Continuous vs Intermittent ß-Lactam Antibiotic Infusions in Critically Ill Patients With Sepsis: The BLING III Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Whether ß-lactam antibiotics administered by continuous compared with intermittent infusion reduces the risk of death in patients with sepsis is uncertain. Objective: To evaluate whether continuous vs intermittent infusion of a ß-lactam antibiotic (piperacillin-tazobactam or meropenem) results in decreased all-cause mortality at 90 days in critically ill patients with sepsis. Design, Setting, and Participants: An international, open-label, randomized clinical trial conducted in 104 intensive care units (ICUs) in Australia, Belgium, France, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Recruitment occurred from March 26, 2018, to January 11, 2023, with follow-up completed on April 12, 2023. Participants were critically ill adults (≥18 years) treated with piperacillin-tazobactam or meropenem for sepsis. Intervention: Eligible patients were randomized to receive an equivalent 24-hour dose of a ß-lactam antibiotic by either continuous (n = 3498) or intermittent (n = 3533) infusion for a clinician-determined duration of treatment or until ICU discharge, whichever occurred first. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 90 days after randomization. Secondary outcomes were clinical cure up to 14 days after randomization; new acquisition, colonization, or infection with a multiresistant organism or Clostridioides difficile infection up to 14 days after randomization; ICU mortality; and in-hospital mortality. Results: Among 7202 randomized participants, 7031 (mean [SD] age, 59 [16] years; 2423 women [35%]) met consent requirements for inclusion in the primary analysis (97.6%). Within 90 days, 864 of 3474 patients (24.9%) assigned to receive continuous infusion had died compared with 939 of 3507 (26.8%) assigned intermittent infusion (absolute difference, -1.9% [95% CI, -4.9% to 1.1%]; odds ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.81 to 1.01]; P = .08). Clinical cure was higher in the continuous vs intermittent infusion group (1930/3467 [55.7%] and 1744/3491 [50.0%], respectively; absolute difference, 5.7% [95% CI, 2.4% to 9.1%]). Other secondary outcomes were not statistically different. Conclusions and Relevance: The observed difference in 90-day mortality between continuous vs intermittent infusions of ß-lactam antibiotics did not meet statistical significance in the primary analysis. However, the confidence interval around the effect estimate includes the possibility of both no important effect and a clinically important benefit in the use of continuous infusions in this group of patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03213990.

The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score: has the time come for an update?

The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was developed more than 25 years ago to provide a simple method of assessing and monitoring organ dysfunction in critically ill patients. Changes in clinical practice over the last few decades, with new interventions and a greater focus on non-invasive monitoring systems, mean it is time to update the SOFA score. As a first step in this process, we propose some possible new variables that could be included in a SOFA 2.0. By so doing, we hope to stimulate debate and discussion to move toward a new, properly validated score that will be fit for modern practice.

Short-term mortality of patients ≥80 years old admitted to European intensive care units: an international observational study.

BACKGROUND: Limited evidence suggests variation in mortality of older critically ill adults across Europe. We aimed to investigate regional differences in mortality among very old ICU patients. METHODS: Multilevel analysis of two international prospective cohort studies. We included patients ≥80 yr old from 322 ICUs located in 16 European countries. The primary outcome was mortality within 30 days from admission to the ICU. Results are presented as n (%) with 95% confidence intervals and odds ratios (ORs). RESULTS: Of 8457 patients, 2944 (36.9% [35.9-38.0%]) died within 30 days. Crude mortality rates varied widely between participating countries (from 10.1% [6.4-15.6%] to 45.1% [41.1-49.2%] in the ICU and from 21.3% [16.3-28.9%] to 55.3% [51.1-59.5%] within 30 days). After adjustment for confounding variables, the variation in 30-day mortality between countries was substantially smaller than between ICUs (median OR 1.14 vs 1.58). Healthcare expenditure per capita (OR=0.84 per $1000 [0.75-0.94]) and social health insurance framework (OR=1.43 [1.01-2.01]) were associated with ICU mortality, but the direction and magnitude of these relationships was uncertain in 30-day follow-up. Volume of admissions was associated with lower mortality both in the ICU (OR=0.81 per 1000 annual ICU admissions [0.71-0.94]) and in 30-day follow-up (OR=0.86 [0.76-0.97]). CONCLUSION: The apparent variation in short-term mortality rates of older adults hospitalised in ICUs across Europe can be largely attributed to differences in the clinical profile of patients admitted. The volume-outcome relationship identified in this population requires further investigation.

