Outcome of acute mesenteric ischemia in the intensive care unit: a retrospective, multicenter study of 780 cases.

BACKGROUND: In the intensive care unit (ICU), the outcomes of patients with acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI) are poorly documented. This study aimed to determine the risk factors for death in ICU patients with AMI. METHODS: A retrospective, observational, non-interventional, multicenter study was conducted in 43 ICUs of 38 public institutions in France. From January 2008 to December 2013, all adult patients with a diagnosis of AMI during their hospitalization in ICU were included in a database. The diagnosis was confirmed by at least one of three procedures (computed tomography scan, gastrointestinal endoscopy, or upon surgery). To determine factors associated with ICU death, we established a logistic regression model. Recursive partitioning analysis was applied to construct a decision tree regarding risk factors and their interactions most critical to determining outcomes. RESULTS: The death rate of the 780 included patients was 58 %. Being older, having a higher sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) severity score at diagnosis, and a plasma lactate concentration over 2.7 mmol/l at diagnosis were independent risk factors of ICU mortality. In contrast, having a prior history of peripheral vascular disease or an initial surgical treatment were independent protective factors against ICU mortality. Using age and SOFA severity score, we established an ICU mortality score at diagnosis based on the cutoffs provided by recursive partitioning analysis. Probability of survival was statistically different (p < 0.001) between patients with a score from 0 to 2 and those with a score of 3 and 4. CONCLUSION: Acute mesenteric ischemia in ICU patients was associated with a 58 % ICU death rate. Age and SOFA severity score at diagnosis were risk factors for mortality. Plasma lactate concentration over 2.7 mmol/l was also an independent risk factor, but values in the normal range did not exclude the diagnosis of AMI.

De-escalation versus continuation of empirical antimicrobial treatment in severe sepsis: a multicenter non-blinded randomized noninferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with severe sepsis, no randomized clinical trial has tested the concept of de-escalation of empirical antimicrobial therapy. This study aimed to compare the de-escalation strategy with the continuation of an appropriate empirical treatment in those patients. METHODS: This was a multicenter non-blinded randomized noninferiority trial of patients with severe sepsis who were randomly assigned to de-escalation or continuation of empirical antimicrobial treatment. Recruitment began in February 2012 and ended in April 2013 in nine intensive care units (ICUs) in France. Patients with severe sepsis were assigned to de-escalation (n = 59) or continuation of empirical antimicrobial treatment (n = 57). The primary outcome was to measure the duration of ICU stay. We defined a noninferiority margin of 2 days. If the lower boundary of the 95 % confidence interval (CI) for the difference in patients assigned to the de-escalation group was less than 2 days, as compared with that of patients assigned to the continuation group, de-escalation was considered to be noninferior to the continuation strategy. Secondary outcomes included mortality at 90 days, occurrence of organ failure, number of superinfections, and number of days with antibiotics during the ICU stay. RESULTS: The median duration of ICU stay was 9 [interquartile range (IQR) 5-22] days in the de-escalation group and 8 [IQR 4-15] days in the continuation group, respectively (P = 0.71). The mean difference was 3.4 (95 % CI -1.7 to 8.5). A superinfection occurred in 16 (27 %) patients in the de-escalation group and six (11 %) patients in the continuation group (P = 0.03). The numbers of antibiotic days were 9 [7-15] and 7.5 [6-13] in the de-escalation group and continuation group, respectively (P = 0.03). Mortality was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: As compared to the continuation of the empirical antimicrobial treatment, a strategy based on de-escalation of antibiotics resulted in prolonged duration of ICU stay. However, it did not affect the mortality rate.

Monitoring of plasma creatinine and urinary γ-glutamyl transpeptidase improves detection of acute kidney injury by more than 20%.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine how early we can detect acute kidney injury inpatients at intensive care unit admission by combining the use of plasma creatinine and urinary γ-glutamyl transpeptidase. DESIGN: Prospective study including development (n = 100) and validation (n = 56) cohorts. SETTINGS: Intensive care unit of a university hospital. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: To determine acute kidney injury, we subtracted measured creatinine clearance from theoretical creatinine clearance with a 25% reduction signifying acute kidney injury. Its incidence in 100 consecutive patients was 36%. An indexed urinary γ-glutamyl transpeptidase-to-urinary creatinine ratio was significantly increased in the patients with acute kidney injury and did not correlate with plasma creatinine (p = .3). Using a predefined threshold of indexed urinary γ-glutamyl transpeptidase-to-urinary creatinine ratio (>12.4 units/mmol) and plasma creatinine (>89 µmol/L), acute kidney injury detection was significantly improved, making it possible to detect 22 (22%) additional patients with acute kidney injury. This finding was confirmed in the validation group. The rates of false-positive results were 30% and 19% in the data development and internal validation cohorts, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The use of low-cost, widely available markers (creatinine and urinary γ-glutamyl transpeptidase) increases the detection of acute kidney injury. Further studies are needed to determine the impact on outcome with the use of these biomarkers.