In ICU patients not receiving early PN, tight and liberal glucose control did not differ for length of ICU stay or death.

SOURCE CITATION: Gunst J, Debaveye Y, Güiza F, et al; TGC-Fast Collaborators. Tight blood-glucose control without early parenteral nutrition in the ICU. N Engl J Med. 2023;389:1180-1190. 37754283.

Society of Critical Care Medicine Guidelines on Glycemic Control for Critically Ill Children and Adults 2024.

RATIONALE: Maintaining glycemic control of critically ill patients may impact outcomes such as survival, infection, and neuromuscular recovery, but there is equipoise on the target blood levels, monitoring frequency, and methods. OBJECTIVES: The purpose was to update the 2012 Society of Critical Care Medicine and American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM) guidelines with a new systematic review of the literature and provide actionable guidance for clinicians. PANEL DESIGN: The total multiprofessional task force of 22, consisting of clinicians and patient/family advocates, and a methodologist applied the processes described in the ACCM guidelines standard operating procedure manual to develop evidence-based recommendations in alignment with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Approach (GRADE) methodology. Conflict of interest policies were strictly followed in all phases of the guidelines, including panel selection and voting. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review for each Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes question related to glycemic management in critically ill children (≥ 42 wk old adjusted gestational age to 18 yr old) and adults, including triggers for initiation of insulin therapy, route of administration, monitoring frequency, role of an explicit decision support tool for protocol maintenance, and methodology for glucose testing. We identified the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak or as a good practice statement. In addition, "In our practice" statements were included when the available evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation, but the panel felt that describing their practice patterns may be appropriate. Additional topics were identified for future research. RESULTS: This guideline is an update of the guidelines for the use of an insulin infusion for the management of hyperglycemia in critically ill patients. It is intended for adult and pediatric practitioners to reassess current practices and direct research into areas with inadequate literature. The panel issued seven statements related to glycemic control in unselected adults (two good practice statements, four conditional recommendations, one research statement) and seven statements for pediatric patients (two good practice statements, one strong recommendation, one conditional recommendation, two "In our practice" statements, and one research statement), with additional detail on specific subset populations where available. CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines panel achieved consensus for adults and children regarding a preference for an insulin infusion for the acute management of hyperglycemia with titration guided by an explicit clinical decision support tool and frequent (≤ 1 hr) monitoring intervals during glycemic instability to minimize hypoglycemia and against targeting intensive glucose levels. These recommendations are intended for consideration within the framework of the patient's existing clinical status. Further research is required to evaluate the role of individualized glycemic targets, continuous glucose monitoring systems, explicit decision support tools, and standardized glycemic control metrics.

Society of Critical Care Medicine Guidelines on Recognizing and Responding to Clinical Deterioration Outside the ICU: 2023.

RATIONALE: Clinical deterioration of patients hospitalized outside the ICU is a source of potentially reversible morbidity and mortality. To address this, some acute care hospitals have implemented systems aimed at detecting and responding to such patients. OBJECTIVES: To provide evidence-based recommendations for hospital clinicians and administrators to optimize recognition and response to clinical deterioration in non-ICU patients. PANEL DESIGN: The 25-member panel included representatives from medicine, nursing, respiratory therapy, pharmacy, patient/family partners, and clinician-methodologists with expertise in developing evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines. METHODS: We generated actionable questions using the Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes (PICO) format and performed a systematic review of the literature to identify and synthesize the best available evidence. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Approach to determine certainty in the evidence and to formulate recommendations and good practice statements (GPSs). RESULTS: The panel issued 10 statements on recognizing and responding to non-ICU patients with critical illness. Healthcare personnel and institutions should ensure that all vital sign acquisition is timely and accurate (GPS). We make no recommendation on the use of continuous vital sign monitoring among unselected patients. We suggest focused education for bedside clinicians in signs of clinical deterioration, and we also suggest that patient/family/care partners' concerns be included in decisions to obtain additional opinions and help (both conditional recommendations). We recommend hospital-wide deployment of a rapid response team or medical emergency team (RRT/MET) with explicit activation criteria (strong recommendation). We make no recommendation about RRT/MET professional composition or inclusion of palliative care members on the responding team but suggest that the skill set of responders should include eliciting patients' goals of care (conditional recommendation). Finally, quality improvement processes should be part of a rapid response system. CONCLUSIONS: The panel provided guidance to inform clinicians and administrators on effective processes to improve the care of patients at-risk for developing critical illness outside the ICU.

