In this study comparing the delivery of early nutritional support through the parenteral route with delivery through the enteral route in critically ill adults, there was no significant difference in ...30-day mortality between the groups.
Nutritional support is standard for critically ill patients and requires a complex calculus of timing, route of delivery, and the amount and type of nutrients that are administered — all of which may affect patient outcomes. The interpretation of published meta-analyses of trials comparing nutritional support through the parenteral route versus the enteral route in critically ill patients
1
–
3
is complicated by small sample sizes, variable quality, selection bias, lack of standardized definitions, and interventions that combine multiple elements of nutritional support (e.g., timing and route). Currently, the enteral route is the mainstay, largely on the grounds of physiological rationale . . .
The management of sepsis has substantially improved over the past 15 years. In this study, early, goal-directed therapy, which focuses on the initial resuscitation efforts, was compared with usual ...care for the management of severe sepsis in the United Kingdom.
The incidence of severe sepsis and septic shock in adults is estimated to range from 56 to 91 per 100,000 population per year.
1
Affected patients have high rates of death, complications, and resource utilization.
2
–
5
Since 2002, the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) has promoted best practice, including early recognition, source control, appropriate and timely antibiotic administration, and resuscitation with intravenous fluids and vasoactive drugs.
6
–
8
Resuscitation guidance is largely based on a 2001 single-center, proof-of-concept study by Rivers et al., which indicated that protocolized delivery of 6 hours of early, goal-directed therapy (EGDT) to patients presenting to the emergency department . . .
Early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) is recommended in international guidance for the resuscitation of patients presenting with early septic shock. However, adoption has been limited and uncertainty ...remains over its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.
The primary objective was to estimate the effect of EGDT compared with usual resuscitation on mortality at 90 days following randomisation and on incremental cost-effectiveness at 1 year. The secondary objectives were to compare EGDT with usual resuscitation for requirement for, and duration of, critical care unit organ support; length of stay in the emergency department (ED), critical care unit and acute hospital; health-related quality of life, resource use and costs at 90 days and at 1 year; all-cause mortality at 28 days, at acute hospital discharge and at 1 year; and estimated lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness.
A pragmatic, open, multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial with an integrated economic evaluation.
Fifty-six NHS hospitals in England.
A total of 1260 patients who presented at EDs with septic shock.
EGDT (n = 630) or usual resuscitation (n = 630). Patients were randomly allocated 1 : 1.
All-cause mortality at 90 days after randomisation and incremental net benefit (at £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year) at 1 year.
Following withdrawals, data on 1243 (EGDT, n = 623; usual resuscitation, n = 620) patients were included in the analysis. By 90 days, 184 (29.5%) in the EGDT and 181 (29.2%) patients in the usual-resuscitation group had died p = 0.90; absolute risk reduction -0.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.4 to 4.7; relative risk 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.20. Treatment intensity was greater for the EGDT group, indicated by the increased use of intravenous fluids, vasoactive drugs and red blood cell transfusions. Increased treatment intensity was reflected by significantly higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores and more advanced cardiovascular support days in critical care for the EGDT group. At 1 year, the incremental net benefit for EGDT versus usual resuscitation was negative at -£725 (95% CI -£3000 to £1550). The probability that EGDT was more cost-effective than usual resuscitation was below 30%. There were no significant differences in any other secondary outcomes, including health-related quality of life, or adverse events.
Recruitment was lower at weekends and out of hours. The intervention could not be blinded.
There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 90 days for EGDT compared with usual resuscitation among adults identified with early septic shock presenting to EDs in England. On average, costs were higher in the EGDT group than in the usual-resuscitation group while quality-adjusted life-years were similar in both groups; the probability that it is cost-effective is < 30%.
