Evaluating the effectiveness of nicotine replacement therapy in critically ill smokers: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: The effectiveness of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in critically ill patients remains uncertain, as conflicting research results have been reported. Despite potential side effects and inconsistent data on safety and efficacy, NRT is still prescribed in intensive care units (ICUs) to prevent withdrawal symptoms and manage agitation in patients who are smokers. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of nicotine replacement therapy in critically ill smoking patients. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials investigated the outcomes of smokers admitted to ICUs and were randomized either to receive or not receive nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) during their ICU stay. The MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from inception through 13 February 2023 using OVID. The primary outcome was ICU length of stay (LOS) for this systematic review and meta-analysis. Meta-analysis was conducted using both random-effects and fixed-effect models; the latter is recommended when meta-analysis is restricted to just a few studies. The study was registered in the Prospective International Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under reference number CRD42023407804. RESULTS: Of 28 studies initially identified, three, with 67 patients on NRT and 72 controls, were deemed eligible for pooled analysis. Patients who received NRT experienced a shorter LOS (mean difference, MD= -3.06; 95% CI: -5.88 - -0.25, p=0.0, I2=0%). The mechanical ventilation (MV) duration was also shorter in the NRT group, but this difference was not statistically significant (MD= -1.24; 95% CI: -3.21-0.72, p=0.22, I2=12.69%). Delirium duration was reported by two studies, from which pooled analysis revealed an MD of -0.50 (95% CI: -1.63-0.62, I2=0%). The vasopressor duration was assessed in two studies, and the overall MD for vasopressor duration was not statistically different between NRT patients and controls in the fixed-effects model (MD=0.11; 95% CI: -0.75-0.96, I2=0%). CONCLUSIONS: Critically ill smoker patients who received NRT experienced a significantly shorter ICU LOS but no significant differences in the durations of MV, vasopressor use, or delirium.

Statistical analysis plan for the replacing protein via enteral nutrition in a stepwise approach in critically ill patients (REPLENISH) randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal amount and timing of protein intake in critically ill patients are unknown. REPLENISH (Replacing Protein via Enteral Nutrition in a Stepwise Approach in Critically Ill Patients) trial evaluates whether supplemental enteral protein added to standard enteral nutrition to achieve a high amount of enteral protein given from ICU day five until ICU discharge or ICU day 90 as compared to no supplemental enteral protein to achieve a moderate amount of enteral protein would reduce all-cause 90-day mortality in adult critically ill mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: In this multicenter randomized trial, critically ill patients will be randomized to receive supplemental enteral protein (1.2 g/kg/day) added to standard enteral nutrition to achieve a high amount of enteral protein (range of 2-2.4 g/kg/day) or no supplemental enteral protein to achieve a moderate amount of enteral protein (0.8-1.2 g/kg/day). The primary outcome is 90-day all-cause mortality; other outcomes include functional and health-related quality-of-life assessments at 90 days. The study sample size of 2502 patients will have 80% power to detect a 5% absolute risk reduction in 90-day mortality from 30 to 25%. Consistent with international guidelines, this statistical analysis plan specifies the methods for evaluating primary and secondary outcomes and subgroups. Applying this statistical analysis plan to the REPLENISH trial will facilitate unbiased analyses of clinical data. CONCLUSION: Ethics approval was obtained from the institutional review board, Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (RC19/414/R). Approvals were also obtained from the institutional review boards of each participating institution. Our findings will be disseminated in an international peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences and meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04475666 . Registered on July 17, 2020.

