Tight Blood-Glucose Control without Early Parenteral Nutrition in the ICU.

BACKGROUND: Randomized, controlled trials have shown both benefit and harm from tight blood-glucose control in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Variation in the use of early parenteral nutrition and in insulin-induced severe hypoglycemia might explain this inconsistency. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients, on ICU admission, to liberal glucose control (insulin initiated only when the blood-glucose level was >215 mg per deciliter [>11.9 mmol per liter]) or to tight glucose control (blood-glucose level targeted with the use of the LOGIC-Insulin algorithm at 80 to 110 mg per deciliter [4.4 to 6.1 mmol per liter]); parenteral nutrition was withheld in both groups for 1 week. Protocol adherence was determined according to glucose metrics. The primary outcome was the length of time that ICU care was needed, calculated on the basis of time to discharge alive from the ICU, with death accounted for as a competing risk; 90-day mortality was the safety outcome. RESULTS: Of 9230 patients who underwent randomization, 4622 were assigned to liberal glucose control and 4608 to tight glucose control. The median morning blood-glucose level was 140 mg per deciliter (interquartile range, 122 to 161) with liberal glucose control and 107 mg per deciliter (interquartile range, 98 to 117) with tight glucose control. Severe hypoglycemia occurred in 31 patients (0.7%) in the liberal-control group and 47 patients (1.0%) in the tight-control group. The length of time that ICU care was needed was similar in the two groups (hazard ratio for earlier discharge alive with tight glucose control, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 1.04; P = 0.94). Mortality at 90 days was also similar (10.1% with liberal glucose control and 10.5% with tight glucose control, P = 0.51). Analyses of eight prespecified secondary outcomes suggested that the incidence of new infections, the duration of respiratory and hemodynamic support, the time to discharge alive from the hospital, and mortality in the ICU and hospital were similar in the two groups, whereas severe acute kidney injury and cholestatic liver dysfunction appeared less prevalent with tight glucose control. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients who were not receiving early parenteral nutrition, tight glucose control did not affect the length of time that ICU care was needed or mortality. (Funded by the Research Foundation-Flanders and others; TGC-Fast ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03665207.).

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation to Support COVID-19 Patients: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study.

Background: In patients with severe respiratory failure from COVID-19, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) treatment can facilitate lung-protective ventilation and may improve outcome and survival if conventional therapy fails to assure adequate oxygenation and ventilation. We aimed to perform a confirmatory propensity-matched cohort study comparing the impact of ECMO and maximum invasive mechanical ventilation alone (MVA) on mortality and complications in severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Materials and Methods: All 295 consecutive adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) from March 13th, 2020, to July 31st, 2021 were included. At admission, all patients were classified into 3 categories: (1) full code including the initiation of ECMO therapy (AAA code), (2) full code excluding ECMO (AA code), and (3) do-not-intubate (A code). For the 271 non-ECMO patients, match eligibility was determined for all patients with the AAA code treated with MVA. Propensity score matching was performed using a logistic regression model including the following variables: gender, P/F ratio, SOFA score at admission, and date of ICU admission. The primary endpoint was ICU mortality. Results: A total of 24 ECMO patients were propensity matched to an equal number of MVA patients. ICU mortality was significantly higher in the ECMO arm (45.8%) compared with the MVA cohort (16.67%) (OR 4.23 (1.11, 16.17); p=0.02). Three-month mortality was 50% with ECMO compared to 16.67% after MVA (OR 5.91 (1.55, 22.58); p < 0.01). Applied peak inspiratory pressures (33.42 ± 8.52 vs. 24.74 ± 4.86 mmHg; p < 0.01) and maximal PEEP levels (14.47 ± 3.22 vs. 13.52 ± 3.86 mmHg; p=0.01) were higher with MVA. ICU length of stay (LOS) and hospital LOS were comparable in both groups. Conclusion: ECMO therapy may be associated with an up to a three-fold increase in ICU mortality and 3-month mortality compared to MVA despite the facilitation of lung-protective ventilation settings in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. We cannot confirm the positive results of the first propensity-matched cohort study on this topic. This trial is registered with NCT05158816.

