DESIGN: A post hoc subgroup analysis of the effect of higher protein dosing in critically ill patients with high nutritional risk (EFFORT Protein): an international, multicenter, pragmatic, registry-based randomized trial.
SETTING: Eighty-five adult ICUs across 16 countries.
PATIENTS: Patients with obesity defined as a body mass index (BMI) greater than or equal to 30 kg/m 2 ( n = 425).
INTERVENTIONS: In the primary study, patients were randomized into a high-dose (≥ 2.2 g/kg/d) or usual-dose protein group (≤ 1.2 g/kg/d).
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Protein intake was monitored for up to 28 days, and outcomes (time to discharge alive [TTDA], 60-d mortality, days of mechanical ventilation [MV], hospital, and ICU length of stay [LOS]) were recorded until 60 days post-randomization. Of the 1301 patients in the primary study, 425 had a BMI greater than or equal to 30 kg/m 2 . After adjusting for sites and covariates, we observed a nonsignificant slower rate of TTDA with higher protein that ruled out a clinically important benefit (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58-1.05; p = 0.10). We found no evidence of difference in TTDA between protein groups when subgroups with different classes of obesity or patients with and without various nutritional and frailty risk variables were examined, even after the removal of patients with baseline acute kidney injury. Overall, 60-day mortality rates were 31.5% and 28.2% in the high protein and usual protein groups, respectively (risk difference, 3.3%; 95% CI, -5.4 to 12.1; p = 0.46). Duration of MV and LOS in hospital and ICU were not significantly different between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with obesity, higher protein doses did not improve clinical outcomes, including those with higher nutritional and frailty risk.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the effectiveness of amiodarone, dexmedetomidine and magnesium in preventing JET following congenital heart surgery.
METHODS: This meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement, where 11 electronic databases were searched from date of inception to August 2020. The incidence of JET was calculated with the relative risk of 95% confidence interval (CI). Quality assessment of the included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement.
RESULTS: Eleven studies met the predetermined inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Amiodarone, dexmedetomidine and magnesium significantly reduced the incidence of postoperative JET [Amiodarone: risk ratio 0.34; I2= 0%; Z=3.66 (P=0.0002); 95% CI 0.19-0.60. Dexmedetomidine: risk ratio 0.34; I2= 0%; Z=4.77 (P<0.00001); 95% CI 0.21-0.52. Magnesium: risk ratio 0.50; I2= 24%; Z=5.08 (P<0.00001); 95% CI 0.39-0.66].
CONCLUSION: All three drugs show promise in reducing the incidence of JET. Our systematic review found that dexmedetomidine is better in reducing the length of ICU stays as well as mortality. In addition, dexmedetomidine also has the least pronounced side effects among the three. However, it should be noted that this conclusion was derived from studies with small sample sizes. Therefore, dexmedetomidine may be considered as the drug of choice for preventing JET.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate and critically appraise the evidence on the prevalence, causes and severity of medication administration errors (MAEs) amongst neonates in Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs).
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted by searching nine electronic databases and the grey literature for studies, without language and publication date restrictions. The pooled prevalence of MAEs was estimated using a random-effects model. Data on error causation were synthesised using Reason's model of accident causation.
RESULTS: Twenty unique studies were included. Amongst direct observation studies reporting total opportunity for errors as the denominator for MAEs, the pooled prevalence was 59.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 35.4-81.3, I2 = 99.5%). Whereas, the non-direct observation studies reporting medication error reports as the denominator yielded a pooled prevalence of 64.8% (95% CI 46.6-81.1, I2 = 98.2%). The common reported causes were error-provoking environments (five studies), while active failures were reported by three studies. Only three studies examined the severity of MAEs, and each utilised a different method of assessment.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis estimating the prevalence, causes and severity of MAEs amongst neonates. There is a need to improve the quality and reporting of studies to produce a better estimate of the prevalence of MAEs amongst neonates. Important targets such as wrong administration-technique, wrong drug-preparation and wrong time errors have been identified to guide the implementation of remedial measures.
Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted between 24th February 2020 and 20th April 2020. All consecutive patients in the entire State of Kuwait diagnosed with COVID-19 according to WHO guidelines and admitted to Jaber Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah Hospital were included. Patients received standardized investigations and treatments. Multivariable analysis was used to determine the associations between risk factors and outcomes (admission to intensive care and/or mortality).