Adjunctive Glucocorticoid Therapy in Patients with Septic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Whether hydrocortisone reduces mortality among patients with septic shock is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with septic shock who were undergoing mechanical ventilation to receive hydrocortisone (at a dose of 200 mg per day) or placebo for 7 days or until death or discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU), whichever came first. The primary outcome was death from any cause at 90 days. RESULTS: From March 2013 through April 2017, a total of 3800 patients underwent randomization. Status with respect to the primary outcome was ascertained in 3658 patients (1832 of whom had been assigned to the hydrocortisone group and 1826 to the placebo group). At 90 days, 511 patients (27.9%) in the hydrocortisone group and 526 (28.8%) in the placebo group had died (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.10; P=0.50). The effect of the trial regimen was similar in six prespecified subgroups. Patients who had been assigned to receive hydrocortisone had faster resolution of shock than those assigned to the placebo group (median duration, 3 days [interquartile range, 2 to 5] vs. 4 days [interquartile range, 2 to 9]; hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.41; P<0.001). Patients in the hydrocortisone group had a shorter duration of the initial episode of mechanical ventilation than those in the placebo group (median, 6 days [interquartile range, 3 to 18] vs. 7 days [interquartile range, 3 to 24]; hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.22; P<0.001), but taking into account episodes of recurrence of ventilation, there were no significant differences in the number of days alive and free from mechanical ventilation. Fewer patients in the hydrocortisone group than in the placebo group received a blood transfusion (37.0% vs. 41.7%; odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94; P=0.004). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to mortality at 28 days, the rate of recurrence of shock, the number of days alive and out of the ICU, the number of days alive and out of the hospital, the recurrence of mechanical ventilation, the rate of renal-replacement therapy, and the incidence of new-onset bacteremia or fungemia. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with septic shock undergoing mechanical ventilation, a continuous infusion of hydrocortisone did not result in lower 90-day mortality than placebo. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; ADRENAL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01448109 .).

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Research Priorities for Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Critical Illness.

OBJECTIVES: To identify research priorities in the management, pathophysiology, and host response of coronavirus disease 2019 in critically ill patients. DESIGN: The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee, a multiprofessional group of 17 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine, was virtually convened during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The committee iteratively developed the recommendations and subsequent document. METHODS: Each committee member submitted a list of what they believed were the most important priorities for coronavirus disease 2019 research. The entire committee voted on 58 submitted questions to determine top priorities for coronavirus disease 2019 research. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee provides 13 priorities for coronavirus disease 2019. Of these, the top six priorities were identified and include the following questions: 1) Should the approach to ventilator management differ from the standard approach in patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure?, 2) Can the host response be modulated for therapeutic benefit?, 3) What specific cells are directly targeted by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and how do these cells respond?, 4) Can early data be used to predict outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 and, by extension, to guide therapies?, 5) What is the role of prone positioning and noninvasive ventilation in nonventilated patients with coronavirus disease?, and 6) Which interventions are best to use for viral load modulation and when should they be given? CONCLUSIONS: Although knowledge of both biology and treatment has increased exponentially in the first year of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, significant knowledge gaps remain. The research priorities identified represent a roadmap for investigation in coronavirus disease 2019.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines on the Management of Adults With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the ICU: First Update.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues to affect millions worldwide. Given the rapidly growing evidence base, we implemented a living guideline model to provide guidance on the management of patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. METHODS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Disease 2019 panel has expanded to include 43 experts from 14 countries; all panel members completed an electronic conflict-of-interest disclosure form. In this update, the panel addressed nine questions relevant to managing severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. We used the World Health Organization's definition of severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019. The systematic reviews team searched the literature for relevant evidence, aiming to identify systematic reviews and clinical trials. When appropriate, we performed a random-effects meta-analysis to summarize treatment effects. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, then used the evidence-to-decision framework to generate recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued nine statements (three new and six updated) related to ICU patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019. For severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019, the panel strongly recommends using systemic corticosteroids and venous thromboprophylaxis but strongly recommends against using hydroxychloroquine. In addition, the panel suggests using dexamethasone (compared with other corticosteroids) and suggests against using convalescent plasma and therapeutic anticoagulation outside clinical trials. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel suggests using remdesivir in nonventilated patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 and suggests against starting remdesivir in patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019 outside clinical trials. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue a recommendation on the use of awake prone positioning. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued several recommendations to guide healthcare professionals caring for adults with critical or severe coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. Based on a living guideline model the recommendations will be updated as new evidence becomes available.

