Objectives: The objectives of this study were to: 1) determine the association between vasopressor dosing intensity during the first 6 hours and first 24 hours after the onset of septic shock and 30-day in-hospital mortality; 2) determine whether the effect of vasopressor dosing intensity varies by fluid resuscitation volume; and 3) determine whether the effect of vasopressor dosing intensity varies by dosing titration pattern. Design: Multicenter prospective cohort study between September 2017 and February 2018. Vasopressor dosing intensity was defined as the total vasopressor dose infused across all vasopressors in norepinephrine equivalents. Setting: Thirty-three hospital sites in the United States (n = 32) and Jordan (n = 1). Patients: Consecutive adults requiring admission to the ICU with septic shock treated with greater than or equal to 1 vasopressor within 24 hours of shock onset. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Out of 1,639 patients screened, 616 were included. Norepinephrine (93%) was the most common vasopressor. Patients received a median of 3,400 mL (interquartile range, 1,851–5,338 mL) during the 24 hours after shock diagnosis. The median vasopressor dosing intensity during the first 24 hours of shock onset was 8.5 μg/min norepinephrine equivalents (3.4–18.1 μg/min norepinephrine equivalents). In the first 6 hours, increasing vasopressor dosing intensity was associated with increased odds ratio of 30-day in-hospital mortality, with the strength of association dependent on concomitant fluid administration. Over the entire 24 hour period, every 10 μg/min increase in vasopressor dosing intensity was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.16–1.53), and this association did not vary with the amount of fluid administration. Compared to an early high/late low vasopressor dosing strategy, an early low/late high or sustained high vasopressor dosing strategy was associated with higher mortality. Conclusions: Increasing vasopressor dosing intensity during the first 24 hours after septic shock was associated with increased mortality. This association varied with the amount of early fluid administration and the timing of vasopressor titration.

OBJECTIVES: To formulate new “Choosing Wisely” for Critical Care recommendations that identify best practices to avoid waste and promote value while providing critical care. DATA SOURCES: Semistructured narrative literature review and quantitative survey assessments. STUDY SELECTION: English language publications that examined critical care practices in relation to reducing cost or waste. DATA EXTRACTION: Practices assessed to add no value to critical care were grouped by category. Taskforce assessment, modified Delphi consensus building, and quantitative survey analysis identified eight novel recommendations to avoid wasteful critical care practices. These were submitted to the Society of Critical Care Medicine membership for evaluation and ranking. DATA SYNTHESIS: Results from the quantitative Society of Critical Care Medicine membership survey identified the top scoring five of eight recommendations. These five highest ranked recommendations established Society of Critical Care Medicine’s Next Five “Choosing” Wisely for Critical Care practices. CONCLUSIONS: Five new recommendations to reduce waste and enhance value in the practice of critical care address invasive devices, proactive liberation from mechanical ventilation, antibiotic stewardship, early mobilization, and providing goal-concordant care. These recommendations supplement the initial critical care recommendations from the “Choosing Wisely” campaign.

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is the most common cause of nosocomial diarrhea and is associated with an increased risk of mortality. The use of probiotics and fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has been studied to reduce the incidence and severity of this infection, but variable efficacy and safety data have been reported. Probiotics are hypothesized to be effective in the management of CDI through a number of mechanisms that include maintenance of normal gastrointestinal flora, antimicrobial and antitoxin properties, and immunomodulatory effects. Despite promising results in small trials and meta-analyses, prospective, randomized, controlled trials have not demonstrated probiotics to be effective in the primary prevention of C. difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD). Probiotics may be effective for secondary prevention in patients with recurrent CDI, but guidelines acknowledge the lack of compelling evidence. Trials are limited by the use of varying types of strains, numbers of strains, and doses of probiotics, as well the definitions of CDI and CDAD. FMT has been proposed as a method for restoring gut microbiota and has been shown to significantly increase the rate of cure in patients with recurrent CDI. Current studies have demonstrated minimal adverse effects, with no reports of transmission of infectious diseases; however, the optimal delivery method, sample preparation, and donor selection remain unclear. In this review, findings from recent literature are highlighted, and guideline recommendations for the use of these agents in the primary and secondary prevention of CDI are summarized.

Objectives: To characterize the association between the use of physiologic assessment (central venous pressure, pulmonary artery occlusion pressure, stroke volume variation, pulse pressure variation, passive leg raise test, and critical care ultrasound) with fluid and vasopressor administration 24 hours after shock onset and with in-hospital mortality. Design: Multicenter prospective cohort study between September 2017 and February 2018. Settings: Thirty-four hospitals in the United States and Jordan. Patients: Consecutive adult patients requiring admission to the ICU with systolic blood pressure less than or equal to 90 mm Hg, mean arterial blood pressure less than or equal to 65 mm Hg, or need for vasopressor. Interventions: None. Measurement and Main Results: Of 1,639 patients enrolled, 39% had physiologic assessments. Use of physiologic assessment was not associated with cumulative fluid administered within 24 hours of shock onset, after accounting for baseline characteristics, etiology and location of shock, ICU types, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III, and hospital (beta coefficient, 0.04; 95% CI, −0.07 to 0.15). In multivariate analysis, the use of physiologic assessment was associated with a higher likelihood of vasopressor use (adjusted odds ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.45−2.71) and higher 24-hour cumulative vasopressor dosing as norepinephrine equivalent (beta coefficient, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.19−0.55). The use of vasopressor was associated with increased odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.27−2.78). In-hospital mortality was not associated with the use of physiologic assessment (adjusted odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.63−1.18). Conclusions: The use of physiologic assessment in the 24 hours after shock onset is associated with increased use of vasopressor but not with fluid administration.

No abstract