Search

Rationale: The SPICE III (Sedation Practice in Intensive Care Evaluation) trial reported significant heterogeneity in mortality with dexmedetomidine treatment. Supplemental propofol was commonly used to achieve desirable sedation. Objectives: To quantify the association of different infusion rates of dexmedetomidine and propofol, given in combination, with mortality and to determine if this is modified by age. Methods: We included 1,177 patients randomized in SPICE III to receive dexmedetomidine and given supplemental propofol, stratified by age (>65 or ⩽65 yr). We used double stratification analysis to produce quartiles of steady infusion rates of dexmedetomidine while escalating propofol dose and vice versa. We used Cox proportional hazard and multivariable regression adjusted for relevant clinical variable to evaluate the association of sedative dose with 90-day mortality. Measurements and Main Results: Younger patients (598 of 1,177 [50.8%]) received significantly higher doses of both sedatives compared with older patients to achieve comparable sedation depth. On double stratification analysis, escalating infusion rates of propofol to 1.27 mg/kg/h at a steady dexmedetomidine infusion rate (0.54 μg/kg/h) was associated with reduced adjusted mortality in younger but not older patients. This was consistent with multivariable regression modeling (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.43–0.78; P < 0.0001) adjusted for baseline risk and interaction with dexmedetomidine dose. In contrast, among younger patients, using multivariable regression, escalating dexmedetomidine infusion rate was associated with increased adjusted mortality (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.03–1.65; P = 0.029). Conclusions: In patients ⩽65 years of age sedated with dexmedetomidine and propofol combination, preferentially increasing the dose of propofol was associated with decreased adjusted 90-day mortality. Conversely, increasing dexmedetomidine may be associated with increased mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Whether selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) reduces mortality in critically ill patients remains uncertain.Objective: To determine whether SDD reduces in-hospital mortality in critically ill adults.Design, Setting, and Participants: A cluster, crossover, randomized clinical trial that recruited 5982 mechanically ventilated adults from 19 intensive care units (ICUs) in Australia between April 2018 and May 2021 (final follow-up, August 2021). A contemporaneous ecological assessment recruited 8599 patients from participating ICUs between May 2017 and August 2021.Interventions: ICUs were randomly assigned to adopt or not adopt a SDD strategy for 2 alternating 12-month periods, separated by a 3-month interperiod gap. Patients in the SDD group (n = 2791) received a 6-hourly application of an oral paste and administration of a gastric suspension containing colistin, tobramycin, and nystatin for the duration of mechanical ventilation, plus a 4-day course of an intravenous antibiotic with a suitable antimicrobial spectrum. Patients in the control group (n = 3191) received standard care.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality within 90 days. There were 8 secondary outcomes, including the proportion of patients with new positive blood cultures, antibiotic-resistant organisms (AROs), and Clostridioides difficile infections. For the ecological assessment, a noninferiority margin of 2% was prespecified for 3 outcomes including new cultures of AROs.Results: Of 5982 patients (mean age, 58.3 years; 36.8% women) enrolled from 19 ICUs, all patients completed the trial. There were 753/2791 (27.0%) and 928/3191 (29.1%) in-hospital deaths in the SDD and standard care groups, respectively (mean difference, -1.7% [95% CI, -4.8% to 1.3%]; odds ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.82-1.02]; P = .12). Of 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, 6 showed no significant differences. In the SDD vs standard care groups, 23.1% vs 34.6% had new ARO cultures (absolute difference, -11.0%; 95% CI, -14.7% to -7.3%), 5.6% vs 8.1% had new positive blood cultures (absolute difference, -1.95%; 95% CI, -3.5% to -0.4%), and 0.5% vs 0.9% had new C difficile infections (absolute difference, -0.24%; 95% CI, -0.6% to 0.1%). In 8599 patients enrolled in the ecological assessment, use of SDD was not shown to be noninferior with regard to the change in the proportion of patients who developed new AROs (-3.3% vs -1.59%; mean difference, -1.71% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -∞ to 4.31%] and 0.88% vs 0.55%; mean difference, -0.32% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -∞ to 5.47%]) in the first and second periods, respectively.Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation, SDD, compared with standard care without SDD, did not significantly reduce in-hospital mortality. However, the confidence interval around the effect estimate includes a clinically important benefit.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02389036. