CASE PRESENTATION: A 52-year-old Malay gentleman, with hepatitis C virus and HIV infection was admitted to the intensive care unit for severe lactic acidosis, with concurrent Escherichia coli bacteremia with multiorgan dysfunction. The patient was started on highly active antiretroviral therapy, which included tenofovir, 5 weeks before presentation. Antimicrobial therapy, continuous veno-venous hemofiltration, and other supportive treatments were instituted. However, the patient eventually succumbed to his illness.
CONCLUSIONS: It is essential for clinicians to be able to recognize the signs and symptoms of lactic acidosis in NRTIs treated HIV patients, as an early diagnosis is important to institute treatment.
Methods: Sixty-six severe TBI patients who required emergency craniotomy or craniectomy and were planned for post-operative ventilation were randomised into NS (n = 33) and BF therapy groups (n = 33). The calculation of maintenance fluid given was based on the Holliday-Segar method. The electrolytes and acid-base parameters were assessed at an 8 h interval for 24 h. The data were analysed using repeated measures ANOVA.
Results: The NS group showed a significant lower base excess (-3.20 versus -1.35, P = 0.049), lower bicarbonate level (22.03 versus 23.48 mmol/L, P = 0.031), and more hyperchloremia (115.12 versus 111.74 mmol/L, P < 0.001) and hypokalemia (3.36 versus 3.70 mmol/L, P < 0.001) than the BF group at 24 h of therapy. The BF group showed a significantly higher level of calcium (1.97 versus 1.79 mmol/L, P = 0.003) and magnesium (0.94 versus 0.80 mmol/L, P < 0.001) than the NS group at 24 h of fluid therapy. No significant differences were found in pH, pCO2, lactate, and sodium level.
Conclusion: BF therapy showed better effects in maintaining higher electrolyte parameters and reducing the trend toward hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis than the NS therapy during prolonged fluid therapy for postoperative TBI patients.
Methods: A total of 110 severe TBI patients, aged 18-60, who underwent emergency brain surgery were randomised into Group T (TCI) (n = 55) and Group S (sevoflurane) (n = 55). Anaesthesia was maintained in Group T with propofol target plasma concentration of 3-6 μg/mL and in Group S with minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) of sevoflurane 1.0-1.5. Both groups received TCI remifentanil 2-8 ng/mL for analgesia. After the surgery, patients were managed in the intensive care unit and were followed up until discharge for the outcome parameters.
Results: Demographic characteristics were comparable in both groups. Differences in Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) score at discharge were not significant between Group T and Group S (P = 0.25): the percentages of mortality (GOS 1) [27.3% versus 16.4%], vegetative and severe disability (GOS 2-3) [29.1% versus 41.8%] and good outcome (GOS 4-5) [43.6% versus 41.8%] were comparable in both groups. There were no significant differences in other outcome parameters.
Conclusion: TCI propofol and sevoflurane anaesthesia were comparable in the outcomes of TBI patients after emergency surgery.
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 AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective direct observational study that will be conducted in five neonatal intensive care units. A minimum sample size of 820 drug preparations and administrations will be observed. Data including patient characteristics, drug preparation-related and administration-related information and other procedures will be recorded. After each round of observation, the observers will compare his/her observations with the prescriber's medication order, hospital policies and manufacturer's recommendations to determine whether MAE has occurred. To ensure reliability, the error identification will be independently performed by two clinical pharmacists after the completion of data collection for all study sites. Any disagreements will be discussed with the research team for consensus. To reduce overfitting and improve the quality of risk predictions, we have prespecified a priori the analytical plan, that is, prespecifying the candidate predictor variables, handling missing data and validation of the developed model. The model's performance will also be assessed. Finally, various modes of presentation formats such as a simplified scoring tool or web-based electronic risk calculators will be considered.
METHODS: This international, investigator-initiated, pragmatic, registry-based, single-blinded, randomised trial was undertaken in 85 intensive care units (ICUs) across 16 countries. We enrolled nutritionally high-risk adults (≥18 years) undergoing mechanical ventilation to compare prescribing high-dose protein (≥2·2 g/kg per day) with usual dose protein (≤1·2 g/kg per day) started within 96 h of ICU admission and continued for up to 28 days or death or transition to oral feeding. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to high-dose protein or usual dose protein, stratified by site. As site personnel were involved in both prescribing and delivering protein dose, it was not possible to blind clinicians, but patients were not made aware of the treatment assignment. The primary efficacy outcome was time-to-discharge-alive from hospital up to 60 days after ICU admission and the secondary outcome was 60-day morality. Patients were analysed in the group to which they were randomly assigned regardless of study compliance, although patients who dropped out of the study before receiving the study intervention were excluded. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03160547.
