Sublingual microcirculation does not reflect red blood cell transfusion thresholds in the intensive care unit-a prospective observational study in the intensive care unit.

PURPOSE: Hemoglobin (Hb) transfusion thresholds are established in intensive care units. A restrictive transfusion threshold (Hb 70-75 g/l) is recommended in septic patients, and a liberal transfusion threshold (Hb 90 g/l) for cardiogenic shock. It is unclear whether these historically adopted transfusion thresholds meet the challenges of individual patients. METHODS: We evaluated microvascular flow index (MFI) and proportion of perfused vessels (PPV) in the sublingual microcirculation with CytoCam-IDF microscopy and near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS). A study team-independent, treating intensivist assigned a total of 64 patients to 1 of 2 two transfusion thresholds, 43 patients to the Hb 75 g/l threshold and 21 patients to the Hb 90 g/l threshold, at a surgical intensive care unit. We performed microcirculatory measurements 1 h before and 1 h after transfusion of 1 unit of red blood cells. RESULTS: Microcirculatory flow variables correlated negatively with pre-transfusion flow variables (ΔMFI: ρ = - 0.821, p <  0.001; ΔPPV: ρ = - 0.778, p <  0.001). Patients with good initial microcirculation (cutoffs: MFI > 2.84, PPV > 88%) showed a deteriorated microcirculation after red blood cell transfusion. An impaired microcirculation improved after transfusion. At both transfusion thresholds, approximately one third of the patients showed an initially impaired microcirculation. In contrast, one third in every group had good microcirculation above the cutoff variables and did not profit from the transfusion. CONCLUSION: The data suggest that the established transfusion thresholds and other hemodynamic variables do not reflect microcirculatory perfusion of patients. Blood transfusion at both thresholds 75 g/l and 90 g/l hemoglobin can either improve or harm the microcirculatory blood flow, questioning the concept of arbitrary transfusion thresholds.

Dexmedetomidine in prevention and treatment of postoperative and intensive care unit delirium: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To determine the preventive and therapeutic effect of dexmedetomidine on intensive care unit (ICU) delirium. METHODS: The literature search using PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed (August 1, 2018) to detect all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult ICU patients receiving dexmedetomidine. Articles were included if they assessed the influence of dexmedetomidine compared to a sedative agent on incidence of ICU delirium or treatment of this syndrome. Accordingly, relevant articles were allocated to the following two groups: (1) articles that assessed the delirium incidence (incidence comparison) or articles that assessed the treatment of delirium (treatment comparison). Incidence of delirium and delirium resolution were the primary outcomes. We combined treatment effects comparing dexmedetomidine versus (1) placebo, (2) standard sedatives, and (3) opioids in random-effects meta-analyses. Risk of bias for each included RCT was assessed following Cochrane standards. RESULTS: The literature search resulted in 28 articles (25 articles/4975 patients for the incidence comparison and three articles/166 patients for the treatment comparison). In the incidence comparison, heterogeneity was present in different subgroups. Administration of dexmedetomidine was associated with significantly lower overall incidence of delirium when compared to placebo (RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.39-0.70; I2 = 37%), standard sedatives (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.46-0.86; I2 = 69%), as well as to opioids (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.44-0.83; I2 = 0%). Use of dexmedetomidine significantly increased the risks of bradycardia and hypotension. Limited data were available on circulatory insufficiency and mortality. In the treatment comparison, the comparison drugs in the three RCTs were placebo, midazolam, and haloperidol. The resolution of delirium was measured differently in each study. Two out of the three studies indicated clear favorable effects for dexmedetomidine (i.e., compared to placebo and midazolam). The study comparing dexmedetomidine with haloperidol was a pilot study (n = 20) with high variability in the results. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that dexmedetomidine reduces incidence and duration of ICU delirium. Furthermore, our systematic searches show that there is limited evidence if a delirium shall be treated with dexmedetomidine.