Efficacy and Outcomes After Vasopressin Guideline Implementation in Septic Shock.

BACKGROUND: In septic shock, the dose of norepinephrine (NE) at which vasopressin (AVP) should be added is unknown. Following an increase in AVP price, our medical intensive care unit (MICU) revised its vasopressor guidelines to reserve AVP for patients requiring greater than 50 µg/min of NE. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare efficacy and safety outcomes for patients admitted before the guideline revision with those for patients admitted after the revision. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to Vanderbilt University Medical Center from November 1, 2014, to November 30, 2015. Before June 1, 2015, the vasopressor guidelines recommended initiation of AVP for patients requiring 10 µg/min of NE or greater. After June 1, 2015, the guidelines recommended initiation of AVP at a NE dose of 50 µg/min or greater. RESULTS: Time to achieve goal mean arterial pressure (MAP) was shorter in the postintervention group (2.0 vs 1.3 hours; P = 0.03) in univariate analysis but not after adjusting for prespecified confounders. Incidence of new arrhythmias was similar between the 2 groups (14.9% vs 10.9%; P = 0.567). In multivariable analysis accounting for baseline severity of illness, admission after the revision was associated with decreased 28-day mortality (odds ratio = 0.34; 95% CI = 0.16-0.71; P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Use of a vasopressor guideline restricting AVP initiation in septic patients to those on at least 50 µg/min of NE appeared to be safe and did not affect the time to reach goal MAP.

Impact of Initial Central Venous Pressure on Outcomes of Conservative Versus Liberal Fluid Management in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: In acute respiratory distress syndrome, conservative fluid management increases ventilator-free days without affecting mortality. Response to fluid management may differ based on patients' initial central venous pressure. We hypothesized that initial central venous pressure would modify the effect of fluid management on outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of the Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial, a multicenter randomized trial comparing conservative with liberal fluid management in acute respiratory distress syndrome. We examined the relationship between initial central venous pressure, fluid strategy, and 60-day mortality in univariate and multivariable analysis. SETTING: Twenty acute care hospitals. PATIENTS: Nine hundred thirty-four ventilated acute respiratory distress syndrome patients with a central venous pressure available at enrollment, 609 without baseline shock (for whom fluid balance was managed by the study protocol). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among patients without baseline shock, those with initial central venous pressure greater than 8 mm Hg experienced similar mortality with conservative and liberal fluid management (18% vs 18%; p = 0.928), whereas those with central venous pressure of 8 mm Hg or less experienced lower mortality with a conservative strategy (17% vs 36%; p = 0.005). Multivariable analysis demonstrated an interaction between initial central venous pressure and the effect of fluid strategy on mortality (p = 0.031). At higher initial central venous pressures, the difference in treatment between arms was predominantly furosemide administration, which was not associated with mortality (p = 0.122). At lower initial central venous pressures, the difference between arms was predominantly fluid administration, with additional fluid associated with increased mortality (p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Conservative fluid management decreases mortality for acute respiratory distress syndrome patients with a low initial central venous pressure. In this population, the administration of IV fluids seems to increase mortality.

Medication Desensitization: Characterization of Outcomes and Risk Factors for Reactions.

BACKGROUND: Although its mechanisms are poorly understood, desensitization has been used to induce a temporary state of immune unresponsiveness in patients who have IgE-, non-IgE-, or pharmacologically mediated reactions when a drug has no alternatives. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to characterize the outcomes and identify risk factors for reactions during drug desensitization. METHODS: A retrospective review of electronic medical records of adult patients undergoing drug desensitization from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2013, was conducted in 2 intensive care units at a tertiary medical center. We used multivariate analysis to determine if specified risk factors were associated with reacting during the desensitization. Reactions were classified according to the pretest probability prior to desensitization, and then, reactions during desensitization were classified based on the occurrence of cutaneous reactions as follows: successful with no reaction, mild reaction, moderate reaction, or failed. Failure could result from any systemic allergic or cutaneous reaction resulting in procedure termination. The desensitizations were also assessed to determine if the patient required de-escalation secondary to a reaction. RESULTS: A total of 88 desensitizations were performed in 69 patients. Desensitization was completed with no cutaneous reaction in 85% of patients. No baseline characteristic, medication class (P = 0.46), or indication for desensitization (P = 0.59) was associated with having a reaction. Reported histories of urticaria (P < 0.0001) and labored breathing (P = 0.003) during prior exposure were significant in identifying patients who might have a reaction during desensitization. However, neither history of urticaria nor labored breathing was independently associated with having a reaction in multivariate analysis (OR = 0.979, 95% CI = 0.325-2.952, P = 0.970, and OR = 1.626, 95% CI = 0.536-4.931, P = 0.739, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Drug desensitization is safe for patients who have no alternative for therapy. Reported allergy histories of urticaria and labored breathing are both associated with having a reaction during the desensitization process.

