ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The optimal nutritional strategy remains controversial, particularly in severely septic patients. Our aim was to analyze the effect of three nutritional strategies--enteral (EN), parenteral (PN), and combined nutrition (EN+PN)--on the outcome of patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This secondary analysis of the prospective, randomized-controlled, multicenter "Intensive Insulin Therapy and Pentastarch Resuscitation in Severe Sepsis (VISEP)" trial only included patients with a length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) of more than 7 days. Besides patient characteristics, data on nutrition therapy were collected daily for up to 21 days. Morbidity as measured by the mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, incidence of secondary infections, renal replacement therapy, ventilator-free days and severe hypoglycemia, length of ICU stay, and mortality at 90 days were compared between the three nutritional strategies. RESULTS: In all, 353 patients were included in the analysis with the majority (68.5 %) receiving EN+PN, 24.4 % receiving EN, and only 7.1 % receiving PN. Median caloric intake was 918 kcal/day (EN), 1,210 kcal/day (PN), and 1,343 kcal/day (EN+PN; p < 0.001). In the latter group, calories were predominantly administered via the parenteral route within the first week. The rate of death at 90 days was lower with EN than with EN+PN (26.7 % vs. 41.3 %, p = 0.048), as was the rate of secondary infections, renal replacement therapy, and duration of mechanical ventilation. In the adjusted Cox regression analysis, the effect on mortality [hazard ratio (HR)= 1.86, 95 % confidence interval (CI): 1.16-2.98, p = 0.010] and the rate of secondary infections (HR= 1.89, 95 % CI: 1.27-2.81, p = 0.002) remained different between EN and EN+PN. CONCLUSION: In patients with severe sepsis or septic shock and prolonged ICU stay, EN alone was associated with improved clinical outcome compared to EN+PN. This hypothesis-generating result has to be confirmed by a randomized-controlled trial in this specific patient population.
Subject(s)
Critical Care , Enteral Nutrition , Hydroxyethyl Starch Derivatives/therapeutic use , Insulin/therapeutic use , Intensive Care Units , Parenteral Nutrition, Total , Plasma Substitutes , Sepsis/therapy , Shock, Septic/therapy , APACHE , Abdomen/surgery , Aged , Combined Modality Therapy , Energy Intake , Female , Gastrointestinal Diseases/surgery , Germany , Humans , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Postoperative Complications/therapy , Proportional Hazards Models , Prospective Studies , Renal Replacement Therapy , Respiration, Artificial , Sepsis/mortality , Shock, Septic/mortality , Survival RateABSTRACT
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The use of intraoperative blood salvage autotransfusion (IBSA) during surgical approaches may contribute to tumour cell dissemination. Therefore, IBSA should be avoided in cases of malignancy. However, the risks of IBSA might be acceptable in liver transplantation (LT) for selected small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: In total, 136 recipients of LT with histologically proven HCC in the explanted liver were included in this analysis. With regard to tumour recurrence, 40 patients receiving IBSA despite HCC (IBSA group) were compared to 96 patients without IBSA (non-IBSA group). RESULTS: Milan criteria as assessed in the explanted liver were fulfilled in 24 of 40 IBSA patients and 58 of 96 non-IBSA patients (p = 0.85). Five of 40 patients in the IBSA group and 18 of 96 patients in the non-IBSA group experienced tumour recurrence (p = 0.29). In spite the theoretical risk of tumour cell dissemination, the recurrence rate was not increased in the IBSA group. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that IBSA does not modify the risk of HCC recurrence. Therefore, in highly selected HCC patients undergoing LT, the use of IBSA appears to be justified.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Hepatocellular/surgery , Liver Neoplasms/surgery , Liver Transplantation/adverse effects , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/etiology , Operative Blood Salvage/adverse effects , Adult , Aged , Carcinoma, Hepatocellular/blood , Female , Humans , Liver Neoplasms/blood , Liver Transplantation/methods , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplastic Cells, Circulating , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
A recent survey conducted by the publicly funded Competence Network Sepsis (SepNet) reveals that severe sepsis and/or septic shock occurs in 75,000 inhabitants (110 out of 100,000) and sepsis in 79,000 inhabitants (116 out of 100,000) in Germany annually. This illness is responsible for approximately 60,000 deaths and ranges as the third most frequent cause of death after acute myocardial infarction. Direct costs for the intensive care of patients with severe sepsis alone amount to approximately 1.77 billion euros, which means that about 30% of the budget in intensive care is used to treat severe sepsis. However, until now German guidelines for the diagnosis and therapy of severe sepsis did not exist. Therefore, the German Sepsis Society initiated the development of guidelines which are based on international recommendations by the International Sepsis Forum (ISF) and the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) and take into account the structure and organization of the German health care system. Priority was given to the following guideline topics: a) diagnosis, b) prevention, c) causative therapy, d) supportive therapy, e) adjunctive therapy. The guidelines development process was carefully planned and strictly adhered to the requirements of the Working Group of Scientific Medical Societies (AWMF).