These guidelines provide a roadmap for developing integrated, evidence-based, and patient-centered protocols for preventing and treating pain, agitation, and delirium in critically ill patients.

No abstract

No abstract

Linezolid, the first available member of a new antibiotic class, the oxazolidinones, is broadly active against gram-positive bacteria, including drug-resistant strains. In this randomized, open-label trial, hospitalized adults with known or suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections were treated with linezolid (600 mg twice daily; n=240) or vancomycin (1 g twice daily; n=220) for 7-28 days. S. aureus was isolated from 53% of patients; 93% of these isolates were MRSA. Skin and soft-tissue infection was the most common diagnosis, followed by pneumonia and urinary tract infection. At the test-of-cure visit (15-21 days after the end of therapy), among evaluable patients with MRSA, there was no statistical difference between the 2 treatment groups with respect to clinical cure rates (73.2% of patients in the linezolid group and 73.1% in the vancomycin group) or microbiological success rates (58.9% in the linezolid group and 63.2% in the vancomycin group). Both regimens were well tolerated, with similar rates of adverse events.

IntroductionBenzodiazepines and α2 adrenoceptor agonists exert opposing effects on innate immunity and mortality in animal models of infection. We hypothesized that sedation with dexmedetomidine (an α2 adrenoceptor agonist), as compared with lorazepam (a benzodiazepine), would provide greater improvements in clinical outcomes among septic patients than among non-septic patients.MethodsIn this a priori-determined subgroup analysis of septic vs non-septic patients from the MENDS double-blind randomized controlled trial, adult medical/surgical mechanically ventilated patients were randomized to receive dexmedetomidine-based or lorazepam-based sedation for up to 5 days. Delirium and other clinical outcomes were analyzed comparing sedation groups, adjusting for clinically relevant covariates as well as assessing interactions between sedation group and sepsis.ResultsOf the 103 patients randomized, 63 (31 dexmedetomidine; 32 lorazepam) were admitted with sepsis and 40 (21 dexmedetomidine; 19 lorazepam) without sepsis. Baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups for both septic and non-septic patients. Compared with septic patients who received lorazepam, the dexmedetomidine septic patients had 3.2 more delirium/coma-free days (DCFD) on average (95% CI for difference, 1.1 to 4.9), 1.5 (-0.1, 2.8) more delirium-free days (DFD) and 6 (0.3, 11.1) more ventilator-free days (VFD). The beneficial effects of dexmedetomidine were more pronounced in septic patients than in non-septic patients for both DCFDs and VFDs (P-value for interaction = 0.09 and 0.02 respectively). Additionally, sedation with dexmedetomidine, compared with lorazepam, reduced the daily risk of delirium [OR, CI 0.3 (0.1, 0.7)] in both septic and non-septic patients (P-value for interaction = 0.94). Risk of dying at 28 days was reduced by 70% [hazard ratio 0.3 (0.1, 0.9)] in dexmedetomidine patients with sepsis as compared to the lorazepam patients; this reduction in death was not seen in non-septic patients (P-value for interaction = 0.11).ConclusionsIn this subgroup analysis, septic patients receiving dexmedetomidine had more days free of brain dysfunction and mechanical ventilation and were less likely to die than those that received a lorazepam-based sedation regimen. These results were more pronounced in septic patients than in non-septic patients. Prospective clinical studies and further preclinical mechanistic studies are needed to confirm these results.Trial RegistrationNCT00095251.

No abstract

Bleeding and red blood cell transfusion occur frequently during adult extracorporeal life support, but only the amount of red blood cell transfusion is associated with inhospital mortality after controlling for confounding variables.

This document was developed through the collaborative efforts of the Society of Critical Care Medicine, the American College of Chest Physicians, and the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations. Under the auspices of these societies, a multidisciplinary, multi-institutional task force was convened, incorporating expertise in critical care medicine, organ donor management, and transplantation. Members of the task force were divided into 13 subcommittees, each focused on one of the following general or organ-specific areas: death determination using neurologic criteria, donation after circulatory death determination, authorization process, general contraindications to donation, hemodynamic management, endocrine dysfunction and hormone replacement therapy, pediatric donor management, cardiac donation, lung donation, liver donation, kidney donation, small bowel donation, and pancreas donation. Subcommittees were charged with generating a series of management-related questions related to their topic. For each question, subcommittees provided a summary of relevant literature and specific recommendations. The specific recommendations were approved by all members of the task force and then assembled into a complete document. Because the available literature was overwhelmingly comprised of observational studies and case series, representing low-quality evidence, a decision was made that the document would assume the form of a consensus statement rather than a formally graded guideline. The goal of this document is to provide critical care practitioners with essential information and practical recommendations related to management of the potential organ donor, based on the available literature and expert consensus.