Search

Background: Incomplete recovery of kidney function is an important adverse outcome in survivors of critical illness. However, unlike eGFR creatinine, eGFR cystatin C is not confounded by muscle loss and may improve identification of persistent kidney dysfunction. Methods: To assess kidney function during prolonged critical illness we enrolled 38 mechanically ventilated patients with expected length of stay of >72h near admission to ICU in a single academic medical center. We assessed sequential kidney function using creatinine, cystatin C, and iohexol clearance measurements. The primary outcome was difference between eGFR creatinine and eGFR cystatin C at ICU discharge using Bayesian regression modelling. We simultaneously measured muscle mass by ultrasound of rectus femoris to assess the confounding effect on serum creatinine generation. Results: Longer length of ICU stay was associated with greater difference between eGFR creatinine and eGFR cystatin C at a predicted rate of 2 ml/min/1.73m2/day (95% confidence interval 1-2). By ICU discharge the posterior mean difference between creatinine and cystatin C eGFR was 33 ml/min/1.73m2 (95% credible interval 24-42). In 27 patients with iohexol clearance measured close to ICU discharge, eGFR creatinine was on average 2-fold greater than the iohexol gold-standard, posterior mean difference 59 ml/min/1.73m2 (95% credible interval 49-69). The posterior mean for eGFR cystatin C suggested a 22 ml/min/1.73m2 (95% credible interval 13-31) overestimation of measured GFR. Each day in ICU resulted in a predicted 2% (95%CI 1-3%) decrease in muscle area. Change in creatinine-to-cystatin C ratio showed good longitudinal, repeated measures correlation with muscle loss, R=0.61 (95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.72). Conclusions: eGFR creatinine systematically over-estimated kidney function after prolonged critical illness. Cystatin C better estimated true kidney function as it appeared unaffected by the muscle loss of prolonged critic

Personalization of ICU nutrition is essential to future of critical care. Recommendations from American/European guidelines and practice suggestions incorporating recent literature are presented. Low-dose enteral nutrition (EN) or parenteral nutrition (PN) can be started within 48 h of admission. While EN is preferred route of delivery, new data highlight PN can be given safely without increased risk; thus, when early EN is not feasible, provision of isocaloric PN is effective and results in similar outcomes. Indirect calorimetry (IC) measurement of energy expenditure (EE) is recommended by both European/American guidelines after stabilization post-ICU admission. Below-measured EE (~ 70%) targets should be used during early phase and increased to match EE later in stay. Low-dose protein delivery can be used early (~ D1-2) (< 0.8 g/kg/d) and progressed to ≥ 1.2 g/kg/d as patients stabilize, with consideration of avoiding higher protein in unstable patients and in acute kidney injury not on CRRT. Intermittent-feeding schedules hold promise for further research. Clinicians must be aware of delivered energy/protein and what percentage of targets delivered nutrition represents. Computerized nutrition monitoring systems/platforms have become widely available. In patients at risk of micronutrient/vitamin losses (i.e., CRRT), evaluation of micronutrient levels should be considered post-ICU days 5–7 with repletion of deficiencies where indicated. In future, we hope use of muscle monitors such as ultrasound, CT scan, and/or BIA will be utilized to assess nutrition risk and monitor response to nutrition. Use of specialized anabolic nutrients such as HMB, creatine, and leucine to improve strength/muscle mass is promising in other populations and deserves future study. In post-ICU setting, continued use of IC measurement and other muscle measures should be considered to guide nutrition. Research on using rehabilitation interventions such as cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET

