[Disorientation and delirium assessment : A secondary analysis of a prospective, observational study]. / Bedeutung der Desorientierung bei der Delireinschätzung : Sekundäranalyse einer prospektiven, observationellen Studie.

Disorientation may present as a warning sign of developing delirium. The most commonly used delirium assessment tool in Germany, the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU), does not rate "disorientation", since intubated patients cannot communicate verbally. However, the majority of German ICU patients are not orally intubated, so they could be examined for their orientation. This study was carried out to investigate whether the delirium feature "disorientation" in extubated patients yields diverging findings in comparison to the CAM-ICU and whether the sensitivity of the CAM-ICU may be improved when combined with the feature "disorientation" (CAM-IMC). A total of 86 paired assessments were completed in 50 extubated patients. Delirium was found in 19.8% (N = 17). The CAM-ICU had a sensitivity of 71% (95% confidence interval [CI] 44-90%) and a specificity of 100% (95-100%). Disorientation, if taken as the only delirium feature, had a sensitivity of 77% (50-93%) and a specificity of 93% (89-100%). The CAM-IMC reached a sensitivity of 88% (64-99%) and a specificity of 100% (95-100%). The receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses found an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.941 (95%CI 0.851-1.000) for the CAM-IMC, which was the highest compared to the other delirium tests (CAM-ICU, AUC 0.853 [0.720-0.986]; disorientation, AUC 0.868 [0.745-0.991]). This research emphasizes the importance of the feature "disorientation" for delirium assessments in patients able to verbally communicate and explains some controversial delirium ratings in daily practice. The CAM-IMC appears to be an attractive tool for delirium assessment in nonintubated patients and deserves further research.

Efficacy and Safety of Vilobelimab (IFX-1), a Novel Monoclonal Anti-C5a Antibody, in Patients With Early Severe Sepsis or Septic Shock-A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Phase IIa Trial (SCIENS Study).

Anaphylatoxin C5a, a proinflammatory complement split product, plays a central role in mediating organ dysfunction. OBJECTIVES: This phase II clinical trial was conducted to study safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of vilobelimab, a recombinant monoclonal antibody against C5a, in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, and placebo-controlled study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Eleven multidisciplinary ICUs across Germany. Adult patients with severe sepsis or septic shock and with early onset of infection-associated organ dysfunction. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patients were randomly assigned in a ratio of 2:1 to three subsequent dosing cohorts for IV vilobelimab or placebo receiving either 2 × 2 mg/kg (0 and 12 hr), 2 × 4 mg/kg (0 and 24 hr), and 3 × 4 mg/kg (0, 24, and 72 hr). Co-primary endpoints were pharmacodynamics (assessed by C5a concentrations), pharmacokinetics (assessed by vilobelimab concentrations), and safety of vilobelimab. Preliminary efficacy was evaluated by secondary objectives. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were randomized (16 patients for each vilobelimab dosing cohort and eight patients for each placebo dosing cohort). Vilobelimab application was associated with dosing dependent decrease in C5a compared with baseline (p < 0.001). Duration of C5a decrease increased with more frequent dosing. Membrane attack complex lysis capacity measured by 50% hemolytic complement was not affected. Vilobelimab was well tolerated with similar safety findings in all dose cohorts. No vilobelimab-specific adverse events emerged. For vilobelimab-treated patients, investigators attributed less treatment-emergent adverse events as related compared with placebo. Dosing cohorts 2 and 3 had the highest ICU-free and ventilator-free days. There was no difference in mortality, vasopressor-free days, or renal replacement therapy-free days between the groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Administration of vilobelimab in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock selectively neutralizes C5a in a dose-dependent manner without blocking formation of the membrane attack complex and without resulting in detected safety issues. The data warrant further investigation of C5a inhibition in sepsis.

PROtocol-based MObilizaTION on intensive care units: stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized pilot study (Pro-Motion).

BACKGROUND: Early mobilization of patients in intensive care units (ICUs) improves patient recovery, but implementation remains challenging. Protocols may enhance the rate of out-of-bed mobilizations. AIM: To evaluate the effect of implementing a protocol for early mobilization on the rate of out-of-bed mobilizations and other outcomes of ICU patients. STUDY DESIGN: Multicentre, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized pilot study. METHODS: After a control period, five ICUs were allocated to the implementation of an inter-professional protocol for early mobilization in a randomized, monthly order. Mobilization of ICU patients was evaluated by monthly 1-day point prevalence surveys using the ICU Mobility Scale. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients mobilized out of bed, defined as level 3 on the ICU Mobility Scale (sitting on edge of bed) or higher. Secondary outcomes were mechanical ventilation, delirium and ICU- and hospital-days, as well as unwanted safety events. RESULTS: Out-of-bed mobilizations increased non-significantly from 36·2% (n = 55) of 152 patients during the control period to 45·8% (n = 55) of 120 patients during the intervention period (difference 9·6%; 95% confidence interval -2·1 to 21·3%). Of 55 mobilized patients per group, more patients were mobilized once per day during the intervention period (intervention: n = 41 versus control: n = 23 patients). Multiple daily mobilizations decreased (control: n = 32 control versus intervention: n = 14 patients). Secondary outcomes, such as days with mechanical ventilation, delirium and in ICU and hospital, did not significantly differ. Adherence to the protocol was >90%; unwanted safety events were rare. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a protocol for early mobilization of ICU patients showed a trend towards more patients being mobilized. Without additional staff in participating ICUs, a significant increase in ICU mobilizations was not to be anticipated. More research should address whether more staff would increase the number of frequent mobilizations and if this is relevant to outcomes. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Implementing inter-professional protocols for mobilization is feasible and safe and may contribute to an increase of ICU patients mobilized out of bed.