We aimed to study the possible association of stress hyperglycemia in COVID-19 critically ill patients with prognosis, artificial nutrition, circulating osteocalcin, and other serum markers of inflammation and compare them with non-COVID-19 patients. Fifty-two critical patients at the intensive care unit (ICU), 26 with COVID-19 and 26 non-COVID-19, were included. Glycemic control, delivery of artificial nutrition, serum osteocalcin, total and ICU stays, and mortality were recorded. Patients with COVID-19 had higher ICU stays, were on artificial nutrition for longer (p = 0.004), and needed more frequently insulin infusion therapy (p = 0.022) to control stress hyperglycemia. The need for insulin infusion therapy was associated with higher energy (p = 0.001) and glucose delivered through artificial nutrition (p = 0.040). Those patients with stress hyperglycemia showed higher ICU stays (23 ± 17 vs. 11 ± 13 days, p = 0.007). Serum osteocalcin was a good marker for hyperglycemia, as it inversely correlated with glycemia at admission in the ICU (r = -0.476, p = 0.001) and at days 2 (r = -0.409, p = 0.007) and 3 (r = -0.351, p = 0.049). In conclusion, hyperglycemia in critically ill COVID-19 patients was associated with longer ICU stays. Low circulating osteocalcin was a good marker for stress hyperglycemia.
COVID-19/blood , Hyperglycemia/blood , Osteocalcin/blood , Parenteral Nutrition/mortality , SARS-CoV-2 , Aged , Biomarkers/blood , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , Critical Care Outcomes , Critical Illness/mortality , Female , Humans , Hyperglycemia/mortality , Hyperglycemia/virology , Intensive Care Units , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Prognosis
BACKGROUND: Home parenteral nutrition (HPN) has become a common therapy. There is still controversy regarding the possibility that peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) may diminish catheter-related blood stream infection (CRBSI) rates. METHODS: We searched the PubMed database for studies reporting the rates of CRBSI with HPN. Study selection was performed independently by three investigators. Disagreements were discussed and resolved by consensus or by arbitration by an author not involved in the search. The National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tools was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. Meta-analyses were performed using MetaXL 5.3 with the quality effects model. RESULTS: Screening of the article titles and abstracts yielded 134 full text articles for evaluation. Only three prospective studies that included appropriate data were considered for the final analysis. The relative risk of the CRBSI rate was 0.41 (0.14-1.17) for PICC vs. tunneled catheters. The relative risk of the CRBSI rate was 0.16 (0.04-0.64) for PICC vs. ports. The relative risk of the thrombosis rate was 3.16 (0.20-49.67) for PICCs vs. tunneled. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to show a difference in CRBSI rates between PICCs and tunneled catheters. On the other hand, PICCs showed lower CRBSI rates than ports. There was also no difference in the rate of catheter-related thrombosis and mechanical complications.
Bacterial Infections/etiology , Catheter-Related Infections/etiology , Catheters/adverse effects , Parenteral Nutrition, Home/adverse effects , Humans
OBJECTIVE: Home parenteral nutrition (HPN) has become a common therapy, with tunneled central venous catheters (CVCs) being the preferred route of administration. Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) have been used increasingly, but whether they should be preferred over other types of CVCs is still controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate catheter-related complications of CVC in patients receiving HPN. METHODS: All patients treated at our center for HPN from 2007 to 2017 were prospectively included. A specialized intravenous therapy team took care of these patients. Catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI) were confirmed with positive, simultaneous, differential blood cultures drawn through the CVC and peripheral vein and then semiquantitative or quantitative culture of the catheter tip. RESULTS: In all, 151 patients received HPN during the 11-y study period. Of these patients, 95 were women (63%) and 55 were men (37%), with a mean age of 58 ± 13 y. Twenty-six were non-cancer patients (17%) and the remaining 125 patients had an underlying malignancy (83%). Regarding the CVC, 116 were PICCs, 18 Hickman, and 36 ports. Confirmed CRBSI per catheter-days showed 0.15 episodes per 1000 catheter-days for PICCs, 0.72 for Hickman, and 2.02 for ports. PICCs had less-confirmed CRBSIs per 1000 catheter-days than ports (φâ¯=â¯0.54, Pâ¯=â¯0.005), but no difference between PICCs and Hickman was found (φâ¯=â¯0.32, Pâ¯=â¯0.110). Confirmed episodes of CRBSI (2 versus 13%, χ2â¯=â¯6.625, Pâ¯=â¯0.036) were more frequent with multilumen catheters. CONCLUSIONS: In our setting, single-lumen PICC and Hickman catheters showed low infectious complications.