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To quantify potential heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE), of early sedation with dexmedetomidine (DEX) compared with usual care, and identify patients who have a high probability of lower or higher 90-day mortality according to age, and other identified clusters.Methods: Bayesian analysis of 3904 critically ill adult patients expected to receive invasive ventilation > 24 h and enrolled in a multinational randomized controlled trial comparing early DEX with usual care sedation.Results: HTE was assessed according to age and clusters (based on 12 baseline characteristics) using a Bayesian hierarchical models. DEX was associated with lower 90-day mortality compared to usual care in patients > 65 years (odds ratio [OR], 0.83 [95% credible interval [CrI] 0.68-1.00], with 97.7% probability of reduced mortality across broad categories of illness severity. Conversely, the probability of increased mortality in patients ≤ 65 years was 98.5% (OR 1.26 [95% CrI 1.02-1.56]. Two clusters were identified: cluster 1 (976 patients) mostly operative, and cluster 2 (2346 patients), predominantly non-operative. There was a greater probability of benefit with DEX in cluster 1 (OR 0.86 [95% CrI 0.65-1.14]) across broad categories of age, with 86.4% probability that DEX is more beneficial in cluster 1 than cluster 2.Conclusion: In critically ill mechanically ventilated patients, early sedation with dexmedetomidine exhibited a high probability of reduced 90-day mortality in older patients regardless of operative or non-operative cluster status. Conversely, a high probability of increased 90-day mortality was observed in younger patients of non-operative status. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Both Dr Massart and colleagues and Dr Determann and colleagues question the SDD protocol adherence rates and the adequacy of microbiological surveillance in the SuDDICU trial. Comment & Response B In Reply b The SuDDICU trial[1] was designed to determine whether the administration of SDD as a preventive infection control strategy improved patient-centered outcomes, specifically hospital mortality, in intensive care unit patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract and Hospital Mortality in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation - Reply. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Discussing deceased organ donation can be difficult not only for families but for health professionals who initiate and manage the conversations. It is well recognised that the methods of communication and communication skills of health professionals are key influences on decisions made by families regarding organ donation.Methods: This multicentre study is being performed in nine intensive care units with follow-up conducted by the Organ and Tissue Donation Service in New South Wales (NSW) Australia. The control condition is pre-intervention usual practice for at least six months before each site implements the intervention. The COMFORT intervention consists of six elements: family conversations regarding offers for organ donation to be led by a "designated requester"; family offers for donation are deferred to the designated requester; the offer of donation is separated from the end-of-life discussion that death is inevitable; it takes place within a structured family donation conversation using a "balanced" approach. Designated requesters may be intensivists, critical care nurses or social workers prepared by attending the three-day national "Family Donation Conversation" workshops, and the half-day NSW Simulation Program. The design is pre-post intervention to compare rates of family consent for organ donation six months before and under the intervention. Each ICU crosses from using the control to intervention condition after the site initiation visit. The primary endpoint is the consent rate for deceased organ donation calculated from 140 eligible next of kin families. Secondary endpoints are health professionals' adherence rates to core elements of the intervention; identification of predictors of family donation decision; and the proportion of families who regret their final donation decision at 90 days.Discussion: The pragmatic design of this study may identify 'what works' in usual clinical settings when requesting organ donation in critical care areas, both in terms of changes in practice healthcare professionals are willing and able to adopt, and the effect this may have on desired outcomes. The findings of this study will be indicative of the potential benefits of the intervention and be relevant and transferrable to clinical settings in other states and countries.Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12613000815763 (24 July 2013). ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01922310 (14 August 2013) (retrospectively registered). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Behaviour change interventions often target 'important' beliefs. The literature proposes four methods for assessing importance of attitudinal beliefs: elicitation frequency, importance ratings, and strength of prediction (bivariate and multivariate). We tested congruence between these methods in a Delphi study about selective decontamination of the digestive tract ( SDD). SDD improves infection rates among critically ill patients, yet uptake in intensive care units is low internationally. Methods A Delphi study involved three iterations ('rounds'). Participants were 105 intensive care clinicians in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia/ New Zealand. In Round 1, semi-structured interviews were conducted to elicit beliefs about delivering SDD. In Rounds 2 and 3, participants completed questionnaires, rating agreement and importance for each belief-statement (9-point Likert scales). Belief importance was assessed using elicitation frequency, mean importance ratings, and prediction of global attitude ( Pearson's correlations; beta-weights). Correlations between indices were computed. Results Participants generated 14 attitudinal beliefs. Indices had adequate variation (frequencies: 4-94, mean importance ratings: 4.93-8.00, Pearson's correlations: ±0.09 to ±0.54, beta-weights: ±0.01 to ±0.30). SDD increases antibiotic resistance was the most important belief according to three methods and was ranked second by beta-weights (behind Overall, SDD benefits patients to whom it is delivered). Spearman's correlations were significant for importance ratings with frequencies and correlations. However, other indices were unrelated. The top four beliefs differed according to the measure used. Conclusions Results provided evidence of congruence across three methods for assessing belief importance. Beta-weights were unrelated to other indices, suggesting that they may not be appropriate as the sole method. