Survival implications vs. complications: unraveling the impact of vitamin D adjunctive use in critically ill patients with COVID-19-A multicenter cohort study.

Background: Despite insufficient evidence, vitamin D has been used as adjunctive therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19. This study evaluates the effectiveness and safety of vitamin D as an adjunctive therapy in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Methods: A multicenter retrospective cohort study that included all adult COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) between March 2020 and July 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups based on their vitamin D use throughout their ICU stay (control vs. vitamin D). The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were the length of stay (LOS), mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, and ICU-acquired complications. Propensity score (PS) matching (1:1) was used based on the predefined criteria. Multivariable logistic, Cox proportional hazards, and negative binomial regression analyses were employed as appropriate. Results: A total of 1,435 patients were included in the study. Vitamin D was initiated in 177 patients (12.3%), whereas 1,258 patients did not receive it. A total of 288 patients were matched (1:1) using PS. The in-hospital mortality showed no difference between patients who received vitamin D and the control group (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.87-1.71; p = 0.26). However, MV duration and ICU LOS were longer in the vitamin D group (beta coefficient 0.24 (95% CI 0.00-0.47), p = 0.05 and beta coefficient 0.16 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.33), p = 0.07, respectively). As an exploratory outcome, patients who received vitamin D were more likely to develop major bleeding than those who did not [OR 3.48 (95% CI 1.10, 10.94), p = 0.03]. Conclusion: The use of vitamin D as adjunctive therapy in COVID-19 critically ill patients was not associated with survival benefits but was linked with longer MV duration, ICU LOS, and higher odds of major bleeding.

Evaluation of the use of methylprednisolone and dexamethasone in asthma critically ill patients with COVID-19: a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown mortality benefits with corticosteroids in Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). However, there is inconsistency regarding the use of methylprednisolone over dexamethasone in COVID-19, and this has not been extensively evaluated in patients with a history of asthma. This study aims to investigate and compare the effectiveness and safety of methylprednisolone and dexamethasone in critically ill patients with asthma and COVID-19. METHODS: The primary endpoint was the in-hospital mortality. Other endpoints include 30-day mortality, respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation (MV), acute kidney injury (AKI), acute liver injury, length of stay (LOS), ventilator-free days (VFDs), and hospital-acquired infections. Propensity score (PS) matching, and regression analyses were used. RESULTS: A total of one hundred-five patients were included. Thirty patients received methylprednisolone, whereas seventy-five patients received dexamethasone. After PS matching (1:1 ratio), patients who received methylprednisolone had higher but insignificant in-hospital mortality in both crude and logistic regression analysis, [(35.0% vs. 18.2%, P = 0.22) and (OR 2.31; CI: 0.56 - 9.59; P = 0.25), respectively]. There were no statistically significant differences in the 30-day mortality, respiratory failure requiring MV, AKI, acute liver injury, ICU LOS, hospital LOS, and hospital-acquired infections. CONCLUSIONS: Methylprednisolone in COVID-19 patients with asthma may lead to increased in-hospital mortality and shorter VFDs compared to dexamethasone; however, it failed to reach statistical significance. Therefore, it is necessary to interpret these data cautiously, and further large-scale randomized clinical trials are needed to establish more conclusive evidence and support these conclusions.