Observations of nemaline bodies in muscle biopsies of critically ill patients infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) who have been admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) often face months of physical disability after discharge. To optimize recovery, it is important to understand the role of musculoskeletal alterations in critically ill patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. The main aim of the present study was to describe the presence and morphology of nemaline bodies found in the skeletal muscle tissue from critically ill patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. In n = 7 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, ultrastructural characteristics of vastus lateralis muscle obtained on days 1-3 and days 5-8 following ICU admission were investigated in more detail with electron microscopy. Those muscle biopsies consistently showed variable degrees of myofiber necrosis and myofibrillar disorganization. In 4/7 (57%) patients on days 5-8, the Z-line material accumulated into nemaline bodies with a typical lattice-like appearance at higher magnification, similar to that found in nemaline myopathy. This study is the first to describe the disintegration of myofibrils and the accumulation of Z-line material into nemaline bodies in the skeletal muscle tissue obtained from critically ill coronavirus disease-19 patients following ICU admission, which should be interpreted primarily as a non-specific pathological response of extreme myofibrillar disintegration associated with myofiber necrosis.

Predictors of poor outcome in critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to identify risk factors associated with ICU mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia treated with Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). We also aimed to assess protocol violations of the local eligibility criteria of ECMO initiation. METHODS: All 31 consecutive adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to ICU and treated with ECMO from March 13th 2020 to 8 December 2021 were enrolled. Eligibility criteria for ECMO initiation were: P/F-ratio<50 mmHg >3 hours, P/F-ratio<80 mmHg >6 hours or pH<7.25 + PaCO2>60 mmHg >6 hours, despite maximal protective invasive ventilation. Primary outcome was ICU mortality. Univariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of ICU mortality. RESULTS: 12 out of 31 patients (38.7%) did not survive ECMO treatment in ICU. Half of the non-survivors suffered from acute kidney failure compared to 3 out of 19 survivors (15.79%) (p = .04). Half of the non-survivors required CRRT treatment versus 1 patient in the survivor group (5.3%) (p < .01). Higher age (2.45 (0.97-6.18), p = .05), the development of AKI (5.33 (1.00-28.43), p = .05), need of CRRT during ICU stay (18.00 (1.79-181.31), p = .01) and major bleeding during ECMO therapy (0.51 (0.19-0.89), p < .01) were identified to be predictors of ICU mortality. CONCLUSION: Almost 60% of patients could be treated successfully with ECMO with sustained results at 3 months. Predictors for ICU mortality were development of AKI and need of CRRT during ICU stay, higher age category and major bleeding. Inadvertent ECMO allocation was noted in almost one in five patients.

Impact of tight blood glucose control within normal fasting ranges with insulin titration prescribed by the Leuven algorithm in adult critically ill patients: the TGC-fast randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: It remains controversial whether critical illness-related hyperglycemia should be treated or not, since randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown context-dependent outcome effects. Whereas pioneer RCTs found improved outcome by normalizing blood glucose in patients receiving early parenteral nutrition (PN), a multicenter RCT revealed increased mortality in patients not receiving early PN. Although withholding early PN has become the feeding standard, the multicenter RCT showing harm by tight glucose control in this context has been criticized for its potentially unreliable glucose control protocol. We hypothesize that tight glucose control is effective and safe using a validated protocol in adult critically ill patients not receiving early PN. METHODS: The TGC-fast study is an investigator-initiated, multicenter RCT. Patients unable to eat, with need for arterial and central venous line and without therapy restriction, are randomized upon ICU admission to tight (80-110 mg/dl) or liberal glucose control (only initiating insulin when hyperglycemia >215 mg/dl, and then targeting 180-215 mg/dl). Glucose measurements are performed on arterial blood by a blood gas analyzer, and if needed, insulin is only administered continuously through a central venous line. If the arterial line is no longer needed, glucose is measured on capillary blood. In the intervention group, tight control is guided by the validated LOGIC-Insulin software. In the control arm, a software alert is used to maximize protocol compliance. The intervention is continued until ICU discharge, until the patient is able to eat or no longer in need of a central venous line, whatever comes first. The study is powered to detect, with at least 80% power and a 5% alpha error rate, a 1-day difference in ICU dependency (primary endpoint), and a 1.5% increase in hospital mortality (safety endpoint), for which 9230 patients need to be included. Secondary endpoints include acute and long-term morbidity and mortality, and healthcare costs. Biological samples are collected to study potential mechanisms of organ protection. DISCUSSION: The ideal glucose target for critically ill patients remains debated. The trial will inform physicians on the optimal glucose control strategy in adult critically ill patients not receiving early PN. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03665207. Registered on 11 September 2018.

