A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effect of post-intensive care multidisciplinary consultations on mortality and the quality of life at 1 year.

PURPOSE: Critical illness is associated with long-term increased mortality and impaired quality of life (QoL). We assessed whether multidisciplinary consultations would improve outcome at 12 months (M12) after intensive care unit (ICU) discharge. METHODS: We performed an open, multicenter, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial. Eligible are patients discharged alive from ICU in 11 French hospitals between 2012 and 2018. The intervention group had a multidisciplinary face-to-face consultation involving an intensivist, a psychologist, and a social worker at ICU discharge and then at M3 and M6 (optional). The control group had standard post-ICU follow-up. A consultation was scheduled at M12 for all patients. The QoL was assessed using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Level (Euro-QoL-5D-5L) which includes five dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain, and anxiety/depression), each ranging from 1 to 5 (1: no, 2: slight, 3: moderate, 4: severe, and 5: extreme problems). The primary endpoint was poor clinical outcome defined as death or severe-to-extreme impairment of at least one EuroQoL-5D-5L dimension at M12. The information was collected by a blinded investigator by phone. Secondary outcomes were functional, psychological, and cognitive status at M12 consultation. RESULTS: 540 patients were included (standard, n = 272; multidisciplinary, n = 268). The risk for a poor outcome was significantly greater in the multidisciplinary group than in the standard group [adjusted odds ratio 1.49 (95% confidence interval, (1.04-2.13)]. Seventy-two (13.3%) patients died at M12 (standard, n = 32; multidisciplinary, n = 40). The functional, psychological, and cognitive scores at M12 did not statistically differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: A hospital-based, face-to-face, intensivist-led multidisciplinary consultation at ICU discharge then at 3 and 6 months was associated with poor outcome 1 year after ICU.

Impact of COVID-19 on posttraumatic stress disorder in ICU survivors: a prospective observational comparative cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after a stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) can affect one in five ICU survivors. At the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, admission to the ICU for COVID-19 was stressful due to the severity of this disease. This study assessed whether admission to the ICU for COVID-19 was associated with a higher prevalence of PTSD compared with other causes of ICU admission after adjustment for pre-ICU psychological factors. METHODS: This prospective observational comparative cohort study included 31 ICUs. Eligible patients were adult ICU survivors hospitalized during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic in France, regardless of the reason for admission. The prevalence of presumptive diagnosis of PTSD at 6 months was assessed using the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5). Sociodemographics, clinical data, history of childhood trauma (Childhood Trauma Questionnaire [CTQ]), and exposure to potentially traumatic events (Life Events Checklist for DSM-5 [LEC-5]) were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 778 ICU survivors included during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic in France, 417 and 361 were assigned to the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cohorts, respectively. Fourteen (4.9%) and 11 (4.9%), respectively, presented with presumptive diagnosis of PTSD at 6 months (p = 0.976). After adjusting for age, sex, severity score at admission, use of invasive mechanical ventilation, ICU duration, CTQ and LEC-5, COVID-19 status was not associated with presumptive diagnosis of PTSD using the PCL-5. Only female sex was associated with presumptive diagnosis of PTSD. However, COVID-19 patients reported significantly more intrusion and avoidance symptoms than non-COVID patients (39% vs. 29%, p = 0.015 and 27% vs. 19%, p = 0.030), respectively. The median PCL-5 score was higher in the COVID-19 than non-COVID-19 cohort (9 [3, 20] vs. 4 [2, 16], p = 0.034). CONCLUSION: Admission to the ICU for COVID-19 was not associated with a higher prevalence of PTSD compared with admission for another cause during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in France. However, intrusion and avoidance symptoms were more frequent in COVID-19 patients than in non-COVID-19 patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT03991611, registered on June 19, 2019.

