Comparison between Nutric Score and modified nutric score to assess ICU mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: NUTrition Risk in the Critically ill (NUTRIC score) and modified Nutric score (mNUTRIC score) have been validated as screening tool for quantifying risk of adverse outcome in patients admitted in intensive care department. They differ for the measurement of IL-6 levels. In patients with COVID-19 disease the inflammatory response plays a crucial role leading to cytochine storm responsible of multiple organ damage. In this population, levels of IL-6 have been measured as indicator of inflammatory status. Aim of the study is to compare prognostic performance of both scores in predicting ICU mortality between patients with COVID-19 disease. METHODS: A single centre, retrospective, cohort study on patients admitted in ICU with confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 was performed. Prognostic performance of NUTRIC score and mNUTRIC score were assessed and compared for discriminative abilities for ICU-mortality. RESULTS: 43 patients were enrolled, age 64 (55; 70), BMI 28 ± 4. Mean NUTRIC score was 2.5 ± 1, mNUTRIC was 2.6 ± 1.1. Mortality was 39.5%, all patients had low nutritional risk according to both scores (≤5 and ≤ 4 for NUTRIC and mNUTRIC score respectively). The discriminative ability of Nutric Score for ICU mortality was 0.675 (95% CI: 0.524-0.825), while that of mNutric score was 0.655 (0.513-0.861), p = 0.667. CONCLUSIONS: Prognostic performance of Nutric score and mNutric score is comparable, but the discriminative ability is low even in patients with high inflammatory status as in COVID-19 affected population. These scores may not be appropriate in patients with COVID-19 for the determination of nutritional risk.

An Update on the COGiTATE Phase II Study: Feasibility and Safety of Targeting an Optimal Cerebral Perfusion Pressure as a Patient-Tailored Therapy in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.

INTRODUCTION: Monitoring of cerebral autoregulation (CA) in patients with a traumatic brain injury (TBI) can provide an individual 'optimal' cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) target (CPPopt) at which CA is best preserved. This potentially offers an individualized precision medicine approach. Retrospective data suggest that deviation of CPP from CPPopt is associated with poor outcomes. We are prospectively assessing the feasibility and safety of this approach in the COGiTATE [CPPopt Guided Therapy: Assessment of Target Effectiveness] study. Its primary objective is to demonstrate the feasibility of individualizing CPP at CPPopt in TBI patients. The secondary objectives are to investigate the safety and physiological effects of this strategy. METHODS: The COGiTATE study has included patients in four European hospitals in Cambridge, Leuven, Nijmegen, and Maastricht (coordinating centre). Patients with severe TBI requiring intracranial pressure (ICP)-directed therapy are allocated into one of two groups. In the intervention group, CPPopt is calculated using a published (modified) algorithm. In the control group, the CPP target recommended in the Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines (CPP 60-70 mmHg) is used. RESULTS: Patient recruitment started in February 2018 and will continue until 60 patients have been studied. Fifty-one patients (85% of the intended total) have been recruited in October 2019. The first results are expected early 2021. CONCLUSION: This prospective evaluation of the feasibility, safety and physiological implications of autoregulation-guided CPP management is providing evidence that will be useful in the design of a future phase III study in severe TBI patients.

Patient's Clinical Presentation and CPPopt Availability: Any Association?

BACKGROUND: The 'optimal' CPP (CPPopt) concept is based on the vascular pressure reactivity index (PRx). The feasibility and effectiveness of CPPopt guided therapy in severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients is currently being investigated prospectively in the COGiTATE trial. At the moment there is no clear evidence that certain admission and treatment characteristics are associated with CPPopt availability (yield). OBJECTIVE: To test the relation between patients' admission and treatment characteristics and the average CPPopt yield. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 230 patients from the CENTER-TBI high-resolution database with intracranial pressure (ICP) measured using an intraparenchymal probe. CPPopt was calculated using the algorithm set for the COGiTATE study. CPPopt yield was defined as the percentage of CPP monitored time (%) when CPPopt is available. The variables in the statistical model included age, admission Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), gender, pupil response, hypoxia and hypotension at the scene, Marshall computed tomography (CT) score, decompressive craniectomy, injury severity score score and 24-h therapeutic intensity level (TIL) score. RESULTS: The median CPPopt yield was 80.7% (interquartile range 70.9-87.4%). None of the selected variables showed a significant statistical correlation with the CPPopt yield. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective multicenter study, none of the selected admission and treatment variables were related to the CPPopt yield.

Optimal Cerebral Perfusion Pressure Assessed with a Multi-Window Weighted Approach Adapted for Prospective Use: A Validation Study.

BACKGROUND: Pressure reactivity index (PRx)-cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) relationships over a given time period can be used to detect a value of CPP at which PRx shows the best autoregulation (optimal CPP, or CPPopt). Algorithms for continuous assessment of CPPopt in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients reached the desired high yield with a multi-window approach (CPPopt_MA). However, the calculations were tested on retrospective manually cleaned datasets. Moreover, CPPopt false-positive values can be generated from non-physiological variations of intracranial pressure (ICP) and arterial blood pressure (ABP). Therefore, the algorithm robustness was improved, making it suitable for prospective bedside application (COGiTATE trial). OBJECTIVE: To validate the CPPopt revised algorithm in a large single-centre retrospective cohort of TBI patients. METHODS: 840 TBI patients were included. CPPopt yield, stability and ability to discriminate outcome groups were compared to CPPopt_MA and the Brain Trauma Foundation (BTF) guideline reference. RESULTS: CPPopt yield was lower than CPPopt_MA yield (85% and 90%, p < 0.001), but, importantly, with increased stability (p < 0.0001). The ∆(CPP-CPPopt) could distinguish the mortality and survival outcome (t = -6.7, p < 0.0001) with a statistical significance higher than the ∆CPP calculated with the guideline reference (CPP-60) (t = -4.5, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: This study validates, on a large cohort of patients, the new algorithm proposed for prospective use of CPPopt as a CPP target at bedside.