scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Enteral versus parenteral early nutrition in ventilated adults with shock: a randomised, controlled, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group study (NUTRIREA-2)

Jean Reignier1, Julie Boisramé-Helms2, L. Brisard, Jean-Baptiste Lascarrou1, Ali Ait Hssain, Nadia Anguel, Laurent Argaud, Karim Asehnoune1, Pierre Asfar3, Frédéric Bellec, Vlad Botoc, Anne Bretagnol, Hoang-Nam Bui, Emmanuel Canet4, Daniel da Silva, Michael Darmon, Vincent Das, Jérôme Devaquet, Michel Djibré, Frédérique Ganster, Maité Garrouste-Orgeas, Stéphane Gaudry5, Olivier Gontier, Claude Guérin6, Bertrand Guidet7, Christophe Guitton, Jean-Etienne Herbrecht2, Jean-Claude Lacherade8, Philippe Letocart, Frédéric Martino, Virginie Maxime, Emmanuelle Mercier, Jean-Paul Mira9, Saad Nseir10, Gaël Piton11, Jean-Pierre Quenot12, Jack Richecoeur, Jean-Philippe Rigaud, René Robert13, Nathalie Rolin, Carole Schwebel14, Michel Sirodot15, François Tinturier, Didier Thevenin, Bruno Giraudeau, Amélie Le Gouge16, Amélie Le Gouge17, Hervé Dupont, Marc Pierrot, François Beloncle, Danièle Combaux, Romain Mercier, Hadrien Winiszewski, Gilles Capellier, Gilles Hilbert, Didier Gruson, Pierre Kalfon, Bertrand Souweine, Elizabeth Coupez, Jean-Damien Ricard, Jonathan Messika, François Bougerol, Pierre-Louis Declercq, Auguste Dargent, Audrey Large, Djillali Annane, Bernard Clair, Agnès Bonadona, Rebecca Hamidfar, Christian Richard, Mathieu Henry-Lagarrigue, Ahiem Yehia Yehia, Johanna Temime, Stephanie Barrailler, Raphael Favory, Erika Parmentier-Decrucq, Mercé Jourdain, Loredana Baboi, Marie Simon, Thomas Baudry, Mehran Monchi, Jérôme Roustan, Patrick Bardou, Alice Cottereau, Philippe Guiot, Noelle Brule, Mickael Landais, Antoine Roquilly, Thierry Boulain, Dalila Benzekri, Benoit Champigneulle, Jalel Tahiri, Gabriel Preda, Benoit Misset, Virginie Lemiale, Lara Zafrani, Muriel Fartoukh, Guillaume Thiery, Delphine Chatellier, Rémi Coudroy, Renaud Chouquer, Christine Brasse, Arnaud Delahaye, Luís Carlos de Souza Ferreira, Régine Vermesch, Stéphanie Chevalier, Charlotte Quentin, Quentin Maestraggi, Francis Schneider, Ferhat Meziani, Charles Cerf, Grégoire Trebbia, Charlotte Salmon-Gandonnière, Laetitia Bodet-Contentin 
13 Jan 2018-The Lancet (Elsevier)-Vol. 391, Iss: 10116, pp 133-143
TL;DR: In critically ill adults with shock, early isocaloric enteral nutrition did not reduce mortality or the risk of secondary infections but was associated with a greater risk of digestive complications compared with early isocallyoric parenteral nutrition.
About: This article is published in The Lancet.The article was published on 2018-01-13. It has received 346 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Parenteral nutrition & Enteral administration.
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Particular conditions frequently observed in intensive care such as patients with dysphagia, frail patients, multiple trauma patients, abdominal surgery, sepsis, and obesity are discussed to guide the practitioner toward the best evidence based therapy.

1,474 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Improved basic care driven by education and quality-improvement programmes offers the best hope of increasing favourable outcomes in sepsis.

919 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the recognition and management of sepsis and its complications as discussed by the authors, which are either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice statements.
Abstract: Background Sepsis poses a global threat to millions of lives. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the recognition and management of sepsis and its complications. Methods We formed a panel of 60 experts from 22 countries and 11 members of the public. The panel prioritized questions that are relevant to the recognition and management of sepsis and septic shock in adults. New questions and sections were addressed, relative to the previous guidelines. These questions were grouped under 6 subgroups (screening and early treatment, infection, hemodynamics, ventilation, additional therapies, and long-term outcomes and goals of care). With input from the panel and methodologists, professional medical librarians performed the search strategy tailored to either specific questions or a group of relevant questions. A dedicated systematic review team performed screening and data abstraction when indicated. For each question, the methodologists, with input from panel members, summarized the evidence assessed and graded the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The panel generated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice statements. When evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation, the panel was surveyed to generate “in our practice” statements. Results The SSC panel issued 93 statements: 15 best practice statements, 15 strong recommendations, and 54 weak recommendations and no recommendation was provided for 9 questions. The recommendations address several important clinical areas related to screening tools, acute resuscitation strategies, management of fluids and vasoactive agents, antimicrobials and diagnostic tests and the use of additional therapies, ventilation management, goals of care, and post sepsis care. Conclusion The SSC panel issued evidence-based recommendations to help support key stakeholders caring for adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families.

