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.

Objective: To identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome and underlying causes of sepsis and septic shock.Design: A consensus committee of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine was convened at the annual meetings of both societies. Subgroups had teleconference and electronic-based discussion. The entire committee iteratively developed the entire document and recommendations.Methods: Each committee member independently gave their top five priorities for sepsis research. A total of 88 suggestions (ESM 1 -supplemental table 1) were grouped into categories by the committee co-chairs, leading to the formation of seven subgroups: infection, fluids and vasoactive agents, adjunctive therapy, administration/epidemiology, scoring/identification, post-intensive care unit, and basic/translational science. Each subgroup had teleconferences to go over each priority followed by formal voting within each subgroup. The entire committee also voted on top priorities across all subgroups except for basic/translational science. Results:The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee provides 26 priorities for sepsis and septic shock. Of these, the top six clinical priorities were identified and include the following questions: (1) can targeted/personalized/precision medicine approaches determine which therapies will work for which patients at which times?; (2) what are ideal endpoints for volume resuscitation and how should volume resuscitation be titrated?; (3) should rapid diagnostic tests be implemented in clinical practice?; (4) should empiric antibiotic combination therapy be used in sepsis or septic shock?; (5) what are the predictors of sepsis long-term morbidity and mortality?; and (6) what information identifies organ dysfunction?Conclusions: While the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines give multiple recommendations on the treatment of sepsis, significant knowledge gaps remain, both in bedside issues directly applicable to clinicians, as well as understanding the fundamental mechanisms underlying the development and progression of sepsis. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.

Purpose High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a relatively recent respiratory support technique which delivers high flow, heated and humidified controlled concentration of oxygen via the nasal route. Recently, its use has increased for a variety of clinical indications. To guide clinical practice, we developed evidence-based recommendations regarding use of HFNC in various clinical settings. Methods We formed a guideline panel composed of clinicians, methodologists and experts in respiratory medicine. Using GRADE, the panel developed recommendations for four actionable questions. Results The guideline panel made a strong recommendation for HFNC in hypoxemic respiratory failure compared to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) (moderate certainty), a conditional recommendation for HFNC following extubation (moderate certainty), no recommendation regarding HFNC in the peri-intubation period (moderate certainty), and a conditional recommendation for postoperative HFNC in high risk and/or obese patients following cardiac or thoracic surgery (moderate certainty). Conclusions This clinical practice guideline synthesizes current best-evidence into four recommendations for HFNC use in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure, following extubation, in the peri-intubation period, and postoperatively for bedside clinicians. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-020-06312-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Little information is available about the geo-economic variations in demographics, management, and outcomes of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We aimed to characterise the effect of these geo-economic variations in patients enrolled in the Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG SAFE). Methods LUNG SAFE was done during 4 consecutive weeks in winter, 2014, in a convenience sample of 459 intensivecare units in 50 countries across six continents. Inclusion criteria were admission to a participating intensive-care unit (including transfers) within the enrolment window and receipt of invasive or non-invasive ventilation. One of the trial's secondary aims was to characterise variations in the demographics, management, and outcome of patients with ARDS. We used the 2016 World Bank countries classification to define three major geo-economic groupings, namely European high-income countries (Europe-High), high-income countries in the rest of the world (rWORLD-High), and middle-income countries (Middle). We compared patient outcomes across these three groupings. LUNG SAFE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02010073. Findings Of the 2813 patients enrolled in LUNG SAFE who fulfilled ARDS criteria on day 1 or 2, 1521 (54%) were recruited from Europe-High, 746 (27%) from rWORLD-High, and 546 (19%) from Middle countries. We noted significant geographical variations in demographics, risk factors for ARDS, and comorbid diseases. The proportion of patients with severe ARDS or with ratios of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO 2) to the fractional concentration of oxygen in inspired air (F I O 2) less than 150 was significantly lower in rWORLD-High countries than in the two other regions. Use of prone positioning and neuromuscular blockade was significantly more common in Europe-High countries than in the other two regions. Adjusted duration of invasive mechanical ventilation and length of stay in the intensive-care unit were significantly shorter in patients in rWORLD-High countries than in Europe-High or Middle countries. High gross national income per person was associated with increased survival in ARDS; hospital survival was significantly lower in Middle countries than in Europe-High or rWORLD-High countries. Interpretation Important geo-economic differences exist in the severity, clinician recognition, and management of ARDS, and in patients' outcomes. Income per person and outcomes in ARDS are independently associated.

No abstract