Very early nutrition supplementation in burned patients

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Application of the modified Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill score to nutritional risk stratification of trauma victims: A multicenter observational study

BACKGROUND

The modified Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill (mNUTRIC) score was developed to identify patients most likely to benefit from nutritional therapies and to stratify or select study subjects for clinical trials. The score is not validated in trauma victims in whom adequate nutritional support is important and difficult to achieve. We sought to determine whether a higher mNUTRIC score was associated with worse outcomes and whether caloric and protein intake improved outcome more in patients classified as high risk relative to those classified as low risk.

METHODS

We analyzed a prospectively collected database of patients from intensive care units globally. The primary outcome was 60-day hospital mortality, and the secondary outcome was time to discharge alive. We compared outcomes between high and low mNUTRIC score groups and also tested whether the association between outcome and nutrition intake was modified by the mNUTRIC score.

RESULTS

A total of 771 trauma patients were included. Most (585; 76%) had a low-risk mNUTRIC (0-4) score, and 186 (24%) had a high-risk (5-9) mNUTRIC score. The overall 60-day mortality was 13%. Patients in the high mNUTRIC group had a higher risk of death than those in the low mNUTRIC group (adjusted odds ratio, 2.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-4.2). Overall, there was no relationship between caloric or protein intake and clinical outcomes. However, patients in the high mNUTRIC group fared better with increasing caloric and protein intake, whereas subjects in the low mNUTRIC score group did not (p values for interaction with the mNUTRIC score for time to discharge alive was p = 0.014 for calories and was p = 0.004 for protein).

CONCLUSION

A high mNUTRIC score identifies trauma patients at higher risk for poor outcomes and those who may benefit from higher caloric and protein intake.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Epidemiological/Prognostic, level III.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members. As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Management of severe thermal burns in the acute phase in adults and children

OBJECTIVES

To provide recommendations to facilitate the management of severe thermal burns during the acute phase in adults and children.

DESIGN

A committee of 20 experts was asked to produce recommendations in six fields of burn management, namely, (1) assessment, admission to specialised burns centres, and telemedicine; (2) haemodynamic management; (3) airway management and smoke inhalation; (4) anaesthesia and analgesia; (5) burn wound treatments; and (6) other treatments. At the start of the recommendation-formulation process, a formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed and enforced throughout the process. The entire process was conducted independently of any industry funding. The experts drew up a list of questions that were formulated according to the PICO model (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes). Two bibliography experts per field analysed the literature published from January 2000 onwards using predefined keywords according to PRISMA recommendations. The quality of data from the selected literature was assessed using GRADE® methodology. Due to the current paucity of sufficiently powered studies regarding hard outcomes (i.e. mortality), the recommendations are based on expert opinion.

RESULTS

The SFAR guidelines panel generated 24 statements regarding the management of acute burn injuries in adults and children. After two scoring rounds and one amendment, strong agreement was reached for all recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Substantial agreement was reached among a large cohort of experts regarding numerous strong recommendations to optimise the management of acute burn injuries in adults and children.

Early Enteral Nutrition Reduces Mortality and Improves Other Key Outcomes in Patients With Major Burn Injury: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVES

To identify, appraise, and synthesize current evidence to determine whether early enteral nutrition alters patient outcomes from major burn injury.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched. The close out date was May 1, 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

Early enteral nutrition was defined as a standard formula commenced within 24 hours of injury or admission to ICU or burn unit. Comparators included any form of nutrition support "except" early enteral nutrition. Only randomized controlled trials reporting patient-centered outcomes were eligible for inclusion.

DATA EXTRACTION

The primary outcome was mortality. Gastrointestinal hemorrhage, sepsis, pneumonia, renal failure, and hospital stay were evaluated as secondary outcomes.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Nine-hundred fifty-eight full-text articles were retrieved and screened. Seven randomized controlled trials enrolling 527 participants with major burn injury were included. Compared with all other types of nutrition support, early enteral nutrition significantly reduced mortality (odds ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.18-0.72; p = 0.003; I = 0%). Early enteral nutrition also significantly reduced gastrointestinal hemorrhage (odds ratio, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.09-0.51; p = 0.0005; I = 0%), sepsis (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.11-0.48; p < 0.0001; I = 0%), pneumonia (odds ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21-0.81; p = 0.01; I = 63%), renal failure (odds ratio, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.09-0.82; p = 0.02; I = 32%), and duration of hospital stay (-15.31 d; 95% CI, -20.43 to -10.20; p < 0.00001; I = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

The improvements in clinical outcomes demonstrated in this meta-analysis are consistent with the physiologic rationale cited to support clinical recommendations for early enteral nutrition made by major clinical practice guidelines: gut integrity is preserved leading to fewer gastrointestinal hemorrhages, less infectious complications, a reduction in consequent organ failures, and a reduction in the onset of sepsis. The cumulative benefit of these effects improves patient survival and reduces hospital length of stay.