Relationship between the Clinical Frailty Scale and short-term mortality in patients ≥ 80 years old acutely admitted to the ICU: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is frequently used to measure frailty in critically ill adults. There is wide variation in the approach to analysing the relationship between the CFS score and mortality after admission to the ICU. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of modelling approach on the association between the CFS score and short-term mortality and quantify the prognostic value of frailty in this context. METHODS: We analysed data from two multicentre prospective cohort studies which enrolled intensive care unit patients ≥ 80 years old in 26 countries. The primary outcome was mortality within 30-days from admission to the ICU. Logistic regression models for both ICU and 30-day mortality included the CFS score as either a categorical, continuous or dichotomous variable and were adjusted for patient's age, sex, reason for admission to the ICU, and admission Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. RESULTS: The median age in the sample of 7487 consecutive patients was 84 years (IQR 81-87). The highest fraction of new prognostic information from frailty in the context of 30-day mortality was observed when the CFS score was treated as either a categorical variable using all original levels of frailty or a nonlinear continuous variable and was equal to 9% using these modelling approaches (p < 0.001). The relationship between the CFS score and mortality was nonlinear (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Knowledge about a patient's frailty status adds a substantial amount of new prognostic information at the moment of admission to the ICU. Arbitrary simplification of the CFS score into fewer groups than originally intended leads to a loss of information and should be avoided. Trial registration NCT03134807 (VIP1), NCT03370692 (VIP2).

Plasma Cortisol, Aldosterone, and Ascorbic Acid Concentrations in Patients with Septic Shock Do Not Predict Treatment Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality. A Nested Cohort Study.

Rationale: Whether biomarkers can identify subgroups of patients with septic shock with differential treatment responses to hydrocortisone is unknown.Objectives: To determine if there is heterogeneity in effect for hydrocortisone on mortality, shock resolution, and other clinical outcomes based on baseline cortisol, aldosterone, and ascorbic acid concentrations.Methods: From May 2014 to April 2017, we obtained serum samples from 529 patients with septic shock from 22 ICUs in Australia and New Zealand.Measurements and Main Results: There were no significant interactions between the association with 90-day mortality and treatment with either hydrocortisone or placebo for total cortisol (odds ratio [OR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.16 vs. OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00-1.13; P = 0.70), free cortisol (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.38 vs. OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32; P = 0.75), aldosterone (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97-1.05 vs. OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.98-1.04; P = 0.99), or ascorbic acid (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89-1.39 vs. OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.91-1.22; P = 0.70), respectively. Similar results were observed for the association with shock resolution. Elevated free cortisol was significantly associated with 90-day mortality (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.00-1.27; P = 0.04), but total cortisol, aldosterone, and ascorbic acid were not.Conclusions: In patients with septic shock, there was no heterogeneity in effect of adjunctive hydrocortisone on mortality, shock resolution, or other clinical outcomes based on cortisol, aldosterone, and ascorbic acid concentrations. Plasma aldosterone and ascorbic acid concentrations are not associated with outcome.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Guidelines on the Management of Critically Ill Adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

BACKGROUND: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. METHODS: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.

ß-Lactam antimicrobial pharmacokinetics and target attainment in critically ill patients aged 1 day to 90 years: the ABDose study.

BACKGROUND: The pharmacokinetics of ß-lactam antibiotics in critical illness remain poorly characterized, particularly in neonates, children and the elderly. We undertook a pharmacokinetic study of commonly used ß-lactam antibiotics in critically ill patients of all ages. The aims were to produce a whole-life ß-lactam pharmacokinetic model and describe the extent to which standard doses achieve pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets associated with clinical cure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 212 critically ill participants with an age range from 1 day (gestational age 24 weeks) to 90 years were recruited from a UK hospital, providing 1339 pharmacokinetic samples. Population pharmacokinetic analysis was undertaken using non-linear mixed-effects modelling (NONMEM) for each drug. Pooled data were used to estimate maturation and decline of ß-lactam pharmacokinetics throughout life. RESULTS: Pharmacokinetic models for eight drugs were described, including what is thought to be the first benzylpenicillin model in critically ill adults. We estimate that 50% of adult ß-lactam clearance is achieved by 43 weeks post-menstrual age (chronological plus gestational age). Fifty percent of decline from peak adult clearance occurs by 71 years. Paediatric participants were significantly less likely than adults to achieve pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets with standard antibiotic doses (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We believe this to be the first prospective whole-life antibiotic pharmacokinetic study in the critically ill. The study provides further evidence that standard antibiotic doses fail to achieve pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets associated with clinical success in adults, children and neonates. Maturation and decline parameters estimated from this study could be adopted as a standard for future prospective studies.

