IntroductionCritically ill patients can develop hyperglycaemia even if they do not have diabetes. Intensive insulin therapy decreases morbidity and mortality rates in patients in a surgical intensive care unit (ICU) and decreases morbidity in patients in a medical ICU. The effect of this therapy on patients in a mixed medical/surgical ICU is unknown. Our goal was to assess whether the effect of intensive insulin therapy, compared with standard therapy, decreases morbidity and mortality in patients hospitalised in a mixed ICU.MethodsThis is a prospective, randomised, non-blinded, single-centre clinical trial in a medical/surgical ICU. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either intensive insulin therapy to maintain glucose levels between 80 and 110 mg/dl (4.4 to 6.1 mmol/l) or standard insulin therapy to maintain glucose levels between 180 and 200 mg/dl (10 and 11.1 mmol/l). The primary end point was mortality at 28 days.ResultsOver a period of 30 months, 504 patients were enrolled. The 28-day mortality rate was 32.4% (81 of 250) in the standard insulin therapy group and 36.6% (93 of 254) in the intensive insulin therapy group (Relative Risk [RR]: 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85 to 1.42). The ICU mortality in the standard insulin therapy group was 31.2% (78 of 250) and 33.1% (84 of 254) in the intensive insulin therapy group (RR: 1.06; 95%CI: 0.82 to 1.36). There was no statistically significant reduction in the rate of ICU-acquired infections: 33.2% in the standard insulin therapy group compared with 27.17% in the intensive insulin therapy group (RR: 0.82; 95%CI: 0.63 to 1.07). The rate of hypoglycaemia (≤ 40 mg/dl) was 1.7% in the standard insulin therapy group and 8.5% in the intensive insulin therapy group (RR: 5.04; 95% CI: 1.20 to 21.12).ConclusionsIIT used to maintain glucose levels within normal limits did not reduce morbidity or mortality of patients admitted to a mixed medical/surgical ICU. Furthermore, this therapy increased the risk of hypoglycaemia.Trial Registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: 4374-04-13031; 094-2 in 000966421

No abstract

Our findings suggested that UFH may be a feasible and safe intervention in sepsis. However, this study was not able to demonstrate a beneficial effect on the chosen primary outcomes or in the 28-day mortality rate.

Our aim was to develop a clinical prediction rule for detection of bacteremia in a cohort of patients observed prospectively at a reference center in Medellín, Colombia. The significant predictors of bacteremia were an age of >or=30 years (odds ratio [OR], 2.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-3.60), a heart rate of >or=90 beats/min (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.13-3.17), a temperature of >or=37.8 degrees C (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.41-4.14), a leukocyte count of >or=12,000 cells/microL (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.41-4.10), use of a central venous catheter (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.02-3.50), and a length of hospitalization of >or=10 days (OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.25-3.24). The Hosmer-Lemeshow test revealed a goodness-of-fit of 2.99 (P=.981), and the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.7186. Simple variables obtained from the clinical history of patients are associated with bloodstream infection in a reproducible fashion and should be instrumental for prioritizing the requests for blood cultures by clinicians.