Evaluation of inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) treatment for moderate-to-severe ARDS in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) is used as rescue therapy in patients with refractory hypoxemia due to severe COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) despite the recommendation against the use of this treatment. To date, the effect of iNO on the clinical outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS remains arguable. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the use of iNO in critically ill COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS. METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective cohort study included critically ill adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 treated from March 01, 2020, until July 31, 2021. Eligible patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS were subsequently categorized into two groups based on inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) use throughout their ICU stay. The primary endpoint was the improvement in oxygenation parameters 24 h after iNO use. Other outcomes were considered secondary. Propensity score matching (1:2) was used based on the predefined criteria. RESULTS: A total of 1598 patients were screened, and 815 were included based on the eligibility criteria. Among them, 210 patients were matched based on predefined criteria. Oxygenation parameters (PaO2, FiO2 requirement, P/F ratio, oxygenation index) were significantly improved 24 h after iNO administration within a median of six days of ICU admission. However, the risk of 30-day and in-hospital mortality were found to be similar between the two groups (HR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.77, 1.82; p = 0.45 and HR: 1.40; 95% CI: 0.94, 2.11; p= 0.10, respectively). On the other hand, ventilator-free days (VFDs) were significantly fewer, and  ICU and hospital LOS were significantly longer in the iNO group. In addition, patients who received iNO had higher odds of acute kidney injury (AKI) (OR (95% CI): 2.35 (1.30, 4.26), p value = 0.005) and hospital/ventilator-acquired pneumonia (OR (95% CI): 3.2 (1.76, 5.83), p value = 0.001). CONCLUSION: In critically ill COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS, iNO rescue therapy is associated with improved oxygenation parameters but no mortality benefits. Moreover, iNO use is associated with higher odds of AKI, pneumonia, longer LOS, and fewer VFDs.

The impact of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors use on the clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A multicenter, cohort study.

Background: The cardiovascular complications of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be attributed to the hyperinflammatory state leading to increased mortality in patients with COVID-19. HMG-CoA Reductase Inhibitors (statins) are known to have pleiotropic and anti-inflammatory effects and may have antiviral activity along with their cholesterol-lowering activity. Thus, statin therapy is potentially a potent adjuvant therapy in COVID-19 infection. This study investigated the impact of statin use on the clinical outcome of critically ill patients with COVID-19. Methods: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study of all adult critically ill patients with confirmed COVID-19 who were admitted to Intensive Care Units (ICUs) between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. Eligible patients were classified into two groups based on the statin use during ICU stay and were matched with a propensity score based on patient's age and admission APACHE II and SOFA scores. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality, while 30 day mortality, ventilator-free days (VFDs) at 30 days, and ICU complications were secondary endpoints. Results: A total of 1,049 patients were eligible; 502 patients were included after propensity score matching (1:1 ratio). The in-hospital mortality [hazard ratio 0.69 (95% CI 0.54, 0.89), P = 0.004] and 30-day mortality [hazard ratio 0.75 (95% CI 0.58, 0.98), P = 0.03] were significantly lower in patients who received statin therapy on multivariable cox proportional hazards regression analysis. Moreover, patients who received statin therapy had lower odds of hospital-acquired pneumonia [OR 0.48 (95% CI 0.32, 0.69), P < 0.001], lower levels of inflammatory markers on follow-up, and no increased risk of liver injury. Conclusion: The use of statin therapy during ICU stay in critically ill patients with COVID-19 may have a beneficial role and survival benefit with a good safety profile.

Early dexamethasone use as a protective measure in non-mechanically ventilated critically ill patients with COVID-19: a multicenter, cohort study.

Dexamethasone showed mortality benefits in patients with COVID-19. However, the optimal timing for dexamethasone initiation to prevent COVID-19 consequences such as respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation (MV) is debatable. As a result, the purpose of this study is to assess the impact of early dexamethasone initiation in non-MV critically ill patients with COVID19. This is a multicenter cohort study including adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) and received systemic dexamethasone between March 2020 and March 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the timing for dexamethasone initiation (early vs. late). Patients who were initiated dexamethasone within 24 h of ICU admission were considered in the early group. The primary endpoint was developing respiratory failure that required MV; other outcomes were considered secondary. Propensity score matching (1:1 ratio) was used based on the patient's SOFA score, MV status, prone status, and early use of tocilizumab within 24 h of ICU admission. Among 208 patients matched using propensity score, one hundred four patients received dexamethasone after 24 h of ICU admission. Among the non-mechanically ventilated patients, late use of dexamethasone was associated with higher odds of developing respiratory failure that required MV (OR [95%CI]: 2.75 [1.12, 6.76], p = 0.02). Additionally, late use was associated with longer hospital length of stay (LOS) (beta coefficient [95%CI]: 0.55 [0.22, 0.88], p = 0.001). The 30-day and in-hospital mortality were higher in the late group; however, they were not statistically significant. In non-mechanically ventilated patients, early dexamethasone use within 24 hours of ICU admission in critically ill patients with COVID-19 could be considered a proactive protective measure.

