Tight Blood-Glucose Control without Early Parenteral Nutrition in the ICU.

BACKGROUND: Randomized, controlled trials have shown both benefit and harm from tight blood-glucose control in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Variation in the use of early parenteral nutrition and in insulin-induced severe hypoglycemia might explain this inconsistency. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients, on ICU admission, to liberal glucose control (insulin initiated only when the blood-glucose level was >215 mg per deciliter [>11.9 mmol per liter]) or to tight glucose control (blood-glucose level targeted with the use of the LOGIC-Insulin algorithm at 80 to 110 mg per deciliter [4.4 to 6.1 mmol per liter]); parenteral nutrition was withheld in both groups for 1 week. Protocol adherence was determined according to glucose metrics. The primary outcome was the length of time that ICU care was needed, calculated on the basis of time to discharge alive from the ICU, with death accounted for as a competing risk; 90-day mortality was the safety outcome. RESULTS: Of 9230 patients who underwent randomization, 4622 were assigned to liberal glucose control and 4608 to tight glucose control. The median morning blood-glucose level was 140 mg per deciliter (interquartile range, 122 to 161) with liberal glucose control and 107 mg per deciliter (interquartile range, 98 to 117) with tight glucose control. Severe hypoglycemia occurred in 31 patients (0.7%) in the liberal-control group and 47 patients (1.0%) in the tight-control group. The length of time that ICU care was needed was similar in the two groups (hazard ratio for earlier discharge alive with tight glucose control, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 1.04; P = 0.94). Mortality at 90 days was also similar (10.1% with liberal glucose control and 10.5% with tight glucose control, P = 0.51). Analyses of eight prespecified secondary outcomes suggested that the incidence of new infections, the duration of respiratory and hemodynamic support, the time to discharge alive from the hospital, and mortality in the ICU and hospital were similar in the two groups, whereas severe acute kidney injury and cholestatic liver dysfunction appeared less prevalent with tight glucose control. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients who were not receiving early parenteral nutrition, tight glucose control did not affect the length of time that ICU care was needed or mortality. (Funded by the Research Foundation-Flanders and others; TGC-Fast ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03665207.).

Validation of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and IV Score in COVID-19 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Severity scoring systems are inherent to ICU practice for multiple purposes. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) scoring systems are designed for ICU mortality prediction. This study aims to validate APACHE IV in COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. METHODS: All COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU between March 13, 2020, and October 17, 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. APACHE II and APACHE IV scores as well as SOFA scores were calculated within 24 hours after admission. Discrimination for mortality of all three scoring systems was assessed by receiver operating characteristic curves. Youden index was determined for the scoring system with the best discriminative performance. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test was used to assess calibration. All analyses were performed for both the overall population as in a subgroup treated with anti-Xa adjusted dosages of LMWHs. RESULTS: 116 patients were admitted to our ICU during the study period. 13 were excluded for various reasons, leaving 103 patients in the statistical analysis of the overall population. 57 patients were treated with anti-Xa adjusted prophylactic dosages of LMWH and were supplementary analyzed in a subgroup analysis. APACHE IV had the best discriminative power of the three scoring systems, both in the overall population (APACHE IV ROC AUC 0.67 vs. APACHE II ROC AUC 0.63) as in the subgroup (APACHE IV ROC AUC 0.82 vs. APACHE II ROC AUC 0.7). This model exhibits good calibration. Hosmer-Lemeshow p values for APACHE IV were 0.9234 for the overall population and 0.8017 for the subgroup. Calibration p values of the APACHE II score were 0.1394 and 0.6475 for the overall versus subgroup, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: APACHE IV provided the best discrimination and calibration of the considered scoring systems in critically ill COVID-19 patients, both in the overall group and in the subgroup with anti-Xa adjusted LMWH doses. Only in the subgroup analysis, discriminative abilities of APACHE IV were very good. This trial is registered with NCT04713852.

A comparison of neuromuscular effects, tracheal intubating conditions, and reversibility of rapacuronium versus mivacurium in female patients.

IMPLICATIONS: Rapacuronium is a new, rapid-onset, short-duration, nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocking drug. We evaluated the intubating conditions at maximum block after the administration of rapacuronium or mivacurium in female patients undergoing laparoscopy. We also evaluated the neostigmine-induced reversibility of neuromuscular block after this single dose of rapacuronium or mivacurium.