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Attitudinal beliefs (specific beliefs about the consequences of performing an action) are key to designing interventions to change intentions and behaviour., The literature reports four methods for assessing the importance of attitudinal beliefs: frequency of elicitation in interviews, importance ratings in questionnaires, and strength of prediction (bivariate and multivariate) of global attitude scores., The congruence between these measures of importance is not known., What does this study add? Four indices of importance were examined in a multi-professional, international study about the use of selective digestive decontamination to prevent infection in intensive care settings., Three indices were correlated with one another., Each method used to assess importance produced a different subset of the most important beliefs. Selection of the most important beliefs should use multiple assessment methods., This evidence suggests that multiple regression approaches may not be appropriate as the sole method for assessing belief importance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) is a prophylactic antibiotic regimen that is not widely used in practice. We aimed to describe the opinions of key 'stakeholders' about the validity of the existing evidence base, likely consequences of implementation, relative importance of their opinions in influencing overall practice, likely barriers to implementation and perceptions of the requirement for further research to inform the decision about whether to embark on a further large randomised controlled trial. Methods This was a Delphi study informed by comprehensive framework of possible determinants of health professionals' behaviour to study Critical Care practice in four countries. There were four key stakeholder participant groups including ICU physicians, pharmacists, clinical leads, and clinical microbiologists/infectious disease physicians. Round one comprised participant interviews and Rounds two and three were online questionnaires using Delphi method. Results In this study, 141 participants were recruited of whom 82% were retained. Participants rated themselves as knowledgeable about SDD. Antibiotic resistance was identified as the most important issue. SDD was seen as a low clinical priority but few participants reported strong opposition. There was moderate agreement that research to date has not adequately addressed concerns about antibiotic resistance and lacks generalizability. Participants indicated equipoise with regard to benefits and harms of SDD, and indicated strong support for a further randomised trial. Conclusions Clinicians have clinical equipoise about the effectiveness of SDD. Future research requires longer follow up to assess antibiotic resistance as well as greater validity/generalizability to provide definitive answers on the effectiveness of decontamination and effects on antibiotic resistance. SDD was regarded as not being a high clinical priority, which may limit future trial participation. These results have identified that a further large randomised controlled trial of SDD in critical care is both warranted and appropriate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: There is conflicting data as to whether obesity is an independent risk factor for mortality in severe pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza (A(H1N1)pdm09). It is postulated that excess inflammation and cytokine production in obese patients following severe influenza infection leads to viral pneumonitis and/or acute respiratory distress syndrome. Methods: Demographic, laboratory and clinical data prospectively collected from obese and non-obese patients admitted to nine adult Australian intensive care units (ICU) during the first A(H1N1)pdm09 wave, supplemented with retrospectively collected data, were compared. Results: Of 173 patients, 100 (57.8%), 73 (42.2%) and 23 (13.3%) had body mass index (BMI) <30 kg/m2, ≥30 kg/m2 (obese) and ≥40 kg/m2 (morbidly obese) respectively. Compared to non-obese patients, obese patients were younger (mean age 43.4 vs. 48.4 years, p = 0.035) and more likely to develop pneumonitis (61% vs. 44%, p = 0.029). Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use was greater in morbidly obese compared to non-obese patients (17.4% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.04). Higher mortality rates were observed in non-obese compared to obese patients, but not after adjusting for severity of disease. C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and hospital length of stay (LOS) were similar. Amongst ICU survivors, obese patients had longer ICU LOS (median 11.9 vs. 6.8 days, p = 0.017). Similar trends were observed when only patients infected with A(H1N1)pdm09 were examined. Conclusions: Among patients admitted to ICU during the first wave of A(H1N1)pdm09, obese and morbidly obese patients with severe infection were more likely to develop pneumonitis compared to non-obese patients, but mortality rates were not increased. CRP is not an accurate marker of pneumonitis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on a study which analyzed the increase in intensive care unit (ICU) bed availability resulting from the use of the New South Wales and Ontario Health Plan for an Influenza Pandemic (OHPIP) triage protocols. The study included eight Australian, adult, general ICU patients and was conducted between September 2009 and May 2010. Study authors concluded that triage protocols resulted in increased ICU bed availability.

