No abstract

No abstract

The results of this largest randomized, controlled trial found that in the general ICU population immunonutrition has no beneficial effect on clinical outcome parameters. These results are consistent with the literature that is currently available.

BackgroundOptimal energy and protein provision through enteral nutrition is essential for critically ill patients. However, in clinical practice, the intake achieved is often far below the recommended targets. Because no polymeric formula with sufficient protein content is available, adequate protein intake can be achieved only by supplemental amino acids or semi-elemental formula administration. In the present study, we investigated whether protein intake can be increased with a new, very high intact-protein formula (VHPF) for enteral feeding.MethodsIn this randomized, controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial, 44 overweight (body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2) intensive care unit patients received either a VHPF (8 g/100 kcal) or a commercially available standard high protein formula (SHPF) (5 g/100 kcal). Protein and energy intake, gastrointestinal tolerance (gastric residual volume, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation), adverse events, and serious adverse events were recorded. Total serum amino acid levels were measured at baseline and day 5.ResultsThe primary outcome, protein intake at day 5, was 1.49 g/kg body weight (95% CI 1.21–1.78) and 0.76 g/kg body weight (95% CI 0.49–1.03, P < 0.001) for VHPF and SHPF, respectively. Daily protein intake was statistically significantly higher in the VHPF group compared with the SHPF group from day 2 to day 10. Protein intake in the VHPF group as a percentage of target (1.5 g/kg ideal body weight) was 74.7% (IQR 53.2–87.6%) and 111.6% (IQR 51.7–130.7%) during days 1–3 and days 4–10, respectively. Serum amino acid concentrations were higher at day 5 in the VHPF group than in the SHPF group (P = 0.031). No differences were found in energy intake, measures of gastrointestinal tolerance, and safety.ConclusionsEnteral feeding with VHPF (8 g/100 kcal) resulted in higher protein intake and plasma amino acid concentrations than an isocaloric SHPF (5 g/100 kcal), without an increase in energy intake. This VHPF facilitates feeding according to nutritional guidelines and is suitable as a first-line nutritional treatment for critically ill overweight patients.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register, NTR5643. Registered on 2 February 2016.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-018-2070-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

We investigated the pharmacokinetics of cefepime after administration of multiple doses to seven patients with the sepsis syndrome. Patients ranged in age from 66 to 78 years (mean +/- S.D.: 74 +/- 5 years); all fulfilled the criteria of the sepsis syndrome and had APACHE-II scores between 14 and 21 (mean +/- S.D.: 17 +/- 2). Serial blood and urine samples were collected after a minimum of 3 days (steady state) of treatment with cefepime 2.0 g bd i.v. Cefepime was assayed by HPLC. Data were analysed using non-compartmental methods. The mean +/- S.D. creatinine clearance (Clcr) was 55 +/- 8 mL/min. Mean +/- S.D. values for selected pharmacokinetic parameters on day 5 were Cmax (94.2 +/- 23.9 mg/L), T1/2 (3.4 +/- 1.1 h), Vdss (32.6 +/- 17.5 L), and the total clearance Cl(total) (125 +/- 51 mL/min). Time to peak plasma concentration (Tmax) and area under curve (AUC) averaged 0.7 +/- 0.2 h and 305 +/- 115 mg.h/L, respectively. Cefepime plasma concentrations were above the MIC90 for Pseudomonas aeruginosa (7 mg/L) for approximately 80% of the time and in the case of Enterobacteriaceae (0.5 mg/L) for 100% of the time. The more prolonged T1/2 in comparison with young healthy volunteers (T1/2 = 2.1 h) is consistent with the changes in renal function associated with increased age, and is comparable to data obtained in healthy elderly subjects (T1/2 = 3.7 h). Cmax, AUC and Cl(tot) were more variable than those observed in previous studies and are probably a reflection of the clinical conditions under which dosing and sampling occurred.

Patients fulfilling the criteria for the sepsis syndrome are at great risk of developing septic shock or multiple-organ failure and subsequently dying. In our hospital, the majority of bacteremic episodes were associated with gram-positive microorganisms.

In this multicenter study, the efficacy of and tolerability for meropenem were compared with those for the combination of cefuroxime-gentamicin (±metronidazole) for the treatment of serious bacterial infections in patients ≥65 years of age. A total of 79 patients were randomized; thirty-nine received meropenem (1 g/8 h), and 40 received cefuroxime (1.5 g/8 h) plus gentamicin (4 mg/kg of body weight daily) for 5 to 10 days. Metronidazole (500 mg/6 h) could be added to the cefuroxime-gentamicin regimen for the treatment of intra-abdominal infections (n = 10). Seventy patients were evaluable for clinical efficacy; the primary diagnoses were as follows: pneumonia in 41 patients (20 treated with meropenem, 21 treated with cefuroxime-gentamicin), intra-abdominal infection in 10 patients (7 meropenem, 3 cefuroxime-gentamicin-metronidazole), urinary tract infection (UTI) in 11 patients (6 meropenem, 5 cefuroxime-gentamicin), sepsis syndrome in 7 patients (4 meropenem, 3 cefuroxime-gentamicin), and “other” in 1 patient (cefuroxime-gentamicin). The pathogens isolated from 18 patients with bacteremia were as follows:Staphylococcus spp. (n = 2),Streptococcus spp. (n = 2), members of the family Enterobacteriaceae (n = 11), and Bacteroides spp. (n = 3). A satisfactory clinical response at the end of therapy was achieved in 26 of 37 (70%) and 24 of 33 (73%) evaluable patients treated with meropenem and combination therapy, respectively. Clinical success was achieved in 23 of 31 (74%) and 21 of 28 (75%) evaluable patients with infections other than UTIs, respectively. A satisfactory microbiological response occurred in 15 of 22 (68%) patients in the meropenem group compared with 12 of 19 (63%) treated with combination therapy. Renal failure occurred during therapy in 2 of 39 (5%) meropenem recipients compared with 5 of 40 (13%) of those treated with combination therapy. The findings in this small study indicate that meropenem is as efficacious for and as well tolerated by elderly patients as the combination of cefuroxime-gentamicin (±metronidazole).