An Electronic Tool for the Evaluation and Treatment of Sepsis in the ICU: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether addition of an electronic sepsis evaluation and management tool to electronic sepsis alerting improves compliance with treatment guidelines and clinical outcomes in septic ICU patients. DESIGN: A pragmatic randomized trial. SETTING: Medical and surgical ICUs of an academic, tertiary care medical center. PATIENTS: Four hundred and seven patients admitted during a 4-month period to the medical or surgical ICU with a diagnosis of sepsis established at the time of admission or in response to an electronic sepsis alert. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to usual care or the availability of an electronic tool capable of importing, synthesizing, and displaying sepsis-related data from the medical record, using logic rules to offer individualized evaluations of sepsis severity and response to therapy, informing users about evidence-based guidelines, and facilitating rapid order entry. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There was no difference between the electronic tool (218 patients) and usual care (189 patients) with regard to the primary outcome of time to completion of all indicated Surviving Sepsis Campaign 6-hour Sepsis Resuscitation Bundle elements (hazard ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 0.75-5.20; p = 0.159) or time to completion of each element individually. ICU mortality, ICU-free days, and ventilator-free days did not differ between intervention and control. Providers used the tool to enter orders in only 28% of available cases. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive electronic sepsis evaluation and management tool is feasible and safe but did not influence guideline compliance or clinical outcomes, perhaps due to low utilization.

Pharmacist leadership in ICU quality improvement: coordinating spontaneous awakening and breathing trials.

BACKGROUND: Coordinating efforts across disciplines in the intensive care unit is a key component of quality improvement (QI) efforts. Spontaneous awakening trials (SATs) and spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs) are considered key components of guidelines, yet unfortunately are often not done or coordinated properly. OBJECTIVE: To determine if a pharmacist-driven awakening and breathing coordination (ABC) QI program would improve compliance (ie, process measures) as compared with the previous protocol, which did not involve pharmacists. METHODS: The QI program included pharmacist-led education, daily discussion on rounds, and weekly performance reports to staff. Using a pre-QI versus during-QI versus post-QI intervention design, we compared data from 500 control ventilator-days (pre-QI period) versus 580 prospective ventilator-days (during-QI period). We then evaluated the sustainability of the QI program in 216 ventilator-days in the post-QI period. RESULTS: SAT safety screens were performed on only 20% pre-QI patient-days versus 97% of during-QI patient-days (P < 0.001) and 100% of post-QI patient-days (P = 0.25). The rates of passing the SAT safety screen in pre-QI and during-QI periods were 63% versus 78% (P = 0.03) and 81% in the post-QI period (P = 0.86). The rates of SATs among eligible patients on continuous infusions were only 53% in the pre-QI versus 85% in the during-QI (P = 0.0001) and 87% in the post-QI (P = 1) periods. CONCLUSIONS: In this QI initiative, a pharmacist-driven, interdisciplinary ABC protocol significantly improved process measures compliance, comparing the pre-QI versus during-QI rates of screening, performing, and coordinating SAT and SBTs, and these results were sustained in the 8-month follow-up period post-QI program.