Executive Summary: Society of Critical Care Medicine Guidelines on Recognizing and Responding to Clinical Deterioration Outside the ICU.

RATIONALE: Clinical deterioration of patients hospitalized outside the ICU is a source of potentially reversible morbidity and mortality. To address this, some acute care facilities have implemented systems aimed at detecting and responding to such patients. OBJECTIVES: To provide evidence-based recommendations for hospital clinicians and administrators to optimize recognition and response to clinical deterioration in non-ICU patients. PANEL DESIGN: The 25-member panel included representatives from medicine, nursing, respiratory therapy, pharmacy, patient/family partners, and clinician-methodologists with expertise in developing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: We generated actionable questions using the Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes format and performed a systematic review of the literature to identify and synthesize the best available evidence. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to determine certainty in the evidence and to formulate recommendations and good practice statements (GPSs). RESULTS: The panel issued 10 statements on recognizing and responding to non-ICU patients with critical illness. Healthcare personnel and institutions should ensure that all vital sign acquisition is timely and accurate (GPS). We make no recommendation on the use of continuous vital sign monitoring among "unselected" patients due to the absence of data regarding the benefit and the potential harms of false positive alarms, the risk of alarm fatigue, and cost. We suggest focused education for bedside clinicians in signs of clinical deterioration, and we also suggest that patient/family/care partners' concerns be included in decisions to obtain additional opinions and help (both conditional recommendations). We recommend hospital-wide deployment of a rapid response team or medical emergency team (RRT/MET) with explicit activation criteria (strong recommendation). We make no recommendation about RRT/MET professional composition or inclusion of palliative care members on the responding team but suggest that the skill set of responders should include eliciting patients' goals of care (conditional recommendation). Finally, quality improvement processes should be part of a rapid response system (GPS). CONCLUSIONS: The panel provided guidance to inform clinicians and administrators on effective processes to improve the care of patients at-risk for developing critical illness outside the ICU.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for analgesia in intensive care units: a survey of Canadian critical care physicians.

PURPOSE: Opioids remain the mainstay of analgesia for critically ill patients, but its exposure is associated with negative effects including persistent use after discharge. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may be an effective alternative to opioids with fewer adverse effects. We aimed to describe beliefs and attitudes towards the use of NSAIDs in adult intensive care units (ICUs). METHODS: Our survey of Canadian ICU physicians was conducted using a web-based platform and distributed through the Canadian Critical Care Society (CCCS) email distribution list. We used previously described survey development methodology including question generation and reduction, pretesting, and clinical sensibility and pilot testing. RESULTS: We received 115 completed surveys from 321 CCCS members (36%). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs use was most described as "rarely" (59 respondents, 51%) with the primary concern being adverse events (acute kidney injury [108 respondents, 94%] and gastrointestinal bleeding [92 respondents, 80%]). The primary preferred analgesic was acetaminophen (75 respondents, 65%) followed by opioids (40 respondents, 35%). Most respondents (91 respondents, 80%) would be willing to participate in a randomized controlled trial examining NSAID use in critical care. CONCLUSIONS: In our survey, Canadian critical care physicians did not mention commonly using NSAIDs primarily because of concerns about adverse events. Nevertheless, respondents were interested in further studying ketorolac, a commonly used NSAID outside of the ICU, in critically ill patients.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les opioïdes restent le pilier de l'analgésie pour les patient·es gravement malades, mais l'exposition à ces agents est associée à des effets négatifs, notamment à leur utilisation persistante après le congé de l'hôpital. Les anti-inflammatoires non stéroïdiens (AINS) pourraient constituer une alternative efficace aux opioïdes avec moins d'effets indésirables. Nous avons cherché à décrire les croyances et les attitudes à l'égard de l'utilisation des AINS dans les unités de soins intensifs (USI) pour adultes. MéTHODE: Notre sondage auprès des médecins intensivistes au Canada a été mené à l'aide d'une plateforme Web et distribué aux personnes sur la liste de distribution électronique de la Société canadienne de soins intensifs (SCSI). Nous avons utilisé une méthodologie d'élaboration d'enquêtes décrite précédemment, y compris la génération et la réduction de questions, les tests préalables, la sensibilité clinique et les tests pilotes. RéSULTATS: Nous avons reçu 115 sondages remplis par 321 membres de la SCSI (36 %). L'utilisation d'anti-inflammatoires non stéroïdiens a été décrite comme « rare ¼ (59 répondant·es, 51 %), la principale préoccupation étant les événements indésirables (insuffisance rénale aiguë [108 répondant·es, 94 %] et saignements gastro-intestinaux [92 répondant·es, 80 %]). Le principal analgésique préféré était l'acétaminophène (75 répondant·es, 65 %), suivi des opioïdes (40 répondant·es, 35 %). La plupart des répondant·es (91 répondant·es, 80 %) seraient prêt·es à participer à une étude randomisée contrôlée examinant l'utilisation des AINS en soins intensifs. CONCLUSION: Dans notre sondage, les médecins intensivistes au Canada n'ont pas mentionné l'utilisation courante d'AINS, principalement en raison de préoccupations concernant leurs effets indésirables. Néanmoins, les répondant·es étaient intéressé·es à étudier plus avant le kétorolac, un AINS couramment utilisé en dehors des soins intensifs, chez les patient·es gravement malades.

