Guidelines for the Management of Adult Acute and Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure in the ICU: Neurology, Peri-Transplant Medicine, Infectious Disease, and Gastroenterology Considerations.

OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for adults with acute liver failure (ALF) or acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) in the ICU. DESIGN: The guideline panel comprised 27 members with expertise in aspects of care of the critically ill patient with liver failure or methodology. We adhered to the Society of Critical Care Medicine standard operating procedures manual and conflict-of-interest policy. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the panel, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development. INTERVENTIONS: In part 2 of this guideline, the panel was divided into four subgroups: neurology, peri-transplant, infectious diseases, and gastrointestinal groups. We developed and selected Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) questions according to importance to patients and practicing clinicians. For each PICO question, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis where applicable. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence to decision framework to facilitate recommendations formulation as strong or conditional. We followed strict criteria to formulate best practice statements. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We report 28 recommendations (from 31 PICO questions) on the management ALF and ACLF in the ICU. Overall, five were strong recommendations, 21 were conditional recommendations, two were best-practice statements, and we were unable to issue a recommendation for five questions due to insufficient evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary, international experts formulated evidence-based recommendations for the management ALF and ACLF patients in the ICU, acknowledging that most recommendations were based on low quality and indirect evidence.

Guidelines for the Management of Adult Acute and Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure in the ICU: Cardiovascular, Endocrine, Hematologic, Pulmonary, and Renal Considerations.

OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for adults with acute or acute on chronic liver failure in the ICU. DESIGN: The guideline panel comprised 29 members with expertise in aspects of care of the critically ill patient with liver failure and/or methodology. The Society of Critical Care Medicine standard operating procedures manual and conflict-of-interest policy were followed throughout. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the panel, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development. SETTING: The panel was divided into nine subgroups: cardiovascular, hematology, pulmonary, renal, endocrine and nutrition, gastrointestinal, infection, perioperative, and neurology. INTERVENTIONS: We developed and selected population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes questions according to importance to patients and practicing clinicians. For each population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes question, we conducted a systematic review aiming to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence whenever applicable, and assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence to decision framework to facilitate recommendations formulation as strong or conditional. We followed strict criteria to formulate best practice statements. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In this article, we report 29 recommendations (from 30 population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes questions) on the management acute or acute on chronic liver failure in the ICU, related to five groups (cardiovascular, hematology, pulmonary, renal, and endocrine). Overall, six were strong recommendations, 19 were conditional recommendations, four were best-practice statements, and in two instances, the panel did not issue a recommendation due to insufficient evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary international experts were able to formulate evidence-based recommendations for the management acute or acute on chronic liver failure in the ICU, acknowledging that most recommendations were based on low-quality indirect evidence.

Pharmacologic Issues in Liver Disease.

This article describes key concepts for drug dosing considerations in liver disease. Included in this article is a review of pharmacokinetic changes that are known to occur in patients with liver disease that can aide in drug dosing. Although limited, the currently available pharmacokinetic data for medications that are commonly used in the critical care setting are also included.

Prescribing patterns of hydrocortisone in septic shock: a single-center experience of how surviving sepsis guidelines are interpreted and translated into bedside practice.

OBJECTIVES: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign suggests giving hydrocortisone to septic patients only if their "blood pressure is poorly responsive to fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy." Because the definition of "poorly responsive" is not provided, the purpose of this study was to identify prescribing triggers for hydrocortisone in septic shock. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review of patients with septic shock over 17 months, who received hydrocortisone, followed by a survey of all intensivists who attended in the study ICUs to determine whether provider attitudes matched clinical practice. SETTING: Eight ICUs in an academic hospital and a hybrid academic/community hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 155 patients with septic shock in whom vasopressors were initiated and hydrocortisone was prescribed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients (64%) were already receiving two vasopressors before hydrocortisone was prescribed. An additional 22 patients were on a single high-dose vasopressor prior to corticosteroid initiation. Of patients who survived to have their hydrocortisone dose changed, 57% had their corticosteroids tapered, whereas 43% were abruptly discontinued. Seventy-six percent of patients were no longer on vasopressors when the first dosing change was made. Twenty-seven out of 36 intensivists (75%) completed the survey. The majority (72%) defined "poorly responsive to vasopressors" as the presence of two vasopressors, and 70% stated that they required patients to be off vasopressors prior to altering the corticosteroid dose. CONCLUSIONS: Significant variability exists when corticosteroids are prescribed for septic shock, with the most common interpretation in our institution of "poorly responsive to fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy" being the presence of two vasopressors. The method and timing of corticosteroid discontinuation also differed among providers. Self-described prescribing patterns from intensivists closely matched their actual behavior, suggesting variability is due to differing interpretations of the guidelines themselves, rather than a deficit in knowledge translation.