The ProMISe (Protocolised Management In Sepsis) trial completes the planned trio of evaluations of EGDT across the USA, Australasia and England; all have indicated that EGDT is not superior to usual resuscitation. Recognising that each of the three individual, large trials has limited power for evaluating potentially important subgroups, the harmonised approach adopted provides the opportunity to conduct an individual patient data meta-analysis, enhancing both knowledge and generalisability.
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN36307479.
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 97. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Malnutrition is a common problem in critically ill patients in UK NHS critical care units. Early nutritional support is therefore recommended to address deficiencies in nutritional state and related ...disorders in metabolism. However, evidence is conflicting regarding the optimum route (parenteral or enteral) of delivery.
To estimate the effect of early nutritional support via the parenteral route compared with the enteral route on mortality at 30 days and on incremental cost-effectiveness at 1 year. Secondary objectives were to compare the route of early nutritional support on duration of organ support; infectious and non-infectious complications; critical care unit and acute hospital length of stay; all-cause mortality at critical care unit and acute hospital discharge, at 90 days and 1 year; survival to 90 days and 1 year; nutritional and health-related quality of life, resource use and costs at 90 days and 1 year; and estimated lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness.
A pragmatic, open, multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial with an integrated economic evaluation.
Adult general critical care units in 33 NHS hospitals in England.
2400 eligible patients.
Five days of early nutritional support delivered via the parenteral (n = 1200) and enteral (n = 1200) route.
All-cause mortality at 30 days after randomisation and incremental net benefit (INB) (at £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year) at 1 year.
By 30 days, 393 of 1188 (33.1%) patients assigned to receive early nutritional support via the parenteral route and 409 of 1195 (34.2%) assigned to the enteral route had died p = 0.57; absolute risk reduction 1.15%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.65 to 4.94; relative risk 0.97 (0.86 to 1.08). At 1 year, INB for the parenteral route compared with the enteral route was negative at -£1320 (95% CI -£3709 to £1069). The probability that early nutritional support via the parenteral route is more cost-effective - given the data - is < 20%. The proportion of patients in the parenteral group who experienced episodes of hypoglycaemia (p = 0.006) and of vomiting (p < 0.001) was significantly lower than in the enteral group. There were no significant differences in the 15 other secondary outcomes and no significant interactions with pre-specified subgroups.
Blinding of nutritional support was deemed to be impractical and, although the primary outcome was objective, some secondary outcomes, although defined and objectively assessed, may have been more vulnerable to observer bias.
There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 30 days for early nutritional support via the parenteral route compared with the enteral route among adults admitted to critical care units in England. On average, costs were higher for the parenteral route, which, combined with similar survival and quality of life, resulted in negative INBs at 1 year.
Nutritional support is a complex combination of timing, dose, duration, delivery and type, all of which may affect outcomes and costs. Conflicting evidence remains regarding optimum provision to critically ill patients. There is a need to utilise rigorous consensus methods to establish future priorities for basic and clinical research in this area.
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17386141.
This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 28. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
The present study was designed to (1) establish current sedation practice in UK critical care to inform evidence synthesis and potential future primary research and (2) to compare practice reported ...via a survey with actual practice assessed in a point prevalence study (PPS).
UK adult general critical care units were invited to participate in a survey of current sedation practice, and a representative sample of units was invited to participate in a PPS of sedation practice at the patient level. Survey responses were compared with PPS data where both were available.
Survey responses were received from 214 (91 %) of 235 eligible critical care units. Of these respondents, 57 % reported having a written sedation protocol, 94 % having a policy of daily sedation holds and 94 % using a sedation scale to assess depth of sedation. In the PPS, across units reporting a policy of daily sedation holds, a median of 50 % (IQR 33-75 %) of sedated patients were considered for a sedation hold. A median of 88 % (IQR 63-100 %) of patients were assessed using the same sedation scale as reported in the survey. Both the survey and the PPS indicated propofol as the preferred sedative and alfentanil, fentanyl and morphine as the preferred analgesics. In most of the PPS units, all patients had received the unit's reported first-choice sedative (median across units 100 %, IQR 64-100 %), and a median of 80 % (IQR 67-100 %) of patients had received the unit's reported first-choice analgesic. Most units (83 %) reported in the survey that sedatives are usually administered in combination with analgesics. Across units that participated in the PPS, 69 % of patients had received a combination of agents - most frequently propofol combined with either alfentanil or fentanyl.
