BackgroundEnteral nutrition (EN) is recommended as the preferred route for early nutrition therapy in critically ill adults over parenteral nutrition (PN). A recent large randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed no outcome differences between the two routes. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of the route of nutrition (EN versus PN) on clinical outcomes of critically ill patients.MethodsAn electronic search from 1980 to 2016 was performed identifying relevant RCTs. Individual trial data were abstracted and methodological quality of included trials scored independently by two reviewers. The primary outcome was overall mortality and secondary outcomes included infectious complications, length of stay (LOS) and mechanical ventilation. Subgroup analyses were performed to examine the treatment effect by dissimilar caloric intakes, year of publication and trial methodology. We performed a test of asymmetry to assess for the presence of publication bias.ResultsA total of 18 RCTs studying 3347 patients met inclusion criteria. Median methodological score was 7 (range, 2–12). No effect on overall mortality was found (1.04, 95 % CI 0.82, 1.33, P = 0.75, heterogeneity I2 = 11 %). EN compared to PN was associated with a significant reduction in infectious complications (RR 0.64, 95 % CI 0.48, 0.87, P = 0.004, I2 = 47 %). This was more pronounced in the subgroup of RCTs where the PN group received significantly more calories (RR 0.55, 95 % CI 0.37, 0.82, P = 0.003, I2 = 0 %), while no effect was seen in trials where EN and PN groups had a similar caloric intake (RR 0.94, 95 % CI 0.80, 1.10, P = 0.44, I2 = 0 %; test for subgroup differences, P = 0.003). Year of publication and methodological quality did not influence these findings; however, a publication bias may be present as the test of asymmetry was significant (P = 0.003). EN was associated with significant reduction in ICU LOS (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.80, 95 % CI −1.23, −0.37, P = 0.0003, I2 = 0 %) while no significant differences in hospital LOS and mechanical ventilation were observed.ConclusionsIn critically ill patients, the use of EN as compared to PN has no effect on overall mortality but decreases infectious complications and ICU LOS. This may be explained by the benefit of reduced macronutrient intake rather than the enteral route itself.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1298-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Gastrointestinal (GI) dysfunction is frequent in the critically ill but can be overlooked as a result of the lack of standardization of the diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. We aimed to develop a research agenda for GI dysfunction for future research. We systematically reviewed the current knowledge on a broad range of subtopics from a specific viewpoint of GI dysfunction, highlighting the remaining areas of uncertainty and suggesting future studies. Methods: This systematic scoping review and research agenda was conducted following successive steps: (1) identify clinically important subtopics within the field of GI function which warrant further research; (2) systematically review the literature for each subtopic using PubMed, CENTRAL and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; (3) summarize evidence for each subtopic; (4) identify areas of uncertainty; (5) formulate and refine study proposals that address these subtopics; and (6) prioritize study proposals via sequential voting rounds.

BackgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of procalcitonin (PCT) serum concentrations to diagnose Gram-negative bacteremia and the association of PCT serum concentrations with more specific pathogens and the focus of infection.MethodsSecondary analysis of the prospectively collected patient-level dataset from a cluster randomized quality improvement trial was performed. The trial included sepsis patients with organ dysfunction treated in the participating intensive care units from 2011 to 2015. Test performance for the prediction of Gram-negative bacteremia was assessed by receiver operating curve analysis. Independent effects of specific pathogen groups and foci of infection on PCT concentrations were assessed by linear logistic regression models.ResultsBlood cultures (BC) and PCT concentrations had been taken in 4858 of 6561 documented patients. PCT was significantly higher in Gram-negative bacteremia compared to Gram-positive bacteremia or candidemia (p < 0.001). The area under the curve was 0.72 (95% confidence interval 0.71–0.74) for the prediction of Gram-negative bacteremia compared to all other blood culture results including negative blood cultures. The optimized cutoff value was 10 ng/ml (sensitivity 69%, specificity 35%). PCT differed significantly between specific groups of pathogens (p < 0.001) with highest concentrations in Escherichia coli, Streptococcus species and other Enterobacteriaceae. PCT was highest in urogenital followed by abdominal infection and lowest in respiratory infection (p < 0.001). In a linear regression model, Streptococci, E. coli and other Enterobacteriaceae detected from BC were associated with three times higher PCT values. Urogenital or abdominal foci of infection were associated with twofold increased PCT values independent of the pathogen.ConclusionsSerum PCT concentrations are higher in patients with Gram-negative bacteremia than in patients with Gram-positive bacteremia or candidemia. However, the discriminatory power of this difference is too low to guide therapeutic decisions. Variations in PCT serum concentrations are not determined solely by Gram-negative or Gram-positive bacteria but are also affected by distinct groups of pathogens and different foci of infection.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01187134. Registered on 23 August 2010.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-018-2050-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Sufentanil administration guided by SPI during sevoflurane anaesthesia is clinically feasible. In contrast to TIVA, it did not improve anaesthesia conduct with respect to unwanted somatic events, haemodynamic stability, sufentanil consumption, emergence time, or post-anaesthesia care unit care. Therefore, we conclude that anaesthesia regimen has an impact on beneficial effects by SPI guidance. Clinical trial registration NCT01525537. (Registered at Clinicaltrials.gov.).

No abstract