Objectives: The objectives were to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy for sepsis in an emergency department (ED) population of the cluster of differentiation-64 (CD64) glycoprotein expression on the surface of neutrophils (nCD64), serum levels of soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1 (s-TREM-1), and high-mobility group box-1 protein (HMGB-1).Methods: Patients with any of the following as admission diagnosis were enrolled: 1) suspected infection, 2) fever, 3) delirium, or 4) acute hypotension of unexplained origin within 24 hours of ED presentation. Levels of nCD64, HMGB-1, and s-TREM-1 were measured within the first 24 hours of the first ED evaluation. Baseline clinical data, Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score, daily clinical and microbiologic information, and 28-day mortality rate were collected. Because there is not a definitive criterion standard for sepsis, the authors used expert consensus based on clinical, microbiologic, laboratory, and radiologic data collected for each patient during the first 7 days of hospitalization. This expert consensus defined the primary outcome of sepsis, and the primary data analysis was based in the comparison of sepsis versus nonsepsis patients. The cut points to define sensitivity and specificity values, as well as positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) for the markers related to sepsis diagnosis, were determined using receiver operative characteristics (ROC) curves. The patients in this study were a prespecified nested subsample population of a larger study.Results: Of 631 patients included in the study, 66% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 62% to 67%, n = 416) had sepsis according with the expert consensus diagnosis. Among these sepsis patients, SOFA score defined 67% (95% CI = 62% to 71%, n = 277) in severe sepsis and 1% (95% CI = 0.3% to 3%, n = 6) in septic shock. The sensitivities for sepsis diagnosis were CD64, 65.8% (95% CI = 61.1% to 70.3%); HMGB-1, 57.5% (95% CI = 52.7% to 62.3%); and s-TREM-1, 60% (95% CI = 55.2% to 64.7%). The specificities were CD64, 64.6% (95% CI = 57.8% to 70.8%), HMGB-1, 57.8% (95% CI = 51.1% to 64.3%), and s-TREM-1, 59.2% (95% CI = 52.5% to 65.6%). The positive LR (LR+) for CD64 was 1.85 (95% CI = 1.52 to 2.26) and the negative LR (LR-) was 0.52 (95% CI = 0.44 to 0.62]; for HMGB-1 the LR+ was 1.36 (95% CI = 1.14 to 1.63) and LR-was 0.73 (95% CI = 0.62 to 0.86); and for s-TREM-1 the LR+ was 1.47 (95%

Background: Recent data have suggested that 18 million of new sepsis cases occur each year worldwide, with a mortality rate of almost 30%. There is not consensus on the clinical definition of sepsis and, because of lack of training or simply unawareness, clinicians often miss or delay this diagnosis. This is especially worrying; since there is strong evidence supporting that early treatment is associated with greater clinical success. There are some difficulties for sepsis diagnosis such as the lack of an appropriate gold standard to identify this clinical condition. This situation has hampered the assessment of the accuracy of clinical signs and biomarkers to diagnose sepsis.

Introduction: Infection promotes coagulation via a large number of molecular and cellular mechanisms, and this procoagulant activity has boosted basic and clinical research using anticoagulant molecules as therapeutic tools in sepsis. Heparin, which is a naturally occurring proteoglycan that acts by reducing thrombin generation and fibrin formation, has not been rigorously tested in a randomized clinical trial.

BackgroundGiven the acknowledged problems in sepsis diagnosis, we use a novel way with the application of the latent class analysis (LCA) to determine the operative characteristics of C-reactive protein (CRP), D-dimer (DD) and Procalcitonin (PCT) as diagnostic tests for sepsis in patients admitted to hospital care with a presumptive infection.MethodsCross-sectional study to determine the diagnostic accuracy of three biological markers against the gold standard of clinical definition of sepsis provided by an expert committee, and also against the likelihood of sepsis according to LCA. Patients were recruited in the emergency room within 24 hours of hospitalization and were follow-up daily until discharge.ResultsAmong 765 patients, the expert committee classified 505 patients (66%) with sepsis, 112 (15%) with infection but without sepsis and 148 (19%) without infection. The best cut-offs points for CRP, DD, and PCT were 7.8 mg/dl, 1616 ng/ml and 0.3 ng/ml, respectively; but, neither sensitivity nor specificity reach 70% for any biomarker. The LCA analysis with the same three tests identified a “cluster” of 187 patients with several characteristics suggesting a more severe condition as well as better microbiological confirmation. Assuming this subset of patients as the new prevalence of sepsis, the ROC curve analysis identified new cut-off points for the tests and suggesting a better discriminatory ability for PCT with a value of 2 ng/ml.ConclusionsUnder a “classical” definition of sepsis three typical biomarkers (CRP, PCT and DD) are not capable enough to differentiate septic from non-septic patients in the ER. However, a higher level of PCT discriminates a selected group of patients with severe sepsis.