Intensive glucose control in critically ill adults: a protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis / Controle intensivo da glicose em adultos em estado grave: um protocolo de revisão sistemática e metanálise de dados individuais de pacientes

ABSTRACT Objective: The optimal target for blood glucose concentration in critically ill patients is unclear. We will perform a systematic review and meta-analysis with aggregated and individual patient data from randomized controlled trials, comparing intensive glucose control with liberal glucose control in critically ill adults. Data sources: MEDLINE®, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, and clinical trials registries (World Health Organization, clinical trials.gov). The authors of eligible trials will be invited to provide individual patient data. Published trial-level data from eligible trials that are not at high risk of bias will be included in an aggregated data meta-analysis if individual patient data are not available. Methods: Inclusion criteria: randomized controlled trials that recruited adult patients, targeting a blood glucose of ≤ 120mg/dL (≤ 6.6mmol/L) compared to a higher blood glucose concentration target using intravenous insulin in both groups. Excluded studies: those with an upper limit blood glucose target in the intervention group of > 120mg/dL (> 6.6mmol/L), or where intensive glucose control was only performed in the intraoperative period, and those where loss to follow-up exceeded 10% by hospital discharge. Primary endpoint: In-hospital mortality during index hospital admission. Secondary endpoints: mortality and survival at other timepoints, duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, vasoactive agents, and renal replacement therapy. A random effect Bayesian meta-analysis and hierarchical Bayesian models for individual patient data will be used. Discussion: This systematic review with aggregate and individual patient data will address the clinical question, 'what is the best blood glucose target for critically ill patients overall?' Protocol version 0.4 - 06/26/2023 PROSPERO registration: CRD42021278869

RESUMO Objetivo: Não está claro qual é a meta ideal de concentração de glicose no sangue em pacientes em estado grave. Realizaremos uma revisão sistemática e uma metanálise com dados agregados e de pacientes individuais de estudos controlados e randomizados, comparando o controle intensivo da glicose com o controle liberal da glicose em adultos em estado grave. Fontes de dados: MEDLINE®, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials e registros de ensaios clínicos (Organização Mundial da Saúde, clinical trials.gov). Os autores dos estudos qualificados serão convidados a fornecer dados individuais de pacientes. Os dados publicados em nível de ensaio qualificado que não apresentem alto risco de viés serão incluídos em uma metanálise de dados agregados se os dados individuais de pacientes não estiverem disponíveis. Métodos: Critérios de inclusão: ensaios clínicos controlados e randomizados que recrutaram pacientes adultos, com meta de glicemia ≤ 120mg/dL (≤ 6,6mmol/L) comparada a uma meta de concentração de glicemia mais alta com insulina intravenosa em ambos os grupos. Estudos excluídos: aqueles com meta de glicemia no limite superior no grupo de intervenção > 120mg/dL (> 6,6mmol/L), ou em que o controle intensivo de glicose foi realizado apenas no período intraoperatório, e aqueles em que a perda de seguimento excedeu 10% até a alta hospitalar. Desfecho primário: Mortalidade intra-hospitalar durante a admissão hospitalar. Desfechos secundários: Mortalidade e sobrevida em outros momentos, duração da ventilação mecânica invasiva, agentes vasoativos e terapia de substituição renal. Utilizaremos metanálise bayesiana de efeito randômico e modelos bayesianos hierárquicos para dados individuais de pacientes. Discussão: Essa revisão sistemática com dados agregados e de pacientes individuais abordará a questão clínica: Qual é a melhor meta de glicose no sangue de pacientes graves em geral? Protocolo versão 0.4 - 26/06/2023 Registro PROSPERO: CRD42021278869

Correction: Impact of a Postintensive Care Unit Multidisciplinary Follow-up on the Quality of Life (SUIVI-REA): Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/30496.].

Intensive glucose control in critically ill adults: a protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The optimal target for blood glucose concentration in critically ill patients is unclear. We will perform a systematic review and meta-analysis with aggregated and individual patient data from randomized controlled trials, comparing intensive glucose control with liberal glucose control in critically ill adults. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE®, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, and clinical trials registries (World Health Organization, clinical trials.gov). The authors of eligible trials will be invited to provide individual patient data. Published trial-level data from eligible trials that are not at high risk of bias will be included in an aggregated data meta-analysis if individual patient data are not available. METHODS: Inclusion criteria: randomized controlled trials that recruited adult patients, targeting a blood glucose of ≤ 120mg/dL (≤ 6.6mmol/L) compared to a higher blood glucose concentration target using intravenous insulin in both groups. Excluded studies: those with an upper limit blood glucose target in the intervention group of > 120mg/dL (> 6.6mmol/L), or where intensive glucose control was only performed in the intraoperative period, and those where loss to follow-up exceeded 10% by hospital discharge. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: In-hospital mortality during index hospital admission. Secondary endpoints: mortality and survival at other timepoints, duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, vasoactive agents, and renal replacement therapy. A random effect Bayesian meta-analysis and hierarchical Bayesian models for individual patient data will be used. DISCUSSION: This systematic review with aggregate and individual patient data will address the clinical question, 'what is the best blood glucose target for critically ill patients overall?'Protocol version 0.4 - 06/26/2023PROSPERO registration:CRD42021278869.