Chlorhexidine bathing and health care-associated infections: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Daily bathing of critically ill patients with the broad-spectrum, topical antimicrobial agent chlorhexidine is widely performed and may reduce health care-associated infections. OBJECTIVE: To determine if daily bathing of critically ill patients with chlorhexidine decreases the incidence of health care-associated infections. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A pragmatic cluster randomized, crossover study of 9340 patients admitted to 5 adult intensive care units of a tertiary medical center in Nashville, Tennessee, from July 2012 through July 2013. INTERVENTIONS: Units performed once-daily bathing of all patients with disposable cloths impregnated with 2% chlorhexidine or nonantimicrobial cloths as a control. Bathing treatments were performed for a 10-week period followed by a 2-week washout period during which patients were bathed with nonantimicrobial disposable cloths, before crossover to the alternate bathing treatment for 10 weeks. Each unit crossed over between bathing assignments 3 times during the study. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary prespecified outcome was a composite of central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs), catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs), ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), and Clostridium difficile infections. Secondary outcomes included rates of clinical cultures that tested positive for multidrug-resistant organisms, blood culture contamination, health care-associated bloodstream infections, and rates of the primary outcome by ICU. RESULTS: During the chlorhexidine bathing period, 55 infections occurred: 4 CLABSI, 21 CAUTI, 17 VAP, and 13 C difficile. During the control bathing period, 60 infections occurred: 4 CLABSI, 32 CAUTI, 8 VAP, and 16 C difficile. The primary outcome rate was 2.86 per 1000 patient-days during the chlorhexidine and 2.90 per 1000 patient-days during the control bathing periods (rate difference, -0.04; 95% CI, -1.10 to 1.01; P = .95). After adjusting for baseline variables, no difference between groups in the rate of the primary outcome was detected. Chlorhexidine bathing did not change rates of infection-related secondary outcomes including hospital-acquired bloodstream infections, blood culture contamination, or clinical cultures yielding multidrug-resistant organisms. In a prespecified subgroup analysis, no difference in the primary outcome was detected in any individual intensive care unit. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: In this pragmatic trial, daily bathing with chlorhexidine did not reduce the incidence of health care-associated infections including CLABSIs, CAUTIs, VAP, or C difficile. These findings do not support daily bathing of critically ill patients with chlorhexidine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02033187.

Low plasma citrulline levels are associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome in patients with severe sepsis.

INTRODUCTION: The role of nitric oxide synthase (NOS) in the pathophysiology of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is not well understood. Inducible NOS is upregulated during physiologic stress; however, if NOS substrate is insufficient then NOS can uncouple and switch from NO generation to production of damaging peroxynitrites. We hypothesized that NOS substrate levels are low in patients with severe sepsis and that low levels of the NOS substrate citrulline would be associated with end organ damage including ARDS in severe sepsis. METHODS: Plasma citrulline, arginine and ornithine levels and nitrate/nitrite were measured at baseline in 135 patients with severe sepsis. ARDS was diagnosed by consensus definitions. RESULTS: Plasma citrulline levels were below normal in all patients (median 9.2 uM, IQR 5.2 - 14.4) and were significantly lower in ARDS compared to the no ARDS group (6.0 (3.3 - 10.4) vs. 10.1 (6.2 - 16.6), P = 0.002). The rate of ARDS was 50% in the lowest citrulline quartile compared to 15% in the highest citrulline quartile (P = 0.002). In multivariable analyses, citrulline levels were associated with ARDS even after adjustment for covariates including severity of illness. CONCLUSIONS: In severe sepsis, levels of the NOS substrate citrulline are low and are associated with ARDS. Low NOS substrate levels have been shown in other disease states to lead to NOS uncoupling and oxidative injury suggesting a potential mechanism for the association between low citrulline and ARDS. Further studies are needed to determine whether citrulline supplementation could prevent the development of ARDS in patients with severe sepsis and to determine its role in NOS coupling and function.

An official multi-society statement: the role of clinical research results in the practice of critical care medicine.

BACKGROUND: While the results of clinical research are clearly valuable in the care of critically ill patients, the limitations of such information and the role of other forms of medical knowledge for clinical decision making have not been carefully examined. METHODS: The leadership of three large professional societies representing critical care practitioners convened a diverse group representing a wide variety of views regarding the role of clinical research results in clinical practice to develop a document to serve as a basis for agreement and a framework for ongoing discussion. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on several issues. While the results of rigorous clinical research are important in arriving at the best course of action for an individual critically ill patient, other forms of medical knowledge, including clinical experience and pathophysiologic reasoning, remain essential. No single source of knowledge is sufficient to guide clinical decisions, nor does one kind of knowledge always take precedence over others. Clinicians will find clinical research compelling for a variety of reasons that go beyond study design. While clinical practice guidelines and protocols based upon clinical research may improve care and decrease variability in practice, clinicians must be able to understand and articulate the rationale as to why a particular protocol or guideline is used or why an alternative approach is taken. Making this clinical reasoning explicit is necessary to understand practice variability. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of different kinds of medical knowledge for clinical decision making and factors beyond study design that make clinical research compelling to clinicians can provide a framework for understanding the role of clinical research in practice.