Feeding During Resuscitation After Burn Injury

Burn injury results in a sustained hypermetabolic state with resulting increased caloric and protein requirements to support the stress and immune responses; augmented protein, fat, and carbohydrate catabolism; oxidative stress; and exudative losses. Along with surgical debridement, nutrition and resuscitation are the foundations of patient management after severe burn injury. Recent literature has demonstrated a clear benefit to early enteral nutrition initiation during the resuscitation period. This review aims to examine recent literature discussing both physiologic impact of burn injury and approaches to feeding during resuscitation after burn injury; including methods of determining nutrition requirements, routes, timing, and monitoring response and the associated benefits and consequences thereof.

Energy Expenditure and Protein Requirements Following Burn Injury

Severe burn injuries have long been known to have a profound effect on metabolic equilibrium that can persist after resolution of the cutaneous injuries. Following burn injury, metabolism is a dynamic state resulting in the need for frequent interval reassessment over the course of the care continuum. The acute phase of injury transitions to chronic alterations in macronutrient utilization characterized by futile energy cycling and disproportionate catabolism of skeletal muscle. Protein supplementation appears to be preferentially distributed to the burn wound rather than the skeletal muscle pool. Accurate assessment of caloric and protein requirements is extremely difficult in these patients but is an essential step in efforts to attenuate functional impairment. Indirect calorimetry should be utilized to determine caloric requirements, but trophic feeding strategies are preferred in the initial resuscitative phase to prevent overfeeding while maintaining enteric and immune function. Controversy persists regarding optimal protein targets, and weight-based estimates remain the norm. Exogenous protein and caloric provision performed in isolation is insufficient to optimize outcomes and should be incorporated within a multidisciplinary approach to include muscle loading and pharmaceutical adjuncts.

A prospective observation on nutrition support in adult patients with severe burns

Nutrition therapy is considered an important treatment of burn patients. The aim of the study was to delineate the nutritional support in severe burn patients and to investigate association between nutritional practice and clinical outcomes. Severe burn patients were enrolled (n 100). In 90 % of the cases, the burn injury covered above 70 % of the total body surface area. Mean interval from injury to nutrition start was 2·4 (sd 1·1) d. Sixty-seven patients were initiated with enteral nutrition (EN) with a median time of 1 d from injury to first feed. Twenty-two patients began with parenteral nutrition (PN). During the study, thirty-two patients developed EN intolerance. Patients received an average of about 70 % of prescribed energy and protein. Patients with EN providing &lt;30 % energy had significantly higher 28- d and in-hospital mortality than patients with EN providing more than 30 % of energy. Mortality at 28 d was 11 % and in-hospital mortality was 45 %. Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that EN providing &lt;30 % energy and septic shock were independent risk factors for 28- d prognosis. EN could be initiated early in severe burn patients. Majority patients needed PN supplementation for energy requirement and EN feeding intolerance. Post-pyloric feeding is more efficient than gastric feeding in EN tolerance and energy supplement. It is difficult for severe burn patients to obtain enough feeding, especially in the early stage of the disease. More than 2 weeks of underfeeding is harmful to recovery.

Immunonutrition in Critical Illness: What Is the Role?

Acute illness-associated malnutrition leads to muscle wasting, delayed wound healing, failure to wean from ventilator support, and possibly higher rates of infection and longer hospital stays unless appropriate metabolic support is provided in the form of nutrition therapy. Agreement is still lacking about the value of individual immune-modulating substrates for specific patient populations. However, it has long been agreed that there are 3 primary targets for these substrates: 1) mucosal barrier function, 2) cellular defense function, and 3) local and systemic inflammation. These targets guide the multitude of interventions necessary to stabilize and treat the hypercatabolic intensive care unit patient, including specialized nutrition therapy. The paradigm shift that occurred 30 years ago created a unique role for nutrition as an agent to support host defense mechanisms and prevent infectious complications in the critically ill patient. This overview of immunonutrition will discuss the evidence for its role in critical illness today.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in February 2017 and published in the Journal of JSICM, [2017; Volume 24 (supplement 2)] 10.3918/jsicm.24S0001 and Journal of Japanese Association for Acute Medicine [2017; Volume 28, (supplement 1)] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jja2.2017.28.issue-S1/issuetoc.This abridged English edition of the J-SSCG 2016 was produced with permission from the Japanese Association of Acute Medicine and the Japanese Society for Intensive Care Medicine.

