Intensive insulin therapy in critically ill hospitalized patients: making it safe and effective

Intensive insulin therapy (IIT) for hyperglycemia in critically ill patients has become a standard practice. Target levels for glycemia have fluctuated since 2000, as evidence initially indicated that tight glycemic control to so-called normoglycemia (80–110 mg/dl) leads to the lowest morbidity and mortality without hypoglycemic complications. Subsequent studies have demonstrated minimal clinical benefit combined with greater hypoglycemic morbidity and mortality with tight glycemic control in this population. The consensus glycemic targets were then liberalized to the mid 100s (mg/dl).Handheld POC blood glucose (BG) monitors have migrated from the outpatient setting to the hospital environment because they save time and money for managing critically ill patients who require IIT. These devices are less accurate than hospital-grade POC blood analyzers or central laboratory analyzers.Three questions must be answered to understand the role of IIT for defined populations of critically ill patients: (1) How safe is IIT, with various glycemic targets, from the risk of hypoglycemia? (2) How tightly must BG be controlled for this approach to be effective? (3) What role does the accuracy of BG measurements play in affecting the safety of this method? For each state of impaired glucose regulation seen in the hospital, such as hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, or glucose variability, the benefits, risks, and goals of treatment, including IIT, might differ.With improved accuracy of BG monitors, IIT might be rendered even more intensive than at present, because patients will be less likely to receive inadvertent overdosages of insulin. Greater doses of insulin, but with dosing based on more accurate glucose levels, might result in less hypoglycemia, less hyperglycemia, and less glycemic variability.     

Blood glucose measurements in critically ill patients

Studies on tight glycemic control by intensive insulin therapy abruptly changed the climate of limited interest in the problem of hyperglycemia in critically ill patients and reopened the discussion on accuracy and reliability of glucose sensor devices. This article describes important components of blood glucose measurements and their interferences with the focus on the intensive care unit setting. Typical methodologies, organized from analytical accuracy to clinical accuracy, to assess imprecision and bias of a glucose sensor are also discussed. Finally, a list of recommendations and requirements to be considered when evaluating (time-discrete) glucose sensor devices is given.     

Delirium in the intensive care unit: occurrence and clinical course in older patients

OBJECTIVES: To describe the occurrence of delirium in a cohort of older medical intensive care unit (ICU) patients and its short-term duration in the hospital and to determine the association between preexisting dementia and the occurrence of delirium. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Fourteen-bed medical ICU of an 800-bed university teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred eighteen consecutive patients aged 65 and older admitted to the ICU. MEASUREMENTS: Baseline characteristics were obtained through surrogate interviews and medical chart review. Dementia was determined using two validated surrogate-rated instruments. Delirium was assessed daily in the ICU using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) for the ICU (CAM-ICU). After discharge from the ICU, patients were followed for up to 7 days using the CAM. RESULTS: Delirium was present in 37 of 118 (31%) patients on admission. Only 45 patients had a normal mental status on admission, of whom 14 (31%) became delirious during their hospital stay. In the post-ICU period, delirium occurred in 40% of patients. Almost half of patients with delirium in the ICU had persistent delirium in the post-ICU period. Overall, 83 of 118 (70%) had delirium during hospitalization. Stupor or coma occurred in 44% of the patients overall, and 89% of survivors of stupor/coma progressed to delirium. Patients with dementia were 40% more likely to be delirious (relative risk = 1.4, 95% confidence interval = 1.1-1.7), even after controlling for comorbidity, baseline functional status, severity of illness, and invasive procedures. CONCLUSION: Delirium is a frequent complication in older ICU patients and often persists beyond their ICU stay. Delirium in older ICU persons is a dynamic and complex process. Dementia is an important predisposing risk factor for the development of delirium in this population during and after the ICU stay.     