Comparison between standard Vs. Escalated dose venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A two centers, observational study.

INTRODUCTION: The risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19 was found to be significantly higher in patients who experienced thromboembolic events. Thus, several guidelines recommend using prophylactic anticoagulants in all COVID-19 hospitalized patients. However, there is uncertainty about the appropriate dosing regimen and safety of anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Thus, this study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of standard versus escalated dose pharmacological venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A two-center retrospective cohort study including critically ill patients aged ≥ 18-years with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at two tertiary hospitals in Saudi Arabia from March 1st, 2020, until January 31st, 2021. Patients who received either Enoxaparin 40 mg daily or Unfractionated heparin 5000 Units three times daily were grouped under the "standard dose VTE prophylaxis and patients who received higher than the standard dose but not as treatment dose were grouped under "escalated VTE prophylaxis dose". The primary outcome was the occurance of thrombotic events, and the secondary outcomes were bleeding, mortality, and other ICU-related complications. RESULTS: A total of 758 patients were screened; 565 patients were included in the study. We matched 352 patients using propensity score matching (1:1). In patients who received escalated dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis, any case of thrombosis and VTE were similar between the two groups (OR 1.22;95 %CI 0.52-2.86; P = 0.64 and OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.16-3.38; P = 0.70 respectively). However, the odds of minor bleeding was higher in patients who received escalated VTE prophylaxis dose (OR 3.39; 95% CI 1.08-10.61; P = 0.04). There was no difference in the 30-day mortality nor in-hospital mortality between the two groups (HR 1.17;95 %CI0.79-1.73; P = 0.43 and HR 1.08;95 %CI 0.76-1.53; P = 0.83, respectively). CONCLUSION: Escalated-dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19 was not associated with thrombosis, or mortality benefits but led to an increased risk of minor bleeding. This study supports previous evidence regarding the optimal dosing VTE pharmacological prophylaxis regimen for critically ill patients with COVID-19.

The Role of Inhaled Corticosteroids (ICS) in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Multicenter, Cohort Study.

Background: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can boost the systematic inflammatory response in critically ill patients, causing a systemic hyperinflammatory state leading to multiple complications. In COVID-19 patients, the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) is surrounded by controversy regarding their impacts on viral infections. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ICS in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and its clinical outcomes. Method: A multicenter, noninterventional, cohort study for critically ill patients with COVID-19 who received ICS. All patients aged ≥ 18 years old with confirmed COVID-19 and admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) between March 1, 2020 and March 31, 2021 were screened. Eligible patients were classified into two groups based on the use of ICS ± long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) during ICU stay. Propensity score (PS)-matched was used based on patient's Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, systemic corticosteroids use, and acute kidney injury (AKI) within 24 h of ICU admission. We considered a P-value of < 0.05 statistically significant. Results: A total of 954 patients were eligible; 130 patients were included after PS matching (1:1 ratio). The 30-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval [CI]]: 0.53 [0.31, 0.93], P-value = 0.03) was statistically significant lower in patients who received ICS. Conversely, the in-hospital mortality, ventilator-free days (VFDs), ICU length of stay (LOS), and hospital LOS were not statistically significant between the two groups. Conclusion: The use of ICS ± LABA in COVID-19 patients may have survival benefits at 30 days. However, it was not associated with in-hospital mortality benefits nor VFDs.

The potential role of adjunctive ascorbic acid in the prevention of colistin-induced nephrotoxicity in critically ill patients: A retrospective study.

