Background: Sepsis is a major reason for intensive care unit (ICU) admission, also in resource-poor settings. ICUs in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) face many challenges that could affect patient outcome. Aim: To describe differences between resource-poor and resource-rich settings regarding the epidemiology, pathophysiology, economics and research aspects of sepsis. We restricted this manuscript to the ICU setting even knowing that many sepsis patients in LMICs are treated outside an ICU. Findings: Although many bacterial pathogens causing sepsis in LMICs are similar to those in high-income countries, resistance patterns to antimicrobial drugs can be very different; in addition, causes of sepsis in LMICs often include tropical diseases in which direct damaging effects of pathogens and their products can sometimes be more important than the response of the host. There are substantial and persisting differences in ICU capacities around the world; not surprisingly the lowest capacities are found in LMICs, but with important heterogeneity within individual LMICs. Although many aspects of sepsis management developed in rich countries are applicable in LMICs, implementation requires strong consideration of cost implications and the important differences in resources. Conclusions: Addressing both disease-specific and setting-specific factors is important to improve performance of ICUs in LMICs. Although critical care for severe sepsis is likely cost-effective in LMIC setting, more detailed evaluation at both at a macro-and micro-economy level is necessary. Sepsis management in resource-limited settings is a largely unexplored frontier with important opportunities for research, training, and other initiatives for improvement.

PurposeUlinastatin, a serine protease inhibitor, inhibits several pro-inflammatory proteases and decreases inflammatory cytokine levels and mortality in experimental sepsis. We studied the effect of ulinastatin on 28-day all-cause mortality in a double-blind trial in patients with severe sepsis in seven Indian hospitals.MethodsPatients with sepsis were randomized within 48 h of onset of one or more organ failures to receive intravenous administration of ulinastatin (200,000 IU) or placebo 12 hourly for 5 days.ResultsOf 122 randomized subjects, 114 completed the study (55 receiving ulinastatin, 59 receiving placebo). At baseline, the mean APACHE II score was 13.4 (SD = 4.4), 48 (42 %) patients were receiving mechanical ventilation, 58 (51 %) were on vasopressors, and 35 % had multiple organ failure. In the modified intention-to-treat analysis (patients receiving six or more doses of study drugs), 28-day all-cause mortality was 7.3 % with ulinastatin (4 deaths) versus 20.3 % (12 deaths) with placebo (p = 0.045). On multivariate analysis too, treatment with ulinastatin (odds ratio 0.26, 95 % CI 0.07–0.95; p = 0.042) independently decreased 28-day all-cause mortality. However, the mortality difference did not reach statistical significance in the intention-to-treat analysis [10.2 % (6/59 deaths) with ulinastatin versus 20.6 % (13/63 deaths) in the placebo group; p = 0.11]. The ulinastatin group had lower incidence of new-onset organ failure (10 vs. 26 patients, p = 0.003), more ventilator-free days (mean ± SD 19.4 ± 10.6 days vs. 10.2 ± 12.5 days, p = 0.019), and shorter hospital stay (11.8 ± 7.1 days vs. 24.2 ± 7.2 days, p < 0.001).ConclusionsIn this pilot study, intravenous administration of ulinastatin reduced mortality in patients with severe sepsis in the modified intention-to-treat analysis, but not in the intention-to-treat analysis.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00134-014-3278-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose:The purpose was to develop an end-of-life care (EOLC) policy for patients who are dying with an advanced life limiting illness and to develop practical procedural guidelines for limiting inappropriate therapeutic medical interventions and improve the quality of care of the dying within an ethical framework and through a professional and family/patient consensus process.Evidence:The Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine (ISCCM) published its first guidelines on EOLC in 2005 [1] which was later revised in 2012.[2] Since these publications, there has been an exponential increase in empirical information and discussion on the subject. The literature reviewed observational studies, surveys, randomized controlled studies, as well as guidelines and recommendations, for education and quality improvement published across the world. The search terms were: EOLC; do not resuscitate directives; withdrawal and withholding; intensive care; terminal care; medical futility; ethical issues; palliative care; EOLC in India; cultural variations. Indian Association of Palliative Care (IAPC) also recently published its consensus position statement on EOLC policy for the dying.[3]Method:An expert committee of members of the ISCCM and IAPC was formed to make a joint EOLC policy for the dying patients. Proposals from the chair were discussed, debated, and recommendations were formulated through a consensus process. The members extensively reviewed national and international established ethical principles and current procedural practices. This joint EOLC policy has incorporated the sociocultural, ethical, and legal perspectives, while taking into account the needs and situation unique to India.

