Peter Lauwers

Bio: Peter Lauwers is an academic researcher from Ghent University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Intensive care & Predicative expression. The author has an hindex of 24, co-authored 117 publications receiving 12304 citations. Previous affiliations of Peter Lauwers include Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.

Intensive Insulin Therapy in Critically Ill Patients

Abstract: Background Hyperglycemia and insulin resistance are common in critically ill patients, even if they have not previously had diabetes. Whether the normalization of blood glucose levels with insulin therapy improves the prognosis for such patients is not known. Methods We performed a prospective, randomized, controlled study involving adults admitted to our surgical intensive care unit who were receiving mechanical ventilation. On admission, patients were randomly assigned to receive intensive insulin therapy (maintenance of blood glucose at a level between 80 and 110 mg per deciliter) or conventional treatment (infusion of insulin only if the blood glucose level exceeded 215 mg per deciliter and maintenance of glucose at a level between 180 and 200 mg per deciliter). Results At 12 months, with a total of 1548 patients enrolled, intensive insulin therapy reduced mortality during intensive care from 8.0 percent with conventional treatment to 4.6 percent (P<0.04, with adjustment for sequential analyses). The ...

Outcome benefit of intensive insulin therapy in the critically ill: Insulin dose versus glycemic control.

Abstract: ObjectivesMaintenance of normoglycemia with insulin reduces mortality and morbidity of critically ill patients. Here we report the factors determining insulin requirements and the impact of insulin dose vs. blood glucose control on the observed outcome benefits.DesignA prospective, randomized, contr

Neuroendocrinology of Prolonged Critical Illness: Effects of Exogenous Thyrotropin-Releasing Hormone and Its Combination with Growth Hormone Secretagogues*

Abstract: The catabolic state of prolonged critical illness is associated with a low activity of the thyrotropic and the somatotropic axes. The neuroendocrine component in the pathogenesis of these low activity states was assessed by investigating the effects of continuous intravenous infusions of TRH, GH-releasing peptide-2 (GHRP-2), and GHRH. Twenty adult patients, critically ill for several weeks, were studied during two consecutive nights. They had been randomly allocated to one of three combinations of peptide infusions, each administered in random order: TRH (one night) and placebo (other night), TRH + GHRP-2 (one night) and GHRP-2 (other night), or TRH + GHRH + GHRP-2 (one night) and GHRH + GHRP-2 (other night). The peptide infusions were started after a 1-microgram/kg bolus and infused (1 microgram/kg per h) until 0600 h. Blood sampling was performed every 20 min, and pituitary hormone secretion was quantified by deconvolution analysis. Reduced pulsatile fraction of TSH, GH, and PRL secretion and low serum concentrations of T4, T3, insulin growth factor-I (IGF-I), IGF-binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3), and the acid-labile subunit (ALS) were documented in the untreated state. Infusion of TRH alone or in combination with GH secretagogues augmented nonpulsatile TSH release 2- to 5-fold; only TRH + GHRP-2 increased pulsatile TSH secretion (4-fold). Average rises in T4 (40-54%) and in T3 (52-116%) were obtained with all three combinations, whereas reverse T3 levels did not increase, except when TRH was infused alone. Pulsatile GH secretion was amplified > 6- and > 10-fold, respectively, by GHRP-2 and GHRH + GHRP-2 infusions, generating mean increases of serum IGF-I (66% and 106%), IGFBP-3 (50% and 56%), and ALS (65% and 97%) within 45 h. The addition of TRH did not alter the GH secretory patterns. TRH infusion increased PRL release only when combined with GH secretagogues. No effects on serum cortisol were detected. In conclusion, the pathogenesis of the low activity state of the thyrotropic and somatotropic axes in prolonged critical illness appears to have a neuroendocrine component, because these axes are both readily activated by coinfusion of TRH and GH secretagogues.

Randomized, controlled trial of selective digestive decontamination in 600 mechanically ventilated patients in a multidisciplinary intensive care unit

Abstract: Objective To evaluate the efficacy of two regimens of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in mechanically ventilated patients.Design Prospective, randomized, concurrent trial.Setting Multidisciplinary intensive care unit (ICU) in a 1,800-bed university hospital.Patients Consecutive pati

Factors affecting mortality in generalized postoperative peritonitis: multivariate analysis in 96 patients.