Acute kidney injury in critical COVID-19: a multicenter cohort analysis in seven large hospitals in Belgium.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) has been reported as a frequent complication of critical COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the occurrence of AKI and use of kidney replacement therapy (KRT) in critical COVID-19, to assess patient and kidney outcomes and risk factors for AKI and differences in outcome when the diagnosis of AKI is based on urine output (UO) or on serum creatinine (sCr). METHODS: Multicenter, retrospective cohort analysis of patients with critical COVID-19 in seven large hospitals in Belgium. AKI was defined according to KDIGO within 21 days after ICU admission. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to explore the risk factors for developing AKI and to assess the association between AKI and ICU mortality. RESULTS: Of 1286 patients, 85.1% had AKI, and KRT was used in 9.8%. Older age, obesity, a higher APACHE II score and use of mechanical ventilation at day 1 of ICU stay were associated with an increased risk for AKI. After multivariable adjustment, all AKI stages were associated with ICU mortality. AKI was based on sCr in 40.1% and UO in 81.5% of patients. All AKI stages based on sCr and AKI stage 3 based on UO were associated with ICU mortality. Persistent AKI was present in 88.6% and acute kidney disease (AKD) in 87.6%. Rapid reversal of AKI yielded a better prognosis compared to persistent AKI and AKD. Kidney recovery was observed in 47.4% of surviving AKI patients. CONCLUSIONS: Over 80% of critically ill COVID-19 patients had AKI. This was driven by the high occurrence rate of AKI defined by UO criteria. All AKI stages were associated with mortality (NCT04997915).

Predictive value of serial evaluation of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score for intensive care unit mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score has been developed to score the severity of organ dysfunction in critically ill sepsis patients and has been proven to have a high predictive value for intensive care unit (ICU) mortality in severely ill patients. Our goal was to evaluate the prognostic value of the SOFA score as well as trends in SOFA score for ICU mortality in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: All consecutive patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to the ICU between March 13th, 2020, and October 17th, 2020 were included in this retrospective cohort study. The worst SOFA score was evaluated daily. Multiple logistic regression models were used to evaluate the predictive value of SOFA in ICU mortality. RESULTS: 103 patients were included in this study. 30 patients (29%) died during their ICU stay and 73 (71%) patients were discharged alive. The ICU admission SOFA score was 5.2 ± 3.3 in ICU non-survivors vs. 4.3 ± 2.9 in ICU survivors (P = 0.15). The maximum SOFA score in ICU non-survivors was 11.7 ± 4.7 vs. 7.4 ± 4.3 in ICU survivors. SOFA scores increased the first week in both survivors and non-survivors, but the increase was less pronounced in survivors. In the multiple logistic regression models, neither admission SOFA score nor combination with delta SOFA in the first 48 hours was statistically significantly related to ICU mortality. Only the maximum SOFA score remained significant (OR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.11-1.37, P < 0.001) in the multiple logistic models with an AUC of 0.91. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of SOFA scores in the first 48 hours after ICU admission is not a good prognostic indicator in COVID-19 patients. Only the maximum SOFA score was predictive for ICU mortality.