Deviations from evidence-based clinical management guidelines increase mortality in critically injured trauma patients*.

OBJECTIVES: The effect of treatment guidelines on clinical outcomes in general and specifically for trauma patients has not been well-studied. We hypothesized that better compliance with guidelines would be associated with improved clinical outcomes. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blinded, multicentered, placebo-controlled study of recombinant factor VII in severe trauma that utilized guidelines for damage control, transfusions, and mechanical ventilation. Vanderbilt Coordinating Center reviewed compliance in near real-time and reported deviations classified as minor, moderate, or major to investigators. Multivariate regression analysis measured the association between outcomes (30-day and 90-day mortality, development of multiple organ failure, ventilator-free days, renal failure-free days, and blood products transfused) and compliance with each guideline, as well as a composite assessment of overall compliance. SETTING: One hundred hospitals in 26 countries. PATIENTS: Blunt and/or penetrating trauma patients aged 18-70 yrs who had received 4-8 units of red blood cells for active torso and/or proximal lower extremity bleeding despite standard interventions. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: When assessed as composite end point, major deviations from guidelines were associated with significantly higher mortality at 30 and 90 days after injury and fewer renal failure-free days. Moderate deviations were associated with a significantly higher risk of multiple organ failure and fewer ventilator-free days. Moderate and major deviations from damage control and ventilation guidelines were also significantly associated with higher risk of death at days 30 and 90. Within the ventilation protocol, noncompliance with tidal volume and plateau pressure targets was associated with significantly higher mortality at days 30 and 90 and fewer ventilator-free days, whereas noncompliance with weaning guideline was only associated with significantly fewer ventilator-free days. CONCLUSIONS: : In a clinical trial of trauma patients, higher compliance with guidelines for damage control, transfusion, and ventilation management is associated with lower mortality and improved outcomes.

Randomized trial of automated, electronic monitoring to facilitate early detection of sepsis in the intensive care unit*.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether automated identification with physician notification of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome in medical intensive care unit patients expedites early administration of new antibiotics or improvement of other patient outcomes in patients with sepsis. DESIGN: : A prospective randomized, controlled, single center study. SETTING: Medical intensive care unit of an academic, tertiary care medical center. PATIENTS: Four hundred forty-two consecutive patients admitted over a 4-month period who met modified systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria in a medical intensive care unit. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to monitoring by an electronic "Listening Application" to detect modified (systemic inflammatory response syndrome) criteria vs. usual care. The listening application notified physicians in real time when modified systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria were detected, but did not provide management recommendations. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The median time to new antibiotics was similar between the intervention and usual care groups when comparing among all patients (6.0 hr vs. 6.1 hr, p = .95), patients with sepsis (5.3 hr vs. 5.1 hr; p = .90), patients on antibiotics at enrollment (5.2 hr vs. 7.0 hr, p = .27), or patients not on antibiotics at enrollment (5.2 hr vs. 5.1 hr, p = .85). The amount of fluid administered following detection of modified systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria was similar between groups whether comparing all patients or only patients who were hypotensive at enrollment. Other clinical outcomes including intensive care unit length of stay, hospital length of stay, and mortality were not shown to be different between patients in the intervention and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: Realtime alerts of modified systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria to physicians in one tertiary care medical intensive care unit were feasible and safe but did not influence measured therapeutic interventions for sepsis or significantly alter clinical outcomes.

Initial trophic vs full enteral feeding in patients with acute lung injury: the EDEN randomized trial.