Epidemiology, ventilator management, and outcome in patients receiving invasive ventilation in intensive care units (ICUs) in middle-income countries are largely unknown. PRactice of VENTilation in Middle-income Countries is an international multicenter 4-week observational study of invasively ventilated adult patients in 54 ICUs from 10 Asian countries conducted in 2017/18. Study outcomes included major ventilator settings (including tidal volume [V T ] and positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP]); the proportion of patients at risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), according to the lung injury prediction score (LIPS), or with ARDS; the incidence of pulmonary complications; and ICU mortality. In 1,315 patients included, median V T was similar in patients with LIPS < 4 and patients with LIPS ³ 4, but lower in patients with ARDS (7.

IntroductionCurrent evidence on epidemiology and outcomes of invasively mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients is predominantly gathered in resource-rich settings. Patient casemix and patterns of critical illnesses, and probably also ventilation practices are likely to be different in resource-limited settings. We aim to investigate the epidemiological characteristics, ventilation practices and clinical outcomes of patients receiving mechanical ventilation in ICUs in Asia.Methods and analysisPRoVENT-iMIC (study of PRactice of VENTilation in Middle-Income Countries) is an international multicentre observational study to be undertaken in approximately 60 ICUs in 11 Asian countries. Consecutive patients aged 18 years or older who are receiving invasive ventilation in participating ICUs during a predefined 28-day period are to be enrolled, with a daily follow-up of 7 days. The primary outcome is ventilatory management (including tidal volume expressed as mL/kg predicted body weight and positive end-expiratory pressure expressed as cm H2O) during the first 3 days of mechanical ventilation—compared between patients at no risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), patients at risk for ARDS and in patients with ARDS (in case the diagnosis of ARDS can be made on admission). Secondary outcomes include occurrence of pulmonary complications and all-cause ICU mortality.Ethics and disseminationPRoVENT-iMIC will be the first international study that prospectively assesses ventilation practices, outcomes and epidemiology of invasively ventilated patients in ICUs in Asia. The results of this large study, to be disseminated through conference presentations and publications in international peer-reviewed journals, are of ultimate importance when designing trials of invasive ventilation in resource-limited ICUs. Access to source data will be made available through national or international anonymised datasets on request and after agreement of the PRoVENT-iMIC steering committee.Trial registration numberNCT03188770; Pre-results.

Background:Indian hospitals, in general, lack policies on the limitation of inappropriate life-sustaining interventions at the end of life. To facilitate discussion, preparation of guidelines and framing of laws, terminologies relating to the treatment limitation, and providing palliative care at the end-of-life care (EOLC) need to be defined and brought up to date.Methodology:This consensus document on terminologies and definitions of terminologies was prepared under the aegis of the Indian Council of Medical Research. The consensus statement was created using Nominal Group and Delphi Method.Results:Twenty-five definitions related to the limitations of treatment and providing palliative care at the end of life were created by reviewing existing international documents and suitably modifying it to the Indian sociocultural context by achieving national consensus. Twenty-five terminologies defined within the scope of this document are (1) terminal illness, (2) actively dying, (3) life-sustaining treatment, (4) potentially inappropriate treatment, (5) cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), (6) do not attempt CPR, (7) withholding life-sustaining treatment, (8) withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, (9) euthanasia (10) active shortening of the dying process, (11) physician-assisted suicide, (12) palliative care, (13) EOLC, (14) palliative sedation, (15) double effect, (16) death, (17) best interests, (18) health-care decision-making capacity, (19) shared decision-making, (20) advance directives, (21) surrogates, (22) autonomy, (23) beneficence, (24) nonmaleficence, and (25) justice.