Replacing protein via enteral nutrition in a stepwise approach in critically ill patients: the REPLENISH randomized clinical trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Protein intake is recommended in critically ill patients to mitigate the negative effects of critical illness-induced catabolism and muscle wasting. However, the optimal dose of enteral protein remains unknown. We hypothesize that supplemental enteral protein (1.2 g/kg/day) added to standard enteral nutrition formula to achieve high amount of enteral protein (range 2-2.4 g/kg/day) given from ICU day 5 until ICU discharge or ICU day 90 as compared to no supplemental enteral protein to achieve moderate amount enteral protein (0.8-1.2 g/kg/day) would reduce all-cause 90-day mortality in adult critically ill mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: The REPLENISH (Replacing Protein Via Enteral Nutrition in a Stepwise Approach in Critically Ill Patients) trial is an open-label, multicenter randomized clinical trial. Patients will be randomized to the supplemental protein group or the control group. Patients in both groups will receive the primary enteral formula as per the treating team, which includes a maximum protein 1.2 g/kg/day. The supplemental protein group will receive, in addition, supplemental protein at 1.2 g/kg/day starting the fifth ICU day. The control group will receive the primary formula without supplemental protein. The primary outcome is 90-day all-cause mortality. Other outcomes include functional and quality of life assessments at 90 days. The trial will enroll 2502 patients. DISCUSSION: The study has been initiated in September 2021. Interim analysis is planned at one third and two thirds of the target sample size. The study is expected to be completed by the end of 2025. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04475666 . Registered on July 17, 2020.

Saudi Critical Care Society clinical practice guidelines on the prevention of venous thromboembolism in adults with trauma: reviewed for evidence-based integrity and endorsed by the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine.

BACKGROUND: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention in adults with trauma in inpatient settings. METHODS: The Saudi Critical Care Society (SCCS) sponsored guidelines development and included 22 multidisciplinary panel members who completed conflict-of-interest forms. The panel developed and answered structured guidelines questions. For each question, the literature was searched for relevant studies. To summarize treatment effects, meta-analyses were conducted or updated. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then the evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework was used to generate recommendations. Recommendations covered the following prioritized domains: timing of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis initiation in non-operative blunt solid organ injuries; isolated blunt traumatic brain injury (TBI); isolated blunt spine trauma or fracture and/or spinal cord injury (SCI); type and dose of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis; mechanical VTE prophylaxis; routine duplex ultrasonography (US) surveillance; and inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs). RESULTS: The panel issued 12 clinical practice recommendations-one, a strong recommendation, 10 weak, and one with no recommendation due to insufficient evidence. The panel suggests starting early pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis for non-operative blunt solid organ injuries, isolated blunt TBIs, and SCIs. The panel suggests using low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) over unfractionated heparin (UFH) and suggests either intermediate-high dose LMWH or conventional dosing LMWH. For adults with trauma who are not pharmacologic candidates, the panel strongly recommends using mechanical VTE prophylaxis with intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC). The panel suggests using either combined VTE prophylaxis with mechanical and pharmacologic methods or pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis alone. Additionally, the panel suggests routine bilateral lower extremity US in adults with trauma with elevated risk of VTE who are ineligible for pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis and suggests against the routine placement of prophylactic IVCFs. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue any recommendation on the use of early pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in adults with isolated blunt TBI requiring neurosurgical intervention. CONCLUSION: The SCCS guidelines for VTE prevention in adults with trauma were based on the best available evidence and identified areas for further research. The framework may facilitate adaptation of recommendations by national/international guideline policymakers.