CONTEXT: The amount of enteral nutrition patients with acute lung injury need is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine if initial lower-volume trophic enteral feeding would increase ventilator-free days and decrease gastrointestinal intolerances compared with initial full enteral feeding. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The EDEN study, a randomized, open-label, multicenter trial conducted from January 2, 2008, through April 12, 2011. Participants were 1000 adults within 48 hours of developing acute lung injury requiring mechanical ventilation whose physicians intended to start enteral nutrition at 44 hospitals in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute ARDS Clinical Trials Network. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to receive either trophic or full enteral feeding for the first 6 days. After day 6, the care of all patients who were still receiving mechanical ventilation was managed according to the full feeding protocol. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ventilator-free days to study day 28. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between the trophic-feeding (n = 508) and full-feeding (n = 492) groups. The full-feeding group received more enteral calories for the first 6 days, about 1300 kcal/d compared with 400 kcal/d (P < .001). Initial trophic feeding did not increase the number of ventilator-free days (14.9 [95% CI, 13.9 to 15.8] vs 15.0 [95% CI, 14.1 to 15.9]; difference, -0.1 [95% CI, -1.4 to 1.2]; P = .89) or reduce 60-day mortality (23.2% [95% CI, 19.6% to 26.9%] vs 22.2% [95% CI, 18.5% to 25.8%]; difference, 1.0% [95% CI, -4.1% to 6.3%]; P = .77) compared with full feeding. There were no differences in infectious complications between the groups. Despite receiving more prokinetic agents, the full-feeding group experienced more vomiting (2.2% vs 1.7% of patient feeding days; P = .05), elevated gastric residual volumes (4.9% vs 2.2% of feeding days; P < .001), and constipation (3.1% vs 2.1% of feeding days; P = .003). Mean plasma glucose values and average hourly insulin administration were both higher in the full-feeding group over the first 6 days. CONCLUSION: In patients with acute lung injury, compared with full enteral feeding, a strategy of initial trophic enteral feeding for up to 6 days did not improve ventilator-free days, 60-day mortality, or infectious complications but was associated with less gastrointestinal intolerance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00609180 and NCT00883948.

Randomized trial of initial trophic versus full-energy enteral nutrition in mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory failure.

OBJECTIVE: Enteral nutrition is provided to mechanically ventilated patients who cannot eat normally, yet the amount of support needed is unknown. We conducted this randomized, open-label study to test the hypothesis that initial low-volume (i.e., trophic) enteral nutrition would decrease episodes of gastrointestinal intolerance/complications and improve outcomes as compared to initial full-energy enteral nutrition in patients with acute respiratory failure. DESIGN: Randomized, open-label study. PATIENTS: A total of 200 patients with acute respiratory failure expected to require mechanical ventilation for at least 72 hrs. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive either initial trophic (10 mL/hr) or full-energy enteral nutrition for the initial 6 days of ventilation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome measure was ventilator-free days to day 28. Baseline characteristics were similar between the 98 patients randomized to trophic and the 102 patients randomized to full-energy nutrition. At enrollment, patients had a mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 26.9 and a PaO2/FiO2 ratio of 182 and 38% were in shock. Both groups received similar durations of enteral nutrition (5.5 vs. 5.1 days; p = .51). The trophic group received an average of 15.8% ± 11% of goal calories daily through day 6 compared to 74.8% ± 38.5% (p < .001) for the full-energy group. Both groups had a median of 23.0 ventilator-free days (p = .90) and a median of 21.0 intensive-care-unit-free days (p = .64). Mortality to hospital discharge was 22.4% for the trophic group vs. 19.6% for the full-energy group (p = .62). In the first 6 days, the trophic group had trends for less diarrhea (19% vs. 24% of feeding days; p = .08) and significantly fewer episodes of elevated gastric residual volumes (2% vs. 8% of feeding days; p < .001). CONCLUSION: Initial trophic enteral nutrition resulted in clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory failure similar to those of early full-energy enteral nutrition but with fewer episodes of gastrointestinal intolerance.

Vascular pedicle width in acute lung injury: correlation with intravascular pressures and ability to discriminate fluid status.

