Search

Critical illness encompasses a wide spectrum of life-threatening clinical conditions requiring intensive care. Our objective was to evaluate cognitive, inflammatory and cellular metabolism alterations in the central nervous system in an animal model of critical illness induced by zymosan. For this Wistar rats that were divided into Sham and zymosan. Zymozan was administered once intraperitoneally (30 g/100 g body weight) diluted in mineral oil. The animals were submitted to behavioral tests of octagonal maze, inhibitory avoidance and elevated plus maze. Brain structures (cortex, prefrontal and hippocampus) were removed at 24 h, 4, 7 and 15 days after zymosan administration for analysis of cytokine levels (TNF-α, IL-1b, IL-6 and IL-10), oxidative damage and oxygen consumption. Zymosan-treated animals presented mild cognitive impairment both in aversive (inhibitory avoidance) and non-aversive (octagonal maze) tasks by day 15. However, they did not show increase in anxiety (elevated-plus maze). The first neurochemical alteration found was an increase in brain pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-1β, IL-6 and TNF-α) at day 4th in the hippocampus. In cortex, a late (7 and 15 days) increase in TNF-α was also noted, while the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10 decrease from 4 to 15 days. Oxygen consumption was decreased in the hippocampus and pre-frontal, but not cortex, only at 7 days. Additionally, it was observed a late (15 days) increase in oxidative damage parameters. This characterization of brain dysfunction in rodent model of critical illness reproduces some of the alterations reported in humans such neuropsychiatric disorders, especially depression, memory loss and cognitive changes and can add to the nowadays used models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Since the publication of the 2018 Clinical Guidelines about sedation, analgesia, delirium, mobilization, and sleep deprivation in critically ill patients, no evaluation and adequacy assessment of these recommendations were studied in an international context. This survey aimed to investigate these current practices and if the COVID-19 pandemic has changed them. Methods: This study was an open multinational electronic survey directed to physicians working in adult intensive care units (ICUs), which was performed in two steps: before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: We analyzed 1768 questionnaires and 1539 (87%) were complete. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, we received 1476 questionnaires and 292 were submitted later. The following practices were observed before the pandemic: the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) (61.5%), the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) (48.2%), the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) (76.6%), and the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) (66.6%) were the most frequently tools used to assess pain, sedation level, and delirium, respectively; midazolam and fentanyl were the most frequently used drugs for inducing sedation and analgesia (84.8% and 78.3%, respectively), whereas haloperidol (68.8%) and atypical antipsychotics (69.4%) were the most prescribed drugs for delirium treatment; some physicians regularly prescribed drugs to induce sleep (19.1%) or ordered mechanical restraints as part of their routine (6.2%) for patients on mechanical ventilation; non-pharmacological strategies were frequently applied for pain, delirium, and sleep deprivation management. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the intensive care specialty was independently associated with best practices. Moreover, the mechanical ventilation rate was higher, patients received sedation more often (94% versus 86.1%, p < 0.001) and sedation goals were discussed more frequently in daily rounds. Morphine was the main drug used for analgesia (77.2%), and some sedative drugs, such as midazolam, propofol, ketamine and quetiapine, were used more frequently. Conclusions: Most sedation, analgesia and delirium practices were comparable before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, the intensive care specialty was a variable that was independently associated with the best practices. Although many findings are in accordance with evidence-based recommendations, some practices still need improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A biomarker describes a measurable indicator of a patient's clinical condition that can be measured accurately and reproducibly. Biomarkers offer utility for diagnosis, prognosis, early disease recognition, risk stratification, appropriate treatment (theranostics), and trial enrichment for patients with sepsis or suspected sepsis. In this narrative review, we aim to answer the question, "Do biomarkers in patients with sepsis or septic shock predict mortality, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), or organ dysfunction?" We also discuss the role of pro- and anti-inflammatory biomarkers and biomarkers associated with intestinal permeability, endothelial injury, organ dysfunction, blood-brain barrier (BBB) breakdown, brain injury, and short and long-term mortality. For sepsis, a range of biomarkers is identified, including fluid phase pattern recognition molecules (PRMs), complement system, cytokines, chemokines, damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs), non-coding RNAs, miRNAs, cell membrane receptors, cell proteins, metabolites, and soluble receptors. We also provide an overview of immune response biomarkers that can help identify or differentiate between systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), sepsis, septic shock, and sepsis-associated encephalopathy. However, significant work is needed to identify the optimal combinations of biomarkers that can augment diagnosis, treatment, and good patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The discovery of the