METHODS

Members of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine were selected and organized into 19 committee members and 52 working group members. The guidelines were prepared in accordance with the Medical Information Network Distribution Service (Minds) creation procedures. The Academic Guidelines Promotion Team was organized to oversee and provide academic support to the respective activities allocated to each Guideline Creation Team. To improve quality assurance and workflow transparency, a mutual peer review system was established, and discussions within each team were open to the public. Public comments were collected once after the initial formulation of a clinical question (CQ) and twice during the review of the final draft. Recommendations were determined to have been adopted after obtaining support from a two-thirds (> 66.6%) majority vote of each of the 19 committee members.

RESULTS

A total of 87 CQs were selected among 19 clinical areas, including pediatric topics and several other important areas not covered in the first edition of the Japanese guidelines (J-SSCG 2012). The approval rate obtained through committee voting, in addition to ratings of the strengths of the recommendation, and its supporting evidence were also added to each recommendation statement. We conducted meta-analyses for 29 CQs. Thirty-seven CQs contained recommendations in the form of an expert consensus due to insufficient evidence. No recommendations were provided for five CQs.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the evidence gathered, we were able to formulate Japanese-specific clinical practice guidelines that are tailored to the Japanese context in a highly transparent manner. These guidelines can easily be used not only by specialists, but also by non-specialists, general clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, clinical engineers, and other healthcare professionals.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016)

Background and Purpose

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in February 2017 in Japanese. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version.

Methods

Members of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine were selected and organized into 19 committee members and 52 working group members. The guidelines were prepared in accordance with the Medical Information Network Distribution Service (Minds) creation procedures. The Academic Guidelines Promotion Team was organized to oversee and provide academic support to the respective activities allocated to each Guideline Creation Team. To improve quality assurance and workflow transparency, a mutual peer review system was established, and discussions within each team were open to the public. Public comments were collected once after the initial formulation of a clinical question (CQ), and twice during the review of the final draft. Recommendations were determined to have been adopted after obtaining support from a two-thirds (>66.6%) majority vote of each of the 19 committee members.

Results

A total of 87 CQs were selected among 19 clinical areas, including pediatric topics and several other important areas not covered in the first edition of the Japanese guidelines (J-SSCG 2012). The approval rate obtained through committee voting, in addition to ratings of the strengths of the recommendation and its supporting evidence were also added to each recommendation statement. We conducted meta-analyses for 29 CQs. Thirty seven CQs contained recommendations in the form of an expert consensus due to insufficient evidence. No recommendations were provided for 5 CQs.

Conclusions

Based on the evidence gathered, we were able to formulate Japanese-specific clinical practice guidelines that are tailored to the Japanese context in a highly transparent manner. These guidelines can easily be used not only by specialists, but also by non-specialists, general clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, clinical engineers, and other healthcare professionals.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016

OBJECTIVE

To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012."

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development.

METHODS

The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable.

