Hôpital Raymond-Poincaré

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. Some recommendations were ungraded (UG). 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 hrs 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 hr of 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 hrs 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 (1C); 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, as based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥ 65 mm Hg (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 PaO2/FIO2 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 hrs) for patients with early ARDS and a Pao2/Fio2 < 150 mm Hg (2C); a protocolized approach to blood glucose management commencing insulin dosing when two consecutive blood glucose levels are > 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 hrs 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 hrs 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 to 10 mins (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.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012." DESIGN: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

CONTEXT: Septic shock may be associated with relative adrenal insufficiency. Thus, a replacement therapy of low doses of corticosteroids has been proposed to treat septic shock. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether low doses of corticosteroids improve 28-day survival in patients with septic shock and relative adrenal insufficiency. DESIGN AND SETTING: Placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial performed in 19 intensive care units in France from October 9, 1995, to February 23, 1999. PATIENTS: Three hundred adult patients who fulfilled usual criteria for septic shock were enrolled after undergoing a short corticotropin test. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either hydrocortisone (50-mg intravenous bolus every 6 hours) and fludrocortisone (50- micro g tablet once daily) (n = 151) or matching placebos (n = 149) for 7 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Twenty-eight-day survival distribution in patients with relative adrenal insufficiency (nonresponders to the corticotropin test). RESULTS: One patient from the corticosteroid group was excluded from analyses because of consent withdrawal. There were 229 nonresponders to the corticotropin test (placebo, 115; corticosteroids, 114) and 70 responders to the corticotropin test (placebo, 34; corticosteroids, 36). In nonresponders, there were 73 deaths (63%) in the placebo group and 60 deaths (53%) in the corticosteroid group (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.95; P =.02). Vasopressor therapy was withdrawn within 28 days in 46 patients (40%) in the placebo group and in 65 patients (57%) in the corticosteroid group (hazard ratio, 1.91; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-2.84; P =.001). There was no significant difference between groups in responders. Adverse events rates were similar in the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: In our trial, a 7-day treatment with low doses of hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone significantly reduced the risk of death in patients with septic shock and relative adrenal insufficiency without increasing adverse events.

Importance: Effective therapies for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed, and clinical trial data have demonstrated that low-dose dexamethasone reduced mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who required respiratory support. Objective: To estimate the association between administration of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective meta-analysis that pooled data from 7 randomized clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of corticosteroids in 1703 critically ill patients with COVID-19. The trials were conducted in 12 countries from February 26, 2020, to June 9, 2020, and the date of final follow-up was July 6, 2020. Pooled data were aggregated from the individual trials, overall, and in predefined subgroups. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect meta-analysis of overall mortality, with the association between the intervention and mortality quantified using odds ratios (ORs). Random-effects meta-analyses also were conducted (with the Paule-Mandel estimate of heterogeneity and the Hartung-Knapp adjustment) and an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect analysis using risk ratios. Exposures: Patients had been randomized to receive systemic dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, or methylprednisolone (678 patients) or to receive usual care or placebo (1025 patients). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. A secondary outcome was investigator-defined serious adverse events. Results: A total of 1703 patients (median age, 60 years [interquartile range, 52-68 years]; 488 [29%] women) were included in the analysis. Risk of bias was assessed as "low" for 6 of the 7 mortality results and as "some concerns" in 1 trial because of the randomization method. Five trials reported mortality at 28 days, 1 trial at 21 days, and 1 trial at 30 days. There were 222 deaths among the 678 patients randomized to corticosteroids and 425 deaths among the 1025 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.53-0.82]; P < .001 based on a fixed-effect meta-analysis). There was little inconsistency between the trial results (I2 = 15.6%; P = .31 for heterogeneity) and the summary OR was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.48-1.01; P = .053) based on the random-effects meta-analysis. The fixed-effect summary OR for the association with mortality was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50-0.82; P < .001) for dexamethasone compared with usual care or placebo (3 trials, 1282 patients, and 527 deaths), the OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.43-1.12; P = .13) for hydrocortisone (3 trials, 374 patients, and 94 deaths), and the OR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.29-2.87; P = .87) for methylprednisolone (1 trial, 47 patients, and 26 deaths). Among the 6 trials that reported serious adverse events, 64 events occurred among 354 patients randomized to corticosteroids and 80 events occurred among 342 patients randomized to usual care or placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: In this prospective meta-analysis of clinical trials of critically ill patients with COVID-19, administration of systemic corticosteroids, compared with usual care or placebo, was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality.