potential of paraprobiotics to exert different immunological benefits suggests that further studies should be carried out to determine their potential and mechanisms of action in modulating the immune system. The objective of this study was to investigate the immune response of several microbial-associated molecular patterns (MAMPS) used at different doses in macrophage cell lines RAW-264.7 stimulated with lipopolysaccharide (LPS). Two experiments were conducted. The first was performed to determine a dose response curve for each paraprobiotic (Bifidobacterium lactis, Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus gasseri, Lactobacillus paracasei, and Streptococcus thermophilus). Further experiments were carried using only two doses (0.01 g/ml and 0.1 g/ml). RAW-264.7 cells were cultivated in Dubelcco’s Modified Eagle’s medium supplemented with fetal bovine serum and penicillin/streptomycin. Cells were incubated with LPS (1 μg/ml) and six concentrations of MAMPs were added. RAW-264.7 viability, myeloperoxidase activity, nitrite/nitrate concentration, reactive oxygen species production, oxidative damage, and inflammatory parameters were measured. In the LPS group, there was a significant reduction in cell viability. Myeloperoxidase and nitrite/nitrate concentrations demonstrated a better effect at 0.01 and 0.1 g/ml doses. There was a significant reduction in interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels at 0.1 g/ml dose in all paraprobiotics. IL-10 levels decreased in the LPS group and increased at 0.1 g/ml dose in all paraprobiotics. The dichlorofluorescin diacetate results were reinforced by the observed in oxidative damage. Paraprobiotics are likely to contribute to the improvement of intestinal homeostasis, immunomodulation, and host metabolism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Several therapies are being used or proposed for COVID-19, and many lack appropriate evaluations of their effectiveness and safety. The purpose of this document is to develop recommendations to support decisions regarding the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Brazil. Methods: A group of 27 experts, including representatives of the Ministry of Health and methodologists, created this guideline. The method used for the rapid development of guidelines was based on the adoption and/or adaptation of existing international guidelines (GRADE ADOLOPMENT) and supported by the e-COVID-19 RecMap platform. The quality of the evidence and the preparation of the recommendations followed the GRADE method. Results: Sixteen recommendations were generated. They include strong recommendations for the use of corticosteroids in patients using supplemental oxygen, the use of anticoagulants at prophylactic doses to prevent thromboembolism and the nonuse of antibiotics in patients without suspected bacterial infection. It was not possible to make a recommendation regarding the use of tocilizumab in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 using oxygen due to uncertainties regarding the availability of and access to the drug. Strong recommendations against the use of hydroxychloroquine, convalescent plasma, colchicine, lopinavir + ritonavir and antibiotics in patients without suspected bacterial infection and also conditional recommendations against the use of casirivimab + imdevimab, ivermectin and rendesivir were made. Conclusion: To date, few therapies have proven effective in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and only corticosteroids and prophylaxis for thromboembolism are recommended. Several drugs were considered ineffective and should not be used to provide the best treatment according to the principles of evidence-based medicine and promote economical resource use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Slower intravenous fluid infusion rates could reduce the formation of tissue edema and organ dysfunction in critically ill patients; however, there are no data to support different infusion rates during fluid challenges for important outcomes such as mortality.Objective: To determine the effect of a slower infusion rate vs control infusion rate on 90-day survival in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU).Design, Setting, and Participants: Unblinded randomized factorial clinical trial in 75 ICUs in Brazil, involving 11 052 patients requiring at least 1 fluid challenge and with 1 risk factor for worse outcomes were randomized from May 29, 2017, to March 2, 2020. Follow-up was concluded on October 29, 2020. Patients were randomized to 2 different infusion rates (reported in this article) and 2 different fluid types (balanced fluids or saline, reported separately).Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive fluid challenges at 2 different infusion rates; 5538 to the slower rate (333 mL/h) and 5514 to the control group (999 mL/h). Patients were also randomized to receive balanced solution or 0.9% saline using a factorial design.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was 90-day survival.Results: Of all randomized patients, 10 520 (95.2%) were analyzed (mean age, 61.1 years [SD, 17.0 years]; 44.2% were women) after excluding duplicates and consent withdrawals. Patients assigned to the slower rate received a mean of 1162 mL on the first day vs 1252 mL for the control group. By day 90, 1406 of 5276 patients (26.6%) in the slower rate group had died vs 1414 of 5244 (27.0%) in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.96-1.11; P = .46). There was no significant interaction between fluid type and infusion rate (P = .98).Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients in the intensive care unit requiring fluid challenges, infusing at a slower rate compared with a faster rate did not reduce 90-day mortality. These findings do not support the use of a slower infusion rate.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02875873. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]