Secondary infection in COVID-19 critically ill patients: a retrospective single-center evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) can develop severe illness necessitating intensive care admission. Critically ill patients are susceptible for the development of secondary bacterial infections. Due to a combination of virus- and drug-induced immunosuppression, critically ill patients with corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may even have a higher risk of developing a secondary infection. These secondary infections can aggravate the severity of illness and increase the risk of death. Further research on secondary infections in COVID-19 patients is essential. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate the incidence and associated risk factors of secondary bacterial infections and to identify the most common groups of pathogens in critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This mono-center, retrospective observational cohort study was performed at the intensive care unit (ICU) of the Jessa Hospital, Hasselt, Belgium. All adult COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU from 13th March 2020 until 17th October 2020, were eligible for inclusion in the study. Data from the resulting 116 patients were prospectively entered into a customized database. The resulting database was retrospectively reviewed to investigate three types of secondary bacterial infections (secondary pneumonia, bloodstream infections of unknown origin, catheter-related sepsis). RESULTS: Of 94 included patients, 68% acquired at least one of the studied secondary bacterial infections during their ICU stay. Almost two thirds of patients (65.96%, n = 62) acquired a secondary pneumonia, whereas 29.79% (n = 28) acquired a bacteremia of unknown origin and a smaller proportion of patients (14.89%, n = 14) acquired a catheter-related sepsis. Male gender (P = 0.05), diabetes mellitus (P = 0.03) and the cumulative dose of corticosteroids (P = 0.004) were associated with increased risk of secondary bacterial infection. The most common pathogens detected in the cultures of patients with secondary pneumonia were Gram-negative bacilli. Bacteremia of unknown origin and catheter-related sepsis were mostly caused by Gram-positive cocci. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that the incidence of secondary bacterial infections is very high in critically ill COVID-19 patients. These patients are at highest risk of developing secondary pneumonia. Male gender, a history of diabetes mellitus and the administration of corticosteroids were associated with increased risk of secondary bacterial infection.

Studying the clinical, radiological, histological, microbiological, and immunological evolution during the different COVID-19 disease stages using minimal invasive autopsy.

The WHO defines different COVID-19 disease stages in which the pathophysiological mechanisms differ. We evaluated the characteristics of these COVID-19 disease stages. Forty-four PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients were included in a prospective minimal invasive autopsy cohort. Patients were classified into mild-moderate (n = 4), severe-critical (n = 32) and post-acute disease (n = 8) and clinical, radiological, histological, microbiological and immunological data were compared. Classified according to Thoracic Society of America, patients with mild-moderate disease had no typical COVID-19 images on CT-Thorax versus 71.9% with typical images in severe-critical disease and 87.5% in post-acute disease (P < 0.001). Diffuse alveolar damage was absent in mild-moderate disease but present in 93.8% and 87.5% of patients with severe-critical and post-acute COVID-19 respectively (P = 0.002). Other organs with COVID-19 related histopathological changes were liver and heart. Interferon-γ levels were significantly higher in patients with severe-critical COVID-19 (P = 0.046). Anti-SARS CoV-2 IgG was positive in 66%, 40.6% and 87.5% of patients with mild-moderate, severe-critical and post-acute COVID-19 respectively (n.s.). Significant differences in histopathological and immunological characteristics between patients with mild-moderate disease compared to patients with severe-critical disease were found, whereas differences between patients with severe-critical disease and post-acute disease were limited. This emphasizes the need for tailored treatment of COVID-19 patients.

C-reactive protein rise in response to macronutrient deficit early in critical illness: sign of inflammation or mediator of infection prevention and recovery.

PURPOSE: Withholding parenteral nutrition (PN) early in critical illness, late-PN, has shown to prevent infections despite a higher peak C-reactive protein (CRP). We investigated whether the accentuated CRP rise was caused by a systemic inflammatory effect mediated by cytokines or arose as a consequence of the different feeding regimens, and whether it related to improved outcome with late-PN. METHODS: This secondary analysis of the EPaNIC-RCT first investigated, with multivariable linear regression analyses, determinants of late-PN-induced CRP rise and its association with cytokine responses (IL-6, IL-10, TNF-α) in matched early-PN and late-PN patients requiring intensive care for ≥ 3 days. Secondly, with multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional-hazard analyses, we investigated whether late-PN-induced CRP rises mediated infection prevention and enhanced recovery or reflected an adverse effect counteracting such benefits of late-PN. RESULTS: CRP peaked on day 3, higher with late-PN [216(152-274)mg/l] (n = 946) than with early-PN [181(122-239)mg/l] (n = 946) (p < 0.0001). Independent determinants of higher CRP rise were lower carbohydrate and protein intakes (p ≤ 0.04) with late-PN, besides higher blood glucose and serum insulin concentrations (p ≤ 0.01). Late-PN did not affect cytokines. Higher CRP rises were independently associated with more infections and lower likelihood of early ICU discharge (p ≤ 0.002), and the effect size of late-PN versus early-PN on these outcomes was increased rather than reduced after adjusting for CRP rise, not confirming a mediating role. CONCLUSIONS: The higher CRP rise with late-PN, explained by the early macronutrient deficits, did not relate to cytokine responses and thus did not reflect more systemic inflammation. Instead of mediating clinical benefit on infection or recovery, the accentuated CRP rise appeared an adverse effect reducing such late-PN benefits.