Background: CONCISE is an internationally agreed minimum set of outcomes for use in nutritional and metabolic clinical research in critically ill adults. Clinicians and researchers need to be aware of the clinimetric properties of these instruments and understand any limitations to ensure valid and reliable research. This systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken to evaluate the clinimetric properties of the measurement instruments identified in CONCISE. Methods: Four electronic databases were searched from inception to December 2022 (MEDLINE via Ovid, EMBASE via Ovid, CINAHL via Healthcare Databases Advanced Search, CENTRAL via Cochrane). Studies were included if they examined at least one clinimetric property of a CONCISE measurement instrument or recognised variation in adults ≥ 18 years with critical illness or recovering from critical illness in any language. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures was used. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses were used in line with COSMIN guidance. The COSMIN checklist was used to evaluate the risk of bias and the quality of clinimetric properties. Overall certainty of the evidence was rated using a modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Narrative synthesis was performed and where possible, meta-analysis was conducted. Results: A total of 4316 studies were screened. Forty-seven were included in the review, reporting data for 12308 participants. The Short Form-36 Questionnaire (Physical Component Score and Physical Functioning), sit-to-stand test, 6-m walk test and Barthel Index had the strongest clinimetric properties and certainty of evidence. The Short Physical Performance Battery, Katz Index and handgrip strength had less favourable results. There was limited data for Lawson Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Background: Patients with critical illness can lose more than 15% of muscle mass in one week, and this can have long-term detrimental effects. However, there is currently no synthesis of the data of intensive care unit (ICU) muscle wasting studies, so the true mean rate of muscle loss across all studies is unknown. The aim of this project was therefore to systematically synthetise data on the rate of muscle loss and to identify the methods used to measure muscle size and to synthetise data on the prevalence of ICU-acquired weakness in critically ill patients. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search of MEDLINE, PubMed, AMED, BNI, CINAHL, and EMCARE until January 2022 (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews [PROSPERO] registration: CRD420222989540. We included studies with at least 20 adult critically ill patients where the investigators measured a muscle mass-related variable at two time points during the ICU stay. We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and assessed the study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: Fifty-two studies that included 3251 patients fulfilled the selection criteria. These studies investigated the rate of muscle wasting in 1773 (55%) patients and assessed ICU-acquired muscle weakness in 1478 (45%) patients. The methods used to assess muscle mass were ultrasound in 85% (n = 28/33) of the studies and computed tomography in the rest 15% (n = 5/33). During the first week of critical illness, patients lost every day -1.75% (95% CI -2.05, -1.45) of their rectus femoris thickness or -2.10% (95% CI -3.17, -1.02) of rectus femoris cross-sectional area. The overall prevalence of ICU-acquired weakness was 48% (95% CI 39%, 56%). Conclusion: On average, critically ill patients lose nearly 2% of skeletal muscle per day during the first week of ICU admission.

Background: Clinical research on nutritional and metabolic interventions in critically ill patients is heterogenous regarding time points, outcomes and measurement instruments used, impeding intervention development and data syntheses, and ultimately worsening clinical outcomes. We aimed to identify and develop a set of core outcome domains and associated measurement instruments to include in all research in critically ill patients. Methods: An updated systematic review informed a two-stage modified Delphi consensus process (domains followed by instruments). Measurement instruments for domains considered ‘essential’ were taken through the second stage of the Delphi and a subsequent consensus meeting. Results: In total, 213 participants (41 patients/caregivers, 50 clinical researchers and 122 healthcare professionals) from 24 countries contributed. Consensus was reached on time points (30 and 90 days post-randomisation). Three domains were considered ‘essential’ at 30 days (survival, physical function and Infection) and five at 90 days (survival, physical function, activities of daily living, nutritional status and muscle/nerve function). Core ‘essential’ measurement instruments reached consensus for survival and activities of daily living, and ‘recommended’ measurement instruments for physical function, nutritional status and muscle/nerve function. No consensus was reached for a measurement instrument for Infection. Four further domains met criteria for ‘recommended,’ but not ‘essential,’ to measure at 30 days post-randomisation (organ dysfunction, muscle/nerve function, nutritional status and wound healing) and three at 90 days (frailty, body composition and organ dysfunction). Conclusion: The CONCISE core outcome set is an internationally agreed minimum set of outcomes for use at 30 and 90 days post-randomisation, in nutritional and metabolic clinical research in critically ill adults., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published