IntroductionNon-excitable muscle membrane indicates critical illness myopathy (CIM) during early critical illness. We investigated predisposing risk factors for non-excitable muscle membrane at onset of critical illness.MethodsWe performed sequential measurements of muscle membrane excitability after direct muscle stimulation (dmCMAP) in 40 intensive care unit (ICU) patients selected upon a simplified acute physiology (SAPS-II) score ≥ 20 on 3 successive days within 1 week after ICU admission. We then investigated predisposing risk factors, including the insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-system, inflammatory, metabolic and hemodynamic parameters, as well as suspected medical treatment prior to first occurrence of abnormal dmCMAP. Nonparametric analysis of two-factorial longitudinal data and multivariate analysis were used for statistical analysis.Results22 patients showed abnormal muscle membrane excitability during direct muscle stimulation within 7 (5 to 9.25) days after ICU admission. Significant risk factors for the development of impaired muscle membrane excitability in univariate analysis included inflammation, disease severity, catecholamine and sedation requirements, as well as IGF binding protein-1 (IGFBP-I), but did not include either adjunctive hydrocortisone treatment in septic shock, nor administration of neuromuscular blocking agents or aminoglycosides. In multivariate Cox regression analysis, interleukin-6 remained the significant risk factor for the development of impaired muscle membrane excitability (HR 1.006, 95%-CI (1.002 to 1.011), P = 0.002).ConclusionsSystemic inflammation during early critical illness was found to be the main risk factor for development of CIM during early critical illness. Inflammation-induced impairment of growth-factor mediated insulin sensitivity may be involved in the development of CIM.

ObjectivesSystemic inflammation is a major risk factor for critical-illness myopathy (CIM) but its pathogenic role in muscle is uncertain. We observed that interleukin 6 (IL-6) and serum amyloid A1 (SAA1) expression was upregulated in muscle of critically ill patients. To test the relevance of these responses we assessed inflammation and acute-phase response at early and late time points in muscle of patients at risk for CIM.DesignProspective observational clinical study and prospective animal trial.SettingTwo intensive care units (ICU) and research laboratory.Patients/Subjects33 patients with Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores ≥8 on 3 consecutive days within 5 days in ICU were investigated. A subgroup analysis of 12 patients with, and 18 patients without CIM (non-CIM) was performed. Two consecutive biopsies from vastus lateralis were obtained at median days 5 and 15, early and late time points. Controls were 5 healthy subjects undergoing elective orthopedic surgery. A septic mouse model and cultured myoblasts were used for mechanistic analyses.Measurements and Main ResultsEarly SAA1 expression was significantly higher in skeletal muscle of CIM compared to non-CIM patients. Immunohistochemistry showed SAA1 accumulations in muscle of CIM patients at the early time point, which resolved later. SAA1 expression was induced by IL-6 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha in human and mouse myocytes in vitro. Inflammation-induced muscular SAA1 accumulation was reproduced in a sepsis mouse model.ConclusionsSkeletal muscle contributes to general inflammation and acute-phase response in CIM patients. Muscular SAA1 could be important for CIM pathogenesis.Trial RegistrationISRCTN77569430.

Words: main text 3490, abstract 250 2 ABSTRACT Objectives: Neuromuscular dysfunction in critically ill patients is attributed to either critical illness myopathy (CIM) or critical illness polyneuropathy (CIP) or a combination of both. But it is unknown whether differential diagnosis has an impact on prognosis. This study investigates whether there is an association between the early differentiation of CIM versus CIP and clinical prognosis. Methods: We included mechanically ventilated patients who featured a Simplified AcutePhysiology Score II (SAPS-II) ≥ 20 on three consecutive days within the first week after ICU admission. 53 critically ill patients were enrolled and examined by conventional nerve conduction studies and direct muscle stimulation (184 examinations in total). The first examination was conducted within the first week after admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). Results: In this cohort of critically ill patients, CIM was more frequent (68%) than CIP (38%).Electrophysiological signs of CIM preceded electrophysiological signs of CIP (median at day 7 in CIM patients vs. day 10 in CIP patients, p<0.001). Most patients with CIP featured concomitant CIM. At discharge from ICU, 25% of patients with isolated CIM showed electrophysiological signs of recovery and significantly lower degrees of weakness. Recovery could not be observed in patients with combined CIM/CIP even though ICU length of stay was significantly longer (mean 35 days in CIM/CIP vs. mean 19 days in CIM, p<0.001). Conclusion:Prognoses of patients differ depending on electrophysiological findings during early critical illness: Early electrophysiological differentiation of ICU acquired neuromuscular disorder enhances the evaluation of clinical prognosis during critical illness.

We suggest that electrophysiological nonexcitable muscle membrane predicts preferential type II fiber atrophy in intensive care unit patients during early critical illness.

: Abnormal dmCMAP occurred within the first week after admission to the ICU and pointed towards a myopathic process as the primary cause of ICU-acquired paresis. Validation of dmCMAP with onset of critical illness allows an early prediction of ICU-acquired paresis and adds important information to clinical estimation of the patients' motor function.

Insufficient GLUT4 translocation results in decreased glucose supply in patients with CIM. Failed AMPK activation is involved. Evoked muscle contraction may prevent muscle-specific AMPK failure, restore GLUT4 disposition, and diminish protein breakdown. Clinical trial registered with http://www.controlled-trials.com (registration number ISRCTN77569430).

Electroencephalographic (EEG) monitoring to indicate brain state during anesthesia has become widely available. It remains unclear whether EEG-guided anesthesia influences perioperative outcomes. The sixth Perioperative Quality Initiative (POQI-6) brought together an international team of multidisciplinary experts from anesthesiology, biomedical engineering, neurology, and surgery to review the current literature and to develop consensus recommendations on the utility of EEG monitoring during anesthesia. We retrieved a total of 1023 articles addressing the use of EEG monitoring during anesthesia and conducted meta-analyses from 15 trials to determine the effect of EEG-guided anesthesia on the rate of unintentional awareness, postoperative delirium, neurocognitive disorder, and long-term mortality after surgery. After considering current evidence, the working group recommends that EEG monitoring should be considered as part of the vital organ monitors to guide anesthetic management. In addition, we encourage anesthesiologists to be knowledgeable in basic EEG interpretation, such as raw waveform, spectrogram, and processed indices, when using these devices. Current evidence suggests that EEG-guided anesthesia reduces the rate of awareness during total intravenous anesthesia and has similar efficacy in preventing awareness as compared with end-tidal anesthetic gas monitoring. There is, however, insufficient evidence to recommend the use of EEG monitoring for preventing postoperative delirium, neurocognitive disorder, or postoperative mortality.

Early electrophysiological testing predicts long-term outcome in ICU survivors. CIM has a significantly better prognosis than CIM/CIP.