Catheter-Related Infections/epidemiology , Catheters, Indwelling/microbiology , Central Venous Catheters/microbiology , Parenteral Nutrition, Home/instrumentation , Vascular Access Devices/microbiology , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Risk Factors
INTRODUCTION: intracavitary electrocardiogram (IC-ECG) guidance has been recently proposed for peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) placement since it may reduce the time of placement and avoid radiological control. OBJECTIVE: to evaluate IC-ECG compared to conventional radiological control. METHOS: prospective study of 532 consecutive patients. Those with arrhythmias or on antiarrhythmic drugs were excluded. In all cases, PICC tip placement was checked by IC-ECG guidance and by a chest X-ray, which was considered as the reference test. RESULTS: PICC placement with IC-ECG guidance was achieved in 96.8% of patients (applicability). PICC correct placement according to IC-ECG guidance was confirmed by chest X-ray in 94% of patients (accuracy). In 13 patients (2.7%) the catheter had to be repositioned after radiological control. The κ concordance index was 0.356 (p < 0.001). The IC-ECG sensitivity was 0.98, with a PPV of 0.97 and a positive likelihood ratio of 1.5. However, the specificity was only 0.35 with a NPV of 0.41 and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.06. CONCLUSION: PICC placement by IC-ECG guidance is plausible, safe, presents adequate indexes of validity and reliability, and allows reducing the time of catheter placement. However, radiological verification is still necessary, especially in cases of negative or uncertain ECG.
INTRODUCCIÓN: recientemente se ha planteado la posibilidad de comprobar la colocación de los catéteres centrales de inserción periférica (PICC) mediante control electrocardiográfico intracavitario (ECG-IC) ya que permitiría disminuir el tiempo de colocación y evitaría el control radiológico. OBJETIVO: evaluación de dicho método frente al control radiológico habitual. MÉTODOS: estudio prospectivo en el que se incluyeron 532 pacientes de forma consecutiva. Se excluyeron aquellos pacientes con arritmias o en tratamiento con fármacos antiarrítmicos. En todos los casos se comprobó la colocación de la punta del PICC mediante control ECG-IC y mediante la realización de una radiografía de tórax, que fue considerada método de referencia. RESULTADOS: la colocación del PICC gracias al control ECG-IC (aplicabilidad) fue del 96,8%. La correcta colocación del PICC gracias a la interpretación del ECG-IC se confirmó en un 94% de los casos con la radiografía de tórax (precisión). En 13 pacientes (2,7%) se requirió la recolocación del catéter tras el control radiológico. El índice κ de concordancia fue de 0,356 (p < 0,001). La sensibilidad del método ECG fue de 0,98, con un VPP de 0,97 y un cociente de probabilidad positivo de 1,5. Sin embargo, la especificidad fue solo del 0,35 con un VPN de 0,41 y un cociente de probabilidad negativo de 0,06. CONCLUSIÓN: la comprobación de la colocación de los PICC mediante ECG-IC es plausible, segura, presenta unos índices de validez/fiabilidad adecuados y permitiría disminuir el tiempo de colocación del catéter. Sin embargo, la comprobación radiológica sigue siendo necesaria, especialmente en los casos de ECG negativo o dudoso.
