In this trial involving patients with septic shock, 90-day all-cause mortality was lower among those who received hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone than among those who received placebo. (Funded by Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique 2007 of the French Ministry of Social Affairs and Health; APROCCHSS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00625209 .).

BACKGROUND:The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of humidified oxygen via high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) alternating with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). METHODS: We performed a prospective observational study in a 12-bed ICU of a university hospital. All subjects with a P aO 2 /F IO 2 of < 300 mm Hg with standard mask oxygen and a breathing frequency of > 30 breaths/min or signs of respiratory distress were included and treated with HFNC first and then NIV. Ventilatory parameters, blood gases, and tolerance were recorded during 2 consecutive sessions of NIV and HFNC. Outcome was assessed after continuation of this noninvasive strategy. RESULTS: Twenty-eight subjects with AHRF were studied, including 23 (82%) with ARDS. Compared with standard oxygen therapy, P aO 2 significantly increased from 83 (68 -97) mm Hg to 108 (83-140) mm Hg using HFNC and to 125 (97-200) mm Hg using NIV (P < .01), whereas breathing frequency significantly decreased. HFNC was significantly better tolerated than NIV, with a lower score on the visual analog scale. The nonintubated subjects received HFNC for 75 (27-127) h and NIV for 23 (8 -31) h. Intubation was required in 10 of 28 subjects (36%), including 8 of 23 subjects with ARDS (35%). After HFNC initiation, a breathing frequency of > 30 breaths/min was an early factor associated with intubation. CONCLUSIONS: HFNC was better tolerated than NIV and allowed for significant improvement in oxygenation and tachypnea compared with standard oxygen therapy in subjects with AHRF, a large majority of whom had ARDS. Thus, HFNC may be used between NIV sessions to avoid marked impairment of oxygenation. Key words: acute respiratory failure; acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); noninvasive ventilation; nasal high-flow oxygen therapy; intensive care unit (ICU). [Respir Care 2015;60(2):170 -178.

BackgroundIndications for intra-osseous (IO) infusion are increasing in adults requiring administration of fluids and medications during initial resuscitation. However, this route is rarely used nowadays due to a lack of knowlegde and training. We reviewed the current evidence for its use in adults requiring resuscitative procedures, the contraindications of the technique, and modalities for catheter implementation and skill acquisition.MethodsA PubMed search for all articles published up to December 2015 was performed by using the terms “Intra-osseous” AND “Adult”. Additional articles were included by using the “related citations” feature of PubMed or checking references of selected articles. Editorials, comments and case reports were excluded. Abstracts of all the articles that the search yielded were independently screened for eligibility by two authors and included in the analysis after mutual consensus. In total, 84 full-text articles were reviewed and 49 of these were useful for answering the following question “when, how, and for which population should an IO infusion be used in adults” were selected to prepare independent drafts. Once this step had been completed, all authors met, reviewed the drafts together, resolved disagreements by consensus with all the authors, and decided on the final version.ResultsIO infusion should be implemented in all critical situations when peripheral venous access is not easily obtainable. Contraindications are few and complications are uncommon, most of the time bound to prolonged use. The IO infusion allows for blood sampling and administration of virtually all types of fluids and medications including vasopressors, with a bioavailability close to the intravenous route. Unfortunately, IO infusion remains underused in adults even though learning the technique is rapid and easy.ConclusionsIndications for IO infusion use in adults requiring urgent parenteral access and having difficult intravenous access are increasing. Physicians working in emergency departments or intensive care units should learn the procedures for catheter insertion and maintenance, the contraindications of the technique, and the possibilities this access offers.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1277-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Although chlorhexidine-based solutions and alcohol-based povidone-iodine have been shown to be more efficient than aqueous povidone-iodine for skin disinfection at catheter insertion sites, their abilities to reduce catheter-related infection have never been compared. Methods: Consecutively scheduled central venous catheters inserted into jugular or subclavian veins were randomly assigned to be disinfected with 5% povidoneiodine in 70% ethanol or with a combination of 0.25% chlorhexidine gluconate, 0.025% benzalkonium chloride, and 4% benzylic alcohol. Solutions were used for skin disinfection before catheter insertion (2 consecutive 30-second applications separated by a period sufficiently long to allow for dryness) and then as single applications during subsequent dressing changes (every 72 hours, or earlier if soiled or wet). Results: Of 538 catheters randomized, 481 (89.4%) produced evaluable culture results. Compared with povidoneiodine, the chlorhexidine-based solution was associated with a 50% decrease in the incidence of catheter colonization (11.6% vs 22.2% [P=.002]; incidence density, 9.7 vs 18.3 per 1000 catheter-days) and with a trend toward lower rates of catheter-related bloodstream infection (1.7% vs 4.2% [P=.09]; incidence density, 1.4 vs 3.4 per 1000 catheter-days). Independent risk factors for catheter colonization were catheter insertion into the jugular vein (adjusted relative risk, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-3.24) and use of povidone-iodine (adjusted relative risk, 1.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-2.96). Conclusion: Chlorhexidine-based solutions should be considered as a replacement for povidone-iodine (including alcohol-based) formulations in efforts to prevent catheter-related infection.