Effect of intravenous almitrine on intubation or mortality in patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Background: Severe hypoxemia in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia might result from hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction, contributing to ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) mismatch. Because almitrine improves V/Q, it might reduce the risk for mechanical ventilation (MV) in such patients. Our primary objective was to determine the effect of almitrine on the need for MV at day 7. Methods: In a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial involving 15 ICUs, patients hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia and experiencing acute hypoxemic respiratory failure were randomly assigned to receive 5 days of intravenous low-dose (2 µg.kg-1.min-1) almitrine or placebo. The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation for MV or death within 7 days after randomisation. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, number of ventilator-free days, number of days in the ICU and the hospital, and treatment discontinuation for pre-specified adverse effects. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04357457. Findings: Between September 3, 2020 and September 25, 2021 181 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to almitrine (n=89) or placebo (n=92). 179 patients (excluding two who withdrew from the study) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (mean age: 60·1 years; 34% women) and analyzed. On day 7, the primary endpoint occurred in 32 patients assigned to almitrine (36%) and in 37 patients assigned to placebo (41%), for a difference of -4·3% (95% confidence interval: -18·7% to 10·2%). Secondary outcomes (28-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, ventilator-free days at day 28, days in the ICU and the hospital, and treatment discontinuation for pre-specified adverse effects) did not differ between the two groups. Interpretation: In patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, low-dose almitrine failed in reducing the need for MV or death at day 7. Funding: Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique (PHRC COVID 2020) funded by the French Ministry of Health, Les Laboratoires Servier (Suresnes, France) providing the study drug free of charge.

Comparison of 8 versus 15 days of antibiotic therapy for Pseudomonas aeruginosa ventilator-associated pneumonia in adults: a randomized, controlled, open-label trial.

PURPOSE: Duration of antibiotic therapy for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) due to non-fermenting Gram-negative bacilli (NF-GNB), including Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) remains uncertain. We aimed to assess the non-inferiority of a short duration of antibiotics (8 days) vs. prolonged antibiotic therapy (15 days) in VAP due to PA (PA-VAP). METHODS: We conducted a nationwide, randomized, open-labeled, multicenter, non-inferiority trial to evaluate optimal duration of antibiotic treatment in PA-VAP. Eligible patients were adults with diagnosis of PA-VAP and randomly assigned in 1:1 ratio to receive a short-duration treatment (8 days) or a long-duration treatment (15 days). A pre-specified analysis was used to assess a composite endpoint combining mortality and PA-VAP recurrence rate during hospitalization in the intensive care unit (ICU) within 90 days. RESULTS: The study was stopped after 24 months due to slow inclusion rate. In intention-to-treat population (n = 186), the percentage of patients who reached the composite endpoint was 25.5% (N = 25/98) in the 15-day group versus 35.2% (N = 31/88) in the 8-day group (difference 9.7%, 90% confidence interval (CI) -1.9%-21.2%). The percentage of recurrence of PA-VAP during the ICU stay was 9.2% in the 15-day group versus 17% in the 8-day group. The two groups had similar median days of mechanical ventilation, of ICU stay, number of extra pulmonary infections and acquisition of multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens during ICU stay. CONCLUSIONS: Our study failed to show the non-inferiority of a short duration of antibiotics in the treatment of PA-VAP, compared to a long duration. The short duration strategy may be associated to an increase of PA-VAP recurrence. However, the lack of power limits the interpretation of this study.