Catheterization, Central Venous/methods , Catheterization, Peripheral/methods , Electrocardiography/methods , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Radiography, Thoracic , Reproducibility of Results , Thorax/diagnostic imaging
Introducción: recientemente se ha planteado la posibilidad de comprobar la colocación de los catéteres centrales de inserción periférica (PICC) mediante control electrocardiográfico intracavitario (ECG-IC) ya que permitiría disminuir el tiempo de colocación y evitaría el control radiológico. Objetivo: evaluación de dicho método frente al control radiológico habitual. Métodos: estudio prospectivo en el que se incluyeron 532 pacientes de forma consecutiva. Se excluyeron aquellos pacientes con arritmias o en tratamiento con fármacos antiarrítmicos. En todos los casos se comprobó la colocación de la punta del PICC mediante control ECG-IC y mediante la realización de una radiografía de tórax, que fue considerada método de referencia. Resultados: la colocación del PICC gracias al control ECG-IC (aplicabilidad) fue del 96,8%. La correcta colocación del PICC gracias a la interpretación del ECG-IC se confirmó en un 94% de los casos con la radiografía de tórax (precisión). En 13 pacientes (2,7%) se requirió la recolocación del catéter tras el control radiológico. El índice κ de concordancia fue de 0,356 (p < 0,001). La sensibilidad del método ECG fue de 0,98, con un VPP de 0,97 y un cociente de probabilidad positivo de 1,5. Sin embargo, la especificidad fue solo del 0,35 con un VPN de 0,41 y un cociente de probabilidad negativo de 0,06.Conclusión: la comprobación de la colocación de los PICC mediante ECG-IC es plausible, segura, presenta unos índices de validez/fiabilidad adecuados y permitiría disminuir el tiempo de colocación del catéter. Sin embargo, la comprobación radiológica sigue siendo necesaria, especialmente en los casos de ECG negativo o dudoso
Introduction: intracavitary electrocardiogram (IC-ECG) guidance has been recently proposed for peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) placement since it may reduce the time of placement and avoid radiological control. Objective: to evaluate IC-ECG compared to conventional radiological control. Methods: prospective study of 532 consecutive patients. Those with arrhythmias or on antiarrhythmic drugs were excluded. In all cases, PICC tip placement was checked by IC-ECG guidance and by a chest X-ray, which was considered as the reference test. Results: PICC placement with IC-ECG guidance was achieved in 96.8% of patients (applicability). PICC correct placement according to IC-ECG guidance was confi rmed by chest X-ray in 94% of patients (accuracy). In 13 patients (2.7%) the catheter had to be repositioned after radiological control. The concordance index was 0.356 (p < 0.001). The IC-ECG sensitivity was 0.98, with a PPV of 0.97 and a positive likelihood ratio of 1.5. However, the specifi city was only 0.35 with a NPV of 0.41 and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.06. Conclusion: PICC placement by IC-ECG guidance is plausible, safe, presents adequate indexes of validity and reliability, and allows reducing the time of catheter placement. However, radiological verifi cation is still necessary, especially in cases of negative or uncertain ECG
Humans , Male , Female , Adult , Middle Aged , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Catheterization, Central Venous/methods , Catheterization, Peripheral/methods , Electrocardiography/methods , Prospective Studies , Radiography, Thoracic , Reproducibility of Results , Thorax/diagnostic imaging
The use of home parenteral nutrition (HPN) in patients who can not obtain their nutritional requirements by the enteral route is increasing in recent years, allowing normalization lifestyle of patients. Neoplasm and mesenteric ischaemia are some of the diseases that most frequently require HPN in Spain. However, HPN is one of the cornerstones of the treatment of much less frequent illnesses as in the case of encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis. We present the case of a patient with encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis and HPN support for more than 7 years with a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) for over 6 years without complications and the autonomy to perform his normal business activity. Given the exceptional nature of the case we refer it to its publication.
El uso de la nutrición parenteral domiciliaria (NPD) en pacientes que no pueden alcanzar sus requerimientos nutricionales por la vía enteral está aumentando en los últimos años, permitiendo la normalización del estilo de vida de los pacientes. Entre las patologías que más frecuentemente precisan de la NPD en España destacan la neoplasia y la isquemia mesentérica. Sin embargo, la NPD constituye uno de los pilares básicos del tratamiento de enfermedades mucho menos frecuentes como es el caso de la esclerosis peritoneal encapsulante. A continuación presentamos el caso de un paciente diagnosticado de esclerosis peritoneal encapsulante con soporte NPD de más de 7 años de NPD con un catéter central de inserción periférica (PICC) para la NPD sin complicaciones y pudiendo realizar su actividad laboral habitual. Dado lo excepcional del caso lo remitimos para su publicación.