Long-term outcomes of patients with COVID-19 treated with helmet noninvasive ventilation or usual respiratory support: follow-up study of the Helmet-COVID randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether helmet noninvasive ventilation compared to usual respiratory support reduces 180-day mortality and improves health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: This is a pre-planned follow-up study of the Helmet-COVID trial. In this multicenter, randomized clinical trial, adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (n = 320) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were randomized to receive helmet noninvasive ventilation or usual respiratory support. The modified intention-to-treat population consisted of all enrolled patients except three who were lost at follow-up. The study outcomes were 180-day mortality, EuroQoL (EQ)-5D-5L index values, and EQ-visual analog scale (EQ-VAS). In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, non-survivors were assigned a value of 0 for EQ-5D-5L and EQ-VAS. RESULTS: Within 180 days, 63/159 patients (39.6%) died in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group compared to 65/158 patients (41.1%) in the usual respiratory support group (risk difference - 1.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] - 12.3, 9.3, p = 0.78). In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, patients in the helmet noninvasive ventilation and the usual respiratory support groups did not differ in EQ-5D-5L index values (median 0.68 [IQR 0.00, 1.00], compared to 0.67 [IQR 0.00, 1.00], median difference 0.00 [95% CI - 0.32, 0.32; p = 0.91]) or EQ-VAS scores (median 70 [IQR 0, 93], compared to 70 [IQR 0, 90], median difference 0.00 (95% CI - 31.92, 31.92; p = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: Helmet noninvasive ventilation did not reduce 180-day mortality or improve HRQoL compared to usual respiratory support among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia.

Effect of Helmet Noninvasive Ventilation vs Usual Respiratory Support on Mortality Among Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Due to COVID-19: The HELMET-COVID Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Helmet noninvasive ventilation has been used in patients with COVID-19 with the premise that helmet interface is more effective than mask interface in delivering prolonged treatments with high positive airway pressure, but data about its effectiveness are limited. Objective: To evaluate whether helmet noninvasive ventilation compared with usual respiratory support reduces mortality in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a multicenter, pragmatic, randomized clinical trial that was conducted in 8 sites in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait between February 8, 2021, and November 16, 2021. Adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (n = 320) due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were included. The final follow-up date for the primary outcome was December 14, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive helmet noninvasive ventilation (n = 159) or usual respiratory support (n = 161), which included mask noninvasive ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen, and standard oxygen. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. There were 12 prespecified secondary outcomes, including endotracheal intubation, barotrauma, skin pressure injury, and serious adverse events. Results: Among 322 patients who were randomized, 320 were included in the primary analysis, all of whom completed the trial. Median age was 58 years, and 187 were men (58.4%). Within 28 days, 43 of 159 patients (27.0%) died in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group compared with 42 of 161 (26.1%) in the usual respiratory support group (risk difference, 1.0% [95% CI, -8.7% to 10.6%]; relative risk, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.72-1.49]; P = .85). Within 28 days, 75 of 159 patients (47.2%) required endotracheal intubation in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group compared with 81 of 161 (50.3%) in the usual respiratory support group (risk difference, -3.1% [95% CI, -14.1% to 7.8%]; relative risk, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.75-1.17]). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in any of the prespecified secondary end points. Barotrauma occurred in 30 of 159 patients (18.9%) in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 25 of 161 (15.5%) in the usual respiratory support group. Skin pressure injury occurred in 5 of 159 patients (3.1%) in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 10 of 161 (6.2%) in the usual respiratory support group. There were 2 serious adverse events in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 1 in the usual respiratory support group. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study suggest that helmet noninvasive ventilation did not significantly reduce 28-day mortality compared with usual respiratory support among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia. However, interpretation of the findings is limited by imprecision in the effect estimate, which does not exclude potentially clinically important benefit or harm. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04477668.

Point prevalence of delirium among critically ill patients in Saudi Arabia: A multicenter observational study.

Background: Delirium in critically ill patients is independently associated with poor clinical outcomes. There is a scarcity of published data on the prevalence of delirium among critically ill patients in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, we sought to determine, in a multicenter fashion, the prevalence of delirium in critically ill patients in Saudi Arabia and explore associated risk factors. Methods: A cross-sectional point prevalence study was conducted on January 28, 2020, at 14 intensive care units (ICUs) across 3 universities and 11 other tertiary care hospitals in Saudi Arabia. Delirium was screened once using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. We excluded patients who were unable to participate in a valid delirium assessment, patients admitted with traumatic brain injury, and patients with documented dementia in their medical charts. Results: Of the 407 screened ICU patients, 233 patients were enrolled and 45.9% were diagnosed with delirium. The prevalence was higher in mechanically ventilated patients compared to patients not mechanically ventilated (57.5% vs. 33.6%; P < 0.001). In a multivariate model, risk factors independently associated with delirium included age (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.021; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.04; P = 0.008), mechanical ventilation (AOR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.34-4.28; P = 0.003), and higher severity of illness (AOR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.001-1.021; P = 0.026). Conclusion: In our study, delirium remains a prevalent complication, with distinct risk factors. Further studies are necessary to investigate long-term outcomes of delirium in critically ill patients in Saudi Arabia.