Impact of a Postintensive Care Unit Multidisciplinary Follow-up on the Quality of Life (SUIVI-REA): Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients are at risk of developing a postintensive care syndrome (PICS), which is characterized by physical, psychological, and cognitive impairments and which dramatically impacts the patient's quality of life (QoL). No intervention has been shown to improve QoL. We hypothesized that a medical, psychological, and social follow-up would improve QoL by mitigating the PICS. OBJECTIVE: This multicenter, randomized controlled trial (SUIVI-REA) aims to compare a multidisciplinary follow-up with a standard postintensive care unit (ICU) follow-up. METHODS: Patients were randomized to the control or intervention arm. In the intervention arm, multidisciplinary follow-up involved medical, psychological, and social evaluation at ICU discharge and at 3, 6, and 12 months thereafter. In the placebo group, patients were seen only at 12 months by the multidisciplinary team. Baseline characteristics at ICU discharge were collected for all patients. The primary outcome was QoL at 1 year, assessed using the Euro Quality of Life-5 dimensions (EQ5D). Secondary outcomes were mortality, cognitive, psychological, and functional status; social and professional reintegration; and the rate of rehospitalization and outpatient consultations at 1 year. RESULTS: The study was funded by the Ministry of Health in June 2010. It was approved by the Ethics Committee on July 8, 2011. The first and last patient were randomized on December 20, 2012, and September 1, 2017, respectively. A total of 546 patients were enrolled across 11 ICUs. At present, data management is ongoing, and all parties involved in the trial remain blinded. CONCLUSIONS: The SUVI-REA multicenter randomized controlled trial aims to assess whether a post-ICU multidisciplinary follow-up improves QoL at 1 year. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01796509; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01796509. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/30496.

Influence of socioeconomic status on functional recovery after ARDS caused by SARS-CoV-2: a multicentre, observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Prognosis of patients with COVID-19 depends on the severity of the pulmonary affection. The most severe cases may progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which is associated with a risk of long-term repercussions on respiratory function and neuromuscular outcomes. The functional repercussions of severe forms of COVID-19 may have a major impact on quality of life, and impair the ability to return to work or exercise. Social inequalities in healthcare may influence prognosis, with socially vulnerable individuals more likely to develop severe forms of disease. We describe here the protocol for a prospective, multicentre study that aims to investigate the influence of social vulnerability on functional recovery in patients who were hospitalised in intensive care for ARDS caused by COVID-19. This study will also include an embedded qualitative study that aims to describe facilitators and barriers to compliance with rehabilitation, describe patients' health practices and identify social representations of health, disease and care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The "Functional Recovery From Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) Due to COVID-19: Influence of Socio-Economic Status" (RECOVIDS) study is a mixed-methods, observational, multicentre cohort study performed during the routine follow-up of post-intensive care unit (ICU) functional recovery after ARDS. All patients admitted to a participating ICU for PCR-proven SARS-CoV-2 infection and who underwent chest CT scan at the initial phase AND who received respiratory support (mechanical or not) or high-flow nasal oxygen, AND had ARDS diagnosed by the Berlin criteria will be eligible. The primary outcome is the presence of lung sequelae at 6 months after ICU discharge, defined either by alterations on pulmonary function tests, oxygen desaturation during a standardised 6 min walk test or fibrosis-like pulmonary findings on chest CT. Patients will be considered to be socially disadvantaged if they have an "Evaluation de la Précarité et des Inégalités de santé dans les Centres d'Examen de Santé" (EPICES) score ≥30.17 at inclusion. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol and the informed consent form were approved by an independent ethics committee (Comité de Protection des Personnes Sud Méditerranée II) on 10 July 2020 (2020-A02014-35). All patients will provide informed consent before participation. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international congresses. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04556513.

Bordetella hinzii Pneumonia in Patient with SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 might have bacterial and fungal superinfections develop. We describe a clinical case of coronavirus disease with pulmonary aspergillosis associated with Bordetella hinzii pneumonia in an immunocompetent patient in France. B. hinzii infections are rare in humans and develop secondary to immunosuppression or debilitating diseases.

