Albumin versus saline infusion for sepsis-related peripheral tissue hypoperfusion: a proof-of-concept prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Albumin has potential endothelial protective effects through antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. However, the effect of albumin on peripheral tissue perfusion in human sepsis remains poorly known. METHODS: Bi-centric prospective study included patients with sepsis with or without shock and prolonged CRT > 3 s despite initial resuscitation. Clinicians in charge of the patients were free to infuse either saline 500 mL or human serum albumin 20% 100 mL over 15 min. Global hemodynamic parameters as well as peripheral tissue perfusion were analyzed after 1 (H1) and 4 h (H4). The primary endpoint was CRT normalization (< 3 s) at H1. RESULTS: 62 patients were screened, and 50 patients (13 sepsis and 37 septic shock) were included, 21 in the saline group and 29 in the albumin group. SOFA score was 8 [5-11], and SAPS II was 53 [45-70]. Median age was 68 [60-76] years with a higher proportion of men (74%). The primary sources of infection were respiratory (54%) and abdominal (24%). At baseline, comorbidities, clinical and biological characteristics were similar between groups. At H1, CRT normalization (< 3 s) was more frequent in patients receiving albumin as compared to patients treated by saline (63 vs 29%, P = 0.02). The decrease in fingertip CRT was more important in the albumin group when compared to saline group (- 1.0 [- 0.3; - 1.5] vs - 0.2 [- 0.1; - 1.1] seconds, P = 0.04) as well as decrease in mottling score. At H4, beneficial effects of albumin on peripheral tissue perfusion were maintained and urinary output trended to be higher in the albumin group (1.1 [0.5-1.8] vs 0.7 [0.5-0.9] ml/kg/h, P = 0.08). Finally, arterial lactate level did not significantly change between H0 and H4 in the saline group but significantly decreased in the albumin group (P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: In patients with resuscitated sepsis, albumin infusion might lead to greater improvement of tissue hypoperfusion compared to saline. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT05094856.

Prospective evaluation of bleeding risk among thrombocytopenic patients admitted in intensive care unit.

PURPOSE: Bleeding risk evaluation of thrombocytopenic patients admitted in ICU has been poorly investigated. METHODS: A prospective observational study conducted in an 18-bed medical ICU. Consecutive patients with thrombocytopenia (<150 Giga/L) and no bleeding at admission were included. RESULTS: Over one year, 91 patients were included, mainly men (63%), with an age of 61 [46-68] years and a SOFA score of 6 [3-8]. Twenty-three patients (25%) had an hemorrhagic event during ICU stay, mainly digestive (n = 9; 39%) and urological (n = 6; 26%). The time between ICU admission and bleeding was 8 [2-19] days. Almost half of bleeding events required vasopressor infusion and a hemostatic procedure. At admission, two variables were significantly different between the Bleeding and No-Bleeding groups: plasma urea level was significantly higher in the Bleeding group (9 [5.1; 13] vs. 13 [8.9; 31] mmol/L; p < 0.001) and the presence of skin purpura was associated with a 3-fold higher risk for bleeding during ICU stay (HR: 3.4 [1.3-8.3]; p < 0.05). In contrast, admission platelet count was not significantly different between the 2 groups (90 [32; 128] vs 62 [36; 103] G/L; p = 0.26). CONCLUSION: Plasma urea levels and the presence of skin purpura are helpful in identifying thrombocytopenic patients at high-risk of bleeding during ICU stay.

Prediction of esophagogastroduodenoscopy therapeutic usefulness for in-ICU suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding: the SUGIBI score study.

BACKGROUND: Suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding (SUGIB) is a common issue during ICU stay. In the absence of specific guidelines on the indication and timing of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), there is substantial variability in EGD indication depending on accessibility and clinical presentation. This study aimed to investigate factors associated with the need for per-EGD hemostatic therapy and to create a score predicting therapeutic benefit of emergency bedside EGD in ICU patients with SUGIB. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study in our ICU to identify factors associated with the need for hemostatic procedure during EGD performed for SUGIB. From this observational cohort, we derived a score predicting the need for hemostasis during EGD, the SUGIBI score. This score was subsequently validated in a retrospective multicenter cohort. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-five patients not primarily admitted for GI bleeding who underwent a bedside EGD for SUGIB during their ICU stay were analyzed. The preeminent EGD indication were anemia (79%), melena (19%), shock (14%), and hematemesis (13%). EGD was normal in 24.7% of cases, while primary lesions reported were ulcers (23.1%), esophagitis (18.8%), and gastritis (12.5%). Only 12.9% of patients underwent hemostatic endotherapy during EGD. A SUGIBI score < 4 had a negative predictive value of 95% (91-99) for hemostatic endotherapy [AUC of 0.81; 0.75-0.91 (p < 0.0001)]. The SUGIBI score for predicting the need for an EGD-guided hemostatic procedure was next validated in a multicenter cohort with an AUC of 0.75 (0.66-0.85) (p < 0.0001), a score < 4 having a negative predictive value of 95% (92-97). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that the therapeutic usefulness of bedside emergency EGD for SUGIB in critically ill patients is limited to a minority of patients. The SUGIBI score should help clinicians stratify the probability of a therapeutic EGD.