Predictors of survival from Acinetobacter in Saudi Arabian intensive care units: A prospective, one-year, six-city, ten-center cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii is a continuously-emerging worldwide health crisis, with mortality rates approaching 50% in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate regional, patient-related, and organism-related predictors of survival among critically-ill patients with confirmed Acinetobacter infection. METHODS: This prospective cohort study was conducted within ten ICUs across six geographically- and climatologically-distinct cities across Saudi Arabia over 13 months. RESULTS: Of 169 patients with confirmed Acinetobacter infection enrolled in the study, 80 (47.6%) died. Survivors were statistically younger, predominantly male, more likely to be admitted for trauma, less likely to have hypertension, diabetes, or have undergone hemodialysis, and more likely to have been treated with antibiotics prior to having a positive culture for Acinetobacter, but less likely to have received an aminoglycoside. Survivors also had lower baseline APACHE II and SOFA scores and were infected with stains of Acinetobacter that had less meropenem- or colistin-resistance. Multivariate analysis identified the following independent predictors of survival: younger age, lower ICU-day#1 APACHE-II and ICU-day#3 SOFA scores, being admitted for trauma, and having no history of hemodialysis. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-related factors outweigh regional and hospital-related factors as predictors of survival among critically-ill patients with Acinetobacter infection.

Helmet noninvasive ventilation for COVID-19 patients (Helmet-COVID): statistical analysis plan for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive respiratory support is frequently needed for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). Helmet noninvasive ventilation has multiple advantages over other oxygen support modalities but data about effectiveness are limited. METHODS: In this multicenter randomized trial of helmet noninvasive ventilation for COVID-19 patients, 320 adult ICU patients (aged ≥14 years or as per local standards) with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fraction of inspired oxygen < 200 despite supplemental oxygen with a partial/non-rebreathing mask at a flow rate of 10 L/min or higher) will be randomized to helmet noninvasive ventilation with usual care or usual care alone, which may include mask noninvasive ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen, or standard oxygen therapy. The primary outcome is death from any cause within 28 days after randomization. The trial has 80% power to detect a 15% absolute risk reduction in 28-day mortality from 40 to 25%. The primary outcome will be compared between the helmet and usual care group in the intention-to-treat using the chi-square test. Results will be reported as relative risk  and 95% confidence interval. The first patient was enrolled on February 8, 2021. As of August 1, 2021, 252 patients have been enrolled from 7 centers in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. DISCUSSION: We developed a detailed statistical analysis plan to guide the analysis of the Helmet-COVID trial, which is expected to conclude enrollment in November 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04477668 . Registered on July 20, 2020.

The Saudi Critical Care Society practice guidelines on the management of COVID-19 in the ICU: Therapy section.

BACKGROUND: The rapid increase in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases during the subsequent waves in Saudi Arabia and other countries prompted the Saudi Critical Care Society (SCCS) to put together a panel of experts to issue evidence-based recommendations for the management of COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: The SCCS COVID-19 panel included 51 experts with expertise in critical care, respirology, infectious disease, epidemiology, emergency medicine, clinical pharmacy, nursing, respiratory therapy, methodology, and health policy. All members completed an electronic conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel addressed 9 questions that are related to the therapy of COVID-19 in the ICU. We identified relevant systematic reviews and clinical trials, then used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach as well as the evidence-to-decision framework (EtD) to assess the quality of evidence and generate recommendations. RESULTS: The SCCS COVID-19 panel issued 12 recommendations on pharmacotherapeutic interventions (immunomodulators, antiviral agents, and anticoagulants) for severe and critical COVID-19, of which 3 were strong recommendations and 9 were weak recommendations. CONCLUSION: The SCCS COVID-19 panel used the GRADE approach to formulate recommendations on therapy for COVID-19 in the ICU. The EtD framework allows adaptation of these recommendations in different contexts. The SCCS guideline committee will update recommendations as new evidence becomes available.

