vs. 18%, p = .07) in the first 24 hrs. For protocol patients with septic shock, 28-day in-hospital mortality was 20.3% compared with 29.4% for historical controls (p = .3). Conclusions:Clinical implementation of a comprehensive sepsis treatment protocol is feasible and is associated with changes in therapies such as time to antibiotics, intravenous fluid delivery, and vasopressor use in the first 6 hrs. No statistically significant decrease in mortality was demonstrated, as this trial was not sufficiently powered to assess mortality benefits.

Iatrogenic Gastric Acid Suppression and the Risk of Nosocomial Clostridium difficile Infection

BACKGROUND The incidence and severity of Clostridium difficile infections are increasing. Acid-suppressive therapy has been suggested as a risk factor for C difficile, but this remains controversial. METHODS We conducted a pharmacoepidemiologic cohort study, performing a secondary analysis of data collected prospectively on 101 796 discharges from a tertiary care medical center during a 5-year period. The primary exposure of interest was acid suppression therapy, classified by the most intense acid suppression therapy received (no acid suppression, histamine(2)-receptor antagonist [H(2)RA] therapy, daily proton pump inhibitor [PPI], and PPI more frequently than daily). RESULTS As the level of acid suppression increased, the risk of nosocomial C difficile infection increased, from 0.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21%-0.31%) in patients not receiving acid suppressive therapy to 0.6% (95% CI, 0.49%-0.79%) in those receiving H(2)RA therapy, to 0.9% (95% CI, 0.80%-0.98%) in those receiving daily PPI treatment, and to 1.4% (1.15%-1.71%) in those receiving more frequent PPI therapy. After adjustment for comorbid conditions, age, antibiotics, and propensity score-based likelihood of receipt of acid-suppression therapy, the association persisted, increasing from an odds ratio of 1 (no acid suppression [reference]) to 1.53 (95% CI, 1.12-2.10) (H(2)RA), to 1.74 (95% CI, 1.39-2.18) (daily PPI), and to 2.36 (95% CI, 1.79-3.11) (more frequent PPI). Similar estimates were found with a matched cohort analysis and with nested case-control techniques. CONCLUSIONS Increasing levels of pharmacologic acid suppression are associated with increased risks of nosocomial C difficile infection. This evidence of a dose-response effect provides further support for the potentially causal nature of iatrogenic acid suppression in the development of nosocomial C difficile infection.

Early Identification of Patients at Risk of Acute Lung Injury: Evaluation of Lung Injury Prediction Score in a Multicenter Cohort Study

RATIONALE Accurate, early identification of patients at risk for developing acute lung injury (ALI) provides the opportunity to test and implement secondary prevention strategies. OBJECTIVES To determine the frequency and outcome of ALI development in patients at risk and validate a lung injury prediction score (LIPS). METHODS In this prospective multicenter observational cohort study, predisposing conditions and risk modifiers predictive of ALI development were identified from routine clinical data available during initial evaluation. The discrimination of the model was assessed with area under receiver operating curve (AUC). The risk of death from ALI was determined after adjustment for severity of illness and predisposing conditions. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Twenty-two hospitals enrolled 5,584 patients at risk. ALI developed a median of 2 (interquartile range 1-4) days after initial evaluation in 377 (6.8%; 148 ALI-only, 229 adult respiratory distress syndrome) patients. The frequency of ALI varied according to predisposing conditions (from 3% in pancreatitis to 26% after smoke inhalation). LIPS discriminated patients who developed ALI from those who did not with an AUC of 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.82). When adjusted for severity of illness and predisposing conditions, development of ALI increased the risk of in-hospital death (odds ratio, 4.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.9-5.7). CONCLUSIONS ALI occurrence varies according to predisposing conditions and carries an independently poor prognosis. Using routinely available clinical data, LIPS identifies patients at high risk for ALI early in the course of their illness. This model will alert clinicians about the risk of ALI and facilitate testing and implementation of ALI prevention strategies. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00889772).

International Evidence-Based Recommendations for Focused Cardiac Ultrasound

BACKGROUND Focused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) is a simplified, clinician-performed application of echocardiography that is rapidly expanding in use, especially in emergency and critical care medicine. Performed by appropriately trained clinicians, typically not cardiologists, FoCUS ascertains the essential information needed in critical scenarios for time-sensitive clinical decision making. A need exists for quality evidence-based review and clinical recommendations on its use. METHODS The World Interactive Network Focused on Critical UltraSound conducted an international, multispecialty, evidence-based, methodologically rigorous consensus process on FoCUS. Thirty-three experts from 16 countries were involved. A systematic multiple-database, double-track literature search (January 1980 to September 2013) was performed. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation method was used to determine the quality of available evidence and subsequent development of the recommendations. Evidence-based panel judgment and consensus was collected and analyzed by means of the RAND appropriateness method. RESULTS During four conferences (in New Delhi, Milan, Boston, and Barcelona), 108 statements were elaborated and discussed. Face-to-face debates were held in two rounds using the modified Delphi technique. Disagreement occurred for 10 statements. Weak or conditional recommendations were made for two statements and strong or very strong recommendations for 96. These recommendations delineate the nature, applications, technique, potential benefits, clinical integration, education, and certification principles for FoCUS, both for adults and pediatric patients. CONCLUSIONS This document presents the results of the first International Conference on FoCUS. For the first time, evidence-based clinical recommendations comprehensively address this branch of point-of-care ultrasound, providing a framework for FoCUS to standardize its application in different clinical settings around the world.

