R. Matthew Sailors

Enteral glutamine during active shock resuscitation is safe and enhances tolerance of enteral feeding.

BACKGROUND Feeding the hemodynamically unstable patient is increasingly practiced, yet few data exist on its safety. Because enteral glutamine is protective to the gut in experimental models of shock and improves clinical outcomes, it may benefit trauma patients undergoing shock resuscitation and improve tolerance if administered early. This pilot study aimed to evaluate gastrointestinal tolerance and safety of enteral feeding with glutamine, beginning during shock resuscitation in severely injured patients. METHODS In a prospective randomized trial, 20 patients were randomly assigned to either an enteral glutamine group (n = 10) or a control group (n = 10). Patients with severe trauma meeting standardized shock resuscitation criteria received enteral glutamine 0.5 g/kg/d during the first 24 hours of resuscitation and 10 days thereafter. Immune-enhancing diet began on postinjury day 1, with a target of 25 kcal/kg/d. Control patients received isonitrogenous whey powder plus immune-enhancing diet. Tolerance (vomiting, nasogastric output, diarrhea, and distention) was assessed throughout the study. RESULTS Glutamine was well tolerated and no adverse events occurred. Treated patients had significantly fewer instances of high nasogastric output (5 vs 23; p = .010), abdominal distention (3 vs 12; p = .021), and total instances of intolerance (8 vs 42; p = .011). Intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay were comparable. Control patients required supplemental parenteral nutrition (PN) to meet goals at day 7. CONCLUSIONS Enteral glutamine administered during active shock resuscitation and through the early postinjury period is safe and enhances gastrointestinal tolerance. A large clinical trial is warranted to determine if enteral glutamine administered to the hemodynamically unstable patient can reduce infectious morbidity and mortality.

The epidemiology of sepsis in general surgery patients

BACKGROUND Sepsis is increasing in hospitalized patients. Our purpose is to describe its current epidemiology in a general surgery (GS) intensive care unit (ICU) where patients are routinely screened and aggressively treated for sepsis by an established protocol. METHODS Our prospective, Institutional Review Board-approved sepsis research database was queried for demographics, biomarkers reflecting organ dysfunction, and mortality. Patients were grouped as sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock using refined consensus criteria. Data are compared by analysis of variance, Students t test, and χ test (p<0.05 significant). RESULTS During 24 months ending September 2009, 231 patients (aged 59 years ± 3 years; 43% men) were treated for sepsis. The abdomen was the source of infection in 69% of patients. Several baseline biomarkers of organ dysfunction (BOD) correlated with sepsis severity including lactate, creatinine, international normalized ratio, platelet count, and d-dimer. Direct correlation with mortality was noted with particular baseline BODs including beta natriuretic peptide, international normalized ratio, platelet count, aspartate transaminase, alanine aminotransferase, and total bilirubin. Most patients present with severe sepsis (56%) or septic shock (26%) each with increasing multiple BODs. Septic shock has prohibitive mortality rate (36%), and those who survive septic shock have prolonged ICU stays. CONCLUSION In general surgery ICU patients, sepsis is predominantly caused by intra-abdominal infection. Multiple BODs are present in severe sepsis and septic shock but are notably advanced in septic shock. Despite aggressive sepsis screening and treatment, septic shock remains a morbid condition.

Computerized clinical decision support: a technology to implement and validate evidence based guidelines.

UNLABELLED Faced with a documented crisis of patients not receiving appropriate care, there is a need to implement and refine evidence-based guidelines (EBGs) to ensure that patients receive the best care available. Although valuable in content, among their deficiencies, EBGs do not provide explicit methods to bring proven therapies to the bedside. Computerized information technology, now an integral part of the US healthcare system at all levels, presents clinicians with information from laboratory, imaging, physiologic monitoring systems, and many other sources. It is imperative that we clinicians use this information technology to improve medical care and efficacy of its delivery. If we do not do this, nonclinicians will use this technology to tell us how to practice medicine. Computerized clinical decision support (CCDS) offers a powerful method to use this information and implement a broad range of EBGs. CCDS is a technology that can be used to develop, implement, and refine computerized protocols for specific processes of care derived from EBGs, including complex care provided in intensive care units. We describe this technology as a desirable option for the trauma community to use information technology and maintain the trauma surgeon/intensivists essential role in specifying and implementing best care for patients. We describe a process of logical protocol development based on standardized clinical decision making to enable EBGs. The resulting logical process is readily computerized, and, when properly implemented, provides a stable platform for systematic review and study of the process and interventions. CONCLUSION : CCDS to implement and refine EBG derived computerized protocols offers a method to decrease variability, test interventions, and validate improved quality of care.

Preload optimization using "starling curve" generation during shock resuscitation: can it be done?