Septic Shock: A Genomewide Association Study and Polygenic Risk Score Analysis.

Previous genetic association studies have failed to identify loci robustly associated with sepsis, and there have been no published genetic association studies or polygenic risk score analyses of patients with septic shock, despite evidence suggesting genetic factors may be involved. We systematically collected genotype and clinical outcome data in the context of a randomized controlled trial from patients with septic shock to enrich the presence of disease-associated genetic variants. We performed genomewide association studies of susceptibility and mortality in septic shock using 493 patients with septic shock and 2442 population controls, and polygenic risk score analysis to assess genetic overlap between septic shock risk/mortality with clinically relevant traits. One variant, rs9489328, located in AL589740.1 noncoding RNA, was significantly associated with septic shock (p = 1.05 × 10-10); however, it is likely a false-positive. We were unable to replicate variants previously reported to be associated (p < 1.00 × 10-6 in previous scans) with susceptibility to and mortality from sepsis. Polygenic risk scores for hematocrit and granulocyte count were negatively associated with 28-day mortality (p = 3.04 × 10-3; p = 2.29 × 10-3), and scores for C-reactive protein levels were positively associated with susceptibility to septic shock (p = 1.44 × 10-3). Results suggest that common variants of large effect do not influence septic shock susceptibility, mortality and resolution; however, genetic predispositions to clinically relevant traits are significantly associated with increased susceptibility and mortality in septic individuals.

The good, the bad and the ugly: pandemic priority decisions and triage.

In this analysis we discuss the change in criteria for triage of patients during three different phases of a pandemic like COVID-19, seen from the critical care point of view. Availability of critical care beds has become a hot topic, and in many countries, we have seen a huge increase in the provision of temporary intensive care bed capacity. However, there is a limit where the hospitals may run out of resources to provide critical care, which is heavily dependent on trained staff, just-in-time supply chains for clinical consumables and drugs and advanced equipment. In the first (good) phase, we can still do clinical prioritisation and decision-making as usual, based on the need for intensive care and prognostication: what are the odds for a good result with regard to survival and quality of life. In the next (bad phase), the resources are mostly available, but the system is stressed by many patients arriving over a short time period and auxiliary beds in different places in the hospital being used. We may have to abandon admittance of patients with doubtful prognosis. In the last (ugly) phase, usual medical triage and priority setting may not be sufficient to decrease inflow and there may not be enough intensive care unit beds available. In this phase different criteria must be applied using a utilitarian approach for triage. We argue that this is an important transition where society, and not physicians, must provide guidance to support triage that is no longer based on medical priorities alone.

Pathophysiology, Transmission, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Review.

IMPORTANCE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, due to the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has caused a worldwide sudden and substantial increase in hospitalizations for pneumonia with multiorgan disease. This review discusses current evidence regarding the pathophysiology, transmission, diagnosis, and management of COVID-19. OBSERVATIONS: SARS-CoV-2 is spread primarily via respiratory droplets during close face-to-face contact. Infection can be spread by asymptomatic, presymptomatic, and symptomatic carriers. The average time from exposure to symptom onset is 5 days, and 97.5% of people who develop symptoms do so within 11.5 days. The most common symptoms are fever, dry cough, and shortness of breath. Radiographic and laboratory abnormalities, such as lymphopenia and elevated lactate dehydrogenase, are common, but nonspecific. Diagnosis is made by detection of SARS-CoV-2 via reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing, although false-negative test results may occur in up to 20% to 67% of patients; however, this is dependent on the quality and timing of testing. Manifestations of COVID-19 include asymptomatic carriers and fulminant disease characterized by sepsis and acute respiratory failure. Approximately 5% of patients with COVID-19, and 20% of those hospitalized, experience severe symptoms necessitating intensive care. More than 75% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 require supplemental oxygen. Treatment for individuals with COVID-19 includes best practices for supportive management of acute hypoxic respiratory failure. Emerging data indicate that dexamethasone therapy reduces 28-day mortality in patients requiring supplemental oxygen compared with usual care (21.6% vs 24.6%; age-adjusted rate ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.74-0.92]) and that remdesivir improves time to recovery (hospital discharge or no supplemental oxygen requirement) from 15 to 11 days. In a randomized trial of 103 patients with COVID-19, convalescent plasma did not shorten time to recovery. Ongoing trials are testing antiviral therapies, immune modulators, and anticoagulants. The case-fatality rate for COVID-19 varies markedly by age, ranging from 0.3 deaths per 1000 cases among patients aged 5 to 17 years to 304.9 deaths per 1000 cases among patients aged 85 years or older in the US. Among patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit, the case fatality is up to 40%. At least 120 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are under development. Until an effective vaccine is available, the primary methods to reduce spread are face masks, social distancing, and contact tracing. Monoclonal antibodies and hyperimmune globulin may provide additional preventive strategies. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: As of July 1, 2020, more than 10 million people worldwide had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Many aspects of transmission, infection, and treatment remain unclear. Advances in prevention and effective management of COVID-19 will require basic and clinical investigation and public health and clinical interventions.

