RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Increased renal resistive index (RI) measured by Doppler ultrasonography has been shown to be associated with acute kidney injury (AKI) in septic patients. However, its clinical use is limited by poor sensitivity and specificity which may be explained by its numerous determinants [in particular mean arterial pressure (MAP)]. We measured, in patients with septic shock, RI at different MAP levels over a short period of time on the admission day to ICU (D1) and every 3 days until day 10 (D10) to define the determinants of RI and study specifically the relationship between RI and MAP. RESULTS: Consecutive patients with septic shock without preexisting chronic renal dysfunction were included in this prospective cohort study in two ICUs. Sixty-five patients were included in the study. Thirty-three (50.8%) and 15 (23.1%) patients had a history of chronic hypertension or diabetes, respectively. At D3, 35 patients presented AKI with AKIN 2 or 3 criteria (severe AKI, AKIN2-3 group) and 30 presented no AKIN or AKIN 1 criteria (AKIN0-1 group). As previously described, RI at D1 was higher in the AKIN2-3 group than in the AKIN0-1 group (0.73 interquartile range [0.67; 0.78] vs. 0.67 [0.59; 0.72], p = 0.001). A linear mixed model for predicting RI from D1 to D10 showed that an increase in pulse pressure, presence of severe AKI and additional day of ICU hospitalization were associated with an increase in RI. An increase in MAP and recovery from severe AKI were associated with a decrease in RI. In the presence of chronic hypertension or diabetes, an increase in MAP resulted in a lower decrease in RI, than in the absence of such factors. Presence of AKI at D3 did not impact the relationship between MAP and RI. CONCLUSIONS: Severe AKI was associated with a reversible increase in RI without significant interaction with the relationship between MAP and RI. Conversely, the presence of chronic hypertension and/or diabetes interacted with this relationship.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Unlike in the outpatient setting, delivery of aerosols to critically ill patients may be considered complex, particularly in ventilated patients, and benefits remain to be proven. Many factors influence aerosol delivery and recommendations exist, but little is known about knowledge translation into clinical practice. METHODS: Two-week cross-sectional study to assess the prevalence of aerosol therapy in 81 intensive and intermediate care units in 22 countries. All aerosols delivered to patients breathing spontaneously, ventilated invasively or noninvasively (NIV) were recorded, and drugs, devices, ventilator settings, circuit set-up, humidification and side effects were noted. RESULTS: A total of 9714 aerosols were administered to 678 of the 2808 admitted patients (24 %, CI95 22-26 %), whereas only 271 patients (10 %) were taking inhaled medication before admission. There were large variations among centers, from 0 to 57 %. Among intubated patients 22 % (n = 262) received aerosols, and 50 % (n = 149) of patients undergoing NIV, predominantly (75 %) inbetween NIV sessions. Bronchodilators (n = 7960) and corticosteroids (n = 1233) were the most frequently delivered drugs (88 % overall), predominantly but not exclusively (49 %) administered to patients with chronic airway disease. An anti-infectious drug was aerosolized 509 times (5 % of all aerosols) for nosocomial infections. Jet-nebulizers were the most frequently used device (56 %), followed by metered dose inhalers (23 %). Only 106 (<1 %) mild side effects were observed, despite frequent suboptimal set-ups such as an external gas supply of jet nebulizers for intubated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Aerosol therapy concerns every fourth critically ill patient and one-fifth of ventilated patients.