Clinical practice reported in the national survey did not accurately reflect actual clinical practice at the patient level observed in the PPS. Employing a mixed methods approach provided a more complete picture of sedation practice in terms of breadth and depth of information.
Metastatic germ cell tumors (GCTs) involving body cavity effusions and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) are rare. Diagnosis is challenging because of limited morphological and clinicopathological ...information in the literature.
A database search of our institution from 1990 to 2024 identified 27 cases of metastatic GCTs, comprising five pediatric and 22 adolescent and adult patients, in serous cavities or the CSF, including peritoneal (15), pleural (nine), CSF (two), and pericardial (one) fluid.
The most common primary site was the testis (n = 10), followed by the ovaries (n = 7), mediastinum (n = 4), retroperitoneum (n = 3), pineal gland (n = 2), and sacrum/coccyx (n = 1). The primary tumors in 14 patients were mixed GCTs (six with a seminoma component), followed by immature teratomas (six), yolk sac tumors (three), embryonal carcinomas (two), pure seminomas (one), and postpubertal teratomas (one). The median interval between primary tumor diagnosis and diagnosis of fluid positivity was 7 months (range: 0-134 months). In nine cases, the malignant fluid was diagnosed simultaneously with or within 1 month of the primary tumor. GCT subtyping was performed on 23 of the 27 cytological specimens. Twenty-four patients (89%) also had metastases to other sites. Thirteen patients died of the disease (48%), with a median survival time of 4 months.
Metastatic GCTs in serous effusions and CSF are often associated with disseminated disease and poor prognosis. Subtyping can be performed by cytomorphology combined with immunohistochemistry.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
Prior to investing in a large, multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT), the National Institute for Health Research in the UK called for an evaluation of the feasibility and value for money of ...undertaking a trial on intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) as an adjuvant therapy for severe sepsis/septic shock.
In response to this call, this study assessed the clinical and cost-effectiveness of IVIG (using a decision model), and evaluated the value of conducting an RCT (using expected value of information (EVI) analysis). The evidence informing such assessments was obtained through a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Further primary data analyses were also undertaken using the Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre Case Mix Programme Database, and a Scottish Intensive Care Society research study.
We found a large degree of statistical heterogeneity in the clinical evidence on treatment effect, and the source of such heterogeneity was unclear. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of IVIG is within the borderline region of estimates considered to represent value for money, but results appear highly sensitive to the choice of model used for clinical effectiveness. This was also the case with EVI estimates, with maximum payoffs from conducting a further clinical trial between £ 137 and £ 1,011 million.
Our analyses suggest that there is a need for a further RCT. Results on the value of conducting such research, however, were sensitive to the clinical effectiveness model used, reflecting the high level of heterogeneity in the evidence base.
Purpose
To describe and compare the design of three independent but collaborating multicenter trials of early goal-directed resuscitation for severe sepsis and septic shock.
Methods
We reviewed the ...three current trials, one each in the USA (ProCESS: protocolized care for early septic shock), Australasia (ARISE: Australasian resuscitation in sepsis evaluation), and the UK (ProMISe: protocolised management in sepsis). We used the 2010 CONSORT (consolidated standards of reporting trials) statement and the 2008 CONSORT extension for trials assessing non-pharmacologic treatments to describe and compare the underlying rationale, commonalities, and differences.