INTRODUCTION: Conservative fluid management in patients with acute lung injury (ALI) increases time alive and free from mechanical ventilation. Vascular pedicle width (VPW) is a non-invasive measurement of intravascular volume status. The VPW was studied in ALI patients to determine the correlation between VPW and intravascular pressure measurements and whether VPW could predict fluid status. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study involved 152 patients with ALI enrolled in the Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial (FACTT) from five NHLBI ARDS (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome) Network sites. VPW and central venous pressure (CVP) or pulmonary artery occlusion pressure (PAOP) from the first four study days were correlated. The relationships between VPW, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), cumulative fluid balance, and PAOP were also evaluated. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine the ability of VPW to detect PAOP < 8 mmHg and PAOP ≥ 18 mm Hg. RESULTS: A total of 71 and 152 patients provided 118 and 276 paired VPW/PAOP and VPW/CVP measurements, respectively. VPW correlated with PAOP (r = 0.41; P < 0.001) and less well with CVP (r = 0.21; P = 0.001). In linear regression, VPW correlated with PAOP 1.5-fold better than cumulative fluid balance and 2.5-fold better than PEEP. VPW discriminated achievement of PAOP < 8 mm Hg (AUC = 0.73; P = 0.04) with VPW ≤67 mm demonstrating 71% sensitivity (95% CI 30 to 95%) and 68% specificity (95% CI 59 to 75%). For discriminating a hydrostatic component of the edema (that is, PAOP ≥ 18 mm Hg), VPW ≥ 72 mm demonstrated 61.4% sensitivity (95% CI 47 to 74%) and 61% specificity (49 to 71%) (area under the curve (AUC) 0.69; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: VPW correlates with PAOP better than CVP in patients with ALI. Due to its only moderate sensitivity and specificity, the ability of VPW to discriminate fluid status in patients with acute lung injury is limited and should only be considered when intravascular pressures are unavailable.

Enteral omega-3 fatty acid, gamma-linolenic acid, and antioxidant supplementation in acute lung injury.

CONTEXT: The omega-3 (n-3) fatty acids docosahexaenoic acid and eicosapentaenoic acid, along with γ-linolenic acid and antioxidants, may modulate systemic inflammatory response and improve oxygenation and outcomes in patients with acute lung injury. OBJECTIVE: To determine if dietary supplementation of these substances to patients with acute lung injury would increase ventilator-free days to study day 28. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The OMEGA study, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial conducted from January 2, 2008, through February 21, 2009. Participants were 272 adults within 48 hours of developing acute lung injury requiring mechanical ventilation whose physicians intended to start enteral nutrition at 44 hospitals in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute ARDS Clinical Trials Network. All participants had complete follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: Twice-daily enteral supplementation of n-3 fatty acids, γ-linolenic acid, and antioxidants compared with an isocaloric control. Enteral nutrition, directed by a protocol, was delivered separately from the study supplement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Ventilator-free days to study day 28. RESULTS: The study was stopped early for futility after 143 and 129 patients were enrolled in the n-3 and control groups. Despite an 8-fold increase in plasma eicosapentaenoic acid levels, patients receiving the n-3 supplement had fewer ventilator-free days (14.0 vs 17.2; P = .02) (difference, -3.2 [95% CI, -5.8 to -0.7]) and intensive care unit-free days (14.0 vs 16.7; P = .04). Patients in the n-3 group also had fewer nonpulmonary organ failure-free days (12.3 vs 15.5; P = .02). Sixty-day hospital mortality was 26.6% in the n-3 group vs 16.3% in the control group (P = .054), and adjusted 60-day mortality was 25.1% and 17.6% in the n-3 and control groups, respectively (P = .11). Use of the n-3 supplement resulted in more days with diarrhea (29% vs 21%; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Twice-daily enteral supplementation of n-3 fatty acids, γ-linolenic acid, and antioxidants did not improve the primary end point of ventilator-free days or other clinical outcomes in patients with acute lung injury and may be harmful. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00609180.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of TAK-242 for the treatment of severe sepsis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether TAK-242, a small-molecule inhibitor of Toll-like receptor-4-mediated signaling, suppresses cytokine levels and improves 28-day all-cause mortality rates in patients with severe sepsis. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: A total of 93 intensive care units worldwide. PATIENTS: A total of 274 patients with severe sepsis and shock or respiratory failure. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive a 30-min loading dose followed by 96-hr infusions of placebo, TAK-242 1.2 mg/kg/day, or TAK-242 2.4 mg/kg/day. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary pharmacodynamic end point was change in serum interleukin-6 levels relative to baseline, with 28-day all-cause mortality rate the primary clinical end point. The trial was terminated because of a lack of effect of TAK-242 in suppressing serum interleukin-6 levels. A total of 274 subjects were randomly assigned and treated. Clinical parameters at baseline were balanced across the three groups. TAK-242 did not suppress interleukin-6 as measured by 0- to 96.5-hr area under the interleukin-6 concentration curve at either dose. Specifically, the area under the effect curve increased by 9% and 26.9% in the TAK-242 1.2 and 2.4 mg/kg/day groups, respectively, which was not statistically different from placebo (p = .63 and .15, respectively). The 28-day mortality rate was 24% in the placebo, 22% in the low-dose, and 17% in the high-dose group (p = .26 for placebo vs. high dose). A nonsignificant reduction in mortality rate was observed in a subset of patients with both shock and respiratory failure (placebo [n = 51], 33%, vs. high dose [n = 52], 19%, p = .10). Transient, dose-related increases in methemoglobin levels were observed with TAK-242 treatment in 30.1% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: TAK-242 failed to suppress cytokine levels in patients with sepsis and shock or respiratory failure. Treatment with TAK-242 resulted in mild increases in serum methemoglobin levels but was otherwise well tolerated. Although observed mortality rates in patients with both shock and respiratory failure were lower with the 2.4 mg/kg/day dose, differences were not significant.

