Background
This guideline updates recommendations from the 2016 American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN)/Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) critical care nutrition ...guideline for five foundational questions central to critical care nutrition support.
Methods
The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process was used to develop and summarize evidence for clinical practice recommendations. Clinical outcomes were assessed for (1) higher vs lower energy dose, (2) higher vs lower protein dose, (3) exclusive isocaloric parenteral nutrition (PN) vs enteral nutrition (EN), (4) supplemental PN (SPN) plus EN vs EN alone, (5A) mixed‐oil lipid injectable emulsions (ILEs) vs soybean oil, and (5B) fish oil (FO)–containing ILE vs non‐FO ILE. To assess safety, weight‐based energy intake and protein were plotted against hospital mortality.
Results
Between January 1, 2001, and July 15, 2020, 2320 citations were identified and data were ed from 36 trials including 20,578 participants. Patients receiving FO had decreased pneumonia rates of uncertain clinical significance. Otherwise, there were no differences for any outcome in any question. Owing to a lack of certainty regarding harm, the energy prescription recommendation was decreased to 12–25 kcal/kg/day.
Conclusion
No differences in clinical outcomes were identified among numerous nutrition interventions, including higher energy or protein intake, isocaloric PN or EN, SPN, or different ILEs. As more consistent critical care nutrition support data become available, more precise recommendations will be possible. In the meantime, clinical judgment and close monitoring are needed. This paper was approved by the ASPEN Board of Directors.
AbstractObjectivesTo characterize the clinical severity of covid-19 associated with the alpha, delta, and omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants among adults admitted to hospital and to compare the ...effectiveness of mRNA vaccines to prevent hospital admissions related to each variant.DesignCase-control study.Setting21 hospitals across the United States.Participants11 690 adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital: 5728 with covid-19 (cases) and 5962 without covid-19 (controls). Patients were classified into SARS-CoV-2 variant groups based on viral whole genome sequencing, and, if sequencing did not reveal a lineage, by the predominant circulating variant at the time of hospital admission: alpha (11 March to 3 July 2021), delta (4 July to 25 December 2021), and omicron (26 December 2021 to 14 January 2022).Main outcome measuresVaccine effectiveness calculated using a test negative design for mRNA vaccines to prevent covid-19 related hospital admissions by each variant (alpha, delta, omicron). Among patients admitted to hospital with covid-19, disease severity on the World Health Organization’s clinical progression scale was compared among variants using proportional odds regression.ResultsEffectiveness of the mRNA vaccines to prevent covid-19 associated hospital admissions was 85% (95% confidence interval 82% to 88%) for two vaccine doses against the alpha variant, 85% (83% to 87%) for two doses against the delta variant, 94% (92% to 95%) for three doses against the delta variant, 65% (51% to 75%) for two doses against the omicron variant; and 86% (77% to 91%) for three doses against the omicron variant. In-hospital mortality was 7.6% (81/1060) for alpha, 12.2% (461/3788) for delta, and 7.1% (40/565) for omicron. Among unvaccinated patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital, severity on the WHO clinical progression scale was higher for the delta versus alpha variant (adjusted proportional odds ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.11 to 1.46), and lower for the omicron versus delta variant (0.61, 0.49 to 0.77). Compared with unvaccinated patients, severity was lower for vaccinated patients for each variant, including alpha (adjusted proportional odds ratio 0.33, 0.23 to 0.49), delta (0.44, 0.37 to 0.51), and omicron (0.61, 0.44 to 0.85).ConclusionsmRNA vaccines were found to be highly effective in preventing covid-19 associated hospital admissions related to the alpha, delta, and omicron variants, but three vaccine doses were required to achieve protection against omicron similar to the protection that two doses provided against the delta and alpha variants. Among adults admitted to hospital with covid-19, the omicron variant was associated with less severe disease than the delta variant but still resulted in substantial morbidity and mortality. Vaccinated patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 had significantly lower disease severity than unvaccinated patients for all the variants.
IMPORTANCE: A comprehensive understanding of the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination requires consideration of disease attenuation, determined as whether people who develop COVID-19 despite vaccination ...have lower disease severity than unvaccinated people. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines—mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech)—and COVID-19 hospitalization, and, among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, the association with progression to critical disease. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A US 21-site case-control analysis of 4513 adults hospitalized between March 11 and August 15, 2021, with 28-day outcome data on death and mechanical ventilation available for patients enrolled through July 14, 2021. Date of final follow-up was August 8, 2021. EXPOSURES: COVID-19 vaccination. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Associations were evaluated between prior vaccination and (1) hospitalization for COVID-19, in which case patients were those hospitalized for COVID-19 and control patients were those hospitalized for an alternative diagnosis; and (2) disease progression among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, in which cases and controls were COVID-19 patients with and without progression to death or mechanical ventilation, respectively. Associations were measured with multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 4513 patients (median age, 59 years IQR, 45-69; 2202 48.8% women; 23.0% non-Hispanic Black individuals, 15.9% Hispanic individuals, and 20.1% with an immunocompromising condition), 1983 were case patients with COVID-19 and 2530 were controls without COVID-19. Unvaccinated patients accounted for 84.2% (1669/1983) of COVID-19 hospitalizations. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was significantly associated with decreased likelihood of vaccination (cases, 15.8%; controls, 54.8%; adjusted OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.13-0.18), including for sequenced SARS-CoV-2 Alpha (8.7% vs 51.7%; aOR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.06-0.16) and Delta variants (21.9% vs 61.8%; aOR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.10-0.21). This association was stronger for immunocompetent patients (11.2% vs 53.5%; aOR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.09-0.13) than immunocompromised patients (40.1% vs 58.8%; aOR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.35-0.69) (P < .001) and weaker at more than 120 days since vaccination with BNT162b2 (5.8% vs 11.5%; aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.27-0.49) than with mRNA-1273 (1.9% vs 8.3%; aOR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.09-0.23) (P < .001). Among 1197 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, death or invasive mechanical ventilation by day 28 was associated with decreased likelihood of vaccination (12.0% vs 24.7%; aOR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.19-0.58). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Vaccination with an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was significantly less likely among patients with COVID-19 hospitalization and disease progression to death or mechanical ventilation. These findings are consistent with risk reduction among vaccine breakthrough infections compared with absence of vaccination.
