Metformin for sepsis-associated AKI: a protocol for the Randomized Clinical Trial of the Safety and FeasibiLity of Metformin as a Treatment for sepsis-associated AKI (LiMiT AKI).

INTRODUCTION: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication of sepsis associated with increased risk of death. Preclinical data and observational human studies suggest that activation of AMP-activated protein kinase, an ubiquitous master regulator of energy that can limit mitochondrial injury, with metformin may protect against sepsis-associated AKI (SA-AKI) and mortality. The Randomized Clinical Trial of the Safety and FeasibiLity of Metformin as a Treatment for sepsis-associated AKI (LiMiT AKI) aims to evaluate the safety and feasibility of enteral metformin in patients with sepsis at risk of developing SA-AKI. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Blind, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial in a single-centre, quaternary teaching hospital in the USA. We will enrol adult patients (18 years of age or older) within 48 hours of meeting Sepsis-3 criteria, admitted to intensive care unit, with oral or enteral access. Patients will be randomised 1:1:1 to low-dose metformin (500 mg two times per day), high-dose metformin (1000 mg two times per day) or placebo for 5 days. Primary safety outcome will be the proportion of metformin-associated serious adverse events. Feasibility assessment will be based on acceptability by patients and clinicians, and by enrolment rate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board. All patients or surrogates will provide written consent prior to enrolment and any study intervention. Metformin is a widely available, inexpensive medication with a long track record for safety, which if effective would be accessible and easy to deploy. We describe the study methods using the Standard Protocol Items for Randomized Trials framework and discuss key design features and methodological decisions. LiMiT AKI will investigate the feasibility and safety of metformin in critically ill patients with sepsis at risk of SA-AKI, in preparation for a future large-scale efficacy study. Main results will be published as soon as available after final analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05900284.

Heart-Lung Interactions.

The pulmonary and cardiovascular systems have profound effects on each other. Overall cardiac function is determined by heart rate, preload, contractility, and afterload. Changes in lung volume, intrathoracic pressure (ITP), and hypoxemia can simultaneously change all of these four hemodynamic determinants for both ventricles and can even lead to cardiovascular collapse. Intubation using sedation depresses vasomotor tone. Also, the interdependence between right and left ventricles can be affected by lung volume-induced changes in pulmonary vascular resistance and the rise in ITP. An increase in venous return due to negative ITP during spontaneous inspiration can shift the septum to the left and cause a decrease in left ventricle compliance. During positive pressure ventilation, the increase in ITP causes a decrease in venous return (preload), minimizing ventricular interdependence and will decrease left ventricle afterload augmenting cardiac output. Thus, positive pressure ventilation is beneficial in acute heart failure patients and detrimental in hypovolemic patients where it can cause a significant decrease in venous return and cardiac output. Recently, this phenomenon has been used to assess patient's volume responsiveness to fluid by measuring pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation. Heart-lung interaction is very dynamic and changes in lung volume, ITP, and oxygen level can have various effects on the cardiovascular system depending on preexisting cardiovascular function and volume status. Heart failure and either hypo or hypervolemia predispose to greater effects of ventilation of cardiovascular function and gas exchange. This review is an overview of the basics of heart-lung interaction.