Validation of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and IV Score in COVID-19 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Severity scoring systems are inherent to ICU practice for multiple purposes. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) scoring systems are designed for ICU mortality prediction. This study aims to validate APACHE IV in COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. METHODS: All COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU between March 13, 2020, and October 17, 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. APACHE II and APACHE IV scores as well as SOFA scores were calculated within 24 hours after admission. Discrimination for mortality of all three scoring systems was assessed by receiver operating characteristic curves. Youden index was determined for the scoring system with the best discriminative performance. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test was used to assess calibration. All analyses were performed for both the overall population as in a subgroup treated with anti-Xa adjusted dosages of LMWHs. RESULTS: 116 patients were admitted to our ICU during the study period. 13 were excluded for various reasons, leaving 103 patients in the statistical analysis of the overall population. 57 patients were treated with anti-Xa adjusted prophylactic dosages of LMWH and were supplementary analyzed in a subgroup analysis. APACHE IV had the best discriminative power of the three scoring systems, both in the overall population (APACHE IV ROC AUC 0.67 vs. APACHE II ROC AUC 0.63) as in the subgroup (APACHE IV ROC AUC 0.82 vs. APACHE II ROC AUC 0.7). This model exhibits good calibration. Hosmer-Lemeshow p values for APACHE IV were 0.9234 for the overall population and 0.8017 for the subgroup. Calibration p values of the APACHE II score were 0.1394 and 0.6475 for the overall versus subgroup, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: APACHE IV provided the best discrimination and calibration of the considered scoring systems in critically ill COVID-19 patients, both in the overall group and in the subgroup with anti-Xa adjusted LMWH doses. Only in the subgroup analysis, discriminative abilities of APACHE IV were very good. This trial is registered with NCT04713852.

Risk factors for mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 at the start of the pandemic in Belgium: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Belgium was among the first countries in Europe with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. Since the first diagnosis on February 3rd, the epidemic has quickly evolved, with Belgium at the crossroads of Europe, being one of the hardest hit countries. Although risk factors for severe disease in COVID-19 patients have been described in Chinese and United States (US) cohorts, good quality studies reporting on clinical characteristics, risk factors and outcome of European COVID-19 patients are still scarce. METHODS: This study describes the clinical characteristics, complications and outcomes of 319 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, admitted to a tertiary care center at the start of the pandemic in Belgium, and aims to identify the main risk factors for in-hospital mortality in a European context using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Most patients were male (60%), the median age was 74 (IQR 61-83) and 20% of patients were admitted to the intensive care unit, of whom 63% needed invasive mechanical ventilation. The overall case fatality rate was 25%. The best predictors of in-hospital mortality in multivariate analysis were older age, and renal insufficiency, higher lactate dehydrogenase and thrombocytopenia. Patients admitted early in the epidemic had a higher mortality compared to patients admitted later in the epidemic. In univariate analysis, patients with obesity did have an overall increased risk of death, while overweight on the other hand showed a trend towards lower mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during the first weeks of the epidemic in Belgium were admitted with severe disease and the overall case fatality rate was high. The identified risk factors for mortality are not easily amenable at short term, underscoring the lasting need of effective therapeutic and preventative measures.

