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

Comment on ‘Current choices in omega 3 supplementation’

Згідно з новими стандартними операційними процедурами ESPEN були оновлені попередні рекомендації щодо забезпечення найкращого медичного нутритивного забезпечення для критично хворих пацієнтів. Дані рекомендації визначають, хто є пацієнтами в групі ризику, як оцінити нутритивний статус пацієнта ВІТ, як визначити кількість енергії, яку необхідно забезпечити, який обрати шлях для нутритивного забезпечення та як адаптувати пацієнта у відповідності до різних клінічних умов. Також описано, коли слід розпочати і як просуватися в управлінні процесом адекватного забезпечення поживними речовинами. Запропоновано найкраще визначення кількості та походження вуглеводів, жирів і білків. Особлива увага приділяється глутаміну і омега-3 жирним кислотам. Обговорюються конкретні стани, що часто спостерігаються в інтенсивній терапії, такі як пацієнти з дисфагією, виснажені пацієнти, пацієнти з множинними травмами, абдомінальна хірургія, сепсис і ожиріння, з метою ознайомлення практикуючого лікаря з найкращою доказовою терапією. Моніторинг цієї нутритивної терапії обговорюється в окремому документі.

/pdf/metodichni-rekomendatsiyi-espen-shchodo-klinichnogo-221vggmvw3.pdf

Методичні рекомендації ESPEN щодо клінічного харчування у відділенні інтенсивної терапії

Abstract Objectives The primary goal of this analysis was to use baseline and pre-intervention variables from a large dietary intervention study (the FINGEN study) to develop models to predict change in levels of plasma triglycerides (TG), and in the plasma long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) + docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), after fish oil supplementation. A secondary goal was whether clustering of baseline and pre-intervention data could lead to identification of groups of participants who responded differentially. Methods All statistical analyses were undertaken in R, with outcomes of interest kept on a continuous scale. Multiple imputation was conducted which generated 5 complete datasets. Variable selection methods (forward stepwise selection, backward stepwise selection, LASSO and the Boruta algorithm) were applied across each imputed dataset to generate models. Validation methods were applied to minimise model overfitting. Validation set root mean squared errors (RMSEs) were averaged across the 5 imputed datasets, with final model chosen corresponding to the lowest RMSE and therefore most accurate predictions on data not included in model development. Results The final model for predicting TG change contained the predictors pre-intervention TG and baseline fasting insulin and ApoB levels. For EPA + DHA change, these were pre-intervention EPA, DHA and baseline ApoE levels. Both models explained over 40% of variation in the outcome, generated using forward stepwise selection. Unsupervised analysis using baseline and pre-intervention data did not lead to significant differences in the outcomes between clusters. Conclusions Our models successfully identified predictors of response for plasma triglyceride and EPA + DHA change upon intervention with fish oil. This analysis approach therefore offers opportunities as a tool for precision nutrition approaches, to determine those most likely to respond beneficially to dietary interventions. Funding Sources Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) UK and Unilever Foods Innovation Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands: Collaborative Training Partnership (CTP) PhD.

https://academic.oup.com/cdn/article-pdf/6/Supplement_1/1123/44043005/nzac078.017.pdf

Applying Statistical Methods to Identify Variables Associated With a Beneficial Physiological Response to Fish Oil Intervention

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9972879

Philip C. Calder

Papers

Comment on ‘Current choices in omega 3 supplementation’

Методичні рекомендації ESPEN щодо клінічного харчування у відділенні інтенсивної терапії

Applying Statistical Methods to Identify Variables Associated With a Beneficial Physiological Response to Fish Oil Intervention

Bioactive omega-3 fatty acids are associated with reduced risk and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection

Front & Back Matter