Sepsis and septic shock.

Sepsis is a common condition that is associated with unacceptably high mortality and, for many of those who survive, long-term morbidity. Increased awareness of the condition resulting from ongoing campaigns and the evidence arising from research in the past 10 years have increased understanding of this problem among clinicians and lay people, and have led to improved outcomes. The World Health Assembly and WHO made sepsis a global health priority in 2017 and have adopted a resolution to improve the prevention, diagnosis, and management of sepsis. In 2016, a new definition of sepsis (Sepsis-3) was developed. Sepsis is now defined as infection with organ dysfunction. This definition codifies organ dysfunction using the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. Ongoing research aims to improve definition of patient populations to allow for individualised management strategies matched to a patient's molecular and biochemical profile. The search continues for improved diagnostic techniques that can facilitate this aim, and for a pharmacological agent that can improve outcomes by modifying the disease process. While waiting for this goal to be achieved, improved basic care driven by education and quality-improvement programmes offers the best hope of increasing favourable outcomes.

Atraumatic versus conventional lumbar puncture needles: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Atraumatic needles have been proposed to lower complication rates after lumbar puncture. However, several surveys indicate that clinical adoption of these needles remains poor. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare patient outcomes after lumbar puncture with atraumatic needles and conventional needles. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we independently searched 13 databases with no language restrictions from inception to Aug 15, 2017, for randomised controlled trials comparing the use of atraumatic needles and conventional needles for any lumbar puncture indication. Randomised trials comparing atraumatic and conventional needles in which no dural puncture was done (epidural injections) or without a conventional needle control group were excluded. We screened studies and extracted data from published reports independently. The primary outcome of postdural-puncture headache incidence and additional safety and efficacy outcomes were assessed by random-effects and fixed-effects meta-analysis. This study is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, number CRD42016047546. FINDINGS: We identified 20 241 reports; after exclusions, 110 trials done between 1989 and 2017 from 29 countries, including a total of 31 412 participants, were eligible for analysis. The incidence of postdural-puncture headache was significantly reduced from 11·0% (95% CI 9·1-13·3) in the conventional needle group to 4·2% (3·3-5·2) in the atraumatic group (relative risk 0·40, 95% CI 0·34-0·47, p<0·0001; I2=45·4%). Atraumatic needles were also associated with significant reductions in the need for intravenous fluid or controlled analgesia (0·44, 95% CI 0·29-0·64; p<0·0001), need for epidural blood patch (0·50, 0·33-0·75; p=0·001), any headache (0·50, 0·43-0·57; p<0·0001), mild headache (0·52, 0·38-0·70; p<0·0001), severe headache (0·41, 0·28-0·59; p<0·0001), nerve root irritation (0·71, 0·54-0·92; p=0·011), and hearing disturbance (0·25, 0·11-0·60; p=0·002). Success of lumbar puncture on first attempt, failure rate, mean number of attempts, and the incidence of traumatic tap and backache did not differ significantly between the two needle groups. Prespecified subgroup analyses of postdural-puncture headache revealed no interactions between needle type and patient age, sex, use of prophylactic intravenous fluid, needle gauge, patient position, indication for lumbar puncture, bed rest after puncture, or clinician specialty. These results were rated high-quality evidence as examined using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation. INTERPRETATION: Among patients who had lumbar puncture, atraumatic needles were associated with a decrease in the incidence of postdural-puncture headache and in the need for patients to return to hospital for additional therapy, and had similar efficacy to conventional needles. These findings offer clinicians and stakeholders a comprehensive assessment and high-quality evidence for the safety and efficacy of atraumatic needles as a superior option for patients who require lumbar puncture. FUNDING: None.