Menstrual Toxic Shock Syndrome: A French Nationwide Multicenter Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Studies describing the clinical features and short-term prognosis of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for menstrual toxic shock syndrome (m-TSS) are lacking. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients with a clinical diagnosis of m-TSS admitted between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2020 in 43 French pediatric (n = 7) or adult (n = 36) ICUs. The aim of the study was to describe the clinical features and short-term prognosis, as well as to assess the 2011 Centers for Disease and Control (CDC) diagnostic criteria, in critically ill patients with m-TSS. RESULTS: In total, 102 patients with m-TSS (median age, 18 years; interquartile range, 16-24 years) were admitted to 1 of the participating ICUs. All blood cultures (n = 102) were sterile. Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus grew from 92 of 96 vaginal samples. Screening for superantigenic toxin gene sequences was performed for 76 of the 92 vaginal samples positive for S. aureus (83%), and toxic shock syndrome toxin 1 was isolated from 66 strains (87%). At ICU admission, no patient met the 2011 CDC criteria for confirmed m-TSS, and only 53 (52%) fulfilled the criteria for probable m-TSS. Eighty-one patients (79%) were treated with antitoxin antibiotic therapy, and 8 (8%) received intravenous immunoglobulins. Eighty-six (84%) patients required vasopressors, and 21 (21%) tracheal intubation. No patient required limb amputation or died in the ICU. CONCLUSIONS: In this large multicenter series of patients included in ICUs for m-TSS, none died or required limb amputation. The CDC criteria should not be used for the clinical diagnosis of m-TSS at ICU admission.

Risk factors and events in the adult intensive care unit associated with pain as self-reported at the end of the intensive care unit stay.

BACKGROUND: The short-term and long-term consequences of the most frequent painful procedures performed in the ICU are unclear. This study aimed to identify the risk factors associated with pain-related discomfort perceived by critically ill patients during the whole ICU stay as self-reported by patients at the end of their ICU stay. METHODS: The study involved 34 ICUs. Adult patients who survived an ICU stay of 3 calendar days or more were eligible for inclusion. Discomforts, including the pain-related discomfort, were assessed using the French 18-item questionnaire on discomfort in ICU patients, the "Inconforts des Patients de REAnimation" (IPREA). Patients scored each item from 0 (minimal discomfort) to 10 (maximal discomfort). Associations between patient characteristics at ICU admission, life support therapies and main potentially painful procedures performed during the ICU stay and pain-related discomfort scores assessed at the end of the ICU stay were analyzed. RESULTS: Patients with complete IPREA questionnaires (n = 2130) were included. The median pain-related discomfort score was 3 (IQR 0-5). From the univariate analysis, pain-related discomfort scores were negatively correlated with age and positively correlated with ICU stay duration; surgical patients reported significant higher pain-related discomfort scores than medical patients; chest drain insertion, chest drain removal, use of bladder catheter, central venous catheter (CVC) insertion, complex dressing change, and intra-hospital transport were associated with pain-related discomfort scores. From the multivariate analyses using generalized estimating equations models, only age, chest drain removal, use of a bladder catheter, CVC insertion, and intra-hospital transport were the main risk factors associated with pain-related discomfort scores. CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent chest drain removal, bladder catheter, CVC insertion, and intra-hospital transport during their ICU stay reported higher pain-related discomfort scores (with respect to the whole ICU stay and assessed at the end of their ICU stay) than patients who did not experience these events. This study may pave the way for further targeted studies aiming at investigating a causal link between these common procedures in the ICU and adult critically ill patients' perceptions of their ICU stay regarding recalled pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT02442934, retrospectively registered on May 13, 2015.

Dynamic properties of glucose complexity during the course of critical illness: a pilot study.

Methods to control the blood glucose (BG) levels of patients in intensive care units (ICU) improve the outcomes. The development of continuous BG levels monitoring devices has also permitted to optimize these processes. Recently it was shown that a complexity loss of the BG signal is linked to poor clinical outcomes. Thus, it becomes essential to decipher this relation to design efficient BG level control methods. In previous studies the BG signal complexity was calculated as a single index for the whole ICU stay. Although, these approaches did not grasp the potential variability of the BG signal complexity. Therefore, we setup this pilot study using a continuous monitoring of central venous BG levels in ten critically ill patients (EIRUS platform, Maquet Critical CARE AB, Solna, Sweden). Data were processed and the complexity was assessed by the detrended fluctuation analysis and multiscale entropy (MSE) methods. Finally, recordings were split into 24 h overlapping intervals and a MSE analysis was applied to each of them. The MSE analysis on time intervals revealed an entropy variation and allowed periodic BG signal complexity assessments. To highlight differences of MSE between each time interval we calculated the MSE complexity index defined as the area under the curve. This new approach could pave the way to future studies exploring new strategies aimed at restoring blood glucose complexity during the ICU stay.