RESULTS

The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

Nutrition support in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of disease-related malnutrition in Western European hospitals is estimated to be about 30%. There is no consensus whether poor nutritional status causes poorer clinical outcome or if it is merely associated with it. The intention with all forms of nutrition support is to increase uptake of essential nutrients and improve clinical outcome. Previous reviews have shown conflicting results with regard to the effects of nutrition support.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of nutrition support versus no intervention, treatment as usual, or placebo in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), LILACS (BIREME), and Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science). We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp); ClinicalTrials.gov; Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP); Google Scholar; and BIOSIS, as well as relevant bibliographies of review articles and personal files. All searches are current to February 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We include randomised clinical trials, irrespective of publication type, publication date, and language, comparing nutrition support versus control in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk. We exclude trials assessing non-standard nutrition support.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group. We used trial domains to assess the risks of systematic error (bias). We conducted Trial Sequential Analyses to control for the risks of random errors. We considered a P value of 0.025 or less as statistically significant. We used GRADE methodology. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 244 randomised clinical trials with 28,619 participants that met our inclusion criteria. We considered all trials to be at high risk of bias. Two trials accounted for one-third of all included participants. The included participants were heterogenous with regard to disease (20 different medical specialties). The experimental interventions were parenteral nutrition (86 trials); enteral nutrition (tube-feeding) (80 trials); oral nutrition support (55 trials); mixed experimental intervention (12 trials); general nutrition support (9 trials); and fortified food (2 trials). The control interventions were treatment as usual (122 trials); no intervention (107 trials); and placebo (15 trials). In 204/244 trials, the intervention lasted three days or more.We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for short-term mortality (end of intervention). The absolute risk was 8.3% across the control groups compared with 7.8% (7.1% to 8.5%) in the intervention groups, based on the risk ratio (RR) of 0.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.03, P = 0.16, 21,758 participants, 114 trials, low quality of evidence). We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for long-term mortality (maximum follow-up). The absolute risk was 13.2% in the control group compared with 12.2% (11.6% to 13%) following nutritional interventions based on a RR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99, P = 0.03, 23,170 participants, 127 trials, low quality of evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis showed we only had enough information to assess a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more. A risk ratio reduction of 10% or more could be rejected.We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for short-term serious adverse events. The absolute risk was 9.9% in the control groups versus 9.2% (8.5% to 10%), with nutrition based on the RR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.01, P = 0.07, 22,087 participants, 123 trials, low quality of evidence). At long-term follow-up, the reduction in the risk of serious adverse events was 1.5%, from 15.2% in control groups to 13.8% (12.9% to 14.7%) following nutritional support (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.97, P = 0.004, 23,413 participants, 137 trials, low quality of evidence). However, the Trial Sequential Analysis showed we only had enough information to assess a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more. A risk ratio reduction of 10% or more could be rejected.Trial Sequential Analysis of enteral nutrition alone showed that enteral nutrition might reduce serious adverse events at maximum follow-up in people with different diseases. We could find no beneficial effect of oral nutrition support or parenteral nutrition support on all-cause mortality and serious adverse events in any subgroup.Only 16 trials assessed health-related quality of life. We performed a meta-analysis of two trials reporting EuroQoL utility score at long-term follow-up and found very low quality of evidence for effects of nutritional support on quality of life (mean difference (MD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.01; 3961 participants, two trials). Trial Sequential Analyses showed that we did not have enough information to confirm or reject clinically relevant intervention effects on quality of life.Nutrition support may increase weight at short-term follow-up (MD 1.32 kg, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.00, 5445 participants, 68 trials, very low quality of evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-quality evidence for the effects of nutrition support on mortality and serious adverse events. Based on the results of our review, it does not appear to lead to a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more in either all-cause mortality or serious adverse events at short-term and long-term follow-up.There is very low-quality evidence for an increase in weight with nutrition support at the end of treatment in hospitalised adults determined to be at nutritional risk. The effects of nutrition support on all remaining outcomes are unclear.Despite the clinically heterogenous population and the high risk of bias of all included trials, our analyses showed limited signs of statistical heterogeneity. Further trials may be warranted, assessing enteral nutrition (tube-feeding) for different patient groups. Future trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic errors and low risks of random errors, and they also ought to assess health-related quality of life.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016

OBJECTIVE

To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012".

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development.

METHODS

The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable.

RESULTS

The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

Current consensus and controversies in major burns management

Most doctors in Britain receive some training in the care of the burned patient, if not as an undergraduate then as part of training in accident and emergency medicine or in the Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS®) course. Because major burn injury presents infrequently to the average district hospital, most of this training is rusty by the time it is needed. Further, most have little opportunity to catch up with developments in this very specialized area of trauma medicine.

This paper aims to address some of these shortcomings by describing recent advances in burn care and highlighting areas of current debate. The fluids used for resuscitation, improved options for treatment, the status of ongoing discussions about treatment facilities and the state of the art in managing smoke inhalation are reviewed. Some pointers to the future and to avenues for research are suggested.

Acquired Muscle Weakness in the Surgical Intensive Care Unit

Muscle weakness is common in the surgical intensive care unit (ICU). Low muscle mass at ICU admission is a significant predictor of adverse outcomes. The consequences of ICU-acquired muscle weakness depend on the underlying mechanism. Temporary drug-induced weakness when properly managed may not affect outcome. Severe perioperative acquired weakness that is associated with adverse outcomes (prolonged mechanical ventilation, increases in ICU length of stay, and mortality) occurs with persistent (time frame: days) activation of protein degradation pathways, decreases in the drive to the skeletal muscle, and impaired muscular homeostasis. ICU-acquired muscle weakness can be prevented by early treatment of the underlying disease, goal-directed therapy, restrictive use of immobilizing medications, optimal nutrition, activating ventilatory modes, early rehabilitation, and preventive drug therapy. In this article, the authors review the nosology, epidemiology, diagnosis, and prevention of ICU-acquired weakness in surgical ICU patients.

WITHDRAWN: Early enteral nutrition versus late enteral nutrition for burns patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This article has been withdrawn at the request of the authors. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy.

Immunonutrition - the influence of early postoperative glutamine supplementation in enteral/parenteral nutrition on immune response, wound healing and length of hospital stay in multiple trauma patients and patients after extensive surgery

INTRODUCTION

In the postoperative phase, the prognosis of multiple trauma patients with severe brain injuries as well as of patients with extensive head and neck surgery mainly depends on protein metabolism and the prevention of septic complications. Wound healing problems can also result in markedly longer stays in the intensive care unit and general wards. As a result, the immunostimulation of patients in the postoperative phase is expected to improve their immunological and overall health.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A study involving 15 patients with extensive ENT tumour surgery and 7 multiple-trauma patients investigated the effect of enteral glutamine supplementation on immune induction, wound healing and length of hospital stay. Half of the patients received a glutamine-supplemented diet. The control group received an isocaloric, isonitrogenous diet.