Background: Colistin is considered a valuable and last-resort therapeutic option for MDR gram-negative bacteria. Nephrotoxicity is the most clinically pertinent adverse effect of colistin. Vivo studies suggest that administering oxidative stress-reducing agents, such as ascorbic acid, is a promising strategy to overcome colistin-induced nephrotoxicity (CIN). However, limited clinical data explores the potential benefit of adjunctive ascorbic acid therapy for preventing CIN. Therefore, this study aims to assess the potential nephroprotective role of ascorbic acid as adjunctive therapy against CIN in critically ill patients. Method: This was a retrospective cohort study at King Abdulaziz Medical City (KAMC) for all critically ill adult patients who received IV colistin. Eligible patients were classified into two groups based on the ascorbic acid use as concomitant therapy within three days of colistin initiation. The primary outcome was CIN odds after colistin initiation, while the secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, ICU, and hospital LOS. Propensity score (PS) matching was used (1:1 ratio) based on the patient's age, SOFA score, and serum creatinine. Results: A total of 451 patients were screened for eligibility; 90 patients were included after propensity score matching based on the selected criteria. The odds of developing CIN after colistin initiation were similar between patients who received ascorbic acid (AA) as adjunctive therapy compared to patients who did not (OR (95 %CI): 0.83 (0.33, 2.10), p-value = 0.68). In addition, the 30-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, ICU, and hospital LOS were similar between the two groups. Conclusion: Adjunctive use of Ascorbic acid during colistin therapy was not associated with lower odds of CIN. Further studies with a larger sample size are required to confirm these findings.

Evaluation of thiamine as adjunctive therapy in COVID-19 critically ill patients: a two-center propensity score matched study.

BACKGROUND: Thiamine is a precursor of the essential coenzyme thiamine pyrophosphate required for glucose metabolism; it improves the immune system function and has shown to reduce the risk of several diseases. The role of thiamine in critically ill septic patient has been addressed in multiple studies; however, it's role in COVID-19 patients is still unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of thiamine as an adjunctive therapy on mortality in COVID-19 critically ill patients. METHODS: This is a two-center, non-interventional, retrospective cohort study for critically ill patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID19. All patients aged 18 years or older admitted to ICUs between March 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020, with positive PCR COVID-19 were eligible for inclusion. We investigated thiamine use as an adjunctive therapy on the clinical outcomes in critically ill COVID-19 patients after propensity score matching. RESULTS: A total of 738 critically ill patients with COVID-19 who had been admitted to ICUs were included in the study. Among 166 patients matched using the propensity score method, 83 had received thiamine as adjunctive therapy. There was significant association between thiamine use with in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.39; 95% CI 0.19-0.78; P value = 0.008) as well as the 30-day mortality (OR = 0.37; 95% CI 0.18-0.78; P value = 0.009). Moreover, patients who received thiamine as an adjunctive therapy were less likely to have thrombosis during ICU stay [OR (95% CI) 0.19 (0.04-0.88), P value = 0.03]. CONCLUSION: Thiamine use as adjunctive therapy may have potential survival benefits in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Additionally, it was associated with a lower incidence of thrombosis. Further interventional studies are required to confirm these findings.

Critically ill healthcare workers with the middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS): A multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) leads to healthcare-associated transmission to patients and healthcare workers with potentially fatal outcomes. AIM: We aimed to describe the clinical course and functional outcomes of critically ill healthcare workers (HCWs) with MERS. METHODS: Data on HCWs was extracted from a multi-center retrospective cohort study on 330 critically ill patients with MERS admitted between (9/2012-9/2015). Baseline demographics, interventions and outcomes were recorded and compared between survivors and non-survivors. Survivors were approached with questionnaires to elucidate their functional outcomes using Karnofsky Performance Status Scale. FINDINGS: Thirty-Two HCWs met the inclusion criteria. Comorbidities were recorded in 34% (11/32) HCW. Death resulted in 8/32 (25%) HCWs including all 5 HCWs with chronic renal impairment at baseline. Non-surviving HCW had lower PaO2/FiO2 ratios 63.5 (57, 116.2) vs 148 (84, 194.3), p = 0.043, and received more ECMO therapy compared to survivors, 9/32 (28%) vs 4/24 (16.7%) respectively (p = 0.02).Thirteen of the surviving (13/24) HCWs responded to the questionnaire. Two HCWs confirmed functional limitations. Median number of days from hospital discharge until the questionnaires were filled was 580 (95% CI 568, 723.5) days. CONCLUSION: Approximately 10% of critically ill patients with MERS were HCWs. Hospital mortality rate was substantial (25%). Patients with chronic renal impairment represented a particularly high-risk group that should receive extra caution during suspected or confirmed MERS cases clinical care assignment and during outbreaks. Long-term repercussions of critical illness due to MERS on HCWs in particular, and patients in general, remain unknown and should be investigated in larger studies.