Perceived Discomfort in Patients admitted to Intensive Care (DETECT DISCOMFORT 1): a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Discomfort experienced by patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) is an important indicator of the quality of care provided, but few studies have evaluated the incidence and magnitude of discomfort in critically ill patients. The IPREA (Inconforts des Patients de REAnimation) discomfort questionnaire is a tool developed by French intensivists and validated in the French language with good internal consistency (Cronbach's α, 0.78). OBJECTIVES: To translate and validate in English the IPREA discomfort questionnaire, to evaluate discomfort perceived by patients in intensive care, and to identify predictors of discomfort. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: After translating the IPREA questionnaire using published methods that use principles of good practice for translating and culturally adapting patient-reported outcomes measures, all eligible patients (aged > 18 years, Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15, English speaking) admitted to our ICU over the 6-month period from April 2017 to September 2017 were surveyed within 24 hours of ICU discharge. Patient-perceived discomfort was measured using the translated IPREA questionnaire. The patients were asked to score their discomfort for each of 16 items on a scale of 0 (no discomfort) to 100 (maximum discomfort). An overall discomfort score was computed as the mean score of the 16 individual discomfort scores. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of discomfort. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Translated questionnaire internal consistency. Individual and overall discomfort scores. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients (58% men; mean age, 60.1 ± 14.8 years; mean APACHE [Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation] II score, 13.8 ± 5.6) completed the questionnaire. The translated questionnaire had good internal consistency (Cronbach's α, 0.82), and good content and construct validity (average inter-item correlation, 0.23). The mean overall discomfort score was 18.4 ± 12.5, and discomfort scores did not differ between men and women or between types of ICUs (general ICU, cardiothoracic ICU or high dependency unit). On multivariate analysis, increasing age was an independent predictor of a low discomfort score (ß, -0.27; 95% CI, -0.42 to -0.12; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients admitted to our ICU reported low overall discomfort. There was an inverse relationship between age and perceived discomfort. The translated questionnaire for measuring discomfort performed well in our setting and could be applied to the Australian population.

Assessment of patients' self-perceived intensive care unit discomforts: Validation of the 18-item version of the IPREA.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We reported the validation of the 18-item version of the 'Inconforts des Patients de REAnimation (IPREA)' questionnaire that includes 2 new items exploring feeling depressed and shortness of breath during an intensive care unit (ICU) stay. METHODS: The validation process was integrated in a multicenter, cluster-randomized, controlled, two-parallel group study built to assess the effectiveness of a tailored multicomponent program for reducing self-perceived discomfort in the ICU. All patients aged 18 years or older who survived an ICU stay of 3 calendar days or more were eligible for inclusion. Data collection included demographics (sex, age), type of admission (medical and surgical), health status scores at admission (Knaus score and McCabe index, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II), specific ICU therapeutics such as mechanical ventilation (MV), noninvasive ventilation (NIV), use of vasopressors, or renal replacement therapy (RRT), and ICU stay duration. RESULTS: A total of 994 patients were included. The initial structure of IPREA was confirmed using confirmatory factor analysis showing satisfactory fit (RMSEA at 0.042, CFI at 0.912). No multidimensional structure was identified, allowing the calculation of an overall discomfort score. The three highest discomforts were sleep deprivation, thirst, and perfusion lines and other devices, and the 3 lowest discomforts were limited visiting hours, hunger, and isolation. The overall discomfort score of the 18-item version of IPREA did not differ between men and women. Higher age was significantly correlated with a lower overall discomfort score. While MV was not linked to self-reported discomfort, patients treated by NIV reported higher overall discomfort scores than patients not treated by NIV. CONCLUSION: The 18-item version of IPREA is easy to use and possesses satisfactory psychometric properties. The availability of a reliable and valid French questionnaire asking about patients' self-perceived ICU discomforts enables feedback from the health care team to be incorporated in a continuous quality health care improvement strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrial.gov NCT02442934 (registration date: May 18, 2015, retrospectively registered).

Tailored multicomponent program for discomfort reduction in critically ill patients may decrease post-traumatic stress disorder in general ICU survivors at 1 year.