Sex and gender-based analysis and diversity metric reporting in acute care trials published in high-impact journals: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To characterise sex and gender-based analysis (SGBA) and diversity metric reporting, representation of female/women participants in acute care trials and temporal changes in reporting before and after publication of the 2016 Sex and Gender Equity in Research guideline. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE for trials published in five leading medical journals in 2014, 2018 and 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Trials that enrolled acutely ill adults, compared two or more interventions and reported at least one clinical outcome. DATA ABSTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: 4 reviewers screened citations and 22 reviewers abstracted data, in duplicate. We compared reporting differences between intensive care unit (ICU) and cardiology trials. RESULTS: We included 88 trials (75 (85.2%) ICU and 13 (14.8%) cardiology) (n=111 428; 38 140 (34.2%) females/women). Of 23 (26.1%) trials that reported an SGBA, most used a forest plot (22 (95.7%)), were prespecified (21 (91.3%)) and reported a sex-by-intervention interaction with a significance test (19 (82.6%)). Discordant sex and gender terminology were found between headings and subheadings within baseline characteristics tables (17/32 (53.1%)) and between baseline characteristics tables and SGBA (4/23 (17.4%)). Only 25 acute care trials (28.4%) reported race or ethnicity. Participants were predominantly white (78.8%) and male/men (65.8%). No trial reported gendered-social factors. SGBA reporting and female/women representation did not improve temporally. Compared with ICU trials, cardiology trials reported significantly more SGBA (15/75 (20%) vs 8/13 (61.5%) p=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Acute care trials in leading medical journals infrequently included SGBA, female/women and non-white trial participants, reported race or ethnicity and never reported gender-related factors. Substantial opportunity exists to improve SGBA and diversity metric reporting and recruitment of female/women participants in acute care trials. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022282565.

Parenteral Vitamin C in Patients with Severe Infection: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Inflammation and oxidative damage caused by severe infections may be attenuated by vitamin C. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of parenteral vitamin C as combined therapy or monotherapy versus no parenteral vitamin C administered to adults hospitalized with severe infection. The primary outcome was mortality. We performed random-effects meta-analyses and assessed certainty in effect estimates. RESULTS: Of 1547 citations, 41 RCTs (n = 4915 patients) were eligible for inclusion. Low-certainty evidence suggested that vitamin C may reduce in-hospital mortality (21 RCTs, 2762 patients; risk ratio, 0.88 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.73 to 1.06]), 30-day mortality (24 RCTs, 3436 patients; risk ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.71 to 0.98]), and early mortality (before hospital discharge or 30 days; 34 RCTs, 4366 patients; risk ratio, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.68 to 0.93]). Effects were attenuated in sensitivity analyses limited to published blinded trials at low risk-of-bias (in-hospital mortality: risk ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.24], moderate certainty; 30-day mortality: risk ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.71 to 1.10], low certainty; and early mortality: risk ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.06], low certainty). For 90-day mortality, all trials had low risk-of-bias; moderate-certainty evidence suggested harm (five RCTs, 1722 patients; risk ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.94 to 1.21]). Moderate-certainty evidence suggested an increased risk of hypoglycemia (risk ratio, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.69 to 2.08]). Effects on other secondary outcomes were mixed and informed by low-certainty evidence. No credible subgroup effects were observed for mortality related to cointerventions (monotherapy vs. combined therapy), dose, or type of infection (Covid-19 vs. other). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, evidence from RCTs does not establish a survival benefit for vitamin C in patients with severe infection. (PROSPERO number, CRD42020209187.)