XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education 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, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, 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. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, 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.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes

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.

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.

/pdf/surviving-sepsis-campaign-international-guidelines-for-229kg8suph.pdf

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

Guidelines summarize and evaluate all currently available evidence on a particular issue with the aim of assisting physicians in selecting the best management strategy for an individual patient suffering from a given condition, taking into account the impact on outcome, as well as the risk–benefit ratio of particular diagnostic or therapeutic means. Guidelines are no substitutes for textbooks. The legal implications of medical guidelines have been discussed previously.

A large number of Guidelines have been issued in recent years by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) as well as by other societies and organizations. Because of the impact on clinical practice, quality criteria for development of guidelines have been established in order to make all decisions transparent to the user. The recommendations for formulating and issuing ESC Guidelines can be found on the ESC Web Site (http://www.escardio.org/guidelines-surveys/esc-guidelines/about/Pages/rules-writing.aspx).

In brief, experts in the field are selected and undertake a comprehensive review of the published evidence for management and/or prevention of a given condition. A critical evaluation of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures is performed, including assessment of the risk–benefit ratio. Estimates of expected health outcomes for larger societies are included, where data exist. The level of evidence and the strength of recommendation of particular treatment options are weighed and graded according to pre-defined scales, as outlined in Tables 1 and 2 .

View this table:

Table 1 
Classes of recommendations



View this table:

Table 2 
Levels of evidence



The experts of the writing panels have provided disclosure statements of all relationships they may have that might be perceived as real or potential sources of conflicts of interest. These disclosure forms are kept on file at the European Heart House, headquarters of the ESC. Any changes in conflict of interest that arise during the writing period must be notified to the ESC. The Task Force report received its entire financial support from …

/pdf/guidelines-for-the-management-of-atrial-fibrillation-the-1cikaj4630.pdf

Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation The Task Force for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)

The Task Force for the management of atrial fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)  

Developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC  

Endorsed by the European Stroke Organisation (ESO)

/pdf/2016-esc-guidelines-for-the-management-of-atrial-ba0601yb9m.pdf

2016 ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with EACTS

Bronchiectasis is a chronic condition in which areas of the bronchial tubes become permanently widened predisposing the lungs to infection. Bronchiectasis is an age-associated disease with the highest prevalence in people older than 75 years. While the prevalence of bronchiectasis is higher in males, disease is more severe in females who have a poorer prognosis. The overall prevalence of the disease is thought to be rising. Its aetiology is multi-faceted, but a compromised immune system is now thought to play a central role in the pathology of this disease. Research has begun to study the role of malnutrition and certain nutrients-vitamin D and zinc-along with the role of the lung microbiome in relation to the management of bronchiectasis. Given this, the present mini review sets out to provide an overview of the state-of-the-art within the field, identify research gaps and pave the way for future developments and research investment within this field.

/pdf/bronchiectasis-could-immunonutrition-have-a-role-to-play-in-4q62t1ftox.pdf

Bronchiectasis-Could Immunonutrition Have a Role to Play in Future Management?

Do ω-3 fatty acids ease the way to silent cell death?

Simple Summary The choice of lipid emulsions (LEs) used in parenteral nutrition (PN) is based on fatty acid composition and phytosterol content. Phytosterols are believed to be detrimental in patients receiving PN. Data from this observational study suggest that the adverse effect of phytosterols delivered to home PN patients is mitigated by long-chain omega-3 fatty acids. Abstract Background: the effect on liver function markers and inflammation of the different content of phytosterols in lipid emulsions (LEs) used in the parenteral nutrition (PN) regimen of adult home PN (HPN) patients is not clear. Methods: plasma phytosterol and cytokine concentrations, fatty acid composition, liver function markers, and triglycerides were measured in 58 adult HPN patients receiving one of three different LEs (soybean oil-based: Intralipid; olive oil-based: ClinOleic; containing fish oil: SMOFLipid). Results: patients receiving Intralipid had higher plasma campesterol and stigmasterol concentrations than those receiving ClinOleic or SMOFLipid. Plasma sterol concentrations were not different between patients receiving ClinOleic and SMOFLipid. Differences in plasma fatty acids reflected the fatty acid composition of the LEs. Markers of liver function did not differ among the three groups. Blood triglycerides were higher with ClinOleic than with Intralipid or SMOFLipid. Total bilirubin correlated positively with the plasma concentrations of two of the phytosterols, ALT correlated positively with one, AST with one, and GGT with three. Conclusions: liver function markers correlate with plasma plant sterol concentrations in adult HPN patients. Adult HPN patients receiving SMOFLipid are more likely to have liver function markers and triglycerides within the normal range than those receiving ClinOleic or Intralipid. The omega-3 fatty acids in SMOFLipid may act to mitigate the adverse effects of plant sterols on liver function.

/pdf/potential-for-omega-3-fatty-acids-to-protect-against-the-1vcypcqo.pdf

Potential for Omega-3 Fatty Acids to Protect against the Adverse Effect of Phytosterols: Comparing Laboratory Outcomes in Adult Patients on Home Parenteral Nutrition Including Different Lipid Emulsions

Purpose of review This review provides an update on the actions of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) and presents the most recent findings from trials in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting including relevant meta-analyses. Many specialized pro-resolving mediators (SPMs) are produced from bioactive omega-3 PUFAs and may explain many of the beneficial effects of omega-3 PUFAs, although other mechanisms of action of omega-3 PUFAs are being uncovered. Recent findings SPMs resolve inflammation, promote healing and support antiinfection activities of the immune system. Since publication of the ESPEN guidelines, numerous studies further support the use of omega-3 PUFAs. Recent meta-analyses favor the inclusion of omega-3 PUFAs in nutrition support of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome or sepsis. Recent trials indicate that omega-3 PUFAs may protect against delirium and liver dysfunction in patients in the ICU, although effects on muscle loss are unclear and require further investigation. Critical illness may alter omega-3 PUFA turnover. There has been significant discussion about the potential for omega-3 PUFAs and SPMs in treatment of coronavirus disease 2019. Summary Evidence for benefits of omega-3 PUFAs in the ICU setting has strengthened through new trials and meta-analyses. Nevertheless, better quality trials are still needed. SPMs may explain many of the benefits of omega-3 PUFAs.

Philip C. Calder

Papers

Bronchiectasis-Could Immunonutrition Have a Role to Play in Future Management?

Do ω-3 fatty acids ease the way to silent cell death?

Potential for Omega-3 Fatty Acids to Protect against the Adverse Effect of Phytosterols: Comparing Laboratory Outcomes in Adult Patients on Home Parenteral Nutrition Including Different Lipid Emulsions

The role of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in the intensive care unit

Omega-3 fatty acids do not suppress atrial fibrillation even in the "inflamed" heart.