Preload-directed resuscitation is the standard of care in U.S. trauma centers. As part of our standardized protocol for traumatic shock resuscitation, patients who do not respond to initial interventions of hemoglobin replacement and fluid volume loading have optimal preload determined using a standardized algorithm to generate a “Starling curve.” We retrospectively analyzed data from 147 consecutive resuscitation protocol patients during the 24 months ending August 2002. Fifty (34%) of these patients required preload optimization, of which the optimization algorithm was completed in 36 (72%). The average age of those who required preload optimization was 44 ± 3 years vs. 34 ± 1 years for patients who did not. Execution of the algorithm caused PCWP to increase from 18 ± 1 mmHg to a maximum of 25 ± 2 mmHg and CI to increase from 3.2 ± 0.1 L/min m−2 to 4.5 ± 0.4 L/min m−2. Algorithm logic determined PCWP = 24 ± 2 to be optimal preload at the maximum CI = 4.8 ± 0.4, and as the volume loading threshold for the remaining time of the resuscitation process. Starling curve preload optimization was begun 6.5 ± 0.8 h after start of the resuscitation protocol and required 36 ± 5 min and 4 ± 0.4 fluid boluses (1.6 ± 0.2 L). Comparison of early response of those patients who required preload optimization and those who did not indicated hemodynamic compromise apparent in the 1st 4 h of standardized resuscitation. We conclude that preload optimization using sequential fluid bolus and PCWP–CI measurement to generate a Starling curve is feasible during ICU shock resuscitation, but that there is the disadvantage that increasing and maintaining high PCWP may contribute to problematic tissue edema.

Central venous pressure versus pulmonary artery catheter-directed shock resuscitation.

Previously, we developed a protocol for shock resuscitation of severe trauma patients to reverse shock and regain hemodynamic stability during the first 24 intensive care unit (ICU) hours. Key hemodynamic measurements of cardiac output and preload were obtained using a pulmonary artery catheter (PAC). As an alternative, we developed a protocol that used central venous pressure (CVP) to guide decision making for interventions to regain hemodynamic stability [mean arterial pressure (MAP) ≥ 65 mmHg and heart rate (HR) ≤ 130 bpm]. Either protocol was available and required for traumatic shock resuscitation using bedside computerized clinical decision support to standardize decision making, and PAC was available if CVP-directed resuscitation was inadequate. We hypothesized that patients would be appropriately assigned to either protocol by trauma surgeon assessment of hemodynamic stability upon ICU admission. High-risk patients admitted to a level-1 trauma center ICU underwent resuscitation. Criteria were 1) major torso trauma, 2) base deficit (BD) ≥ 6 mEq/L or systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg, 3) transfusion of ≥ 1 unit packed red blood cells (PRBC), or ≥ age 65 years with two of three criteria. Patients with brain injury were excluded. Data were recorded prospectively. In 24 months ending July 31, 2006, of 193 patients, 114 (59%) were assigned CVP- directed resuscitation, and 79 (41%) were assigned PAC-directed resuscitation. A subgroup of 11 (10%) initially assigned CVP was reassigned PAC-directed resuscitation (7 ± 2 h after start) due to hemodynamic instability. Crystalloid fluid and PRBC resuscitation volumes for PAC (8 ± 1 L lactated Ringers [LR], 5 ± 0.4 units PRBC) were > CVP (5 ± 0.4 L LR, 3 ± 0.3 units PRBC) and similar to CVP - PAC protocol subgroup patients (9 ± 2 L LR, 5 ± 1 units PRBC). Intensive care unit (ICU) stay and survival rate for PAC (18 ± 2 days, 75%) were similar to CVP - PAC (17 ± 4 days, 73%) and worse than CVP protocol subgroup patients (9 ± 1 days, 98%). Traumatic shock resuscitation is feasible using CVP as a primary hemodynamic monitor as part of a protocol that includes explicit definition of hemodynamic instability and where PAC monitoring is readily available. Computerized decision support provides a technique to implement complex protocol care processes and analyze patient response.

Computer versus paper system for recognition and management of sepsis in surgical intensive care.

BACKGROUND A system to provide surveillance, diagnosis, and protocolized management of surgical intensive care unit (SICU) sepsis was undertaken as a performance improvement project. A system for sepsis management was implemented for SICU patients using paper followed by a computerized system. The hypothesis was that the computerized system would be associated with improved process and outcomes. METHODS A system was designed to provide early recognition and guide patient-specific management of sepsis including (1) modified early warning signs–sepsis recognition score (MEWS-SRS; summative point score of ranges of vital signs, mental status, white blood cell count; after every 4 hours) by bedside nurse; (2) suspected site assessment (vascular access, lung, abdomen, urinary tract, soft tissue, other) at bedside by physician or extender; (3) sepsis management protocol (replicable, point-of-care decisions) at bedside by nurse, physician, and extender. The system was implemented first using paper and then a computerized system. Sepsis severity was defined using standard criteria. RESULTS In January to May 2012, a paper system was used to manage 77 consecutive sepsis encounters (3.9 ± 0.5 cases per week) in 65 patients (77% male; age, 53 ± 2 years). In June to December 2012, a computerized system was used to manage 132 consecutive sepsis encounters (4.4 ± 0.4 cases per week) in 119 patients (63% male; age, 58 ± 2 years). MEWS-SRS elicited 683 site assessments, and 201 had sepsis diagnosis and protocol management. The predominant site of infection was abdomen (paper, 58%; computer, 53%). Recognition of early sepsis tended to occur more using the computerized system (paper, 23%; computer, 35%). Hospital mortality rate for surgical ICU sepsis (paper, 20%; computer, 14%) was less with the computerized system. CONCLUSION A computerized sepsis management system improves care process and outcome. Early sepsis is recognized and managed with greater frequency compared with severe sepsis or septic shock. The system has a beneficial effect as a clinical standard of care for SICU patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic study, level III.