FINDINGS: Between Jan 17, 2018, and Dec 3, 2021, 1329 patients were randomised and 1301 (97·9%) were included in the analysis (645 in the high-dose protein group and 656 in usual dose group). By 60 days after randomisation, the cumulative incidence of alive hospital discharge was 46·1% (95 CI 42·0%-50·1%) in the high-dose compared with 50·2% (46·0%-54·3%) in the usual dose protein group (hazard ratio 0·91, 95% CI 0·77-1·07; p=0·27). The 60-day mortality rate was 34·6% (222 of 642) in the high dose protein group compared with 32·1% (208 of 648) in the usual dose protein group (relative risk 1·08, 95% CI 0·92-1·26). There appeared to be a subgroup effect with higher protein provision being particularly harmful in patients with acute kidney injury and higher organ failure scores at baseline.
INTERPRETATION: Delivery of higher doses of protein to mechanically ventilated critically ill patients did not improve the time-to-discharge-alive from hospital and might have worsened outcomes for patients with acute kidney injury and high organ failure scores.
FUNDING: None.
METHODS: This is a retrospective review of all mechanically ventilated surgical patients in the wards, in a tertiary hospital, in 2020. Sixty-two patients out of 116 patients ventilated in surgical wards fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Demography, surgical diagnosis and procedures and physiologic, biochemical and survival data were analyzed to explore the outcomes and predictors of mortality.
RESULTS: Twenty-two out of 62 patients eventually gained ICU admission. Mean time from intubation to ICU entry and mean length of ICU stay were 48 h (0 to 312) and 10 days (1 to 33), respectively. Survival for patients admitted to ICU compared to ventilation in the acute surgery wards was 54.5% (12/22) vs 17.5% (7/40). Thirty-four patients underwent surgery, and the majority were bowel-related emergency operations. SAPS2 score validation revealed AUC of 0.701. More than half of patients with mortality risk care for critically ill surgical patients provides better survival. There is a need to improve triaging for intensive care, especially for low-mortality-risk patients using risk scores which are locally validated.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional study was carried out on 645 women with DC twins, excluding pregnancies complicated by one or both fetuses with demise (n = 22) or congenital anomalies (n = 9), who gave birth after 28 complete gestational weeks between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2018. Univariable and multiple logistic regression analyses were carried out.
RESULTS: Maternal age >34 years (adjusted odds ratio 2.52; 95% confidence interval 1.25-5.07) and pre-pregnancy body mass index >24.9 kg/m2 (adjusted odds ratio 2.83, 95% confidence interval 1.47-5.46) were independent risk factors for GDM in women with DC twins. Newborns from women with GDM DC twins were more likely to be admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (adjusted odds ratio 1.70, 95% confidence interval 1.06-2.72) than newborns from women with non-GDM DC twins. Other pregnancy and neonatal outcomes were similar between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Advanced maternal age and pre-pregnancy overweight or obesity are risk factors for GDM in women with DC twins. Except for a nearly twofold increased risk of neonatal intensive care unit admission of newborns, the pregnancy and neonatal outcomes for women with GDM DC twins are similar to those for women with non-GDM DC twins.
DESIGN: Parallel-group randomised controlled trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio.
SETTING: Two regional tertiary neonatal intensive care units.
PATIENTS: 150 preterm infants less than 35 weeks gestation with birth weight between 1.0 and 1.5 kg were recruited.
INTERVENTIONS: Infants were enrolled to either 2-hourly or 3-hourly interval feeding after randomisation. Blinding was not possible due to the nature of the intervention.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to achieve full enteral feeding (≥100 mL/kg/day). Secondary outcomes include time to regain birth weight, episode of feeding intolerance, peak serum bilirubin levels, duration of phototherapy, episode of necrotising enterocolitis, nosocomial sepsis and gastro-oesophageal reflux.
RESULTS: 72 infants were available for primary outcome analysis in each group as three were excluded due to death-three deaths in each group. The mean time to full enteral feeding was 11.3 days in the 3-hourly group and 10.2 days in the 2-hourly group (mean difference 1.1 days; 95% CI -0.4 to 2.5; p=0.14). The mean time to regain birth weight was shorter in 3-hourly group (12.9 vs 14.8 days, p=0.04). Other subgroup analyses did not reveal additional significant results. No difference in adverse events was found between the groups.
CONCLUSION: 3-hourly feeding was comparable with 2-hourly feeding to achieve full enteral feeding without any evidence of increased adverse events.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12611000676910, pre-result.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study conducted over a period of 18 months. A self-administered questionnaire assessing knowledge and perception regarding neonatal pain was used.
RESULTS: Twenty-four hospitals participated in the study, with 423 respondents. The response rate was 85%. One hundred and ninety-seven respondents (47%) were aware of tools for neonatal pain assessment, but only 6% used them in daily practice. Doctors with >4 years of experience in neonatal care had better awareness of available pain assessment tools (59.4% vs 40.9%, P = 0.001). Sixteen statements regarding knowledge were assessed. Mean score obtained was 10.5 ± 2.5. Consultants/specialists obtained a higher mean score than medical officers (11.9 vs 10.4, P < 0.001). More than 80% of respondents were able to discriminate painful from non-painful procedures.
CONCLUSION: Clinicians involved in neonatal care, especially those with longer experience were knowledgeable about neonatal pain. Gaps between knowledge and its application, however, remain. Implementation of clinical guidelines to improve the quality of assessment and adequate pain management in neonates is recommended.