Search

Rationale: The optimal nutritional strategy for critically ill adults at high nutritional risk is unclear.Objectives: To examine the effect of permissive underfeeding with full protein intake compared with standard feeding on 90-day mortality in patients with different baseline nutritional risk.Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of the PermiT (Permissive Underfeeding versus Target Enteral Feeding in Adult Critically Ill Patients) trial.Measurements and Main Results: Nutritional risk was categorized by the modified Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill score, with high nutritional risk defined as a score of 5-9 and low nutritional risk as a score of 0-4. Additional analyses were performed by categorizing patients by body mass index, prealbumin, transferrin, phosphate, urinary urea nitrogen, and nitrogen balance. Based on the Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill score, 378 of 894 (42.3%) patients were categorized as high nutritional risk and 516 of 894 (57.7%) as low nutritional risk. There was no association between feeding strategy and mortality in the two categories; adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-1.27) for high nutritional risk and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.64-1.61) for low nutritional risk (interaction P = 0.53). Findings were similar in analyses using other definitions, with the exception of prealbumin. The association of permissive underfeeding versus standard feeding and 90-day mortality differed when patients were categorized by baseline prealbumin level (≤0.10 g/L: aOR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.31-1.05]; >0.10 and ≤0.15 g/L: aOR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.42-1.48]; >0.15 g/L: aOR, 1.55 [95% CI, 0.80, 3.01]; interaction P = 0.009).Conclusions: Among patients with high and low nutritional risk, permissive underfeeding with full protein intake was associated with similar outcomes as standard feeding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Computerized Physician Order Entry (CPOE) analgesia-sedation protocols may improve sedation practice and patients' outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the impact of the introduction of CPOE protocol. Methods: This was a prospective, observational cohort study of adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation, requiring intravenous infusion of analgesics and/or sedatives, and expected to stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) ≥24 h. As a quality improvement project, the study had three phases: phase 1, no protocol, July 1st to September 30th, 2010; phase 2, post implementation of CPOE protocol, October 1st to December 31st, 2010; and phase 3, revised (age, kidney and liver function adjusted) CPOE protocol, August 1st to October 31st, 2011. Multivariate analyses were performed to determine the independent predictors of mortality. Results: Two hundred seventy nine patients were included (no protocol = 91, CPOE protocol = 97, revised CPOE protocol = 91). Implementation of CPOE protocol was associated with increase of the average daily dose of fentanyl (3720 ± 3286 vs. 2647 ± 2212 mcg/day; p = 0.009) and decrease of hospital length of stay (40 ± 37 vs. 63 ± 85 days, p = 0.02). The revised CPOE protocol was associated with, compared to the CPOE protocol, a decrease of the average daily dose of fentanyl (2208 ± 2115 vs. 3720 ± 3286 mcg/day, p = 0.0002) and lorazepam (0 ± 0 vs. 0.06 ± 0.26 mg/day, p = 0.04), sedation-related complications during ICU stay (3.3 % vs. 29.9 %, p <0.0001), and ICU mortality (18 % vs. 39 %, p = 0.001). The impact of the revised CPOE protocol was more evident on patients aged >70 years or with severe kidney or liver impairment. Both the original CPOE protocol and the revised CPOE protocol were not independent predictors of ICU (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.85, confidence interval [CI] = 0.90-3.78; p = 0.09; aOR = 0.70, CI = 0.32-1.53, p = 0.37; respectively) or hospital mortality (aOR = 1.12, CI = 0.57-2.21, p = 0.74; aOR = 0.80, CI = 0.40-1.59, p = 0.52; respectively). Conclusions: The implementation of a CPOE analgesia-sedation protocol was not associated with improved sedation practices or patients' outcome but with unpredicted increases of an analgesic dose. However, the revised CPOE protocol (age, kidney and liver function adjusted) was associated with improved sedation practices. This study highlights the importance of carefully evaluating the impact of changes in practice to detect unanticipated outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Nutritional support is an essential part of the management of critically ill patients. However, optimal caloric intake has not been systematically evaluated. We aim to compare two strategies of enteral feeding: permissive underfeeding versus target feeding. Method/Design: This is an international multi-center randomized controlled trial in critically ill medical- surgical adult patients. Using a centralized allocation, 862 patients will be randomized to permissive underfeeding or target feeding. Patients in the permissive group receive 50% (acceptable range is 40% to 60%) of the calculated caloric requirement, while those in the targeted group receive 100% (acceptable range 70% to 100%) of the calculated caloric requirement. The primary outcome is 90-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes include ICU and hospital mortality, 28-day, and 180-day mortality as well as health care-associated infections, organ failure, and length of stay in the ICU and hospital. The trial has 80% power to detect an 8% absolute reduction in 90-day mortality assuming a baseline risk of death of 25% at an alpha level of 0.05.Discussion: Patient recruitment started in November 2009 and is currently active in five centers. The Data Monitoring Committee advised continuation of the trial after the first interim analysis. The study is expected to finish by November 2013. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN68144998 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the effect of intensive insulin therapy on mortality in medical surgical intensive care unit patients. Results reveal that intensive insulin therapy was not related to improved survival among medical surgical intensive care unit patients. Instead, it was related to increased occurrence of hypoglycemia. The study does not encourage universal application of intensive insulin therapy in intensive care unit patients.