Pulmonary-artery versus central venous catheter to guide treatment of acute lung injury.

BACKGROUND: The balance between the benefits and the risks of pulmonary-artery catheters (PACs) has not been established. METHODS: We evaluated the relationship of benefits and risks of PACs in 1000 patients with established acute lung injury in a randomized trial comparing hemodynamic management guided by a PAC with hemodynamic management guided by a central venous catheter (CVC) using an explicit management protocol. Mortality during the first 60 days before discharge home was the primary outcome. RESULTS: The groups had similar baseline characteristics. The rates of death during the first 60 days before discharge home were similar in the PAC and CVC groups (27.4 percent and 26.3 percent, respectively; P=0.69; absolute difference, 1.1 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, -4.4 to 6.6 percent), as were the mean (+/-SE) numbers of both ventilator-free days (13.2+/-0.5 and 13.5+/-0.5; P=0.58) and days not spent in the intensive care unit (12.0+/-0.4 and 12.5+/-0.5; P=0.40) to day 28. PAC-guided therapy did not improve these measures for patients in shock at the time of enrollment. There were no significant differences between groups in lung or kidney function, rates of hypotension, ventilator settings, or use of dialysis or vasopressors. Approximately 90 percent of protocol instructions were followed in both groups, with a 1 percent rate of crossover from CVC- to PAC-guided therapy. Fluid balance was similar in the two groups, as was the proportion of instructions given for fluid and diuretics. Dobutamine use was uncommon. The PAC group had approximately twice as many catheter-related complications (predominantly arrhythmias). CONCLUSIONS: PAC-guided therapy did not improve survival or organ function but was associated with more complications than CVC-guided therapy. These results, when considered with those of previous studies, suggest that the PAC should not be routinely used for the management of acute lung injury. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00281268.).

Comparison of two fluid-management strategies in acute lung injury.

BACKGROUND: Optimal fluid management in patients with acute lung injury is unknown. Diuresis or fluid restriction may improve lung function but could jeopardize extrapulmonary-organ perfusion. METHODS: In a randomized study, we compared a conservative and a liberal strategy of fluid management using explicit protocols applied for seven days in 1000 patients with acute lung injury. The primary end point was death at 60 days. Secondary end points included the number of ventilator-free days and organ-failure-free days and measures of lung physiology. RESULTS: The rate of death at 60 days was 25.5 percent in the conservative-strategy group and 28.4 percent in the liberal-strategy group (P=0.30; 95 percent confidence interval for the difference, -2.6 to 8.4 percent). The mean (+/-SE) cumulative fluid balance during the first seven days was -136+/-491 ml in the conservative-strategy group and 6992+/-502 ml in the liberal-strategy group (P<0.001). As compared with the liberal strategy, the conservative strategy improved the oxygenation index ([mean airway pressure x the ratio of the fraction of inspired oxygen to the partial pressure of arterial oxygen]x100) and the lung injury score and increased the number of ventilator-free days (14.6+/-0.5 vs. 12.1+/-0.5, P<0.001) and days not spent in the intensive care unit (13.4+/-0.4 vs. 11.2+/-0.4, P<0.001) during the first 28 days but did not increase the incidence or prevalence of shock during the study or the use of dialysis during the first 60 days (10 percent vs. 14 percent, P=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Although there was no significant difference in the primary outcome of 60-day mortality, the conservative strategy of fluid management improved lung function and shortened the duration of mechanical ventilation and intensive care without increasing nonpulmonary-organ failures. These results support the use of a conservative strategy of fluid management in patients with acute lung injury. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00281268 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).