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.

Software-guided versus nurse-directed blood glucose control in critically ill patients: the LOGIC-2 multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Blood glucose control in the intensive care unit (ICU) has the potential to save lives. However, maintaining blood glucose concentrations within a chosen target range is difficult in clinical practice and holds risk of potentially harmful hypoglycemia. Clinically validated computer algorithms to guide insulin dosing by nurses have been advocated for better and safer blood glucose control. METHODS: We conducted an international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial involving 1550 adult, medical and surgical critically ill patients, requiring blood glucose control. Patients were randomly assigned to algorithm-guided blood glucose control (LOGIC-C, n = 777) or blood glucose control by trained nurses (Nurse-C, n = 773) during ICU stay, according to the local target range (80-110 mg/dL or 90-145 mg/dL). The primary outcome measure was the quality of blood glucose control, assessed by the glycemic penalty index (GPI), a measure that penalizes hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic deviations from the chosen target range. Incidence of severe hypoglycemia (<40 mg/dL) was the main safety outcome measure. New infections in ICU, duration of hospital stay, landmark 90-day mortality and quality of life were clinical safety outcome measures. RESULTS: The median GPI was lower in the LOGIC-C (10.8 IQR 6.2-16.1) than in the Nurse-C group (17.1 IQR 10.6-26.2) (P < 0.001). Mean blood glucose was 111 mg/dL (SD 15) in LOCIC-C versus 119 mg/dL (SD 21) in Nurse-C, whereas the median time-in-target range was 67.0% (IQR 52.1-80.1) in LOGIC-C versus 47.1% (IQR 28.1-65.0) in the Nurse-C group (both P < 0.001). The fraction of patients with severe hypoglycemia did not differ between LOGIC-C (0.9%) and Nurse-C (1.2%) (P = 0.6). The clinical safety outcomes did not differ between groups. The sampling interval was 2.3 h (SD 0.5) in the LOGIC-C group versus 3.0 h (SD 0.8) in the Nurse-C group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized controlled trial of a mixed critically ill patient population, the use of the LOGIC-Insulin blood glucose control algorithm, compared with blood glucose control by expert nurses, improved the quality of blood glucose control without increasing hypoglycemia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02056353 . Registered on 4 February 2014.

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation prevents muscle wasting in critically ill comatose patients.

Fully sedated patients, being treated in the intensive care unit (ICU), experience substantial skeletal muscle loss. Consequently, survival rate is reduced and full recovery after awakening is compromised. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) represents an effective method to stimulate muscle protein synthesis and alleviate muscle disuse atrophy in healthy subjects. We investigated the efficacy of twice-daily NMES to alleviate muscle loss in six fully sedated ICU patients admitted for acute critical illness [n=3 males, n=3 females; age 63 ± 6 y; APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II) disease-severity-score: 29 ± 2]. One leg was subjected to twice-daily NMES of the quadriceps muscle for a period of 7 ± 1 day whereas the other leg acted as a non-stimulated control (CON). Directly before the first and on the morning after the final NMES session, quadriceps muscle biopsies were collected from both legs to assess muscle fibre-type-specific cross-sectional area (CSA). Furthermore, phosphorylation status of the key proteins involved in the regulation of muscle protein synthesis was assessed and mRNA expression of selected genes was measured. In the CON leg, type 1 and type 2 muscle-fibre-CSA decreased by 16 ± 9% and 24 ± 7% respectively (P<0.05). No muscle atrophy was observed in the stimulated leg. NMES increased mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) phosphorylation by 19 ± 5% when compared with baseline (P<0.05), with no changes in the CON leg. Furthermore, mRNA expression of key genes involved in muscle protein breakdown either declined [forkhead box protein O1 (FOXO1); P<0.05] or remained unchanged [muscle atrophy F-box (MAFBx) and muscle RING-finger protein-1 (MuRF1)], with no differences between the legs. In conclusion, NMES represents an effective and feasible interventional strategy to prevent skeletal muscle atrophy in critically ill comatose patients.

Early versus late parenteral nutrition in critically ill adults.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists about the timing of the initiation of parenteral nutrition in critically ill adults in whom caloric targets cannot be met by enteral nutrition alone. METHODS: In this randomized, multicenter trial, we compared early initiation of parenteral nutrition (European guidelines) with late initiation (American and Canadian guidelines) in adults in the intensive care unit (ICU) to supplement insufficient enteral nutrition. In 2312 patients, parenteral nutrition was initiated within 48 hours after ICU admission (early-initiation group), whereas in 2328 patients, parenteral nutrition was not initiated before day 8 (late-initiation group). A protocol for the early initiation of enteral nutrition was applied to both groups, and insulin was infused to achieve normoglycemia. RESULTS: Patients in the late-initiation group had a relative increase of 6.3% in the likelihood of being discharged alive earlier from the ICU (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 to 1.13; P=0.04) and from the hospital (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.13; P=0.04), without evidence of decreased functional status at hospital discharge. Rates of death in the ICU and in the hospital and rates of survival at 90 days were similar in the two groups. Patients in the late-initiation group, as compared with the early-initiation group, had fewer ICU infections (22.8% vs. 26.2%, P=0.008) and a lower incidence of cholestasis (P<0.001). The late-initiation group had a relative reduction of 9.7% in the proportion of patients requiring more than 2 days of mechanical ventilation (P=0.006), a median reduction of 3 days in the duration of renal-replacement therapy (P=0.008), and a mean reduction in health care costs of €1,110 (about $1,600) (P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Late initiation of parenteral nutrition was associated with faster recovery and fewer complications, as compared with early initiation. (Funded by the Methusalem program of the Flemish government and others; EPaNIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00512122.).