Hydrocortisone Compared with Placebo in Patients with Septic Shock Satisfying the Sepsis-3 Diagnostic Criteria and APROCCHSS Study Inclusion Criteria: A Post Hoc Analysis of the ADRENAL Trial.

BACKGROUND: Two recent randomized controlled trials (Adjunctive Glucocorticoid Therapy in Patients with Septic Shock [ADRENAL] and Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock [APROCCHSS]) of corticosteroids in patients with septic shock reported different treatment effects on 90-day mortality. Both trials enrolled patients who met the criteria for septic shock using the second international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-2), but the APROCCHSS trial mandated a greater severity of shock as an inclusion criterion. METHODS: The authors conducted post hoc sensitivity analyses of the ADRENAL trial to determine the effects of hydrocortisone versus placebo in subgroups selected using third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3) diagnostic criteria or APROCCHSS inclusion criteria. RESULTS: There were 1,950 subjects (973 hydrocortisone and 977 placebo) who met the Sepsis-3 criteria (ADRENAL-Sepsis-3 cohort) and 905 patients (455 hydrocortisone and 450 placebo) who met the APROCCHSS criteria (ADRENAL-APROCCHSS cohort). At 90 days after randomization, in the ADRENAL-Sepsis-3 cohort, 312 of 963 (32.4%) and 337 of 958 (35.2%) patients assigned to hydrocortisone and placebo, respectively, had died (odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.06; P = 0.166). The corresponding figures for the ADRENAL-APROCCHSS cohorts were 187 of 453 (41.3%) and 200 of 445 (44.9%), respectively (odds ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.17; P = 0.303). There was no statistically significant difference in the time to death between the groups during the 90 days after randomization (hazard ratio = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.02; P = 0.082 for ADRENAL-Sepsis-3; and hazard ratio = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.06; P = 0.156 for ADRENAL-APROCCHSS cohorts). In both cohorts, patients assigned to hydrocortisone had faster resolution of shock. In the ADRENAL-Sepsis-3 cohort, patients assigned to hydrocortisone had an increase in the number of days alive and free of mechanical ventilation (57.0 ± 37.2 vs. 53.7 ± 38.2 days; 95% CI, 0.40 to 7.04; P = 0.028) and the number of days alive and free of the intensive care unit (54.3 ± 36.0 vs. 51.0 ± 37.1; 95% CI, 0.82 to 7.24; P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: In a post hoc analysis of the ADRENAL trial participants who fulfilled either the Sepsis-3 or the APROCCHSS inclusion criteria, a continuous infusion of hydrocortisone did not result in a lower 90-day mortality than placebo in septic shock.

Scaling beta-lactam antimicrobial pharmacokinetics from early life to old age.

AIMS: Beta-lactam dose optimization in critical care is a current priority. We aimed to review the pharmacokinetics (PK) of three commonly used beta-lactams (amoxicillin ± clavulanate, piperacillin-tazobactam and meropenem) to compare PK parameters reported in critically and noncritically ill neonates, children and adults, and to investigate whether allometric and maturation scaling principles could be applied to describe changes in PK parameters through life. METHODS: A systematic review of PK studies of the three drugs was undertaken using MEDLINE and EMBASE. PK parameters and summary statistics were extracted and scaled using allometric principles to 70 kg individual for comparison. Pooled data were used to model clearance maturation and decline using a sigmoidal (Hill) function. RESULTS: A total of 130 papers were identified. Age ranged from 29 weeks to 82 years and weight from 0.9-200 kg. PK parameters from critically ill populations were reported with wider confidence intervals than those in healthy volunteers, indicating greater PK variability in critical illness. The standard allometric size and sigmoidal maturation model adequately described increasing clearance in neonates, and a sigmoidal model was also used to describe decline in older age. Adult weight-adjusted clearance was achieved at approximately 2 years postmenstrual age. Changes in volume of distribution were well described by the standard allometric model, although amoxicillin data suggested a relatively higher volume of distribution in neonates. CONCLUSIONS: Critical illness is associated with greater PK variability than in healthy volunteers. The maturation models presented will be useful for optimizing beta-lactam dosing, although a prospective, age-inclusive study is warranted for external validation.

