IntroductionFever is frequently observed in critically ill patients. An independent association of fever with increased mortality has been observed in non-neurological critically ill patients with mixed febrile etiology. The association of fever and antipyretics with mortality, however, may be different between infective and non-infective illness.MethodsWe designed a prospective observational study to investigate the independent association of fever and the use of antipyretic treatments with mortality in critically ill patients with and without sepsis. We included 1,425 consecutive adult critically ill patients (without neurological injury) requiring > 48 hours intensive care admitted in 25 ICUs. We recorded four-hourly body temperature and all antipyretic treatments until ICU discharge or 28 days after ICU admission, whichever occurred first. For septic and non-septic patients, we separately assessed the association of maximum body temperature during ICU stay (MAXICU) and the use of antipyretic treatments with 28-day mortality.ResultsWe recorded body temperature 63,441 times. Antipyretic treatment was given 4,863 times to 737 patients (51.7%). We found that treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or acetaminophen independently increased 28-day mortality for septic patients (adjusted odds ratio: NSAIDs: 2.61, P = 0.028, acetaminophen: 2.05, P = 0.01), but not for non-septic patients (adjusted odds ratio: NSAIDs: 0.22, P = 0.15, acetaminophen: 0.58, P = 0.63). Application of physical cooling did not associate with mortality in either group. Relative to the reference range (MAXICU 36.5°C to 37.4°C), MAXICU ≥ 39.5°C increased risk of 28-day mortality in septic patients (adjusted odds ratio 8.14, P = 0.01), but not in non-septic patients (adjusted odds ratio 0.47, P = 0.11).ConclusionsIn non-septic patients, high fever (≥ 39.5°C) independently associated with mortality, without association of administration of NSAIDs or acetaminophen with mortality. In contrast, in septic patients, administration of NSAIDs or acetaminophen independently associated with 28-day mortality, without association of fever with mortality. These findings suggest that fever and antipyretics may have different biological or clinical or both implications for patients with and without sepsis.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00940654

No abstract

BackgroundTo compare the efficacy of three antiseptic solutions [0.5%, and 1.0% alcohol/chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG), and 10% aqueous povidone-iodine (PVI)] for the prevention of intravascular catheter colonization, we conducted a randomized controlled trial in patients from 16 intensive care units in Japan.MethodsAdult patients undergoing central venous or arterial catheter insertions were randomized to have one of three antiseptic solutions applied during catheter insertion and dressing changes. The primary endpoint was the incidence of catheter colonization, and the secondary endpoint was the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI).ResultsOf 1132 catheters randomized, 796 (70%) were included in the full analysis set. Catheter-tip colonization incidence was 3.7, 3.9, and 10.5 events per 1000 catheter-days in 0.5% CHG, 1% CHG, and PVI groups, respectively (p = 0.03). Pairwise comparisons of catheter colonization between groups showed a significantly higher catheter colonization risk in the PVI group (0.5% CHG vs. PVI: hazard ratio, HR 0.33 [95% confidence interval, CI 0.12–0.95], p = 0.04; 1.0% CHG vs. PVI: HR 0.35 [95% CI 0.13–0.93], p = 0.04). Sensitivity analyses including all patients by multiple imputations showed consistent quantitative conclusions (0.5% CHG vs. PVI: HR 0.34, p = 0.03; 1.0% CHG vs. PVI: HR 0.35, p = 0.04). No significant differences were observed in the incidence of CRBSI between groups.ConclusionsBoth 0.5% and 1.0% alcohol CHG are superior to 10% aqueous PVI for the prevention of intravascular catheter colonization.Trial registrationJapanese Primary Registries Network; No.: UMIN000008725 Registered on 1 September 2012Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-017-1890-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Delirium is a critical challenge in the intensive care unit (ICU) or high care unit (HCU) setting and is associated with poor outcomes. There is not much literature on how many patients in this setting are assessed for delirium and what tools are used. This study investigated the status of delirium assessment tools of patients in the ICU/HCU. We conducted a multicenter prospective observational study among 20 institutions. Data for patients who were admitted to and discharged from the ICU/HCU during a 1-month study period were collected from each institution using a survey sheet. The primary outcome was the usage rate of delirium assessment tools on an institution- and patient-basis. Secondary outcomes were the delirium prevalence assessed by each institution’s assessment tool, comparison of delirium prevalence between delirium assessment tools, delirium prevalence at the end of ICH/HCU stay, and the relationship between potential factors related to delirium and the development of delirium. Result showed that 95% of institutions used the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) or the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) to assess delirium in their ICU/HCU, and the remaining one used another assessment scale. The usage rate (at least once during the ICU/HCU stay) of the ICDSC and the CAM-ICU among individual patients were 64.5% and 25.1%, and only 8.2% of enrolled patients were not assessed by any delirium assessment tool. The prevalence of delirium during ICU/HCU stay was 17.9%, and the prevalence of delirium at the end of the ICU/HCU stay was 5.9%. In conclusion, all institutions used delirium assessment tools in the ICU/HCU, and most patients received delirium assessment. The prevalence of delirium was 17.9%, and two-thirds of patients had recovered at discharge from ICU/HCU.Trial registration number: UMIN000037834.