RESULTS

In summary, we found that total lymphocyte counts, the percentage of activated CD4+DR+ T helper lymphocytes, the in-vitro response of lymphocytes to mitogens, as well as IL-2 plasma levels normalised faster in patients who received glutamine-supplemented diets than in patients who received isocaloric, isonitrogenous diets and that these parameters were even above normal by the end of the second postoperative week.

SUMMARY

We believe that providing critically ill patients with a demand-oriented immunostimulating diet is fully justified as it reduces septic complications, accelerates wound healing, and shortens the length of ICU (intensive care unit) and general ward stays.

Pros and cons of feeding the septic intensive care unit patient

Sepsis is a common disease seen in critically ill patients. Many patients with sepsis are unable to provide nutrition for themselves, and therefore initiating artificial nutrition has become part of routine care for these patients. However, studies investigating the optimal route, composition, volume, and duration of nutrition in critically ill patients with sepsis are lacking. The best recommendations have to be extrapolated from studies in heterogeneous populations of critically ill patients or in those with syndromes such as acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) where sepsis is a common predisposing etiology. In this review, we summarize pertinent studies that inform clinical practice on providing artificial nutrition to critically ill patients with severe sepsis and make recommendations as to how these studies influence clinical care of these patients.

Immunonutrition as an adjuvant therapy for burns

BACKGROUND

With burn injuries involving a large total body surface area (TBSA), the body can enter a state of breakdown, resulting in a condition similar to that seen with severe lack of proper nutrition. In addition, destruction of the effective skin barrier leads to loss of normal body temperature regulation and increased risk of infection and fluid loss. Nutritional support is common in the management of severe burn injury, and the approach of altering immune system activity with specific nutrients is termed immunonutrition. Three potential targets have been identified for immunonutrition: mucosal barrier function, cellular defence and local or systemic inflammation. The nutrients most often used for immunonutrition are glutamine, arginine, branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs), omega-3 (n-3) fatty acids and nucleotides.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of a diet with added immunonutrients (glutamine, arginine, BCAAs, n-3 fatty acids (fish oil), combined immunonutrients or precursors to known immunonutrients) versus an isonitrogenous diet (a diet wherein the overall protein content is held constant, but individual constituents may be changed) on clinical outcomes in patients with severe burn injury.

SEARCH METHODS

The search was run on 12 August 2012. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), ISI WOS SCI-EXPANDED & CPCI-S and four other databases. We handsearched relevant journals and conference proceedings, screened reference lists and contacted pharmaceutical companies. We updated this search in October 2014, but the results of this updated search have not yet been incorporated.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing the addition of immunonutrients to a standard nutritional regimen versus an isonitrogenated diet or another immunonutrient agent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors were responsible for handsearching, reviewing electronic search results and identifying potentially eligible studies. Three review authors retrieved and reviewed independently full reports of these studies for inclusion. They resolved differences by discussion. Two review authors independently extracted and entered data from the included studies. A third review author checked these data. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of each included study and resolved disagreements through discussion or consultation with the third and fourth review authors. Outcome measures of interest were mortality, hospital length of stay, rate of burn wound infection and rate of non-wound infection (bacteraemia, pneumonia and urinary tract infection).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 16 trials involving 678 people that met the inclusion criteria. A total of 16 trials contributed data to the analysis. Of note, most studies failed to report on randomisation methods and intention-to-treat principles; therefore study results should be interpreted with caution. Glutamine was the most common immunonutrient and was given in seven of the 16 included studies. Use of glutamine compared with an isonitrogenous control led to a reduction in length of hospital stay (mean stay -5.65 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.09 to -3.22) and reduced mortality (pooled risk ratio (RR) 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.78). However, because of the small sample size, it is likely that these results reflect a false-positive effect. No study findings suggest that glutamine has an effect on burn wound infection or on non-wound infection. All other agents investigated showed no evidence of an effect on mortality, length of stay or burn wound infection or non-wound infection rates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although we found evidence of an effect of glutamine on mortality reduction, this finding should be taken with care. The number of study participants analysed in this systematic review was not sufficient to permit conclusions that recommend or refute the use of glutamine. Glutamine may be effective in reducing mortality, but larger studies are needed to determine the overall effects of glutamine and other immunonutrition agents.

Nutrition, inflammation, and acute pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis is acute inflammatory disease of the pancreas. Nutrition has a number of anti-inflammatory effects that could affect outcomes of patients with pancreatitis. Further, it is the most promising nonspecific treatment modality in acute pancreatitis to date. This paper summarizes the best available evidence regarding the use of nutrition with a view of optimising clinical management of patients with acute pancreatitis.