Incidence, outcomes, and predictors of Acinetobacter infection in Saudi Arabian critical care units.

BACKGROUND: Acinetobacter is an increasingly-problematic organism, especially in intensive care units (ICUs). In this study, we compared its incidence, outcomes, and predictors spanning eight ICUs in five geographically and climatologically-diverse cities in Saudi Arabia. METHODS: Geographic, climatologic, hospital-related, and patient-related factors were collected prospectively on 3179 patients admitted to eight Saudi ICUs from June 2018 through June 2019. These data then underwent both bivariable and multivariable analysis, the latter vis hierarchical logistic regression to identify predictors of clinically-manifest Acinetobacter infection. RESULTS: Overall incidence of Acinetobacter infection was 3.9% (n = 124). Of these 124 infections, 122 (98.4%) were cultured as A. baumannii. Incidence ranged from 1.0 to 7.9% across the eight ICUs. On bivariable analysis, incident Acinetobacter infection was more common in university and military hospitals, in hospitals with more total beds and ICU isolation rooms, and in 2018 versus 2019, incidence steadily declining over the 13 study months. Mechanically-ventilated patients had ten-fold increased odds of infection. Adjusted (multivariable) analysis revealed the risk of clinically-manifest Acinetobacter infection to increase the longer patients were on mechanical ventilation. Increased risk also existed at certain hospitals over others, especially in university-affiliated and military hospitals, larger hospitals with more isolation rooms, and hospitals with fewer ICU beds. CONCLUSION: In our study of eight ICUs across Saudi Arabia, inter-hospital differences did appear to account for inter-hospital differences in Acinetobacter incidence rates. Patients requiring mechanical ventilation for longer periods of time were particularly at risk.

Helmet Non-Invasive Ventilation for COVID-19 Patients (Helmet-COVID): study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) delivered by helmet has been used for respiratory support of patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia. The aim of this study was to compare helmet NIV with usual care versus usual care alone to reduce mortality. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel randomised controlled trial that compares helmet NIV with usual care to usual care alone in a 1:1 ratio. A total of 320 patients will be enrolled in this study. The primary outcome is 28-day all-cause mortality. The primary outcome will be compared between the two study groups in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol cohorts. An interim analysis will be conducted for both safety and effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approvals are obtained from the institutional review boards of each participating institution. Our findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences and meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04477668.

Baseline Predictors of Survival, Neurological Recovery, Cognitive Function, Neuropsychiatric Outcomes, and Return to Work in Patients after a Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: an Updated Review.

INTRODUCTION: Severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) is a common cause of death and disability worldwide, with long-term squeal among survivors that include cognitive deficits, psychosocial and neuropsychiatric dysfunction, failure to return to pre-injury levels of work, school and inter-personal relationships, and overall reduced quality of and satisfaction with life. AIM: The aim of this work is to review the current literature on baseline predictors of outcomes in adults post sTBI. METHOD: Most of available literature on baseline predictors of outcomes in adults post sTBI were reviewed and summarized in this work. RESULTS: Currently, a sizeable number of composite predictors of mortality and overall function exists; however, these instruments tend to over-estimate poor outcomes and fail to address issues like cognition, psychosocial/ neuropsychiatric dysfunction, and return to work or school. CONCLUSION: This article reviews currently-identified predictors of all these outcomes.