Results
All three trials conform to CONSORT guidelines, address the same fundamental questions, and share key design elements. Each trial is a patient-level, equal-randomized, parallel-group superiority trial that seeks to enroll emergency department patients with inclusion criteria that are consistent with the original early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) trial (suspected or confirmed infection, two or more systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, and refractory hypotension or elevated lactate), is powered to detect a 6–8 % absolute mortality reduction (hospital or 90-day), and uses trained teams to deliver EGDT. Design differences appear to primarily be driven by between-country variation in health care context. The main difference between the trials is the inclusion of a third, alternative resuscitation strategy arm in ProCESS.
Conclusions
Harmonization of study design and methods between severe sepsis trials is feasible and may facilitate pooling of data on completion of the trials.
Full text
Available for:
EMUNI, FIS, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, MFDPS, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, SBNM, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK, VKSCE, ZAGLJ
Given the predominance of invasive fungal disease (IFD) amongst the non-immunocompromised adult critically ill population, the potential benefit of antifungal prophylaxis and the lack of ...generalisable tools to identify high risk patients, the aim of the current study was to describe the epidemiology of IFD in UK critical care units, and to develop and validate a clinical risk prediction tool to identify non-neutropenic, critically ill adult patients at high risk of IFD who would benefit from antifungal prophylaxis.
Data on risk factors for, and outcomes from, IFD were collected for consecutive admissions to adult, general critical care units in the UK participating in the Fungal Infection Risk Evaluation (FIRE) Study. Three risk prediction models were developed to model the risk of subsequent Candida IFD based on information available at three time points: admission to the critical care unit, at the end of 24 h and at the end of calendar day 3 of the critical care unit stay. The final model at each time point was evaluated in the three external validation samples.
Between July 2009 and April 2011, 60,778 admissions from 96 critical care units were recruited. In total, 359 admissions (0.6 %) were admitted with, or developed, Candida IFD (66 % Candida albicans). At the rate of candidaemia of 3.3 per 1000 admissions, blood was the most common Candida IFD infection site. Of the initial 46 potential variables, the final admission model and the 24-h model both contained seven variables while the end of calendar day 3 model contained five variables. The end of calendar day 3 model performed the best with a c index of 0.709 in the full validation sample.
Incidence of Candida IFD in UK critical care units in this study was consistent with reports from other European epidemiological studies, but lower than that suggested by previous hospital-wide surveillance in the UK during the 1990s. Risk modeling using classical statistical methods produced relatively simple risk models, and associated clinical decision rules, that provided acceptable discrimination for identifying patients at 'high risk' of Candida IFD.
The FIRE Study was reviewed and approved by the Bolton NHS Research Ethics Committee (reference: 08/H1009/85), the Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (reference: 09/MRE00/76) and the National Information Governance Board (approval number: PIAG 2-10(f)/2005).
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
To identify the proportion of critically ill patients able to consent to participation in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and to assess to what extent patient consent and relative assent ...processes could be conducted according to ethics committee permission.
Descriptive study nested in an RCT.
Fifty-six UK intensive care units participating in the PAC-Man trial.
First 500 patients consecutively enrolled into PAC-Man.
The outcome measures were patient consent and/or relative assent. Of the 498 patients included, 13 (2.6%) provided consent before randomisation. Of the remaining 485 patients, relative assent was obtained for 394 patients (81.2%), and refused post-randomisation for 3 patients (0.6%). No relatives were available for 15 patients (3.1%), and it was unclear from documentation whether relative assent had been obtained for 73 patients (15.1%). Of the 482 patients who did not provide consent prior to randomisation, 188 (39%) survived. Of these, 175 (93.1%) gave retrospective informed consent, six (3.2%) refused, and seven (3.7%) did not regain mental competency.
A very small proportion of patients were able to give consent before randomisation. Due to the high in-hospital mortality (60.6%), only around one third of the remaining patients could provide consent retrospectively. This study demonstrates difficulties experienced in obtaining consent from critically ill patients to participate in medical research and raises important issues about the ethical basis of the consent process in critical care.
Full text
Available for:
EMUNI, FIS, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, MFDPS, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, SBNM, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK, VKSCE, ZAGLJ
PDF
