Hydrocortisone therapy for patients with septic shock.

BACKGROUND: Hydrocortisone is widely used in patients with septic shock even though a survival benefit has been reported only in patients who remained hypotensive after fluid and vasopressor resuscitation and whose plasma cortisol levels did not rise appropriately after the administration of corticotropin. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned 251 patients to receive 50 mg of intravenous hydrocortisone and 248 patients to receive placebo every 6 hours for 5 days; the dose was then tapered during a 6-day period. At 28 days, the primary outcome was death among patients who did not have a response to a corticotropin test. RESULTS: Of the 499 patients in the study, 233 (46.7%) did not have a response to corticotropin (125 in the hydrocortisone group and 108 in the placebo group). At 28 days, there was no significant difference in mortality between patients in the two study groups who did not have a response to corticotropin (39.2% in the hydrocortisone group and 36.1% in the placebo group, P=0.69) or between those who had a response to corticotropin (28.8% in the hydrocortisone group and 28.7% in the placebo group, P=1.00). At 28 days, 86 of 251 patients in the hydrocortisone group (34.3%) and 78 of 248 patients in the placebo group (31.5%) had died (P=0.51). In the hydrocortisone group, shock was reversed more quickly than in the placebo group. However, there were more episodes of superinfection, including new sepsis and septic shock. CONCLUSIONS: Hydrocortisone did not improve survival or reversal of shock in patients with septic shock, either overall or in patients who did not have a response to corticotropin, although hydrocortisone hastened reversal of shock in patients in whom shock was reversed. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00147004.)

Development of the competency-based medical curriculum for the new Augsburg University Medical School.

Aim: With the resolution from April 28, 2014, the Bavarian state government in Germany decided to found a new medical school at Augsburg University, thereby requiring the development of a competency-based medical curriculum. Methods: Two interdisciplinary groups developed a spiral curriculum (following Harden) employing the model of Thumser-Dauth & Öchsner. The curriculum focuses on specifically defined competencies: medical expertise, independent scientific reasoning, argumentation and scholarship, as well as communication skills. Results: The spiral curriculum was developed as a hybrid curriculum. Its modular structure incorporates the mandatory subjects required by the German regulations for medical licensure (Approbationsordnung) into organ- and system-centered blocks which are integrated both horizontally and vertically. Basic preclinical sciences are covered in the blocks "Movement," "Balance" and "Contact." The clinical sciences are organized according to six pillars (conservative medicine, surgical medicine, men's-women's-children's medicine, the senses, the nervous system and the mind, and general medicine) which students revisit three times each over the course of the program. A longitudinal clinical course incorporates interdisciplinary education. A particular focus is on scientific education encompassing a longitudinal course in the sciences (including interdisciplinary classes with other university departments), block practicums, and two scientific projects. Conclusion: It is not only the degree of integration und intensity of the Augsburg University undergraduate medical degree program, but also its targeted advancement of academic, social and communication skills that have not yet been realized to such an extent elsewhere in Germany. On July 8, 2016, the German Council of Science and Humanities unanimously gave this concept a positive evaluation. Future research will examine and evaluate the Augsburg medical curriculum and the impact of the new medical school on the hospital and university in Augsburg.

Influence of combined intravenous and topical antibiotic prophylaxis on the incidence of infections, organ dysfunctions, and mortality in critically ill surgical patients: a prospective, stratified, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

We prospectively studied the impact of an antibiotic prophylaxis regimen on the incidence of infections, organ dysfunctions, and mortality in a predominantly surgical and trauma intensive care unit (ICU) population. A total of 546 patients were enrolled and stratified according to Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE)-II scores. They were then randomized to receive either 2 x 400 mg of intravenous ciprofloxacin for 4 days, together with a mixture of topical gentamicin and polymyxin applied to the nostrils, mouth, and stomach throughout their ICU stay or to receive intravenous and topical placebo. When receiving prophylaxis, significantly fewer patients acquired infections (p = 0.001, risk ratio [RR], 0.477; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.367-0.620), especially pneumonias (6 versus 29, p = 0.007), other lower respiratory tract infections (39 versus 70, p = 0.007), bloodstream infections (14 versus 36, p = 0.007), or urinary tract infections (36 versus 60, p = 0.042). Also, significantly fewer patients acquired severe organ dysfunctions (63 versus 96 patients, p = 0.0051; RR, 0.636; 95% CI, 0.463-0.874), especially renal dysfunctions (17 versus 38; p = 0.018). Within 5 days after admission, 24 patients died in each group, whereas 28 patients receiving prophylaxis and 51 receiving placebo died in the ICU thereafter (p = 0.0589; RR, 0.640; 95% CI, 0.402-1.017). The overall ICU mortality was not statistically different (52 versus 75 fatalities), but the mortality was significantly reduced for 237 patients of the midrange stratum with APACHE-II scores of 20-29 on admission (20 versus 38 fatalities, p = 0.0147; RR, 0.508; 95% CI, 0.295-0.875); there was still a favorable trend after 1 year (51 versus 60 fatalities; p = 0.0844; RR, 0.720; 95% CI, 0.496-1.046). Surveillance cultures from tracheobronchial, oropharyngeal, and gastric secretions and from rectal swabs did not show any evidence for the selection of resistant microorganisms in the patients receiving prophylaxis.

