Individualizing Glycemic Control in the Critically Ill.

Hyperglycemia is a common phenomenon in critically ill patients, even in those without diabetes. Two landmark studies established the benefits of tight glucose control (blood glucose target 80-110 mg/dL) in surgical and medical patients. Since then, literature has consistently demonstrated that both hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia are independently associated with increased morbidity and mortality in a variety of critically ill patients. However, tight glycemic control has subsequently come into question due to risks of hypoglycemia and increased mortality. More recently, strategies targeting euglycemia (blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL) have been associated with improved outcomes, although the risk of hypoglycemia remains. More complex targets (ie, glycemic variability and time within target glucose range) and the impact of individual patient characteristics (ie, diabetic status and prehospital glucose control) have more recently been shown to influence the relationship between glycemic control and outcomes in critically ill patients. Although our understanding has increased, the optimal glycemic target is still unclear and glucose management strategies may require adjustment for individual patient characteristics. As glucose management increases in complexity, we realize that traditional means of using meters and strips and paper insulin titration algorithms are potential limitations to our success. To achieve these complex goals for glycemic control, the use of continuous or near-continuous glucose monitoring combined with computerized insulin titration algorithms may be required. The purpose of this review is to discuss the evidence surrounding the various domains of glycemic control and the emerging data supporting the need for individualized glucose targets in critically ill patients.

Outcomes of an Oral Care Protocol in Postmechanically Ventilated Patients.

BACKGROUND: Oral care is standard practice to prevent hospital-associated infections while patients are intubated and in the intensive care unit. Following extubation and transfer, infections remain an important risk for patients, but less attention is paid to oral care. Few studies have assessed the impact of oral care in recently extubated acutely ill patients. AIMS: To develop an evidence-based oral care protocol for hospitalized patients and determine the impact of this protocol on health outcomes in recently extubated patients. METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, subjects were randomized to usual care or an intervention protocol that included tooth brushing, tongue scraping, flossing, mouth rinsing, and lip care. Major outcome measures were the revised THROAT (R-THROAT; oral cavity assessment) and overall prevalence of methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-resistant S. aureus on oral cultures. RESULTS: Seventy-four subjects were randomized. As measured by the R-THROAT, oral cavity health improved over time in both groups, but the intervention group demonstrated significantly more improvement than the control group (R-THROAT score improved by 1.97 intervention vs. 0.87 control; p = .04). Two categories, tongue and mouth comfort, demonstrated the most significant improvement. There was no difference in MSSA/MRSA colonization between the groups at the conclusion of the study. Overall, subjects in the intervention group were more satisfied with their protocol than subjects in the usual care group. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: This study offers an important evaluation of an oral care protocol after extubation. Results demonstrated improvement in the oral cavity assessment with the designed oral care protocol. Patients expressed a preference for the intervention protocol, which included a battery-operated toothbrush, higher-quality toothpaste and mouth rinse, tongue scraper, floss, and lip balm. The implementation of an oral care protocol specifically addressing patients in the immediate postintubation is essential.

Remifentanil, ketamine, and fospropofol: a review of alterative continuous infusion agents for sedation in the critically ill.

Sedation and analgesia are integral aspects in the care of critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit. In recent years, many of the commonly used sedative agents in the United States have experienced manufacturing and sterility issues leading to decreased availability. In addition, current practice has shifted to providing lighter levels of sedation as clinicians have gained a better understanding of the consequences of prolonged deep sedation. Benzodiazepines have fallen out of favor due to findings including increased delirium and duration of mechanical ventilation. Alterations in end-organ function in critically ill patients may also lead to varied responses to commonly used sedatives. With numerous factors impacting choice of sedation in the intensive care unit, fospropofol, ketamine, and remifentanil have been considered potential alternatives to standard therapy. The purpose of this review was to discuss strategies for the safe and effective use of fospropofol, ketamine, and remifentanil for continuous intravenous sedation in critically ill patients.

µImpact of a nursing-driven sedation protocol with criteria for infusion initiation in the surgical intensive care unit.

PURPOSE: Analgesia and sedation protocols (ASPs) reduce duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) in the medical intensive care unit (ICU), but data in the surgical ICU (SICU) are limited. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of a nursing-driven ASP with criteria for infusion initiation in the SICU. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-center, retrospective study compared ventilator-free days at day 28 from start of MV (VFD28) before and after ASP implementation. Secondary endpoints included cumulative opioid and sedative requirements, level of sedation, incidence of delirium, SICU and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: One hundred thirty two patients were included (66 per group). The protocol group had greater VFD28 compared to the control group (21 vs. 14.5 days, p = .04). Lower rates of benzodiazepine (42.4% vs. 84.8%, p < .001) and opioid (24.2 vs. 78.8, p < .001) infusion use occurred in the protocol group, resulting in lower cumulative doses per ventilator-day through day 7. The protocol group had more documented sedation scores within target range. There were no differences in ICU delirium, SICU or hospital length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: A nursing-driven ASP with criteria for infusion initiation in mechanically-ventilated SICU patients may increase ventilator-free time, maintain patients at the target sedation goal, and reduce opioid and benzodiazepine utilization.

Tiered protocol implementation improves treatment of hypoglycaemia in a neurosciences critical care and surgical intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Although studies demonstrate techniques to limit hypoglycaemia in critically ill patients, there are limited data supporting methods to improve management of existing hypoglycaemia. OBJECTIVE: Assess the impact and sustainability of a computerised, three tiered, nurse driven protocol for hypoglycaemia treatment. DESIGN: Retrospective pre and post protocol study. SETTING: Neurosciences and surgical intensive care units at a tertiary academic medical centre. MEASUREMENTS: Patients with a hypoglycaemic episode were included during a pre-protocol or post-protocol implementation period. An additional six-month cohort was evaluated to assess sustainability. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were included for evaluation (35 pre- and 19 post-protocol); 122 patients were included in the sustainability cohort. Hypoglycaemia treatment significantly improved in the post-protocol cohort (20% vs. 52.6%, p=0.014); with additional improvement to 79.5% in the sustainability cohort. Time to follow-up blood glucose was decreased after treatment from 122 [Q1-Q3: 46-242] minutes pre-protocol to 25 [Q1-Q3: 9-48] minutes post protocol (p<0.0001). This reduction was maintained in the sustainability cohort [median of 29min (Q1-Q3: 20-51)]. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a nurse-driven, three-tiered protocol for treatment of hypoglyacemia significantly improved treatment rates, as well as reduced time to recheck blood glucose measurement. These benefits were sustained during a six-month period after protocol implementation.