Esophageal and transpulmonary pressures in acute respiratory failure

Objective:Pressure inflating the lung during mechanical ventilation is the difference between pressure applied at the airway opening (Pao) and pleural pressure (Ppl). Depending on the chest walls contribution to respiratory mechanics, a given positive end-expiratory and/or end-inspiratory plateau pressure may be appropriate for one patient but inadequate or potentially injurious for another. Thus, failure to account for chest wall mechanics may affect results in clinical trials of mechanical ventilation strategies in acute respiratory distress syndrome. By measuring esophageal pressure (Pes), we sought to characterize influence of the chest wall on Ppl and transpulmonary pressure (PL) in patients with acute respiratory failure. Design:Prospective observational study. Setting:Medical and surgical intensive care units at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Patients:Seventy patients with acute respiratory failure. Interventions:Placement of esophageal balloon-catheters. Measurements and Main Results:Airway, esophageal, and gastric pressures recorded at end-exhalation and end-inflation Pes averaged 17.5 ± 5.7 cm H2O at end-expiration and 21.2 ± 7.7 cm H2O at end-inflation and were not significantly correlated with body mass index or chest wall elastance. Estimated PL was 1.5 ± 6.3 cm H2O at end-expiration, 21.4 ± 9.3 cm H2O at end-inflation, and 18.4 ± 10.2 cm H2O (n = 40) during an end-inspiratory hold (plateau). Although PL at end-expiration was significantly correlated with positive end-expiratory pressure (p < .0001), only 24% of the variance in PL was explained by Pao (R2 = .243), and 52% was due to variation in Pes. Conclusions:In patients in acute respiratory failure, elevated esophageal pressures suggest that chest wall mechanical properties often contribute substantially and unpredictably to total respiratory impedance, and therefore Pao may not adequately predict PL or lung distention. Systematic use of esophageal manometry has the potential to improve ventilator management in acute respiratory failure by providing more direct assessment of lung distending pressure.

The application of esophageal pressure measurement in patients with respiratory failure.

This report summarizes current physiological and technical knowledge on esophageal pressure (Pes) measurements in patients receiving mechanical ventilation. The respiratory changes in Pes are representative of changes in pleural pressure. The difference between airway pressure (Paw) and Pes is a valid estimate of transpulmonary pressure. Pes helps determine what fraction of Paw is applied to overcome lung and chest wall elastance. Pes is usually measured via a catheter with an air-filled thin-walled latex balloon inserted nasally or orally. To validate Pes measurement, a dynamic occlusion test measures the ratio of change in Pes to change in Paw during inspiratory efforts against a closed airway. A ratio close to unity indicates that the system provides a valid measurement. Provided transpulmonary pressure is the lung-distending pressure, and that chest wall elastance may vary among individuals, a physiologically based ventilator strategy should take the transpulmonary pressure into account. For monitoring purposes, clinicians rely mostly on Paw and flow waveforms. However, these measurements may mask profound patient-ventilator asynchrony and do not allow respiratory muscle effort assessment. Pes also permits the measurement of transmural vascular pressures during both passive and active breathing. Pes measurements have enhanced our understanding of the pathophysiology of acute lung injury, patient-ventilator interaction, and weaning failure. The use of Pes for positive end-expiratory pressure titration may help improve oxygenation and compliance. Pes measurements make it feasible to individualize the level of muscle effort during mechanical ventilation and weaning. The time is now right to apply the knowledge obtained with Pes to improve the management of critically ill and ventilator-dependent patients.

Echocardiography practice, training and accreditation in the intensive care: document for the World Interactive Network Focused on Critical Ultrasound (WINFOCUS).

Echocardiography is increasingly used in the management of the critically ill patient as a non-invasive diagnostic and monitoring tool. Whilst in few countries specialized national training schemes for intensive care unit (ICU) echocardiography have been developed, specific guidelines for ICU physicians wishing to incorporate echocardiography into their clinical practice are lacking. Further, existing echocardiography accreditation does not reflect the requirements of the ICU practitioner. The WINFOCUS (World Interactive Network Focused On Critical UltraSound) ECHO-ICU Group drew up a document aimed at providing guidance to individual physicians, trainers and the relevant societies of the requirements for the development of skills in echocardiography in the ICU setting. The document is based on recommendations published by the Royal College of Radiologists, British Society of Echocardiography, European Association of Echocardiography and American Society of Echocardiography, together with international input from established practitioners of ICU echocardiography. The recommendations contained in this document are concerned with theoretical basis of ultrasonography, the practical aspects of building an ICU-based echocardiography service as well as the key components of standard adult TTE and TEE studies to be performed on the ICU. Specific issues regarding echocardiography in different ICU clinical scenarios are then described.Obtaining competence in ICU echocardiography may be achieved in different ways – either through completion of an appropriate fellowship/training scheme, or, where not available, via a staged approach designed to train the practitioner to a level at which they can achieve accreditation. Here, peri-resuscitation focused echocardiography represents the entry level – obtainable through established courses followed by mentored practice. Next, a competence-based modular training programme is proposed: theoretical elements delivered through blended-learning and practical elements acquired in parallel through proctored practice. These all linked with existing national/international echocardiography courses. When completed, it is anticipated that the practitioner will have performed the prerequisite number of studies, and achieved the competency to undertake accreditation (leading to Level 2 competence) via a recognized National or European examination and provide the appropriate required evidence of competency (logbook). Thus, even where appropriate fellowships are not available, with support from the relevant echocardiography bodies, training and subsequently accreditation in ICU echocardiography becomes achievable within the existing framework of current critical care and cardiological practice, and is adaptable to each countries needs.