Is early enteral nutrition initiated within 24 hours better for the postoperative course in esophageal cancer surgery?

BACKGROUND

Early enteral nutrition within 24 h after surgery has become a recommended procedure. In the present study, we retrospectively examined whether initiating EN within 24 h after esophagectomy improves the postoperative course.

METHODS

Among 103 patients who underwent thoracic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, we enrolled the cases in which EN was initiated within 72 h after surgery. The patients were divided into two groups: EN started within 24 h (Group D1) and EN started at 24 - 72 h (Group D2-3). Clinical factors including days for first fecal passage, dose of postoperative albumin infusion, difference in serum albumin between pre- and postoperation, incidence of postoperative infection, and use of total parenteral nutrition were compared. Statistical analyses were performed by the Mann-Whitney U test and Chi square test, with significance defined as P < 0.05.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the groups in clinical factors. While pneumonia was significantly more frequent in Group D1 than in Group D2-3 (P = 0.0308), the frequency of infectious complications was comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Initiating EN within 24 h showed no advantage for the postoperative course in esophageal cancer, and thus EN should be scheduled within 24 - 72 h, based on the patient condition.

Is early enteral nutrition better for postoperative course in esophageal cancer patients?

We retrospectively examined esophageal cancer patients who received enteral nutrition (EN) to clarify the validity of early EN compared with delayed EN. A total of 103 patients who underwent transthoracic esophagectomy with three-field lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer were entered. Patients were divided into two groups; Group E received EN within postoperative day 3, and Group L received EN after postoperative day 3. The clinical factors such as days for first fecal passage, the dose of postoperative albumin infusion, differences of serum albumin value between pre- and postoperation, duration of systematic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), incidence of postoperative infectious complication, and use of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) were compared between the groups. The statistical analyses were performed using Mann-Whitney U test and Chi square test. The statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. Group E showed fewer days for the first fecal passage (p < 0.01), lesser dose of postoperative albumin infusion (p < 0.01), less use of TPN (p < 0.01), and shorter duration of SIRS (p < 0.01). However, there was no significant difference in postoperative complications between the two groups. Early EN started within 3 days after esophagectomy. It is safe and valid for reduction of albumin infusion and TPN, for promoting early recovery of intestinal movement, and for early recovery from systemic inflammation.

Medical management of paediatric burn injuries: best practice part 2

Burns remain a leading cause of injury in the paediatric population in Australia despite efforts in prevention. Advances in surgical management include novel debridement methods and blood conserving techniques. Patients with severe burns (>20%) remain significantly more complex to manage as a result of extensive alterations in metabolic processes. There appears increasing evidence to support the use of pharmacological modulators of the hyper-metabolic state in these patients. The management of a child with burns involves acute, subacute and long-term planning. This holistic approach seems optimally co-ordinated by a Burns Unit in which each discipline required to provide care to these children in order to achieve optimal outcomes is represented.

Early enteral nutrition in critical illness: a full economic analysis using US costs

PURPOSE

Although published meta-analyses demonstrate patient survival may be improved if enteral nutrition (EN) is provided to critically ill patients within 24 hours of injury or admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), these publications did not investigate the impact of early EN on measures of health care resource consumption and total costs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From the perspective of the US acute care hospital system, a cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken based on a large-scale Monte Carlo simulation (N = 1,000,000 trials) of a 1,000-patient stochastic model, developed using clinical outcomes and measures of resource consumption reported by published meta-analyses combined with cost distributions obtained from the published literature. The mean cost differences between early EN and standard care, along with respective 95% confidence intervals, were obtained using the percentile method.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

THE PROVISION OF EARLY EN TO CRITICALLY ILL PATIENTS IS A DOMINANT TECHNOLOGY: Patient survival is significantly improved and total costs of care reduced meaningfully. Under conservative assumptions, the total costs of acute hospital care were reduced by US$14,462 per patient (95% confidence interval US$5,464 to US$23,669). These results were robust, with all sensitivity analyses demonstrating significant savings attributable to the use of early EN, including sensitivity analysis conducted using European cost data.

The presence and effect of bias in trials of early enteral nutrition in critical care

BACKGROUND

Randomized trials suggest that early enteral nutrition is beneficial in critically ill adults. However, methodologic bias can overestimate benefit.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the potential effect of methodologic bias on these trials.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCE

Randomized trials identified in electronic searches of PUBMED, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, and in various handsearches.