The clinical value of minimal invasive autopsy in COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive autopsy (MIA) is a validated and safe method to establish the cause of death (COD), mainly in low-resource settings. However, the additional clinical value of MIA in Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients in a high-resource setting is unknown. The objective was to assess if and how MIA changed clinical COD and contributing diagnoses in deceased COVID-19 patients. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A prospective observational cohort from April to May 2020 in a 981-bed teaching hospital in the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium was established. Patients who died with either PCR-confirmed or radiologically confirmed COVID-19 infection were consecutively included. MIA consisted of whole-body CT and CT-guided Tru-Cut® biopsies. Diagnostic modalities were clinical chart review, radiology, microbiology, and histopathology which were assessed by two independent experts per modality. MIA COD and contributing diagnoses were established during a multi-disciplinary meeting. Clinical COD (CCOD) and contributing diagnosis were abstracted from the discharge letter. The main outcomes were alterations in CCOD and contributing diagnoses after MIA, and the contribution of each diagnostic modality. We included 18 patients, of which 7 after intensive care unit hospitalization. MIA led to an alteration in 15/18 (83%) patients. The CCOD was altered in 5/18 (28%) patients. MIA found a new COD (1/5), a more specific COD (1/5), a less certain COD (1/5), or a contributing diagnosis to be the COD (2/5). Contributing diagnoses were altered in 14/18 (78%) patients: 9 new diagnoses, 5 diagnoses dismissed, 3 made more specific, and 2 made less certain. Overall, histopathology contributed in 14/15 (93%) patients with alterations, radiology and microbiology each in 6/15 (40%), and clinical review in 3/15 (20%). Histopathology was deemed the most important modality in 10 patients, radiology in two patients, and microbiology in one patient. CONCLUSION: MIA, especially histological examination, can add valuable new clinical information regarding the cause of death in COVID-19 patients, even in a high-resource setting with wide access to premortem diagnostic modalities. MIA may provide important clinical insights and should be applied in the current ongoing pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04366882.

Impact of implementation of an individualised thromboprophylaxis protocol in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19: A longitudinal controlled before-after study.

INTRODUCTION: An individualised thromboprophylaxis was implemented in critically ill patients suffering from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia to reduce mortality and improve clinical outcome. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of this intervention on clinical outcome. METHODS: In this mono-centric, controlled, before-after study, all consecutive adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to ICU from March 13th to April 20th 2020 were included. A thromboprophylaxis protocol, including augmented LMWH dosing, individually tailored with anti-Xa measurements and twice-weekly ultrasonography screening for DVT, was implemented on March 31th 2020. Primary endpoint is one-month mortality. Secondary outcomes include two-week and three-week mortality, the incidence of VTE, acute kidney injury and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). Multiple regression modelling was used to correct for differences between the two groups. RESULTS: 46 patients were included in the before group, 26 patients in the after group. One month mortality decreased from 39.13% to 3.85% (p < 0.001). After correction for confounding variables, one-month mortality was significantly higher in the before group (p = 0.02, OR 8.86 (1.46, 53.75)). The cumulative incidence of VTE and CRRT was respectively 41% and 30.4% in the before group and dropped to 15% (p = 0.03) and 3.8% (p = 0.01), respectively. After correction for confounding variables, risk of VTE (p = 0.03, 6.01 (1.13, 32.12)) and CRRT (p = 0.02, OR 19.21 (1.44, 255.86)) remained significantly higher in the before group. CONCLUSION: Mortality, cumulative risk of VTE and need for CRRT may be significantly reduced in COVID-19 patients by implementation of a more aggressive thromboprophylaxis protocol. Future research should focus on confirmation of these results in a randomized design and on uncovering the mechanisms underlying these observations. REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04394000.

Psychometric properties of the intensive care delirium screening checklist when used by bedside nurses in clinical practice: a prospective descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: The Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) demonstrates good psychometric characteristics in research settings. However, evidence about these characteristics in pragmatic ICU settings is inconsistent. This study evaluated psychometric properties and user-friendliness of the ICDSC when administered by ICU nurses in daily practice. METHODS: This prospective study included 77 patients from a surgical intensive care unit. To examine the psychometric characteristics, the scores on the ICDSC (performed by bedside nurses) were compared with the scores on the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) (performed by researchers as gold standard). The user-friendliness was evaluated by 34 ICU nurses with a 20-item questionnaire. RESULTS: The ICDSC had an area under the curve of 0.843. It showed a good diagnostic accuracy with a sensitivity of 81.0%, a specificity of 87.7%, and a 53.1% positive and 96.4% negative predictive value. The overall Cronbach's alpha coefficient for all ICDSC scores was high (0.839). Overall, ICU nurses experienced the ICDSC as easy-to-use. The scale was usable in most surgical ICU patients. Yet, some nurses (11.8%) had problems to score the items 'inappropriate speech' and 'symptom fluctuation' in intubated patients. CONCLUSIONS: The ICDSC is a valid and user-friendly tool for delirium screening in daily ICU nursing practice. Yet, some problems were reported in intubated patients. Therefore, validation studies with specific focus on intubated patients are needed.