893 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the recognition and management of sepsis and its complications as mentioned in this paper, which are either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice statements.
Abstract: Background Sepsis poses a global threat to millions of lives. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the recognition and management of sepsis and its complications. Methods We formed a panel of 60 experts from 22 countries and 11 members of the public. The panel prioritized questions that are relevant to the recognition and management of sepsis and septic shock in adults. New questions and sections were addressed, relative to the previous guidelines. These questions were grouped under 6 subgroups (screening and early treatment, infection, hemodynamics, ventilation, additional therapies, and long-term outcomes and goals of care). With input from the panel and methodologists, professional medical librarians performed the search strategy tailored to either specific questions or a group of relevant questions. A dedicated systematic review team performed screening and data abstraction when indicated. For each question, the methodologists, with input from panel members, summarized the evidence assessed and graded the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The panel generated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice statements. When evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation, the panel was surveyed to generate “in our practice” statements. Results The SSC panel issued 93 statements: 15 best practice statements, 15 strong recommendations, and 54 weak recommendations and no recommendation was provided for 9 questions. The recommendations address several important clinical areas related to screening tools, acute resuscitation strategies, management of fluids and vasoactive agents, antimicrobials and diagnostic tests and the use of additional therapies, ventilation management, goals of care, and post sepsis care. Conclusion The SSC panel issued evidence-based recommendations to help support key stakeholders caring for adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families.

664 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This updated review will outline the management of CS complicating AMI with major focus on state-of-the art treatment.
Abstract: Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains the most common cause of death in patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and mortality remained nearly unchanged in the range of 40-50% during the last two decades. Early revascularization, vasopressors and inotropes, fluids, mechanical circulatory support, and general intensive care measures are widely used for CS management. However, there is only limited evidence for any of the above treatment strategies except for revascularization and the relative ineffectiveness of intra-aortic balloon pumping. This updated review will outline the management of CS complicating AMI with major focus on state-of-the art treatment.

319 citations

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The ESICM developed a so-called sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA) score to describe quantitatively and as objectively as possible the degree of organ dysfunction/failure over time in groups of patients or even in individual patients.
Abstract: Multiple organ failure (MOF) is a major cause of morbidity and mortali ty in the critically ill patient. Emerging in the 1970s, the concept of MOF was linked to modern developments in intensive care medicine [1]. Although an uncontrolled infection can lead to MOF [2], such a phenomenon is not always found. A number of mediators and the persistence of tissue hypoxia have been incriminated in the development of MOF [3]. The gut has been cited as a possible \"moto r \" of MOF [4]. Nevertheless, our knowledge regarding the pathophysiology of MOF remains limited. Furthermore, the development of new therapeutic interventions aiming at a reduction of the incidence and severity of organ failure calls for a better definition of the severity of organ dysfunction/failure to quantify the severity of illness. Accordingly, it is important to set some simple but objective criteria to define the degree of organ dysfunction/failure. The evolution of our knowledge of organ dysfunction/failure led us to establish several principles: 1. Organ dysfunction/failure is a process rather than an event. Hence, it should be seen as a continuum and should not be described simply as \"present\" or \"absent~' Hence, the assessment should be based on a scale. 2. The time factor is fundamental for several reasons: (a) Development and similarly resolution of organ failure may take some time. Patients dying early may not have time to develop organ dysfunction/failure. (b) The time course of organ dysfunction/failure can be mult imodal during a complex clinical course, what is sometimes referred to as a \"multiple-hit\" scenario. (c) Time evaluation allows a greater understanding of the disease process as a natural process or under the influence of therapeutic interventions. The collection of data on a daily basis seems adequate. 3. The evaluation of organ dysfunction/failure should be based on a limited number of simple but objective variables that are easily and routinely measured in every institution. The collection of this information should not impose any intervention beyond what is routinely performed in every ICU. The variables used should as much as possible be independent of therapy, since therapeutic management may vary from one institution to another and even from one patient to another (Table 1). Until recently, none of the existing systems describing organ failure met these criteria, since they were based on categorial definitions or described organ failure as present or absent [5-7] . The ESICM organized a consensus meeting in Paris in October 1994 to create a so-called sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, to describe quantitatively and as objectively as possible the degree of organ dysfunction/failure over time in groups of patients or even in individual patients (Fig. 1). There are two major applications of such a SOFA score: 1. To improve our Understanding of the natural history of organ dysfunction/failure and the interrelation between the failure of the various organs.