Comparison between remifentanil and other opioids in adult critically ill patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and aims:To identify the efficacy and safety of remifentanil when compared with other opioids in adult critically ill patients.Methods:We searched for studies in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE that had been published up to May 31st, 2019. Randomized clinical trials using remifentanil comparing with other opioids for analgesia were included. Two reviewers independently applied eligibility criteria, assessed quality, and extracted data. Duration of mechanical ventilation was the primary outcome, and secondary outcomes included weaning time, intensive care unit (ICU), length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, mortality, side effects, and costs.Results:Fifteen studies with 1233 patients were included. Remifentanil was associated with a significant reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation in the adult ICU patients when compared with other opioids (P = .01). Remifentanil also reduced the weaning time (P = .02) and the ICU LOS when compared with other opioids (P = .01). There was no difference in the hospital LOS (P = .15), side effects (P = .39), and mortality (P = .79) between remifentanil and other opioids, what''s more, remifentanil increased the costs of anesthesia (P < .001) but did not increase cost of hospitalization (P = .30) when comparing with other opioids.Conclusions:Remifentanil reduced the duration of mechanical ventilation, weaning time, and ICU LOS when compared with other opioids in adult critically ill patients. Higher quality RCTs are necessary to prove our findings.PROSPERO registration number:CRD42016041438.     

床旁介入超声在老年危重患者中的初步应用

目的探讨床旁介入超声在老年危重患者诊疗中的安全性及疗效。方法入选2013年1月至2015年8月福建省立医院内科病区的危重症老年患者85例。使用便携式超声仪,对所有患者行床边超声引导下穿刺活检术或置管引流术。结果行穿刺活检术者共15例:13例诊断明确;2例无法获取明确病理诊断。行置管引流术者共70例,其中23例各类非感染性积液引流通畅,相应症状消失;47例各类感染性积液患者在置管引流术后第2天的体温、心率、白细胞数以及积液深度均得到明显改善(P0.05),病情好转。行置管引流术者中2例胸穿置管并发中等量出血。结论床旁介入超声在老年危重患者诊疗中安全、便捷,具有较好的应用价值。     

ERCP in critically ill patients is safe and does not increase mortality

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the gold standard for minimally-invasive treatment of biliary or pancreatic tract disease. When treating patients on intensive care units (ICU) with ERCP, interventionalists are faced with considerably higher morbidity compared to patients in ambulatory settings. However, data on complications and outcome of critical ill patients undergoing emergency ERCP are limited.A retrospective analysis of 102 patients treated on ICUs undergoing 121 ERCP procedures at the University Hospital of Essen, Germany between 2002 and 2016 was performed. Indications, interventional success, outcome including survival and procedure-related complications were analyzed. Patients’ condition pre-ERCP was categorized by using the “Simplified Acute Physiology Score” (SAPS 3).66/102 patients (64.7%) were referred to ERCP from surgical ICU, 36/102 (35.3%) from nonsurgical ICU. The majority of patients were male (63.7%), the mean age was 54.1 ± 14.9 [21–88] years. Indications for ERCP were biliary complications after liver transplantation (n = 34, 33.3%), biliary leakage after hepatobiliary surgery (n = 32, 31.4%), and cholangitis/biliary sepsis (n = 36; 35.3%), respectively. 117/121 (96.7%) ERCPs were successful, 1 patient (1.0%) died during ERCP. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 11.8% of interventions. The median simplified acute physiology score 3 was 65 points, predicting a risk-adjusted estimated mortality of 48.8%, corresponding to an observed mortality of 52.2% (P = n.s.).ERCP is safe in critically ill patients on ICU, it does not increase overall mortality rate and has a relatively low rate of procedure-associated complications.     

Risk factors for acute kidney injury in critically ill patients with torso injury: A retrospective observational single-center study

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common in trauma patients and associated with poor outcomes. Identifying AKI risk factors in trauma patients is important for risk stratification and provision of optimal intensive care unit (ICU) treatment. This study identified AKI risk factors in patients admitted to critical care after sustaining torso injuries.We performed a retrospective chart review involving 380 patients who sustained torso injuries from January 2016 to December 2019. Patients were included if they were aged >15 years, admitted to an ICU, survived for >48 hours, and had thoracic and/or abdominal injuries and no end-stage renal disease. AKI was defined according to the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes definition and staging system. Clinical and laboratory variables were compared between the AKI and non-AKI groups (n = 72 and 308, respectively). AKI risk factors were assessed using multivariate logistic regression analysis.AKI occurred in 72 (18.9%) patients and was associated with higher mortality than non-AKI patients (26% vs 4%, P < .001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified bowel injury, cumulative fluid balance >2.5 L for 24 hours, lactate levels, and vasopressor use (adjusted odds ratio: 2.953, 2.058, 1.170, and 2.910; 95% confidence interval: 1.410–6.181, 1.017–4.164, 1.019–1.343, and 1.414–5.987; P = .004, .045, .026, and .004, respectively) as independent risk factors for AKI.AKI in patients admitted to the ICU with torso injury had a substantial mortality. Recognizing risk factors at an early stage could aid risk stratification and provision of optimal ICU care.     