Five-year mortality and morbidity impact of prolonged versus brief ICU stay: a propensity score matched cohort study.

PURPOSE: Long-term outcomes of critical illness may be affected by duration of critical illness and intensive care. We aimed to investigate differences in mortality and morbidity after short (<8 days) and prolonged (≥8 days) intensive care unit (ICU) stay. METHODS: Former EPaNIC-trial patients were included in this preplanned prospective cohort, 5-year follow-up study. Mortality was assessed in all. For morbidity analyses, all long-stay and-for feasibility-a random sample (30%) of short-stay survivors were contacted. Primary outcomes were total and post-28-day 5-year mortality. Secondary outcomes comprised handgrip strength (HGF, %pred), 6-minute-walking distance (6MWD, %pred) and SF-36 Physical Function score (PF SF-36). One-to-one propensity-score matching of short-stay and long-stay patients was performed for nutritional strategy, demographics, comorbidities, illness severity and admission diagnosis. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to explore ICU factors possibly explaining any post-ICU observed outcome differences. RESULTS: After matching, total and post-28-day 5-year mortality were higher for long-stayers (48.2% (95%CI: 43.9% to 52.6%) and 40.8% (95%CI: 36.4% to 45.1%)) versus short-stayers (36.2% (95%CI: 32.4% to 40.0%) and 29.7% (95%CI: 26.0% to 33.5%), p<0.001). ICU risk factors comprised hypoglycaemia, use of corticosteroids, neuromuscular blocking agents, benzodiazepines, mechanical ventilation, new dialysis and the occurrence of new infection, whereas clonidine could be protective. Among 276 long-stay and 398 short-stay 5-year survivors, HGF, 6MWD and PF SF-36 were significantly lower in long-stayers (matched subset HGF: 83% (95%CI: 60% to 100%) versus 87% (95%CI: 73% to 103%), p=0.020; 6MWD: 85% (95%CI: 69% to 101%) versus 94% (95%CI: 76% to 105%), p=0.005; PF SF-36: 65 (95%CI: 35 to 90) versus 75 (95%CI: 55 to 90), p=0.002). CONCLUSION: Longer duration of intensive care is associated with excess 5-year mortality and morbidity, partially explained by potentially modifiable ICU factors. TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00512122.

The analgesic efficacy of intravenous regional anesthesia with a forearm versus conventional upper arm tourniquet: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The main objective of this review is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing evidence related to the analgesic efficacy with the use of conventional, upper arm intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA) as compared to a modified, forearm IVRA in adult patients undergoing procedures on the distal upper extremity. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL (Cochrane) databases were searched for randomized controlled trials published in English, French, Dutch, German or Spanish language. Primary outcomes of interest including description of quality level of anesthesia and onset of sensory block were assessed for this review. Dosage of the local anesthetic, local anesthetic toxicity and need for sedation due to tourniquet pain were considered as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Our literature search yielded 3 papers for qualitative synthesis. Four other articles were added into a parallel analysis of 7 reports that provided data on the incidence of complications and success rate after forearm IVRA. Forearm IVRA was found to be as efficient as upper arm IVRA (RR = 0.98 [0.93, 1.05], P = 0.78), but comes with the advantage of a lower need for sedation due to less tourniquet pain. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that forearm IVRA is as effective in providing a surgical block as compared to a conventional upper arm IVRA, even with a reduced, non-toxic dosage of local anesthetic. No severe complications were associated with the use of a forearm IVRA. Other benefits of the modified technique include a faster onset of sensory block, better tourniquet tolerance and a dryer surgical field. REGISTRATION OF THE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW: A review protocol was published in the PROSPERO register in November 2015 with registration number CRD42015029536 .