IntroductionTo assess the prevalence of dysnatremia, including borderline changes in serum sodium concentration, and to estimate the impact of these dysnatremia on mortality after adjustment for confounders.MethodsObservational study on a prospective database fed by 13 intensive care units (ICUs). Unselected patients with ICU stay longer than 48 h were enrolled over a 14-year period were included in this study. Mild to severe hyponatremia were defined as serum sodium concentration < 135, < 130, and < 125 mmol/L respectively. Mild to severe hypernatremia were defined as serum sodium concentration > 145, > 150, and > 155 mmol/L respectively. Borderline hyponatremia and hypernatremia were defined as serum sodium concentration between 135 and 137 mmol/L or 143 and 145 respectively.ResultsA total of 11,125 patients were included in this study. Among these patients, 3,047 (27.4%) had mild to severe hyponatremia at ICU admission, 2,258 (20.3%) had borderline hyponatremia at ICU admission, 1,078 (9.7%) had borderline hypernatremia and 877 (7.9%) had mild to severe hypernatremia. After adjustment for confounder, both moderate and severe hyponatremia (subdistribution hazard ratio (sHR) 1.82, 95% CI 1.002 to 1.395 and 1.27, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.60 respectively) were associated with day-30 mortality. Similarly, mild, moderate and severe hypernatremia (sHR 1.34, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.57; 1.51, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.99; and 2.64, 95% CI 2.00 to 3.81 respectively) were independently associated with day-30 mortality.ConclusionsOne-third of critically ill patients had a mild to moderate dysnatremia at ICU admission. Dysnatremia, including mild changes in serum sodium concentration, is an independent risk factor for hospital mortality and should not be neglected.

Abstract Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) appears to be a promising treatment for COVID-19. However, all ongoing clinical trials with HCQ use different dosing regimens, resulting in various concentrations. Pharmacokinetic studies are therefore needed to define the optimal dosing regimen.

Recurrence of primary IgA nephropathy after renal transplantation is clearly a time-dependent event, justifying the use of Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses to sort the significant risk factors. In this retrospective study, we focused on the potential role of induction immunosuppressive therapy. We studied 116 renal transplantation (84 males, 112 cadaveric donors, 95 first grafts, mean age at Tx=46.1 years) who received, as induction, antithymocyte globulin (ATG) in 29, anti-CD25 in 35, and none in 52, associated with different maintenance therapy overtime. The 10-year cumulative recurrence rate was overall 36%, but only 9% after ATG induction when compared with 41% without induction (P=0.001). Multivariate Cox regression confirmed that ATG was protective with a 80% reduction in relative risk (P=0.01). In conclusion, this important finding needs to be confirmed in a prospective trial and if so will have major implication.

The hormonal response to undernutrition is heterogeneous in a large population with restrictive AN. In clinical practice, metanephrines, GH, and/or cortisol data could be used as important predictors for severe short-term outcome.

Of the patients, 21/118 (18%) could be extubated after a trial with PS, despite having failed a T-tube trial. The reintubation rate was not increased. This protocol may particularly benefit patients who are most difficult to wean, notably those with COPD.

In summary, only 56.6% of ICU patients receiving SAT had CP. Most strains were susceptible to SAT. A similar 28-day mortality rate was observed among groups; the late administration of SAT significantly worsened the prognosis of patients with less severe CP.

In catecholamine-dependent septic shock patients managed with systematic glucocorticoid therapy the results of ACTH stimulation do not predict hemodynamic improvement.

IntroductionIn seriously infected patients with acute renal failure and who require continuous renal replacement therapy, data on continuous infusion of ceftazidime are lacking. Here we analyzed the pharmacokinetics of ceftazidime administered by continuous infusion in critically ill patients during continuous venovenous haemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) in order to identify the optimal dosage in this setting.MethodSeven critically ill patients were prospectively enrolled in the study. CVVHDF was performed using a 0.6 m2 AN69 high-flux membrane and with blood, dialysate and ultrafiltration flow rates of 150 ml/min, 1 l/hour and 1.5 l/hour, respectively. Based on a predicted haemodiafiltration clearance of 32.5 ml/min, all patients received a 2 g loading dose of ceftazidime, followed by a 3 g/day continuous infusion for 72 hours. Serum samples were collected at 0, 3, 15 and 30 minutes and at 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24, 36, 48 and 72 hours; dialysate/ultrafiltrate samples were taken at 2, 8, 12, 24, 36 and 48 hours. Ceftazidime concentrations in serum and dialysate/ultrafiltrate were measured using high-performance liquid chromatography.ResultsThe mean (± standard deviation) elimination half-life, volume of distribution, area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to 72 hours, and total clearance of ceftazidime were 4 ± 1 hours, 19 ± 6 l, 2514 ± 212 mg/h per l, and 62 ± 5 ml/min, respectively. The mean serum ceftazidime steady-state concentration was 33.5 mg/l (range 28.8–36.3 mg/l). CVVHDF effectively removed continuously infused ceftazidime, with a sieving coefficient and haemodiafiltration clearance of 0.81 ± 0.11 and 33.6 ± 4 mg/l, respectively.ConclusionWe conclude that a dosing regimen of 3 g/day ceftazidime, by continuous infusion, following a 2 g loading dose, results in serum concentrations more than four times the minimum inhibitory concentration for all susceptible pathogens, and we recommend this regimen in critically ill patients undergoing CVVHDF.