Implementation of earlier antibiotic administration in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock in Japan: a descriptive analysis of a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Time to antibiotic administration is a key element in sepsis care; however, it is difficult to implement sepsis care bundles. Additionally, sepsis is different from other emergent conditions including acute coronary syndrome, stroke, or trauma. We aimed to describe the association between time to antibiotic administration and outcomes in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock in Japan. METHODS: This prospective observational study enrolled 1184 adult patients diagnosed with severe sepsis based on the Sepsis-2 criteria and admitted to 59 intensive care units (ICUs) in Japan between January 1, 2016, and March 31, 2017, as the sepsis cohort of the Focused Outcomes Research in Emergency Care in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Sepsis and Trauma (FORECAST) study. We compared the characteristics and in-hospital mortality of patients administered with antibiotics at varying durations after sepsis recognition, i.e., 0-60, 61-120, 121-180, 181-240, 241-360, and 361-1440 min, and estimated the impact of antibiotic timing on risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality using the generalized estimating equation model (GEE) with an exchangeable, within-group correlation matrix, with "hospital" as the grouping variable. RESULTS: Data from 1124 patients in 54 hospitals were used for analyses. Of these, 30.5% and 73.9% received antibiotics within 1 h and 3 h, respectively. Overall, the median time to antibiotic administration was 102 min [interquartile range (IQR), 55-189]. Compared with patients diagnosed in the emergency department [90 min (IQR, 48-164 min)], time to antibiotic administration was shortest in patients diagnosed in ICUs [60 min (39-180 min)] and longest in patients transferred from wards [120 min (62-226)]. Overall crude mortality was 23.4%, where patients in the 0-60 min group had the highest mortality (28.0%) and a risk-adjusted mortality rate [28.7% (95% CI 23.3-34.1%)], whereas those in the 61-120 min group had the lowest mortality (20.2%) and risk-adjusted mortality rates [21.6% (95% CI 16.5-26.6%)]. Differences in mortality were noted only between the 0-60 min and 61-120 min groups. CONCLUSIONS: We could not find any association between earlier antibiotic administration and reduction in in-hospital mortality in patients with severe sepsis.

Effect of a Resuscitation Strategy Targeting Peripheral Perfusion Status vs Serum Lactate Levels on 28-Day Mortality Among Patients With Septic Shock: The ANDROMEDA-SHOCK Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Abnormal peripheral perfusion after septic shock resuscitation has been associated with organ dysfunction and mortality. The potential role of the clinical assessment of peripheral perfusion as a target during resuscitation in early septic shock has not been established. Objective: To determine if a peripheral perfusion-targeted resuscitation during early septic shock in adults is more effective than a lactate level-targeted resuscitation for reducing mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized trial conducted at 28 intensive care units in 5 countries. Four-hundred twenty-four patients with septic shock were included between March 2017 and March 2018. The last date of follow-up was June 12, 2018. Interventions: Patients were randomized to a step-by-step resuscitation protocol aimed at either normalizing capillary refill time (n = 212) or normalizing or decreasing lactate levels at rates greater than 20% per 2 hours (n = 212), during an 8-hour intervention period. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 28 days. Secondary outcomes were organ dysfunction at 72 hours after randomization, as assessed by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (range, 0 [best] to 24 [worst]); death within 90 days; mechanical ventilation-, renal replacement therapy-, and vasopressor-free days within 28 days; intensive care unit and hospital length of stay. Results: Among 424 patients randomized (mean age, 63 years; 226 [53%] women), 416 (98%) completed the trial. By day 28, 74 patients (34.9%) in the peripheral perfusion group and 92 patients (43.4%) in the lactate group had died (hazard ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.55 to 1.02]; P = .06; risk difference, -8.5% [95% CI, -18.2% to 1.2%]). Peripheral perfusion-targeted resuscitation was associated with less organ dysfunction at 72 hours (mean SOFA score, 5.6 [SD, 4.3] vs 6.6 [SD, 4.7]; mean difference, -1.00 [95% CI, -1.97 to -0.02]; P = .045). There were no significant differences in the other 6 secondary outcomes. No protocol-related serious adverse reactions were confirmed. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with septic shock, a resuscitation strategy targeting normalization of capillary refill time, compared with a strategy targeting serum lactate levels, did not reduce all-cause 28-day mortality. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03078712.