In patients with severe ARDS, early administration of a neuromuscular blocking agent improved the adjusted 90-day survival and increased the time off the ventilator without increasing muscle weakness. (Funded by Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Marseille and the Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique Régional 2004-26 of the French Ministry of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00299650.)
OSITIVE END-EXPIRATORY PRESsure (PEEP) is an essential component of the management of acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). 1 PEEP improves hypoxemia and decreases intrapulmonary shunting, and these effects have been the basis for titrating PEEP in clinical practice. 2 Numerous experimental studies showed that PEEP protected the lung in various models of ventilationinduced lung injury. 3-6 Although the mechanisms of this protective effect are not fully elucidated, they may be mediated by PEEP-induced alveolar recruitment, which avoids cyclic air-See also pp 637, 691, and 693.
As compared with a practice of nonprotective mechanical ventilation, the use of a lung-protective ventilation strategy in intermediate-risk and high-risk patients undergoing major abdominal surgery was associated with improved clinical outcomes and reduced health care utilization. (IMPROVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01282996.).
ETI in ICU patients is associated with a high rate of immediate and severe life-threatening complications. Independent risk factors of complication occurrence were presence of acute respiratory failure and presence of shock as an indication for ETI. Further studies should aim to better define protocols for intubation in critically ill patients to make this procedure safer.
Systematic evaluation of pain and agitation, and analgesics and sedatives need was associated with a decrease in incidence of pain and agitation, duration of mechanical ventilation and nosocomial infections.
BackgroundFluid challenges (FCs) are one of the most commonly used therapies in critically ill patients and represent the cornerstone of hemodynamic management in intensive care units. There are clear benefits and harms from fluid therapy. Limited data on the indication, type, amount and rate of an FC in critically ill patients exist in the literature. The primary aim was to evaluate how physicians conduct FCs in terms of type, volume, and rate of given fluid; the secondary aim was to evaluate variables used to trigger an FC and to compare the proportion of patients receiving further fluid administration based on the response to the FC.MethodsThis was an observational study conducted in ICUs around the world. Each participating unit entered a maximum of 20 patients with one FC.Results2213 patients were enrolled and analyzed in the study. The median [interquartile range] amount of fluid given during an FC was 500 ml (500–1000). The median time was 24 min (40–60 min), and the median rate of FC was 1000 [500–1333] ml/h. The main indication for FC was hypotension in 1211 (59 %, CI 57–61 %). In 43 % (CI 41–45 %) of the cases no hemodynamic variable was used. Static markers of preload were used in 785 of 2213 cases (36 %, CI 34–37 %). Dynamic indices of preload responsiveness were used in 483 of 2213 cases (22 %, CI 20–24 %). No safety variable for the FC was used in 72 % (CI 70–74 %) of the cases. There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients who received further fluids after the FC between those with a positive, with an uncertain or with a negatively judged response.ConclusionsThe current practice and evaluation of FC in critically ill patients are highly variable. Prediction of fluid responsiveness is not used routinely, safety limits are rarely used, and information from previous failed FCs is not always taken into account.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00134-015-3850-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.