During recent years, a rising incidence of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA) in non-neutropenic critically ill patients has been reported. Critically ill patients are prone to develop disturbances in immunoregulation during their stay in the ICU, which render them more vulnerable for fungal infections. Risk factors such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), prolonged use of steroids, advanced liver disease, chronic renal replacement therapy, near-drowning and diabetes mellitus have been described. Diagnosis of IPA may be difficult and obtaining histo-or cytopathological demonstration of the fungus in order to meet the gold standard for IPA is not always feasible in these patients. Laboratory markers used as a noninvasive diagnostic tool, such as the galactomannan antigen test (GM), 1,3-β-glucan, and Aspergillus PCR, show varying results. Antifungal therapy might be considered in patients with persistent pulmonary infection who exhibit risk factors together with positive cultures or sequentially positive GM and Aspergillus PCR in serum, in whom voriconazole is the drug of choice. The benefit of combination antifungal therapy lacks sufficient evidence so far, but this treatment might be considered in patients with breakthrough infections or refractory disease.

BackgroundDelirium is a frequent disorder in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with serious consequences. Therefore, preventive treatment for delirium may be beneficial. Worldwide, haloperidol is the first choice for pharmacological treatment of delirious patients. In daily clinical practice, a lower dose is sometimes used as prophylaxis. Some studies have shown the beneficial effects of prophylactic haloperidol on delirium incidence as well as on mortality, but evidence for effectiveness in ICU patients is limited. The primary objective of our study is to determine the effect of haloperidol prophylaxis on 28-day survival. Secondary objectives include the incidence of delirium and delirium-related outcome and the side effects of haloperidol prophylaxis.MethodsThis will be a multicenter three-armed randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, prophylactic intervention study in critically ill patients. We will include consecutive non-neurological ICU patients, aged ≥18 years with an expected ICU length of stay >1 day. To be able to demonstrate a 15% increase in 28-day survival time with a power of 80% and alpha of 0.05 in both intervention groups, a total of 2,145 patients will be randomized; 715 in each group. The anticipated mortality rate in the placebo group is 12%. The intervention groups will receive prophylactic treatment with intravenous haloperidol 1 mg/q8h or 2 mg/q8h, and patients in the control group will receive placebo (sodium chloride 0.9%), both for a maximum period of 28-days. In patients who develop delirium, study medication will be stopped and patients will subsequently receive open label treatment with a higher (therapeutic) dose of haloperidol. We will use descriptive summary statistics as well as Cox proportional hazard regression analyses, adjusted for covariates.DiscussionThis will be the first large-scale multicenter randomized controlled prevention study with haloperidol in ICU patients with a high risk of delirium, adequately powered to demonstrate an effect on 28-day survival.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov: NCT01785290.EudraCT number: 2012-004012-66.

BackgroundRapid diagnosis and appropriate antimicrobial therapy are of major importance to decrease morbidity and mortality in patients with blood stream infections (BSI). Blood culture, the current gold standard for detecting bacteria in blood, requires at least 24–48 hours and has limited sensitivity if obtained during antibiotic treatment of the patient. The aim of this prospective multicenter study was to clinically evaluate the application of a commercial universal 16S/18S rDNA PCR, SepsiTest™ (PCR-ST), directly on whole blood.MethodsIn total 236 samples from 166 patients with suspected sepsis were included in the study. PCR-ST results were compared to blood culture, the current gold standard for detecting BSI. Because blood cultures can give false-negative results, we performed an additional analysis to interpret the likelihood of bloodstream infection by using an evaluation based on clinical diagnosis, other diagnostic tests and laboratory parameters.ResultsClinical interpretation of results defined the detected organism to be contaminants in 22 of 43 positive blood cultures (51.2 %) and 21 of 47 positive PCR-ST results (44.7 %). Excluding these contaminants resulted in an overall sensitivity and specificity of the PCR-ST of 66.7 and 94.4 % respectively. Of the 36 clinically relevant samples, 11 BSI were detected with both techniques, 15 BSI were detected with PCR-ST only and 10 with blood culture only. Therefore, in this study, SepsiTest™ detected an additional 71 % BSI compared to blood culture alone.ConclusionsMore clinically relevant BSI were diagnosed by molecular detection, which might influence patient treatment. An improved SepsiTest™ assay suited for routine use can have additional value to blood culture in diagnosing bacteremia in septic patients.

The incidence of sepsis, the combination of a systemic inflammatory response syndrome and documented infection, is as high as up to 95 cases per 100,000 people per year. The understanding of the pathophysiology of sepsis has much increased over the last 20 years. However, sepsis combined with shock is still associated with a high mortality rate varying from 35 to 55%. Causative treatment, source control and antibiotics started as soon as possible, are the cornerstone of therapy in combination with symptomatic treatment in the ICU. The pharmacological interventions, including fluid resuscitation, vasoactive drugs and adjunctive drugs such as steroids, activated protein C are discussed. The possible beneficial role of strict glucose control is also addressed. Since many drug intervention studies were negative, lessons should be learned from earlier experiences for future trials. Source control and level of intensive care should be eliminated as confounders.