PURPOSE: Reducing discomfort in the intensive care unit (ICU) should have a positive effect on long-term outcomes. This study assessed whether a tailored multicomponent program for discomfort reduction was effective in reducing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms at 1 year in general ICU survivors. METHODS: This study is a prospective observational comparative effectiveness cohort study involving 30 ICUs. It was an extension of the IPREA3 study, a cluster-randomized controlled trial designed to assess the efficacy of a tailored multicomponent program to reduce discomfort in critically ill patients. The program included assessment of ICU-related self-perceived discomforts, immediate and monthly feedback to the healthcare team, and site-specific tailored interventions. The exposure was the implementation of this program. The eligible patients were exposed versus unexposed general adult ICU survivors. The prevalence of substantial PTSD symptoms at 1 year was assessed based on the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R). RESULTS: Of the 1537 ICU survivors included in the study, 475 unexposed patients and 344 exposed patients had follow-up data at 1 year: 57 (12.0%) and 21 (6.1%) presented with PTSD at 1 year, respectively (p = 0.004). Considering the clustering and after adjusting for age, gender, McCabe classification, and ICU-related self-perceived overall discomfort score, exposed patients were significantly less likely than unexposed patients to have substantial PTSD symptoms at 1 year (p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a tailored multicomponent program in the ICU that has proved to be effective for reducing self-perceived discomfort in general adult ICU survivors also reduced the prevalence of substantial PTSD symptoms at 1 year. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02762409.

Improving glycemic control in critically ill patients: personalized care to mimic the endocrine pancreas.

There is considerable physiological and clinical evidence of harm and increased risk of death associated with dysglycemia in critical care. However, glycemic control (GC) currently leads to increased hypoglycemia, independently associated with a greater risk of death. Indeed, recent evidence suggests GC is difficult to safely and effectively achieve for all patients. In this review, leading experts in the field discuss this evidence and relevant data in diabetology, including the artificial pancreas, and suggest how safe, effective GC can be achieved in critically ill patients in ways seeking to mimic normal islet cell function. The review is structured around the specific clinical hurdles of: understanding the patient's metabolic state; designing GC to fit clinical practice, safety, efficacy, and workload; and the need for standardized metrics. These aspects are addressed by reviewing relevant recent advances in science and technology. Finally, we provide a set of concise recommendations to advance the safety, quality, consistency, and clinical uptake of GC in critical care. This review thus presents a roadmap toward better, more personalized metabolic care and improved patient outcomes.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains controversial. METHODS: In an international clinical trial, we randomly assigned patients with very severe ARDS, as indicated by one of three criteria - a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen (Pao2) to the fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) of less than 50 mm Hg for more than 3 hours; a Pao2:Fio2 of less than 80 mm Hg for more than 6 hours; or an arterial blood pH of less than 7.25 with a partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide of at least 60 mm Hg for more than 6 hours - to receive immediate venovenous ECMO (ECMO group) or continued conventional treatment (control group). Crossover to ECMO was possible for patients in the control group who had refractory hypoxemia. The primary end point was mortality at 60 days. RESULTS: At 60 days, 44 of 124 patients (35%) in the ECMO group and 57 of 125 (46%) in the control group had died (relative risk, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 1.04; P=0.09). Crossover to ECMO occurred a mean (±SD) of 6.5±9.7 days after randomization in 35 patients (28%) in the control group, with 20 of these patients (57%) dying. The frequency of complications did not differ significantly between groups, except that there were more bleeding events leading to transfusion in the ECMO group than in the control group (in 46% vs. 28% of patients; absolute risk difference, 18 percentage points; 95% CI, 6 to 30) as well as more cases of severe thrombocytopenia (in 27% vs. 16%; absolute risk difference, 11 percentage points; 95% CI, 0 to 21) and fewer cases of ischemic stroke (in no patients vs. 5%; absolute risk difference, -5 percentage points; 95% CI, -10 to -2). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with very severe ARDS, 60-day mortality was not significantly lower with ECMO than with a strategy of conventional mechanical ventilation that included ECMO as rescue therapy. (Funded by the Direction de la Recherche Clinique et du Développement and the French Ministry of Health; EOLIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01470703 .).