Subjective and objective survival prediction in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: ICU risk assessment tools, routinely used for predicting population outcomes, are not recommended for evaluating individual risk. The state of health of single patients is mostly subjectively assessed to inform relatives and presumably to decide on treatment decisions. However, little is known how subjective and objective survival estimates compare. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients across five European centres, assessed 62 objective markers and asked the clinical staff to subjectively estimate the probability of surviving 28 days. RESULTS: Within the 961 included patients, we identified 27 single objective predictors for 28-day survival (73.8%) and pooled them into predictive groups. While patient characteristics and treatment models performed poorly, the disease and biomarker models had a moderate discriminative performance for predicting 28-day survival, which improved for predicting 1-year survival. Subjective estimates of nurses (c-statistic [95% CI] 0.74 [0.70-0.78]), junior physicians (0.78 [0.74-0.81]) and attending physicians (0.75 [0.72-0.79]) discriminated survivors from non-survivors at least as good as the combination of all objective predictors (c-statistic: 0.67-0.72). Unexpectedly, subjective estimates were insufficiently calibrated, overestimating death in high-risk patients by about 20% in absolute terms. Combining subjective and objective measures refined discrimination and reduced the overestimation of death. CONCLUSIONS: Subjective survival estimates are simple, cheap and similarly discriminative as objective models; however, they overestimate death risking that live-saving therapies are withheld. Therefore, subjective survival estimates of individual patients should be compared with objective tools and interpreted with caution if not agreeing. Trial registration ISRCTN ISRCTN59376582 , retrospectively registered October 31st 2013.

Successful implementation of a window for routine antimicrobial prophylaxis shorter than that of the World Health Organization standard.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of implementation of the refined window for routine antimicrobial prophylaxis (RAP) of 30-74 minutes before skin incision compared to the World Health Organization (WHO) standard of 0-60 minutes. DESIGN: Prospective study on timing of routine antimicrobial prophylaxis in 2 different time periods. SETTING: Tertiary referral university hospital with 30,000 surgical procedures per year. METHODS: In all consecutive vascular, visceral, and trauma procedures, the timing was prospectively recorded during a first time period of 2 years (A; baseline) and a second period of 1 year (B; after intervention). An intensive intervention program was initiated after baseline. The primary outcome parameter was timing; the secondary outcome parameter was surgical site infection (SSI) rate in the subgroup of patients undergoing cholecystectomy/colon resection. RESULTS: During baseline time period A (3,836 procedures), RAP was administered 30-74 minutes before skin incision in 1,750 (41.0%) procedures; during time period B (1,537 procedures), it was administered in 914 (56.0%; [Formula: see text]). The subgroup analysis did not reveal a significant difference in SSI rate. CONCLUSIONS: This bundle of interventions resulted in a statistically significant improvement of timing of RAP even at a shortened window compared to the WHO standard.