METHODS

The primary (mortality, morbidity) and secondary (time on ventilator or in intensive care unit/hospital, cost) outcomes were abstracted from each identified trial comparing early enteral nutrition to no/delayed enteral nutrition. Each trial was assessed for six domains of methodologic bias (sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, intention-to-treat, selective outcome reporting, other). No low risk of bias trial (adequate in all six domains) was identified, so such trials could not be compared to the others. Instead, meta-analyses of trials with more or fewer risks were compared in the following ways: adequate methodology to deal with ≥3 or ≤2 domains; Jadad scores ≥3 or ≤2; adequate versus not adequate for each domain.

DATA SYNTHESIS

In the 15 identified trials, early enteral nutrition appeared to improve mortality and infectious morbidity. Mortality benefit was observed only in trials with more risks of bias; infectious morbidity benefit was observed in some analyses of trials with fewer bias risks.

LIMITATIONS

Small numbers of trials and missing information.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefits attributed to early enteral nutrition were either seen only in trials with high risks of bias or may result from residual risks of bias.

Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012

OBJECTIVE

To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008.

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development.

METHODS

The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Some recommendations were ungraded (UG). Recommendations were classified into three groups: 1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; 2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and 3) pediatric considerations.

RESULTS

Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 hr of recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 hrs of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1C); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients) (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement, as based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥ 65 mm Hg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO2/FIO2 ratio of ≤ 100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 hrs) for patients with early ARDS and a Pao2/Fio2 < 150 mm Hg (2C); a protocolized approach to blood glucose management commencing insulin dosing when two consecutive blood glucose levels are > 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 hrs after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 hrs of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5 to 10 mins (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C).

CONCLUSIONS

Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

Disease-specific nutrition therapy: one size does not fit all

INTRODUCTION

The delivery of adequate nutrition is an integral part of the care of the critically ill surgical patient, and the provision of nutrition may have a greater impact on outcome than many other therapies commonly employed in the treatment of certain disease states.

METHODS

A review of the existing literature was performed to summarize the evidence for utilizing disease-specific nutrition in critically ill surgical patients.

RESULTS

Enteral nutrition, unless specifically contraindicated, is always preferable to parenteral nutrition. Methodological heterogeneity and conflicting results plague research in immunonutrition, and routine use is not currently recommended in critically ill patients.

CONCLUSION

There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend the routine initial use of most disease-specific formulas, as most patients with the disease in question will tolerate standard enteral formulas. However, the clinician should closely monitor for signs of intolerance and utilize disease-specific formulas when appropriate.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012

OBJECTIVE

To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008.

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development.

METHODS

The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Recommendations were classified into three groups: (1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; (2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and (3) pediatric considerations.

RESULTS

Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 h after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 h of the recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 h of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1B); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement is based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of (a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or (b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO (2)/FiO (2) ratio of ≤100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 h) for patients with early ARDS and a PaO (2)/FI O (2) <150 mm Hg (2C); a protocolized approach to blood glucose management commencing insulin dosing when two consecutive blood glucose levels are >180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 h after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 h of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5-10 min (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C).

CONCLUSIONS

Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

The potential association of later initiation of oral/enteral nutrition on euthyroid sick syndrome in burn patients

Objective. The aim of this study was to determine if early initiation of oral/enteral nutrition in burn patients minimizes the drop in fT3 levels, reduces the potential for euthyroid sick syndrome (ESS), and shortens the length of hospital stay (LHS). Subjects and Methods. We retrospectively evaluated the statistical association of serum fT3, fT4, and TSH at the first (2nd-5th day) and second sample collection (9th-12th day) after the burn injury in 152 burn patients. Three groups were established depending on time of initiation of the oral/enteral nutrition: <24 h before the injury (Group 1), 24-48 h after the injury (Group 2), and >48 h after the injury (Group 3). Results. They were expressed as mean ± standard deviation. We found that LHS and the fT3 levels were statistically different in the 3 groups. The LHS (in days) was, respectively, in each group, 16.77 ± 4.56, 21.98 ± 4.86, and 26.06 ± 5.47. Despite the quantifiable drop in fT3, ESS was present only at the first sample collection (2.61 ± 0.92 days) in Group 3, but there was no group with ESS at the second sample collection (9.89 ± 1.01 days). Our data suggest that early initiation of nutritional supplementation decreases the length of hospitalization and is associated with decreasing fT3 serum concentration depression. Conclusion. Early initiation of oral/enteral nutrition counteracts ESS and improves the LHS in burn patients.

Timing of enteral feeding in cerebral malaria in resource-poor settings: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Early start of enteral feeding is an established treatment strategy in intubated patients in intensive care since it reduces invasive bacterial infections and length of hospital stay. There is equipoise whether early enteral feeding is also beneficial in non-intubated patients with cerebral malaria in resource poor settings. We hypothesized that the risk of aspiration pneumonia might outweigh the potential benefits of earlier recovery and prevention of hypoglycaemia.