The authors reflect on the pregnancy risks of women in 21st century. The authors mention that pregnant women need to have high standard medical care against any infectious diseases like influenza A/H1N1. They state that maternal mortality rates (MMR) in high-income countries like Australia are lower compared with low-income countries like the sub-Saharan African countries. They adds that pregnant women with respiratory illnesses like pneumonia need to be admitted into intensive case unit.

The authors look at the findings of a study of the effect of various dengue fever severities on the heart published by S. Yacoub and colleagues within the issue. The study used an echocardiographic assessment of intravascular volume. They note that the study emphasized the importance of appropriate fluid management in severe dengue fever. Also cited is the increasing importance of focused echocardiography as a critical care skill.

The author expresses his views on the impact of endotracheal suctioning on cross-transmission with Gram-negative bacteria in relation to a study conducted by researcher I.P. Jongerden and colleagues, published in a 2011 issue of the journal "Critical Care Medicine." He offers information on randomized controlled trial (RCT) as an investigational standard in acute medicine. He also talks about sample size calculation in a cluster RCT.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Extracorporeal life support," by A. M. Gaffney and colleagues published in the November 2, 2010 issue.

Background: Dexmedetomidine produces sedation while maintaining a degree of arousability and may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and delirium among patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). The use of dexmedetomidine as the sole or primary sedative agent in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation has not been extensively studied., Methods: In an open-label, randomized trial, we enrolled critically ill adults who had been undergoing ventilation for less than 12 hours in the ICU and were expected to continue to receive ventilatory support for longer than the next calendar day to receive dexmedetomidine as the sole or primary sedative or to receive usual care (propofol, midazolam, or other sedatives). The target range of sedation-scores on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (which is scored from -5 [unresponsive] to +4 [combative]) was -2 to +1 (lightly sedated to restless). The primary outcome was the rate of death from any cause at 90 days., Results: We enrolled 4000 patients at a median interval of 4.6 hours between eligibility and randomization. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis involving 3904 patients, the primary outcome event occurred in 566 of 1948 (29.1%) in the dexmedetomidine group and in 569 of 1956 (29.1%) in the usual-care group (adjusted risk difference, 0.0 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -2.9 to 2.8). An ancillary finding was that to achieve the prescribed level of sedation, patients in the dexmedetomidine group received supplemental propofol (64% of patients), midazolam (3%), or both (7%) during the first 2 days after randomization; in the usual-care group, these drugs were administered as primary sedatives in 60%, 12%, and 20% of the patients, respectively. Bradycardia and hypotension were more common in the dexmedetomidine group., Conclusions: Among patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in the ICU, those who received early dexmedetomidine for sedation had a rate of death at 90 days similar to that in the usual-care group and required supplemental sedatives to achieve the prescribed level of sedation. More adverse events were reported in the dexmedetomidine group than in the usual-care group. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; SPICE III ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01728558.)., (Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Daily interruption of continuous infusion of sedatives has improved outcomes in patients receiving mechanical ventilation in open-label studies., Objectives: To assess the feasibility of a protocol for a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial study on the impact of routine daily interruption of sedation in patients receiving mechanical ventilation., Methods: A total of 50 patients receiving mechanical ventilation were randomized to daily interruption of fentanyl and/or midazolam infusions for up to 6 hours or to usual management of sedation. Blinding was achieved by using replacement infusions (saline or active drug in saline)., Results: The recruitment target of 80 patients was not met in an extended time frame. Propofol was used outside the protocol in 27% of patients in the intervention group and 17% of patients in the control group (P = .10). A total of 15% of the intervention group and 12% of the control group never had replacement infusions started (P = .77), and replacement infusions were started on only approximately one-third of eligible days in patients who received replacement infusions. The mean doses of fentanyl and midazolam were similar. The blinding strategy was safe and effective: no patients had unplanned extubations, and the most frequent reason for ending replacement infusions was completion of the maximum 6-hour period., Conclusions: The double-blinded design for assessment of sedation interruption in patients receiving mechanical ventilation was safe and effective. Slow recruitment of patients and frequent noncompliance with the protocol suggest that modifications to the protocol are needed.