8,538 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Efficient methods of analysis of randomized clinical trials in which the authors wish to compare the duration of survival among different groups of patients are described.
Abstract: Part I of this report appeared in the previous issue (Br. J. Cancer (1976) 34,585), and discussed the design of randomized clinical trials. Part II now describes efficient methods of analysis of randomized clinical trials in which we wish to compare the duration of survival (or the time until some other untoward event first occurs) among different groups of patients. It is intended to enable physicians without statistical training either to analyse such data themselves using life tables, the logrank test and retrospective stratification, or, when such analyses are presented, to appreciate them more critically, but the discussion may also be of interest to statisticians who have not yet specialized in clinical trial analyses.

8,334 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
22 Dec 1993-JAMA
TL;DR: The SAPS II, based on a large international sample of patients, provides an estimate of the risk of death without having to specify a primary diagnosis, and is a starting point for future evaluation of the efficiency of intensive care units.
Abstract: Objective. —To develop and validate a new Simplified Acute Physiology Score, the SAPS II, from a large sample of surgical and medical patients, and to provide a method to convert the score to a probability of hospital mortality. Design and Setting. —The SAPS II and the probability of hospital mortality were developed and validated using data from consecutive admissions to 137 adult medical and/or surgical intensive care units in 12 countries. Patients. —The 13 152 patients were randomly divided into developmental (65%) and validation (35%) samples. Patients younger than 18 years, burn patients, coronary care patients, and cardiac surgery patients were excluded. Outcome Measure. —Vital status at hospital discharge. Results. —The SAPS II includes only 17 variables: 12 physiology variables, age, type of admission (scheduled surgical, unscheduled surgical, or medical), and three underlying disease variables (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, metastatic cancer, and hematologic malignancy). Goodness-of-fit tests indicated that the model performed well in the developmental sample and validated well in an independent sample of patients (P=.883 andP=.104 in the developmental and validation samples, respectively). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.88 in the developmental sample and 0.86 in the validation sample. Conclusion. —The SAPS II, based on a large international sample of patients, provides an estimate of the risk of death without having to specify a primary diagnosis. This is a starting point for future evaluation of the efficiency of intensive care units. (JAMA. 1993;270:2957-2963)

5,836 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: 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.
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.

4,303 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This report is the first simple account yet published for non-statistical physicians of how to analyse efficiently data from clinical trials of survival duration, and it may be preferable to use these statistical methods to study time to local recurrence of tumour, or toStudy time to detectable metastatic spread, in addition to studying total survival.
Abstract: The Medical Research Council has for some years encouraged collaborative clinical trials in leukaemia and other cancers, reporting the results in the medical literature. One unreported result which deserves such publication is the development of the expertise to design and analyse such trials. This report was prepared by a group of British and American statisticians, but it is intended for people without any statistical expertise. Part I, which appears in this issue, discusses the design of such trials; Part II, which will appear separately in the January 1977 issue of the Journal, gives full instructions for the statistical analysis of such trials by means of life tables and the logrank test, including a worked example, and discusses the interpretation of trial results, including brief reports of 2 particular trials. Both parts of this report are relevant to all clinical trials which study time to death, and wound be equally relevant to clinical trials which study time to other particular classes of untoward event: first stroke, perhaps, or first relapse, metastasis, disease recurrence, thrombosis, transplant rejection, or death from a particular cause. Part I, in this issue, collects together ideas that have mostly already appeared in the medical literature, but Part II, next month, is the first simple account yet published for non-statistical physicians of how to analyse efficiently data from clinical trials of survival duration. Such trials include the majority of all clinical trials of cancer therapy; in cancer trials,however, it may be preferable to use these statistical methods to study time to local recurrence of tumour, or to study time to detectable metastatic spread, in addition to studying total survival. Solid tumours can be staged at diagnosis; if this, or any other available information in some other disease is an important determinant of outcome, it can be used to make the overall logrank test for the whole heterogeneous trial population more sensitive, and more intuitively satisfactory, for it will then only be necessary to compare like with like, and not, by chance, Stage I with Stage III.

2,047 citations

Related Papers (5)