A regional cohort study of the treatment of critically ill children with bronchiolitis

Objective: To describe the treatment practices in critically ill children with RSV bronchiolitis across four regional PICUs in the northeastern United States, and to determine the factors associated with increased ICU length of stay in this population. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of children who were admitted with RSV bronchiolitis between July 2009 and July 2011 to the PICUs of Connecticut Children's Medical Center, Yale-New Haven Children's Hospital, Maria Fareri Children's Hospital, and Baystate Children's Hospital. Data were collected regarding clinical characteristics and intensive care course among these hospitals. Results: During the study period, 323 children were admitted to one of the four ICUs with RSV bronchiolitis. Despite similar mortality risk scores among ICUs, there was considerable variation in the use of therapies, particularly intubation and mechanical ventilation, in which there was greater than a 3.5-fold increased risk of intubation between sites with the highest and lowest frequency of intubation (odds ratio: 3.8; 95% confidence interval: 2.2–6.4). Albuterol was the most commonly used respiratory treatment, followed by chest physiotherapy, high-flow nasal cannula, and hypertonic saline. Longer stays in the ICU were associated with more frequent use of therapies, specifically invasive mechanical ventilation, inhaled corticosteroids, intrapulmonary percussive ventilation, and chest physiotherapy. Conclusions: Even within a close geographic region, there is significant variation in the treatment provided to critically ill children with RSV bronchiolitis. None of these treatments were associated with shorter durations of hospitalization in this population and some, such as mechanical ventilation, were associated with longer ICU lengths of stay.     

Clinical outcomes of esophagogastroduodenoscopy in critically ill patients using high-dose proton pump inhibitor for suspected bleeding: A retrospective cohort study

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is a useful procedure performed for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. No definite clinical guidelines recommend EGD implementation in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with suspected GI bleeding. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of EGD in critically ill patients who are using high-dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) for suspected GI bleeding.We retrospectively analyzed ICU patients using high-dose PPI for suspected GI bleeding from January 2012 to September 2020. Major cases of GI bleeding, such as those with hematemesis and hematochezia, were excluded, and 1:1 propensity score matching was performed. The change in hemoglobin level, requirement of red blood cell transfusion, re-suspected bleeding event, length of ICU stay, and ICU mortality were compared between the EGD and non-EGD groups.Of the 174 subjects included, 52 patients underwent EGD within 24 hours of PPI administration. In the EGD group, 22 (42.3%) patients showed normal findings, while esophagitis and gastritis were most common abnormal finding (n = 11, 21.2%), and 14 patients (26.9%) underwent a hemostatic procedure. While comparing the 2 groups, the EGD group required a higher amount of red blood cell transfusion (packs) than the non-EGD group for a week (3.04 ± 0.44 vs 2.07 ± 0.25, P = .01). There was no significant difference in the change in hemoglobin level after 1 week (P = .15). After propensity score matching, the EGD group showed similar the requirement of red blood cell transfusion and change in hemoglobin level for a week (P = .52, P = .97, respectively). In analyses for all patients and propensity score matched patients, there was no statistically significant difference in term of re-suspected bleeding event rate, duration of ICU stay, and ICU mortality. However, re-suspected bleeding event rate and ICU mortality were lower trend in the EGD group than the non-EGD group.This study showed that EGD had no definite clinical benefit in ICU patients using high-dose PPI for suspected GI bleeding and aggressive EGD is not necessarily recommended. However, it is necessary to consider EGD in patients who are tolerant.