"Appropriate" Versus "Inappropriate" Antibiotic Administration, "Prior To" Versus "After" the Diagnosis of Septic Shock. Impact on Patients with Sepsis Admitted to a Saudi Intensive Care Unit.

INTRODUCTION: Delaying broad-spectrum antibiotics beyond 1-2 hours once the septic shock is diagnosed increases patients' risk of death. However, what is the impact of already being on antibiotics when a septic shock is diagnosed? AIM: We compared demographics, clinical characteristics and outcomes in septic shock patients on antibiotics initiated prior to versus after septic shock was diagnosed; whose initial antibiotics were considered appropriate for the offending organism(s); and who died in versus were discharged from the ICU. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected on 161 patients ≥ 14-years-old (female: male=1:1; mean age 61.1yrs) admitted to the ICU for septic shock, and followed for ≥30 days, or until hospital discharge or death. RESULTS: Few inter-group differences were identified. Those treated early were more likely to have a nosocomial infection (p=0.03), skin or soft tissue source of their infection (p=0.01), or a diabetes-related limb amputation (p=0.02); but received fewer antibiotics (p=0.01). Those on appropriate antibiotics were more likely to be female (p=0.048), but less likely to have a skin or soft tissue source of infection (p=0.03). Neither starting antibiotics early, nor being on appropriate antibiotics impacted any outcome measure, including survival. Predictors of mortality were ≥1 co-morbid condition (p=0.03), more versus fewer co-morbid conditions (p=0.009), cardiovascular disease at baseline (p=03), requiring dialysis at baseline (p=0.008), and a higher day#1 SOFA score (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our data fail to demonstrate any benefit to being on antibiotics prior to the diagnosis, irrespective of whether the ultimately-identified offending organism is sensitive or resistant.

Urinary Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin as a Predictor of Acute Kidney Injury, Severe Kidney Injury, and the Need for Renal Replacement Therapy in the Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: Recent attempts were made to identify early indicators of acute kidney injury (AKI) in order to accelerate treatment and hopefully improve outcomes. This study aims to assess the value of urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (uNGAL) as a predictor of AKI, severe AKI, and the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT). METHODS: We conducted a prospective study and included adults admitted to our intensive care unit (ICU) at King Abdulaziz University Hospital (KAUH), between May 2012 and June 2013, who had at least 1 major risk factor for AKI. They were followed up throughout their hospital stay to identify which potential characteristics predicted any of the above 3 outcomes. We collected information on patients' age and gender, the Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation, version II (APACHE II) score, the Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, serum creatinine and cystatin C levels, and uNGAL. We compared ICU patients who presented with any of the 3 outcomes with others who did not. RESULTS: We included 75 patients, and among those 21 developed AKI, 18 severe AKI, and 17 required RRT. Bivariate analysis revealed intergroup differences for almost all clinical variables (e.g., patients with AKI vs. patients without AKI); while multivariate analysis identified mean arterial pressure as the only predictor for AKI (p < 0.001) and the SOFA score (p = 0.04) as the only predictor for severe AKI. For RRT, day 1 maximum uNGAL was the stronger predictor (p < 0.001) when compared to admission diagnosis (p = 0.014). Day 1 and day 2 maximum uNGAL levels were good and excellent predictors for future RRT, but only fair to good predictors for AKI and severe AKI. CONCLUSIONS: Maximum urine levels of uNGAL measured over the first and second 24 h of an ICU admission were highly accurate predictors of the future need for RRT, however less accurate at detecting early and severe AKI.

Urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin is an excellent predictor of mortality in intensive care unit patients.

