Five-year mortality and morbidity impact of prolonged versus brief ICU stay: a propensity score matched cohort study.

PURPOSE: Long-term outcomes of critical illness may be affected by duration of critical illness and intensive care. We aimed to investigate differences in mortality and morbidity after short (<8 days) and prolonged (≥8 days) intensive care unit (ICU) stay. METHODS: Former EPaNIC-trial patients were included in this preplanned prospective cohort, 5-year follow-up study. Mortality was assessed in all. For morbidity analyses, all long-stay and-for feasibility-a random sample (30%) of short-stay survivors were contacted. Primary outcomes were total and post-28-day 5-year mortality. Secondary outcomes comprised handgrip strength (HGF, %pred), 6-minute-walking distance (6MWD, %pred) and SF-36 Physical Function score (PF SF-36). One-to-one propensity-score matching of short-stay and long-stay patients was performed for nutritional strategy, demographics, comorbidities, illness severity and admission diagnosis. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to explore ICU factors possibly explaining any post-ICU observed outcome differences. RESULTS: After matching, total and post-28-day 5-year mortality were higher for long-stayers (48.2% (95%CI: 43.9% to 52.6%) and 40.8% (95%CI: 36.4% to 45.1%)) versus short-stayers (36.2% (95%CI: 32.4% to 40.0%) and 29.7% (95%CI: 26.0% to 33.5%), p<0.001). ICU risk factors comprised hypoglycaemia, use of corticosteroids, neuromuscular blocking agents, benzodiazepines, mechanical ventilation, new dialysis and the occurrence of new infection, whereas clonidine could be protective. Among 276 long-stay and 398 short-stay 5-year survivors, HGF, 6MWD and PF SF-36 were significantly lower in long-stayers (matched subset HGF: 83% (95%CI: 60% to 100%) versus 87% (95%CI: 73% to 103%), p=0.020; 6MWD: 85% (95%CI: 69% to 101%) versus 94% (95%CI: 76% to 105%), p=0.005; PF SF-36: 65 (95%CI: 35 to 90) versus 75 (95%CI: 55 to 90), p=0.002). CONCLUSION: Longer duration of intensive care is associated with excess 5-year mortality and morbidity, partially explained by potentially modifiable ICU factors. TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00512122.

Does artificial nutrition improve outcome of critical illness?

Nutritional support is generally considered an essential component in the management of critically ill patients. The existing guidelines advocate early enteral nutrition, with the optimal timing for the addition of parenteral nutrition to insufficient enteral feeding being the subject of transatlantic controversy. The unphysiologic intervention of artificial nutrition in critically ill patients, however, may evoke complications and side effects. Besides the classically described complications, suppression of autophagy, potentially important for cellular repair and organ recovery, was elucidated only recently. The question whether artificial nutrition in critical illness improves or worsens outcome as compared with starvation has so far not been adequately addressed. This paper provides a critical analysis of the existing literature on ICU nutrition, highlighting important methodological shortcomings of many trials and meta-analyses and underlining the urgent need for high-quality research in this field. Recent adequately designed randomized controlled trials suggest that trophic enteral feeding during the first week of critical illness is as good as full enteral feeding and that early addition of parenteral nutrition to insufficient enteral nutrition does not provide any benefit and worsens morbidity.

Interobserver agreement of Medical Research Council sum-score and handgrip strength in the intensive care unit.

INTRODUCTION: Muscle weakness often complicates critical illness and is associated with devastating short- and long-term consequences. For interventional studies, reliable measurements of muscle force in the intensive care unit (ICU) are needed. METHODS: To examine interobserver agreement, two observers independently measured Medical Research Council (MRC) sum-score (n = 75) and handgrip strength (n = 46) in a cross-sectional ICU sample. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for MRC sum-score was 0.95 (0.92-0.97). The kappa coefficient for identifying "significant weakness" (MRC sum-score <48, MRC subtotal upper limbs <24) and "severe weakness" (MRC sum-score <36) was 0.68 ± 0.09, 0.88 ± 0.07, and 0.93 ± 0.07, respectively. The ICC for left and right handgrip strength was 0.97 (0.94-0.98) and 0.93 (0.86-0.97), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Interobserver agreement on MRC sum-score and handgrip strength in the ICU was very good. Agreement on "severe weakness" (MRC sum-score <36) was excellent and supports its use in interventional studies. Agreement on "significant weakness" (MRC sum-score <48) was good, but even better using the equivalent cut-off in the upper limbs. It remains to be determined whether this may serve as a substitute.