Factors underlying suboptimal diagnostic performance in physicians under time pressure.

CONTEXT: Time pressure has been implicated in the suboptimal diagnostic performance of doctors and in increases in diagnostic errors. However, the reasons underlying these effects are not clear. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of time pressure on physicians' diagnostic accuracy and to explore the mediating effects of perceived stress (emotional pathway) and number of plausible diagnostic hypotheses (cognitive pathway) on the proposed relationship. METHODS: We conducted a randomised controlled experiment. A total of 75 senior internal medicine residents completed eight written clinical cases under conditions with (n = 40) or without (n = 35) time pressure. They were then asked to: (i) rate the overall stress experienced, and (ii) write down any alternative hypotheses they had thought of when diagnosing the cases. In a post hoc analysis, a mediation path analysis was performed to test the causal relationships between time pressure, perceived stress and number of alternative diagnoses. RESULTS: Participants who were under time pressure spent less time diagnosing the cases (85.54 seconds versus 181.81 seconds; p< 0.001) and had a lower mean diagnostic accuracy score (0.44 versus 0.53; p = 0.01). In addition, they reported more stress (5.80 versus 4.69; p = 0.01) and generated fewer plausible tentative hypotheses (0.37 versus 0.51; p = 0.01). Two path coefficients were found to be statistically significant; the first path coefficient referred to the relationship between time pressure and perceived stress (standardised ß = 0.25, p = 0.029), and the second negative path coefficient referred to the relationship between time pressure and number of plausible alternative hypotheses (standardised ß = -0.32, p< 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Time pressure adversely influences physicians' diagnostic accuracy by increasing their stress response and reducing the number of plausible hypotheses as mediators.

Teaching clinical reasoning through hypothetico-deduction is (slightly) better than self-explanation in tutorial groups: An experimental study.

BACKGROUND: Self-explanation while individually diagnosing clinical cases has proved to be an effective instructional approach for teaching clinical reasoning. The present study compared the effects on diagnostic performance of self-explanation in small groups with the more commonly used hypothetico-deductive approach. METHODS: Second-year students from a six-year medical school in Saudi Arabia (39 males; 49 females) worked in small groups on seven clinical vignettes (four criterion cases representing cardiovascular diseases and three 'fillers', i.e. cases of other unrelated diagnoses). The students followed different approaches to work on each case depending on the experimental condition to which they had been randomly assigned. Under the self-explanation condition, students provided a diagnosis and a suitable pathophysiological explanation for the clinical findings whereas in the hypothetico-deduction condition students hypothesized about plausible diagnoses for signs and symptoms that were presented sequentially. One week later, all students diagnosed eight vignettes, four of which represented cardiovascular diseases. A mean diagnostic accuracy score (range: 0-1) was computed for the criterion cases. One-way ANOVA with experimental condition as between-subjects factor was performed on the mean diagnostic accuracy scores. RESULTS: Students in the hypothetico-deduction condition outperformed those in the self-explanation condition (mean = 0.22, standard deviation = 0.14, mean = 0.17; standard deviation = 0.12; F(1, 88) = 4.90, p = 0.03, partial η2 = 0.06, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Students in the hypothetico-deduction condition performed slightly better on a follow-up test involving similar cases, possibly because they were allowed to formulate more than one hypothesis per case during the learning phase.

Renal failure as a risk factor for venous thromboembolism in critically Ill patients: a cohort study.