Effects of Inotropes on the Mortality in Patients With Septic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Although surviving sepsis campaign guidelines recommend the use of inotropes in the presence of myocardial dysfunction, the effects of inotropes, including epinephrine, dobutamine, and milrinone, on in-hospital mortality in patients with septic shock remains unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an international,2-center, retrospective cohort study. The Cox proportional hazards regression model with time-varying covariates was used to investigate whether epinephrine, milrinone, or dobutamine reduces in-hospital mortality in patients with septic shock. Sensitivity analysis was performed using propensity score matching. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcome included atrial fibrillation (Afib) with a rapid ventricular response (RVR) in the intensive care unit (ICU) and ICU-free days. RESULTS: A total of 417 patients with septic shock were included, 72 (17.3%) of whom received inotropes. The use of epinephrine and dobutamine was associated with significantly higher in-hospital mortality (epinephrine, hazard ratio [HR]: 4.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.12-10.82, P = .001; dobutamine, HR: 2.53, 95% CI: 1.30-4.95, P = .046). The effects of epinephrine and dobutamine were time- and dose-dependent. The use of milrinone was not associated with increased mortality (HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.42-2.68, P = .345). The use of epinephrine, dobutamine, and milrinone was associated with significantly increased odds of Afib with RVR (epinephrine, odds ratio [OR]: 3.88, 95% CI: 1.11-13.61, P = .034; dobutamine, OR: 3.95, 95% CI: 1.14-13.76; and milrinone, OR: 3.77, 95% CI: 1.05-13.59). On the other hand, the use of epinephrine, dobutamine, and milrinone was not associated with less ICU-free days (epinephrine, adjusted OR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.09-1.01, P = .053; dobutamine, adjusted OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.29-2.84; and milrinone, adjusted OR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.19-1.87). CONCLUSION: The present study showed that the use of epinephrine and dobutamine was associated with significantly increased in-hospital mortality in patients with septic shock. These effects were both time- and dose-dependent. On the other hand, the use of milrinone was not associated with increased in-hospital mortality.

The predictive value of airway occlusion pressure at 100 msec (P0.1) on successful weaning from mechanical ventilation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The predictive value of airway occlusion pressure at 100 milliseconds (P0.1) on weaning outcome has been controversial. We performed a meta-analysis to investigate the predictive value of P0.1 on successful weaning from mechanical ventilation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE, and two authors independently screened articles. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and the summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve were estimated. Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was calculated using meta-regression analysis. RESULTS: We included 12 prospective observational studies (n = 1089 patients). Analyses of sROC curves showed the area under the curve of 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.77 to 0.84) for P0.1. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 86% (95% CI, 72 to 94%) and 58% (95% CI, 37% to 76%) with substantial heterogeneity respectively. DOR was 20.09 (p = 0.019, 95%CI: 1.63-247.15). After filling the missing data using the trim-and-fill method to adjust publication bias, DOR was 36.23 (p = 0.002, 95%CI: 3.56-372.41). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that P0.1 is a useful tool to predict successful weaning. To determine clinical utility, a large prospective study investigating the sensitivity and specificity of P0.1 on weaning outcomes from mechanical ventilation is warranted.

Go with the flow-clinical importance of flow curves during mechanical ventilation: A narrative review.

Most clinicians pay attention to tidal volume and airway pressures and their curves during mechanical ventilation. On the other hand, inspiratory-expiratory flow curves also provide a plethora of information, but much less attention is paid to them. Flow curves chronologically show the velocity and direction of inspiration and expiration and are influenced by the respiratory mechanics, the patient's effort, and the mode of ventilation and its settings. When the ventilator setting does not synchronize with the patient's respiratory pattern, the patient can easily have worsening breathing effort, patient-ventilator asynchrony, which can lead to prolonged ventilator support or lung injury. The information provided by the flow curves during mechanical ventilation, such as respiratory mechanics, the patient's effort, and patient-ventilator interactions, are very helpful when adjusting the ventilator setting. If clinicians can monitor and assess the flow curves information appropriately, it can be a useful diagnostic and therapeutic tool at the bedside. There may be association between inspiratory effort and flow, and this may further guide us, especially in the weaning process and when patients are not synchronizing with the ventilator. In this review, we try to gather information about "flow" that is scattered around in the literature and textbooks in one place. We will summarize the different flow waveforms utilized in commonly used ventilator modes with their advantages and disadvantages, information gained by the flow curves (i.e., flow-time, flow-volume, and flow-pressure), how to detect and manage asynchronies, and some ideas for future uses. Flow waveforms shapes and patterns are very beneficial for the management of patients undergoing mechanical ventilatory support. Attention to those waveforms can potentially improve patient outcomes. Clinicians should be familiar with this information and how to act upon them.