METHOD AND FINDINGS

A randomized trial of early (day of admission) versus late (after 60 hours in adults or 36 hours in children) start of enteral feeding was undertaken in patients with cerebral malaria in Chittagong, Bangladesh from May 2008 to August 2009. The primary outcome measures were incidence of aspiration pneumonia, hypoglycaemia and coma recovery time. The trial was terminated after inclusion of 56 patients because of a high incidence of aspiration pneumonia in the early feeding group (9/27 (33%)), compared to the late feeding group (0/29 (0%)), p = 0.001). One patient in the late feeding group, and none in the early group, had hypoglycaemia during admission. There was no significant difference in overall mortality (9/27 (33%) vs 6/29 (21%), p = 0.370), but mortality was 5/9 (56%) in patients with aspiration pneumonia.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, early start of enteral feeding is detrimental in non-intubated patients with cerebral malaria in many resource-poor settings. Evidence gathered in resource rich settings is not necessarily transferable to resource-poor settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN57488577.

Survival function and protein malnutrition in burns patients at a rural hospital in Africa

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to estimate the incidence of acute malnutrition and to identify predictors of case fatality among burn patients in the poorest South African province, Eastern Cape.

METHODS

This longitudinal follow-up study was conducted among consecutive burn patients admitted to Nelson Mandela Academic Hospital, Mthatha, South Africa, between 2006 and 2008. Patients were monitored and treated daily from admission to discharge. Outcomes were acute protein malnutrition and mortality. Patients' demography, total body surface area (TBSA) of the burn, cause of the burn, weight, height, location of the burn, hemoglobin, serum albumin, wound infection, and antibiotics after culture and sensitivity results were the potential predictors of in-hospital mortality. A Cox's proportional hazards model for the time to death was then used to identify independent predictors of mortality after adjusting for confounding factors. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were generated for each arm of exposure status.

RESULTS

In all, 67 patients (35 males, 59 children) were studied. The mean (range) age was 8±12 years (1 month to 59 years). The cumulative incidence of acute malnutrition was 62.0% (n=42): 46.3% (n=31) at admission and 15.7% (n=11) after 7 days of hospitalization. Incidence of mortality was 16.4% (n=11 with in-hospital acute malnutrition). The only significant and independent predictors of mortality were total body surface area (TBSA) burn>40% [hazard ratio (HR) 10.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7-63; P<0.01] and affected anterior trunk (HR 4.4, 95% CI 1.3-14.7; P=0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

Urgent prevention strategies of burns and evidence-based practice with early nutritional supplementation are needed to reduce high rates of malnutrition and mortality.

Early enteral nutrition in burns: compliance with guidelines and associated outcomes in a multicenter study

Early nutritional support is an essential component of burn care to prevent ileus, stress ulceration, and the effects of hypermetabolism. The American Burn Association practice guidelines state that enteral feedings should be initiated as soon as practical. The authors sought to evaluate compliance with early enteral nutrition (EN) guidelines, associated complications, and hospitalization outcomes in a prospective multicenter observational study. They conducted a retrospective review of mechanically ventilated burn patients enrolled in the prospective observational multicenter study "Inflammation and the Host Response to Injury." Timing of initiation of tube feedings was recorded, with early EN defined as being started within 24 hours of admission. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to distinguish barriers to initiation of EN and the impact of early feeding on development of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, infectious complications, days on mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, and survival. A total of 153 patients met study inclusion criteria. The cohort comprised 73% men, with a mean age of 41 ± 15 years and a mean %TBSA burn of 46 ± 18%. One hundred twenty-three patients (80%) began EN in the first 24 hours and 145 (95%) by 48 hours. Age, sex, inhalation injury, and full-thickness burn size were similar between those fed by 24 hours vs after 24 hours, except for higher mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores (26 vs 23, P = .03) and smaller total burn size (44 vs 54% TBSA burn, P = .01) in those fed early. There was no significant difference in rates of hyperglycemia, abdominal compartment syndrome, or gastrointestinal bleeding between groups. Patients fed early had shorter ICU length of stay (adjusted hazard ratio 0.57, P = 0.03, 95% confidence interval 0.35-0.94) and reduced wound infection risk (adjusted odds ratio 0.28, P = 0.01, 95% confidence interval 0.10-0.76). The investigators have found early EN to be safe, with no increase in complications and a lower rate of wound infections and shorter ICU length of stay. Across institutions, there has been high compliance with early EN as part of the standard operating procedure in this prospective multicenter observational trial. The investigators advocate that initiation of EN by 24 hours be used as a formal recommendation in nutrition guidelines for severe burns, and that nutrition guidelines be actively disseminated to individual burn centers to permit a change in practice.