RATIONALE: The relationship between kidney function and venous thromboembolism (VTE) in critically ill patients is not well studied. The main objective of this study was to evaluate this relationship in patients admitted to a medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 798 patients admitted to a tertiary-care ICU and prospectively followed for the development of clinically suspected and radiologically diagnosed deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Patients were divided based on admission creatinine and dialysis history into five groups: normal kidney function, RIFLE classes R, I and F (combined=acute kidney injury [AKI]) and endstage renal disease (ESRD). We compared VTE prophylaxis practices and VTE incidence in these groups and evaluated renal failure as a VTE risk factor using multivariate Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Of the 798 patients, 27.2% had AKI and 10.1% had ESRD. Unfractionated heparin use was similar in the five groups but enoxaparin use was less frequent in AKI (13.4%) and ESRD (3.8%) patients compared with patients with normal kidney function (39.0%). VTE occurred in 7.6% of patients with normal renal function, 7.8% AKI patients and 2.5% ESRD patients (p=0.22). The adjusted hazard ratios for VTE compared to patients with normal kidney function were 0.35 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-1.47) for RIFLE class R, 1.19 (95% CI, 0.83-1.70) for RIFLE class I, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.59-1.14) for RIFLE class F and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.49-1.02, p=0.06) for ESRD. CONCLUSIONS: Neither AKI nor ESRD was an independent risk factors for critically ill patients.

Even mild hyperlactatemia is associated with increased mortality in critically ill patients.

INTRODUCTION: The clinical significance of elevation of lactate levels within the reference range is not well studied. The objective of this study was to determine the best cutoff threshold for serum lactate within the reference range (0.01 to 2.00 mM) that best discriminated between survivors and nonsurvivors of critical illness and to examine the association between relative hyperlactatemia (lactate above the identified threshold) and mortality. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients admitted to the medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU) of a tertiary care academic center. Youden index was calculated to identify the best lactate cutoff threshold that discriminated between survivors and nonsurvivors. Patients with lactate above the identified threshold were defined as having relative hyperlactatemia. Multivariate logistic regression, adjusting for baseline variables, was performed to determine the relationship between the above two ranges of lactate levels and mortality. In addition, a test of interaction was performed to assess the effect of selected subgroups on the association between relative hyperlactatemia and hospital mortality. RESULTS: During the study period, 2,157 patients were included in the study with mean lactate of 1.3 ± 0.4 mM, age of 55.1 ± 20.3 years, and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II score of 22.1 ± 8.2. Vasopressors were required in 42.4%. Lactate of 1.35 mM was found to be the best cutoff threshold for the whole cohort. Relative hyperlactatemia was associated with increased hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29 to 1.98), and ICU mortality (aOR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.26 to 2.17) compared with a lactate level of 0.01 to 1.35 mM. This association was consistent among all examined subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Relative hyperlactatemia (lactate of 1.36 to 2.00 mM) within the first 24 hours of ICU admission is an independent predictor of hospital and ICU mortality in critically ill patients.

Dialysate potassium and risk of death in chronic hemodialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: Few data guide the prescription of dialysate potassium (dK) in hemodialysis, which is usually prescribed empirically on the basis of predialysis serum potassium levels. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data. We studied all patients initiating chronic hemodialysis in the Northern Alberta Renal Program (NARP) between January 2001 and December 2006. Data on demographic, clinical and treatment characteristics as well as the dates of death or transplant were extracted from the NARP database. We aimed to examine the relation between dialysate potassium level and all-cause death. RESULTS: During the study, 515/1,267 of patients (41%) died. The frequency of dK of 0 or 1 mEq/L, 2, 3 and 4 mEq/L was 6%, 40%, 51% and 3%, respectively. In our base model, which considered dK as a categorical exposure, the hazard ratios associated with 0 or 1 mEq/L, 2, 3 and 4 mEq/L were 1.13 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.78-1.63), 1 (referent), 1.29 (95% CI, 1.07-1.56) and 1.74 (95% CI, 1.09-2.77), respectively. When markers of inflammation or malnutrition were adjusted for separately, the association between dK and mortality was attenuated but remained significant. After simultaneous adjustment for markers of inflammation and malnutrition, the risk of death associated with the higher dK categories was attenuated, and the overall trend was eliminated. Analyses using dK as a time-varying covariate found similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Although unadjusted and partially adjusted models suggested a graded association between higher dK and the risk of all-cause death, this association was apparently due to confounding by factors suggesting malnutrition and inflammation. The relative paucity of data on the association between dK and clinical outcomes despite the biological importance of potassium suggest that further studies are needed.