OBJECTIVES: To assess urine neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (uNGAL) level as a potential predictor of acute kidney injury (AKI), and both intensive care unit (ICU) and in-hospital mortality. METHODS: Patients presenting to our ICU with a systolic blood pressure (SBP) less than 90 mmHg or mean arterial pressure (MAP) less than 65 mmHg, and no prior kidney disease were followed prospectively. Baseline data were collected on patient demographics, admission diagnosis, APACHE II and SOFA scores, SBP, MAP, serum creatinine and cystatin C, and uNGAL. Patients were monitored throughout hospitalization, including daily uNGAL, serum creatinine and cystatin C, and continuous MAP. Bivariate analysis compared those dying in the ICU and in-hospital versus survivors; with hierarchical binary logistic regression used to identify predictors of mortality. Areas under receiver-operating-characteristic curves (AUC) were used to measure sensitivity and specificity at different uNGAL thresholds. RESULTS: Among 75 patients followed, 16 died in the ICU, and another 24 prior to hospital discharge. Mortality rates were greatest in trauma and sepsis patients. The ICU survivors differed from non-survivors in almost all clinical variables; but only 2 predicted ICU mortality on multivariate analysis: day one uNGAL (p=0.01) and 24-hour APACHE II score (p=0.07). Only the APACHE II score significantly predicted in-hospital mortality (p=0.003). The AUC for day one uNGAL was greater for ICU (AUC=0.85) than in-hospital mortality (AUC=0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Day one uNGAL is a highly accurate predictor of ICU, but less so for in-hospital mortality.

Decompressive hemicraniectomy for malignant middle cerebral artery infarction. Experience from the Western Province of Saudi Arabia.

OBJECTIVE: To describe our experience implementing decompressive hemicraniectomy (DH) for eligible patients with malignant middle cerebral artery (MCA) infarcts. METHODS: We retrospectively collected data of malignant MCA infarction patients requiring DH at King Abdulaziz University Hospital & King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Center, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia between October 2010 and July 2015. Clinical outcome was assessed immediately postoperatively using Glasgow Coma Score (GCS), and at 12 months using the modified Rankin scale (mRS) and Barthel index. Survival was evaluated at thirty-days and one year after surgery. RESULTS: Six out of 10 patients diagnosed with malignant MCA infarction underwent DH. Among the surgically treated patients (n=6), 4 were males (66%), and the median age was 22.5 years. The median time from admission to surgery was 35.5 hours. The median post-operative GCS was 6.5. Three patients (50%) died within 30 days of DH. In those who survived, the median mRS was 4.5 and BI was 7.5. CONCLUSION: Decompressive hemicraniectomy saves life and has the potential of improving survival functional outcome when done fast and in carefully selected patients. We call for national awareness of the management of such cases and early intervention.

Added Value of MRI over CT of the Brain in Intensive Care Unit Patients.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients with neurological impairments often require neuroimaging. However, the relative sensitivity of various imaging modalities of the brain has not yet been explored in this population. METHODS: In this study, we compare the findings of CT and MRI scans in ICU patients to (1) identify the number and rate of clinically relevant lesion detected by MRI while missed by CT and vice versa and (2) determine specific lesion types for which CT versus MRI discrepancies exist. A review of medical records included CT and MRI reports of patients who underwent these procedures while they were patients in our ICUs between July 2004 and July 2009. MRI and CT were compared regarding their ability to detect clinically relevant abnormalities. Odds ratios with 95% confidence limits were calculated to compare diagnostic categories regarding the rate of discrepant MRI versus CT findings, followed by power analyses to estimate sample sizes necessary to allow for further testing in a larger trial. RESULTS: MRI revealed clinically relevant additional abnormalities over CT in 129 of 136 patients (95%) that included the detection of additional finding for 15/27 hemorrhagic lesions (55.6%), 33/36 (92%) ischemic strokes, 19/27 (70%) traumatic lesions, 8/14 (57%) infections, 15/24 (62.5%) metabolic abnormalities, and all seven neoplasms. Odds ratio analysis revealed the added sensitivity of MRI to be greater for ischemic and neoplastic lesions than for trauma, metabolic-related abnormalities, infection, or hemorrhage. CONCLUSIONS: MRI is more sensitive than CT in identifying clinically meaningful lesions in at least a subset of ICU patients, regardless of pathology.