In patients with septic shock, the administration of fluids during initial hemodynamic resuscitation remains a major therapeutic challenge. We are faced with many open questions regarding the type, ...dose and timing of intravenous fluid administration. There are only four major indications for intravenous fluid administration: aside from resuscitation, intravenous fluids have many other uses including maintenance and replacement of total body water and electrolytes, as carriers for medications and for parenteral nutrition. In this paradigm-shifting review, we discuss different fluid management strategies including early adequate goal-directed fluid management, late conservative fluid management and late goal-directed fluid removal. In addition, we expand on the concept of the “four D’s” of fluid therapy, namely drug, dosing, duration and de-escalation. During the treatment of patients with septic shock, four phases of fluid therapy should be considered in order to provide answers to four basic questions. These four phases are the resuscitation phase, the optimization phase, the stabilization phase and the evacuation phase. The four questions are “When to start intravenous fluids?”, “When to stop intravenous fluids?”, “When to start de-resuscitation or active fluid removal?” and finally “When to stop de-resuscitation?” In analogy to the way we handle antibiotics in critically ill patients, it is time for fluid stewardship.
Administration of intravenous crystalloid solutions is a fundamental therapy for sepsis, but the effect of crystalloid composition on patient outcomes remains unknown.
To compare the effect of ...balanced crystalloids versus saline on 30-day in-hospital mortality among critically ill adults with sepsis.
Secondary analysis of patients from SMART (Isotonic Solutions and Major Adverse Renal Events Trial) admitted to the medical ICU with an
code for sepsis, using multivariable regression to control for potential confounders.
Of 15,802 patients enrolled in SMART, 1,641 patients were admitted to the medical ICU with a diagnosis of sepsis. A total of 217 patients (26.3%) in the balanced crystalloids group experienced 30-day in-hospital morality compared with 255 patients (31.2%) in the saline group (adjusted odds ratio aOR, 0.74; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.59-0.93;
= 0.01). Patients in the balanced group experienced a lower incidence of major adverse kidney events within 30 days (35.4% vs. 40.1%; aOR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63-0.97) and a greater number of vasopressor-free days (20 ± 12 vs. 19 ± 13; aOR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.02-1.54) and renal replacement therapy-free days (20 ± 12 vs. 19 ± 13; aOR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.08-1.69) compared with the saline group.
Among patients with sepsis in a large randomized trial, use of balanced crystalloids was associated with a lower 30-day in-hospital mortality compared with use of saline.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02444988).
This single-center, pragmatic, multiple-crossover trial showed no difference in hospital-free days, the primary outcome, among adults treated with intravenous saline or balanced crystalloids in the ...ED and subsequently hospitalized outside an ICU.
Balanced Crystalloids versus Saline in Critically Ill Adults Semler, Matthew W; Self, Wesley H; Wanderer, Jonathan P ...
New England journal of medicine/The New England journal of medicine,
03/2018, Letnik:
378, Številka:
9
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
In this cluster-randomized, multiple-crossover trial conducted in 5 ICUs, intravenous administration of balanced crystalloids resulted in a lower rate of the composite outcome — death from any cause, ...new renal-replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction — than saline.
There is no accurate, non-invasive measurement to estimate the degree of pulmonary oedema in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We developed the Radiographic Assessment of Lung Oedema (RALE) ...score to evaluate the extent and density of alveolar opacities on chest radiographs. After first comparing the RALE score to gravimetric assessment of pulmonary oedema in organ donors, we then evaluated the RALE score in patients with ARDS for its relationship to oxygenation and clinical outcomes.
We compared radiographs with excised lung weights from 72 organ donors (derivation cohort) and radiographs with clinical data from 174 patients with ARDS in the ARDSNet Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial (validation cohort). To calculate RALE, each radiographic quadrant was scored for extent of consolidation (0-4) and density of opacification (1-3). The product of the consolidation and density scores for each of the four quadrants was summed (maximum score=48).
Agreement between two independent reviewers for RALE score was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.93, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.95). In donors, pre-procurement RALE score correlated with height-adjusted total lung weight (ρ=0.59, p<0.001). In patients with ARDS, higher RALE scores were independently associated with lower PaO
/fractional inspired oxygen and worse survival. Conservative fluid management significantly decreased RALE score over 3 days compared with liberal fluid management.
The RALE score can be used to assess both the extent of pulmonary oedema and the severity of ARDS, by utilising information that is already obtained routinely, safely and inexpensively in every patient with ARDS. This novel non-invasive measure should be useful for assessing ARDS severity and monitoring response to therapy.
PDF