Findings: Of 1096 patients, the median age was 41 years and 81% of patients were male. Most patients were asymptomatic on admission (46.3%), of whom 35 later developed symptoms, and 59.7% had no signs of infection. Only 3.6% of patients required an ICU admission and 1.7% were dead at the study's cutoff date. On multivariable analysis, the risk factors found to be significantly associated with admission to intensive care were age above 50 years old, a qSOFA score above 0, smoking, elevated CRP and elevated procalcitonin levels. Asthma, smoking and elevated procalcitonin levels correlated significantly with mortality in our cohort.
METHODS: Using indirect calorimetry, REE was measured at acute (≤5 days; n = 294) and late (≥6 days; n = 180) phases of intensive care unit admission. PEs were developed by multiple linear regression. A multi-fold cross-validation approach was used to validate the PEs. The best PEs were selected based on the highest coefficient of determination (R2), the lowest root mean square error (RMSE) and the lowest standard error of estimate (SEE). Two PEs developed from paired 168-patient data were compared with measured REE using mean absolute percentage difference.
RESULTS: Mean absolute percentage difference between predicted and measured REE was <20%, which is not clinically significant. Thus, a single PE was developed and validated from data of the larger sample size measured in the acute phase. The best PE for REE (kcal/day) was 891.6(Height) + 9.0(Weight) + 39.7(Minute Ventilation)-5.6(Age) - 354, with R2 = 0.442, RMSE = 348.3, SEE = 325.6 and mean absolute percentage difference with measured REE was: 15.1 ± 14.2% [acute], 15.0 ± 13.1% [late].
CONCLUSIONS: Separate PEs for acute and late phases may not be necessary. Thus, we have developed and validated a PE from acute phase data and demonstrated that it can provide optimal estimates of REE for patients in both acute and late phases.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03319329.
Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in five electronic databases limited to publication dates from 1st January 2000 until 31st August 2017. After screening n=481 articles, n=21 were found to meet the inclusion criteria of this systematic review.
Results: Results from the meta-analysis revealed that the risk for MRSA isolates in the burn ICU was 55.0% higher (OR 0.55, 95%CI 0.32-0.94). Therefore, timely testing, appropriate hygiene practice and suggested wound care must be practiced while handling such patients.
Conclusion: Further studies are needed to identify the risk factors of MRSA infections among burn patients and to develop new antimicrobial agents for MRSA infections.
OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review to understand the rapid response team's (RRT) effect on patient outcomes.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and two trial registers. The studies published up to May 6, 2022, from the inception date of the databases were included. Two researchers filtered the title, abstract and full text. The Version 2 of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool were used separately for randomized and non-randomized controlled trials for quality appraisal.
RESULTS: Sixty-one eligible studies were identified, four randomized controlled trials(RCTs), four non-randomized controlled trials, six interrupted time-series(ITS) design , and 47 pretest-posttest studies. A total of 52 studies reported hospital mortality, 51 studies reported cardiopulmonary arrests, 18 studies reported unplanned ICU admissions and ten studies reported LOS.
CONCLUSION: This systematic review found the variation in context and the type of RRT interventions restricts direct comparisons. The evidence for improving several aspects of patient outcomes was inconsistent, with most studies demonstrating that RRT positively impacts patient outcomes.
METHODS: A retrospective analytical cross-sectional study was conducted over 2 years. The cumulative antibiograms were constructed in accordance with current guidelines.
RESULTS: A total of 976 first isolate cultures were obtained from ICUs of the different referral hospitals. K. pneumoniae (8.8%, 8.1%) was a predominant pathogen in Windhoek Central hospital ICU in 2017 and 2018. In Oshakati intermediate hospital ICU, Enterobacter sp. (22.2%) and P. aeruginosa (37.5%) were the common pathogens in 2017 and 2018, respectively. A. baumannii isolates were >90% susceptibility to colistin, carbapenems, and tigecycline in 2017. In 2017, K. pneumoniae isolates were more susceptible to carbapenems (94% and 93.8% among isolates), amikacin (89.3%), and tigecycline (88.7%). In 2018, K. pneumoniae isolates were 100% susceptible amikacin, colistin, and carbapenems. S. maltophilia isolates were more than 80% susceptible to all the tested antibiotics. S. aureus isolates were 100% susceptible to linezolid, rifampicin, teicoplanin, and vancomycin in 2017 and in 2018. Its susceptibility to these antibiotics did not change.
CONCLUSION: The susceptibility patterns of the common isolated gram-negative pathogens were highly variable. Meropenem in combination with gentamicin is now the recommended antibiotic combination for empiric therapy for patients with LRTIs in Windhoek Central Hospital ICU.