Abstract: Mortality of generalized postoperative peritonitis remains high at 22% to 55%. The aim of the present study was to identify prognostic factors by means of univariate and multivariate analysis in a consecutive series of 96 patients. Mortality was 30%. Inability to clear the abdominal infection or to control the septic source, older age, and unconsciousness were significant factors related to mortality in the multivariate analysis. Failure to control the peritoneal infection (15%) was always fatal and correlated with failed septic source control, high Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, and male gender. Failure to control the septic source (8%) also was always fatal and correlated with high APACHE II score and therapeutic delay. In patients with immediate source control, residual peritonitis occurred in 9% after purulent or biliary peritonitis and in 41% after fecal peritonitis (p = 0.002). In patients without immediate control of the septic source, delayed control was still achieved in 100% after a planned relaparotomy (PR) strategy versus 43% after an on-demand relaparotomy (ODR) strategy (p = 0.018). In the same patients, mortality was 0% in the PR group versus 64% in the ODR group (p = 0.007). Early relaparotomy is related to improved septic source control. After relaparotomy for generalized postoperative peritonitis, a PR strategy is indicated whenever source control is uncertain. It also might decrease mortality in fecal peritonitis. An ODR approach is adequate for purulent and biliary peritonitis with safe septic source control.

Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012.

Abstract: Objective:To provide an update to the “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock,” last published in 2008.Design:A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at ke

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock, 2012

Abstract: To provide an update to the “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock,” last published in 2008. A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Recommendations were classified into three groups: (1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; (2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and (3) pediatric considerations. Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 h after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 h of the recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 h of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1B); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement is based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of (a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or (b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7–9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a Pao 2/Fio 2 ratio of ≤100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 h) for patients with early ARDS and a Pao 2/Fi o 2 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 h after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 h of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5–10 min (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven “absolute”’ adrenal insufficiency (2C). Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society Consensus Guidelines on the Management of Community-Acquired Pneumonia in Adults

Abstract: Lionel A. Mandell, Richard G. Wunderink, Antonio Anzueto, John G. Bartlett, G. Douglas Campbell, Nathan C. Dean, Scott F. Dowell, Thomas M. File, Jr. Daniel M. Musher, Michael S. Niederman, Antonio Torres, and Cynthia G. Whitney McMaster University Medical School, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois; University of Texas Health Science Center and South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, and Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas; Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, University of Mississippi School of Medicine, Jackson; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, LDS Hospital, and University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia; Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, Rootstown, and Summa Health System, Akron, Ohio; State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, and Department of Medicine, Winthrop University Hospital, Mineola, New York; and Cap de Servei de Pneumologia i Allergia Respiratoria, Institut Clinic del Torax, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Facultat de Medicina, Universitat de Barcelona, Institut d’Investigacions Biomediques August Pi i Sunyer, CIBER CB06/06/0028, Barcelona, Spain.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016

Abstract: To provide an update to “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012”. A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2012

Abstract: D iabetes mellitus is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and ongoing patient self-management education and support to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. Specifically titled sections of the standards address children with diabetes, pregnant women, and people with prediabetes. These standards are not intended to preclude clinical judgment or more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information about management of diabetes, refer to references 1–3. The recommendations included are screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A large number of these interventions have been shown to be cost-effective (4). A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) andmodeled after existingmethods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E. These standards of care are revised annually by the ADA’s multidisciplinary Professional Practice Committee, incorporating new evidence. For the current revision, committee members systematically searched Medline for human studies related to each subsection and published since 1 January 2010. Recommendations (bulleted at the beginning of each subsection and also listed in the “Executive Summary: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012”) were revised based on new evidence or, in some cases, to clarify the prior recommendation or match the strength of the wording to the strength of the evidence. A table linking the changes in recommendations to new evidence can be reviewed at http:// professional.diabetes.org/CPR_Search. aspx. Subsequently, as is the case for all Position Statements, the standards of care were reviewed and approved by the ExecutiveCommittee of ADA’s Board ofDirectors, which includes health care professionals, scientists, and lay people. Feedback from the larger clinical community was valuable for the 2012 revision of the standards. Readers who wish to comment on the “Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012” are invited to do so at http://professional.diabetes.org/ CPR_Search.aspx. Members of the Professional Practice Committee disclose all potential financial conflicts of interest with industry. These disclosures were discussed at the onset of the standards revisionmeeting. Members of the committee, their employer, and their disclosed conflicts of interest are listed in the “Professional PracticeCommitteeMembers” table (see pg. S109). The AmericanDiabetes Association funds development of the standards and all its position statements out of its general revenues and does not utilize industry support for these purposes.