Catheterization, Central Venous/methods , Parenteral Nutrition, Home , Peritoneal Fibrosis/therapy , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Peritoneal Fibrosis/diagnostic imaging , Personal Autonomy , Tomography, X-Ray Computed
El uso de la nutrición parenteral domiciliaria (NPD) en pacientes que no pueden alcanzar sus requerimientos nutricionales por la vía enteral está aumentando en los últimos años, permitiendo la normalización del estilo de vida de los pacientes. Entre las patologías que más frecuentemente precisan de la NPD en España destacan la neoplasia y la isquemia mesentérica. Sin embargo, la NPD constituye uno de los pilares básicos del tratamiento de enfermedades mucho menos frecuentes como es el caso de la esclerosis peritoneal encapsulante. A continuación presentamos el caso de un paciente diagnosticado de esclerosis peritoneal encapsulante con soporte NPD de más de 7 años de NPD con un catéter central de inserción periférica (PICC) para la NPD sin complicaciones y pudiendo realizar su actividad laboral habitual. Dado lo excepcional del caso lo remitimos para su publicación (AU)
The use of home parenteral nutrition (HPN) in patients who can not obtain their nutritional requirements by the enteral route is increasing in recent years, allowing normalization lifestyle of patients. Neoplasm and mesenteric ischaemia are some of the diseases that most frequently require HPN in Spain. However, HPN is one of the cornerstones of the treatment of much less frequent illnesses as in the case of encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis. We present the case of a patient with encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis and HPN support for more than 7 years with a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) for over 6 years without complications and the autonomy to perform his normal business activity. Given the exceptional nature of the case we refer it to its publication (AU)
Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Parenteral Nutrition, Home , Peritoneal Fibrosis/diet therapy , Malnutrition/diet therapy , Mesenteric Ischemia/diet therapy , Neoplasms/diet therapy , Catheterization, Peripheral , HIV Infections/complications
Introduction and aims: the precise role of parenteral nutrition in the management of oncologic patients with intestinal occlusion is not well defined yet. We aimed to identify the effects of parenteral nutrition in these patients regarding prognosis. Material and methods: 55 patients with intestinal occlusion and peritoneal carcinomatosis were included. Parenteral nutrition aimed at 20-35 kcal/Kg/day, and 1.0 g/kg/day of amino-acids. Weight, body mass index, type of tumor, type of chemotherapy, and ECOG among others were recorded and analyzed. Results: 69.1% of the patients had gastrointestinal tumors, 18.2% gynecologic and 12.7% others. Age was 60 ± 13y, baseline ECOG 1.5 ± 0.5 and body mass index 21.6 ± 4.3. Malnutrition was present in 85%. Survival from the start of parenteral nutrition was not significant when considering baseline ECOG (log rank = 0.593, p = 0.743), previous lines of chemotherapy (log rank = 2.117, p = 0.548), baseline BMI (log rank = 2.686, p = 0.261), or type of tumor (log rank = 2.066, p = 0.356). Survival in patients who received home parenteral nutrition after hospital discharge was higher than those who stayed in-hospital (log rank = 7.090, p = 0.008). Survival in patients who started chemotherapy during or after parenteral nutrition was higher than those who did not so (log rank = 17.316, p < 0.001). A total of 3.6% of patients presented catheter related infection without affecting survival (log rank = 0.061, p = 0.804). Conclusions: Parenteral nutrition in patients with advanced cancer and intestinal occlusion is safe, and in those who respond to chemotherapy, further administration of home parenteral nutrition together with chemotherapy may enhance prolonged survival (AU)
Introducción y objetivos: el papel preciso de la nutrición parenteral en el manejo de los pacientes oncológicos con obstrucción intestinal no está bien definido todavía. El objetivo del presente trabajo es evaluar los efectos de la nutrición parenteral en este tipo de pacientes en cuanto al pronóstico. Material y métodos: fueron incluidos 55 pacientes con obstrucción intestinal y carcinomatosis peritoneal. La nutrición parenteral proporcionó 20-35 kcal/Kg/día y 1.0 g/kg/día de aminoácidos. El peso, el IMC, el tipo de tumor, el tipo de quimioterapia recibida y el ECOG, entre otras variables, fueron recogidas y analizadas. Resultados: un 69,1% de los pacientes presentaban tumors gastrointestinales, un 18,2% ginecológicos y otros tumores el 12,7% restante. La edad media fue de 60 ± 13 años, con un ECOG basal de 1,5 ± 0,5 y un IMC de 21,6 ± 4,3. La presencia de malnutrición fue de un 85%. La supervivencia desde el inicio de la nutrición parenteral no fue significativamente distinta entre los pacientes al considerar su ECOG basal (log rank = 0,593, p = 0,743), las líneas previas de quimioterapia recibida (log rank = 2,117, p = 0,548), el IMC basal (log rank = 2,686, p = 0,261), o el tipo de tumor (log rank = 2,066, p = 0,356). La supervivencia en los pacientes en que fue posible el alta hospitalaria con nutrición parenteral fue superior (log rank = 7,090, p = 0,008). La supervivencia en los pacientes en que se inició la quimioterapia durante o tras iniciar la nutrición parenteral fue también superior (log rank = 17,316, p < 0,001). Un total de 3,6% de los pacientes presentaron infección relacionada con el catéter sin afectar la supervivencia (log rank = 0,061, p = 0,804). Conclusión: la nutrición parenteral en los pacientes oncológicos con obstrucción intestinal y carcinomatosis peritoneal es segura y, en aquellos que responden a quimioterapia, el uso de la nutrición parenteral domiciliaria, junto con en tratamiento antitumoral activo, aumentan la supervivencia (AU)