Succinylcholine versus rocuronium for rapid sequence intubation in intensive care: a prospective, randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Succinylcholine and rocuronium are widely used to facilitate rapid sequence induction (RSI) intubation in intensive care. Concerns relate to the side effects of succinylcholine and to slower onset and inferior intubation conditions associated with rocuronium. So far, succinylcholine and rocuronium have not been compared in an adequately powered randomized trial in intensive care. Accordingly, the aim of the present study was to compare the incidence of hypoxemia after rocuronium or succinylcholine in critically ill patients requiring an emergent RSI. METHODS: This was a prospective randomized controlled single-blind trial conducted from 2006 to 2010 at the University Hospital of Basel. Participants were 401 critically ill patients requiring emergent RSI. Patients were randomized to receive 1 mg/kg succinylcholine or 0.6 mg/kg rocuronium for neuromuscular blockade. The primary outcome was the incidence of oxygen desaturations defined as a decrease in oxygen saturation ≥ 5%, assessed by continuous pulse oxymetry, at any time between the start of the induction sequence and two minutes after the completion of the intubation. A severe oxygen desaturation was defined as a decrease in oxygen saturation ≥ 5% leading to a saturation value of ≤ 80%. RESULTS: There was no difference between succinylcholine and rocuronium regarding oxygen desaturations (succinylcholine 73/196; rocuronium 66/195; P = 0.67); severe oxygen desaturations (succinylcholine 20/196; rocuronium 20/195; P = 1.0); and extent of oxygen desaturations (succinylcholine -14 ± 12%; rocuronium -16 ± 13%; P = 0.77). The duration of the intubation sequence was shorter after succinycholine than after rocuronium (81 ± 38 sec versus 95 ± 48 sec; P = 0.002). Intubation conditions (succinylcholine 8.3 ± 0.8; rocuronium 8.2 ± 0.9; P = 0.7) and failed first intubation attempts (succinylcholine 32/200; rocuronium 36/201; P = 1.0) did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients undergoing emergent RSI, incidence and severity of oxygen desaturations, the quality of intubation conditions, and incidence of failed intubation attempts did not differ between succinylcholine and rocuronium. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00355368.

Co-infection of Influenza B and Streptococci causing severe pneumonia and septic shock in healthy women.

BACKGROUND: Since the Influenza A pandemic in 1819, the association between the influenza virus and Streptococcus pneumoniae has been well described in literature. While a leading role has been so far attributed solely to Influenza A as the primary infective pathogen, Influenza B is generally considered to be less pathogenic with little impact on morbidity and mortality of otherwise healthy adults. This report documents the severe synergistic pathogenesis of Influenza B infection and bacterial pneumonia in previously healthy persons not belonging to a special risk population and outlines therapeutic options in this clinical setting. CASE PRESENTATION: During the seasonal influenza epidemic 2007/2008, three previously healthy women presented to our hospital with influenza-like symptoms and rapid clinical deterioration. Subsequent septic shock due to severe bilateral pneumonia necessitated intensive resuscitative measures including the use of an interventional lung assist device. Microbiological analysis identified severe dual infections of Influenza B with Streptococcus pyogenes in two cases and Streptococcus pneumoniae in one case. The patients presented with no evidence of underlying disease or other known risk factors for dual infection such as age (< one year, > 65 years), pregnancy or comorbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Influenza B infection can pose a risk for severe secondary infection in previously healthy persons. As patients admitted to hospital due to severe pneumonia are rarely tested for Influenza B, the incidence of admission due to this virus might be greatly underestimated, therefore, a more aggressive search for influenza virus and empirical treatment might be warranted. While the use of an interventional lung assist device offers a potential treatment strategy for refractory respiratory acidosis in addition to protective lung ventilation, the combined empiric use of a neuraminidase-inhibitor and antibiotics in septic patients with pulmonary manifestations during an epidemic season should be considered.

[Perioperative management of chronic medication: to withhold, continue or intensify?]. / Chronische Medikation im Vorfeld operativer Eingriffe: absetzen--beibehalten--ausbauen?

All patients should undergo surgical procedures in the most stable and favourable condition with a continuation of chronic medication. Accordingly, this medication should be continued until the day before surgery in most patients. The preoperative period should be used to evaluate the completeness and quality of the medical treatment. Are all patient with cardiological indications for beta-receptor blocking agents, ACE-inhibitors and statins treated with these drugs? Is diabetes being adequately treated? Are the doses of the medication for the treatment of thyroid dysfunction within the optimal range? If there is room for improvement, adjustments should be done cautiously and well in advance. In contrast, there are no recognised situations in which a medication should be started preoperatively in the absence of a pre-established chronic indication. Management of antiplatelet agents and cumarins requires careful consideration. The hazards of continuing and withholding treatment must be evaluated. In patients who have suffered a cardiovascular event and/or have undergone (coronary) revascularisation, elective surgery must be delayed for weeks or months depending on the circumstances and the devices used.