High-dose intravenous selenium does not improve clinical outcomes in the critically ill: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Selenium (Se) is an essential trace element with antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and immunomodulatory effects. So far, several randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that parenteral Se may improve clinical outcomes in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Since publication of our previous systematic review and meta-analysis on antioxidants in the ICU, reports of several trials have been published, including the largest RCT on Se therapy. The purpose of the present systematic review was to update our previous data on intravenous (IV) Se in the critically ill. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included RCTs with parallel groups comparing parenteral Se as single or combined therapy with placebo. Potential trials were evaluated according to specific eligibility criteria, and two reviewers abstracted data from original trials in duplicate independently. Overall mortality was the primary outcome; secondary outcomes were infections, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, ventilator days, and new renal dysfunction. RESULTS: A total of 21 RCTs met our inclusion criteria. When the data from these trials were aggregated, IV Se had no effect on mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.98, 95 % CI 0.90-1.08, P = 0.72, heterogeneity I 2 = 0 %). In addition, when the results of ten trials in which researchers reported on infections were statistically aggregated, there was no significant treatment effect of parenteral Se (RR 0.95, 95 % CI 0.88-1.02, P = 0.15, I 2 = 0 %). There was no positive or negative effect of Se therapy on ICU and hospital LOS, renal function, or ventilator days. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients, IV Se as monotherapy does not improve clinical outcomes.

Crossing the handover chasm: Clinicians' perceptions of barriers to the early detection and timely management of severe sepsis and septic shock.

PURPOSE: The purpose was to identify barriers to the early detection and timely management of severe sepsis throughout the emergency department (ED), general ward (GW), intermediate care unit (IMC), and the intensive care unit (ICU). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five multicenter focus group discussions with 29 clinicians were conducted. Discussions were based on a moderation guide were recorded and transcribed. Qualitative analysis was performed according to the principles of the concept mapping method and the framework approach. RESULTS: The major causes of the delayed detection and treatment could be summarized in a framework of communication errors and handover difficulties throughout patients' course of treatment, which can be divided into 5 core areas: inadequate histories before hospital admission; poorly coordinated handovers between the ambulance service and the ED; delayed patient transfer between the ED and the GW as well as delays in patient transfers between the GW and the ICU by, for example, a lack of bed capacity and a shortage of staff. Generally, participants from all wards mentioned that the urgency with which septic patients needed to be treated was not communicated. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows the need to improve intra- and interunit handover processes in hospital care, which would ensure a holistic treatment concept, thereby improving patient care.

Effect of empirical treatment with moxifloxacin and meropenem vs meropenem on sepsis-related organ dysfunction in patients with severe sepsis: a randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Early appropriate antimicrobial therapy leads to lower mortality rates associated with severe sepsis. The role of empirical combination therapy comprising at least 2 antibiotics of different mechanisms remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of moxifloxacin and meropenem with the effect of meropenem alone on sepsis-related organ dysfunction. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A randomized, open-label, parallel-group trial of 600 patients who fulfilled criteria for severe sepsis or septic shock (n = 298 for monotherapy and n = 302 for combination therapy). The trial was performed at 44 intensive care units in Germany from October 16, 2007, to March 23, 2010. The number of evaluable patients was 273 in the monotherapy group and 278 in the combination therapy group. INTERVENTIONS: Intravenous meropenem (1 g every 8 hours) and moxifloxacin (400 mg every 24 hours) or meropenem alone. The intervention was recommended for 7 days and up to a maximum of 14 days after randomization or until discharge from the intensive care unit or death, whichever occurred first. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Degree of organ failure (mean of daily total Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA] scores over 14 days; score range: 0-24 points with higher scores indicating worse organ failure); secondary outcome: 28-day and 90-day all-cause mortality. Survivors were followed up for 90 days. RESULTS: Among 551 evaluable patients, there was no statistically significant difference in mean SOFA score between the meropenem and moxifloxacin group (8.3 points; 95% CI, 7.8-8.8 points) and the meropenem alone group (7.9 points; 95% CI, 7.5-8.4 points) (P = .36). The rates for 28-day and 90-day mortality also were not statistically significantly different. By day 28, there were 66 deaths (23.9%; 95% CI, 19.0%-29.4%) in the combination therapy group compared with 59 deaths (21.9%; 95% CI, 17.1%-27.4%) in the monotherapy group (P = .58). By day 90, there were 96 deaths (35.3%; 95% CI, 29.6%-41.3%) in the combination therapy group compared with 84 deaths (32.1%; 95% CI, 26.5%-38.1%) in the monotherapy group (P = .43). CONCLUSION: Among adult patients with severe sepsis, treatment with combined meropenem and moxifloxacin compared with meropenem alone did not result in less organ failure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00534287.