Correlation of meropenem plasma levels with pharmacodynamic requirements in critically ill patients receiving continuous veno-venous hemofiltration.

BACKGROUND: In patients with acute renal failure, the pharmacokinetics of meropenem depend on the operational characteristics of the renal replacement therapy. Dosage recommendations are based on the correlation of plasma levels with pharmacodynamic requirements. METHODS: Eight critically ill patients with acute renal failure were treated by continuous veno-venous hemofiltration with a filtrate flow of 1,600 ml/h and received 500 mg of meropenem every 12 h. Plasma and hemofiltrate concentrations of meropenem at steady state were determined by HPLC. RESULTS: Peak levels in plasma amounted to 39.5 +/- 10.5 mg/l (mean +/- SD) and trough levels were 2.4 +/- 1.5 mg/l. The minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) for susceptible bacteria (4 mg/l) was covered for 40% of the dosing interval or longer in all patients. The MIC for intermediately susceptible organisms (8 mg/l) was covered for 33% in 6 of the 8 patients. The elimination half-life was prolonged to 3.63 +/- 0.77 h. The sieving coefficient of meropenem was 0.91 +/- 0.10 and the recovery in hemofiltrate amounted to 30.9 +/- 11.5% of the dose. CONCLUSIONS: A dosage of 500 mg twice daily provides appropriate serum levels for the treatment of infections caused by susceptible bacteria. A higher dosage is adequate for infections by intermediately susceptible bacteria or for renal replacement therapies with markedly higher filtrate flow rates.

Open randomized phase II trial of an extracorporeal endotoxin adsorber in suspected Gram-negative sepsis.

OBJECTIVE: An initial phase II trial to investigate the safety and therapeutic effect of the endotoxin adsorber system EN 500 in septic patients suffering from presumed Gram-negative infection. DESIGN: Open, controlled, prospective, randomized, multiple-center, parallel-group clinical trial. SETTING: Intensive care units of 31 university-affiliated and community hospitals in Europe. PATIENTS: One hundred forty-five patients with a clinical diagnosis of severe sepsis or septic shock due to suspected Gram-negative infection. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive either standard therapy alone for sepsis (n = 76) or standard therapy plus extracorporeal endotoxin adsorption (n = 67) daily for the first 4 days following study entry. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary end point was the proportion of responders (defined as a decrease in Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score by > or =4 points from study entry to day 4). Secondary outcomes were the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and its components, length of intensive care unit stay, survival rate, and safety of the adsorber treatment. Patient characteristics at entry were well balanced between the two treatment groups, except for a higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score in the adsorber group. On all-subjects-treated analysis, 65% of the adsorber group were responders vs. 57% for the standard (p =.389). A planned interim analysis restricted further enrollment to patients with peritonitis, in whom a slightly higher proportion of responders was observed with the adsorber treatment (69%) vs. standard treatment (54%, p =.159). There were no differences in survival, but adsorption treatment in peritonitis patients was associated with trends toward a reduction in length of intensive care unit stay and a more rapid decline in plasma endotoxin concentrations. There was a significantly greater reduction in platelet count with the adsorber; however, this did not require extra treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The endotoxin adsorber system did not result in a significantly improved primary end point in patients with presumed Gram-negative sepsis. In patients with peritonitis, the adsorber treatment likewise did not result in significantly improved Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores. There were no clinically important side effects. These results provide encouragement for further study of adsorber treatment in patients with high likelihood of Gram-negative sepsis (e.g., peritonitis).