Humans , Parenteral Nutrition/methods , Peritoneal Neoplasms/diet therapy , Intestinal Obstruction/diet therapy , Parenteral Nutrition Solutions/pharmacology , Antineoplastic Agents/administration & dosage , Central Venous Catheters , Catheter-Related Infections/epidemiology
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: the precise role of parenteral nutrition in the management of oncologic patients with intestinal occlusion is not well defined yet. We aimed to identify the effects of parenteral nutrition in these patients regarding prognosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 55 patients with intestinal occlusion and peritoneal carcinomatosis were included. Parenteral nutrition aimed at 20-35 kcal/Kg/day, and 1.0 g/kg/day of amino-acids. Weight, body mass index, type of tumor, type of chemotherapy, and ECOG among others were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: 69.1% of the patients had gastrointestinal tumors, 18.2% gynecologic and 12.7% others. Age was 60 ± 13y, baseline ECOG 1.5 ± 0.5 and body mass index 21.6 ± 4.3. Malnutrition was present in 85%. Survival from the start of parenteral nutrition was not significant when considering baseline ECOG (log rank = 0.593, p = 0.743), previous lines of chemotherapy (log rank = 2.117, p = 0.548), baseline BMI (log rank = 2.686, p = 0.261), or type of tumor (log rank = 2.066, p = 0.356). Survival in patients who received home parenteral nutrition after hospital discharge was higher than those who stayed in-hospital (log rank = 7.090, p = 0.008). Survival in patients who started chemotherapy during or after parenteral nutrition was higher than those who did not so (log rank = 17.316, p < 0.001). A total of 3.6% of patients presented catheter related infection without affecting survival (log rank = 0.061, p = 0.804). CONCLUSIONS: Parenteral nutrition in patients with advanced cancer and intestinal occlusion is safe, and in tho se who respond to chemotherapy, further administration of home parenteral nutrition together with chemotherapy may enhance prolonged survival.
Introducción y objetivos: el papel preciso de la nutrición parenteral en el manejo de los pacientes oncológicos con obstrucción intestinal no está bien definido todavía. El objetivo del presente trabajo es evaluar los efectos de la nutrición parenteral en este tipo de pacientes en cuanto al pronóstico. Material y métodos: fueron incluidos 55 pacientes con obstrucción intestinal y carcinomatosis peritoneal. La nutrición parenteral proporcionó 20-35 kcal/Kg/día y 1.0 g/kg/día de aminoácidos. El peso, el IMC, el tipo de tumor, el tipo de quimioterapia recibida y el ECOG, entre otras variables, fueron recogidas y analizadas. Resultados: un 69,1% de los pacientes presentaban tumors gastrointestinales, un 18,2% ginecológicos y otros tumores el 12,7% restante. La edad media fue de 60 ± 13 años, con un ECOG basal de 1,5 ± 0,5 y un IMC de 21,6 ± 4,3. La presencia de malnutrición fue de un 85%. La supervivencia desde el inicio de la nutrición parenteral no fue significativamente distinta entre los pacientes al considerar su ECOG basal (log rank = 0,593, p = 0,743), las líneas previas de quimioterapia recibida (log rank = 2,117, p = 0,548), el IMC basal (log rank = 2,686, p = 0,261), o el tipo de tumor (log rank = 2,066, p = 0,356). La supervivencia en los pacientes en que fue posible el alta hospitalaria con nutrición parenteral fue superior (log rank = 7,090, p = 0,008). La supervivencia en los pacientes en que se inició la quimioterapia durante o tras iniciar la nutrición parenteral fue también superior (log rank = 17,316, p < 0,001). Un total de 3,6% de los pacientes presentaron infección relacionada con el catéter sin afectar la supervivencia (log rank = 0,061, p = 0,804). Conclusión: la nutrición parenteral en los pacientes oncológicos con obstrucción intestinal y carcinomatosis peritoneal es segura y, en aquellos que responden a qui mioterapia, el uso de la nutrición parenteral domiciliaria, junto con en tratamiento antitumoral activo, aumentan la supervivencia.
Carcinoma/therapy , Intestinal Obstruction/etiology , Intestinal Obstruction/therapy , Neoplasms/complications , Neoplasms/therapy , Parenteral Nutrition , Peritoneal Neoplasms/therapy , Aged , Carcinoma/mortality , Combined Modality Therapy , Female , Humans , Intestinal Obstruction/mortality , Male , Neoplasms/mortality , Parenteral Nutrition/adverse effects , Parenteral Nutrition/methods , Peritoneal Neoplasms/mortality , Treatment Outcome
