RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Sepsis is caused by dysregulated immune responses due to infection and still presents high mortality rate and limited efficacious therapies, apart from antibiotics. Recent evidence suggests that very high dose proton pump inhibitors might regulate major sepsis mediators' secretion by monocytes, which might attenuate excessive host reactions and improve clinical outcomes. This effect is obtained with doses which are approximately 50 times higher than prophylactic esomeprazole single daily administration and 17 times higher than the cumulative dose of a three day prophylaxis. We aim to perform a randomized trial to investigate if high dose esomeprazole reduces organ dysfunction in patients with sepsis or septic shock. METHODS: This study, called PPI-SEPSIS, is a multicenter, randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial on critically ill septic patients admitted to the emergency department or intensive care unit. A total of 300 patients will be randomized to receive high dose esomeprazole (80 mg bolus followed by 12 mg/h for 72 h and a second 80 mg bolus 12 h after the first one) or equivolume placebo (sodium chloride 0.9%), with 1:1 allocation. The primary endpoint of the study will be mean daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score over 10 days. Secondary outcomes will include antibiotic-free days, single organ failure severity, intensive care unit-free days at day 28, and mortality. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to test the efficacy of high dose esomeprazole to reduce acute organ dysfunction in patients with septic shock. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with the trial identification NCT03452865 in March 2018.
RESUMEN
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the impact of superinfections in intensive care units (ICUs) has progressively increased, especially carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CR-Ab). This observational, multicenter, retrospective study was designed to investigate the characteristics of COVID-19 ICU patients developing CR-Ab colonization/infection during an ICU stay and evaluate mortality risk factors in a regional ICU network. A total of 913 COVID-19 patients were admitted to the participating ICUs; 19% became positive for CR-Ab, either colonization or infection (n = 176). The ICU mortality rate in CR-Ab patients was 64.7%. On average, patients developed colonization or infection within 10 ± 8.4 days from ICU admission. Scores of SAPS II and SOFA were significantly higher in the deceased patients (43.8 ± 13.5, p = 0.006 and 9.5 ± 3.6, p < 0.001, respectively). The mortality rate was significantly higher in patients with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (12; 7%, p = 0.03), septic shock (61; 35%, p < 0.001), and in elders (66 ± 10, p < 0.001). Among the 176 patients, 129 (73%) had invasive infection with CR-Ab: 105 (60.7%) Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP), and 46 (26.6%) Bloodstream Infections (BSIs). In 22 cases (6.5%), VAP was associated with concomitant BSI. Colonization was reported in 165 patients (93.7%). Mortality was significantly higher in patients with VAP (p = 0.009). Colonized patients who did not develop invasive infections had a higher survival rate (p < 0.001). Being colonized by CR-Ab was associated with a higher risk of developing invasive infections (p < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis, risk factors significantly associated with mortality were age (OR = 1.070; 95% CI (1.028−1.115) p = 0.001) and CR-Ab colonization (OR = 5.463 IC95% 1.572−18.988, p = 0.008). Constant infection-control measures are necessary to stop the spread of A. baumannii in the hospital environment, especially at this time of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, with active surveillance cultures and the efficient performance of a multidisciplinary team.
RESUMEN
We evaluated the effectiveness of the Extended Prevalence of Infection in Intensive Care (EPIC) III data collection protocol as an active surveillance tool in the eight Intensive Care Units (ICUs) of the Intensive and Critical Care Department of the University Hospital of Turin. A total of 435 patients were included in a six-day study over 72 ICU beds. 42% had at least one infection: 69% at one site, 26% at two sites and 5% at three or more sites. ICU-acquired infections were the most common (64%), followed by hospital-associated infections (22%) and community-acquired (20%), considering that each patient may have developed more than one infection type. 72% of patients were receiving at least one antibiotic: 48% for prophylaxis and 52% for treatment. Mortality, the length of ICU and hospital stays were 13%, 14 and 29 days, respectively, being all estimated to be significantly different in patients without and with infection (8% vs. 20%; 4 vs. 20 and 11 vs. 50 (p < 0.001). Our data confirm a high prevalence of infections, sepsis and the use of antimicrobials. The repeated punctual prevalence survey seems an effective method to carry out the surveillance of infections and the use of antimicrobials in the ICU. The use of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) definitions and the EPIC III protocol seems strategic to allow comparisons with national and international contexts.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic a proactive rounding (PR) team was introduced in our clinical practice in order to recognize the clinical deterioration of the patient as soon as possible. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the PR team on the rapid response system (RRS) workload with particular regard to the activity carried out, the mode of intervention, and the outcome of patients. METHODS: In this retrospective study, the first period before the activation of the PR team (March 1, 2019, to February 29, 2020) and the second period after its activation (March 1, 2020, to March 1, 2021) were compared. RESULTS: A total of 406 inpatient RRS activations were collected. The medical emergency team (MET) dose was 13 and 12.2 activations/1000 admitted patients per year while the incidence of unexpected cardiac arrests was 3.8 and 2.6 events/1000 admitted patients per year (p=0.10). MET response time was longer in the second period (3.5±1.6 minutes vs 4.5±2.6 minutes p<0.01). We recorded more RRS activations for medical patients than surgical ones; MET was activated more frequently by physicians than nurses and for less severe criteria. Patients admitted to the intensive care unit had lower Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II) scores. CONCLUSIONS: The PR team introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic did not increase the RRS workload. In addition, it allowed an earlier activation of the MET, especially by physicians.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Coronavirus infection disease 2019 (COVID-19) causes in 10% of patients a severe respiratory distress syndrome managed with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), sometimes difficult to wean. The role of tracheotomy is debated for the possible risks for patients and staff. We are going to describe here our experience with surgical tracheotomy in COVID-19 positive patients. METHODS: We enrolled all intensive care unit (ICU) patients requiring longer than 10 days of IMV. Demographic, clinical, respiratory, complications, and outcomes data were collected, in a particular length of weaning from sedation and IMV, in-ICU and in-hospital mortality rate. All healthcare operators involved were tested for SARS-CoV2 by pharyngeal swab and blood test (antibody test). RESULTS: 13 out of 68 ICU patients (19.1%) underwent surgical tracheotomy after a median intubation period of 14 days. The mean age was 60 (56-65) years. 85% were male patients. Postoperative mild bleeding was seen in 30.7%, pneumothorax in 7.7%. Mean weaning from sedation required 3 days, 19 days from IMV. In-ICU and in-hospital COVID-infection-related mortality was 23.1% and 30.7%, respectively. None of the healthcare operators was found SARS-CoV2 positive during the period of the study. CONCLUSIONS: In COVID-19 pandemic surgical tracheotomy enables to wean from sedation and subsequently from IMV in a safe way for both patients and personnel.