BACKGROUND: Hydrocortisone is widely used in patients with septic shock even though a survival benefit has been reported only in patients who remained hypotensive after fluid and vasopressor resuscitation and whose plasma cortisol levels did not rise appropriately after the administration of corticotropin. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned 251 patients to receive 50 mg of intravenous hydrocortisone and 248 patients to receive placebo every 6 hours for 5 days; the dose was then tapered during a 6-day period. At 28 days, the primary outcome was death among patients who did not have a response to a corticotropin test. RESULTS: Of the 499 patients in the study, 233 (46.7%) did not have a response to corticotropin (125 in the hydrocortisone group and 108 in the placebo group). At 28 days, there was no significant difference in mortality between patients in the two study groups who did not have a response to corticotropin (39.2% in the hydrocortisone group and 36.1% in the placebo group, P=0.69) or between those who had a response to corticotropin (28.8% in the hydrocortisone group and 28.7% in the placebo group, P=1.00). At 28 days, 86 of 251 patients in the hydrocortisone group (34.3%) and 78 of 248 patients in the placebo group (31.5%) had died (P=0.51). In the hydrocortisone group, shock was reversed more quickly than in the placebo group. However, there were more episodes of superinfection, including new sepsis and septic shock. CONCLUSIONS: Hydrocortisone did not improve survival or reversal of shock in patients with septic shock, either overall or in patients who did not have a response to corticotropin, although hydrocortisone hastened reversal of shock in patients in whom shock was reversed. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00147004.)

Highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) increases CD4(+) cell numbers, but its ability to correct the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-induced immune deficiency remains unknown. A three-phase T cell reconstitution was demonstrated after HAART, with: (i) an early rise of memory CD4(+) cells, (ii) a reduction in T cell activation correlated to the decreasing retroviral activity together with an improved CD4(+) T cell reactivity to recall antigens, and (iii) a late rise of "naïve" CD4(+) lymphocytes while CD8(+) T cells declined, however, without complete normalization of these parameters. Thus, decreasing the HIV load can reverse HIV-driven activation and CD4(+) T cell defects in advanced HIV-infected patients.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for close communication with relatives of patients dying in the intensive care unit (ICU). We evaluated a format that included a proactive end-of-life conference and a brochure to see whether it could lessen the effects of bereavement. METHODS: Family members of 126 patients dying in 22 ICUs in France were randomly assigned to the intervention format or to the customary end-of-life conference. Participants were interviewed by telephone 90 days after the death with the use of the Impact of Event Scale (IES; scores range from 0, indicating no symptoms, to 75, indicating severe symptoms related to post-traumatic stress disorder [PTSD]) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS; subscale scores range from 0, indicating no distress, to 21, indicating maximum distress). RESULTS: Participants in the intervention group had longer conferences than those in the control group (median, 30 minutes [interquartile range, 19 to 45] vs. 20 minutes [interquartile range, 15 to 30]; P<0.001) and spent more of the time talking (median, 14 minutes [interquartile range, 8 to 20] vs. 5 minutes [interquartile range, 5 to 10]). On day 90, the 56 participants in the intervention group who responded to the telephone interview had a significantly lower median IES score than the 52 participants in the control group (27 vs. 39, P=0.02) and a lower prevalence of PTSD-related symptoms (45% vs. 69%, P=0.01). The median HADS score was also lower in the intervention group (11, vs. 17 in the control group; P=0.004), and symptoms of both anxiety and depression were less prevalent (anxiety, 45% vs. 67%; P=0.02; depression, 29% vs. 56%; P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Providing relatives of patients who are dying in the ICU with a brochure on bereavement and using a proactive communication strategy that includes longer conferences and more time for family members to talk may lessen the burden of bereavement. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00331877.)

Several isolates of a human type-C retrovirus belonging to one group, known as human T-cell leukemia virus (HTLV), have previously been obtained from patients with adult T-cell leukemia or lymphoma. The T-cell tropism of HTLV and its prevalence in the Caribbean basin prompted a search for it in patients with the epidemic T-cell immune deficiency disorder known as AIDS. Peripheral blood lymphocytes from one patient in the United States and two in France were cultured with T-cell growth factor (TCGF) an shown to express HTLV antigens. Virus from the U.S. patient was isolated and characterized and shown to be related to HTLV subgroup I. The virus was also transmitted into normal human T cells from umbilical cord blood of a newborn. Whether or not HTLV-I or other retroviruses of this family with T-cell tropism cause AIDS, it is possible that patients from whom the virus can be isolated can also transmit it to others. If the target cell of AIDS is the mature T cell as suspected, the methods used in these studies may prove useful for the long-term growth of these cells and for the identification of antigens specific for the etiological agent of AIDS.

CONTEXT: The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis is a major determinant of the host response to stress. The relationship between its activation and patient outcome is not known. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prognostic value of cortisol levels and a short corticotropin stimulation test in patients with septic shock. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective inception cohort study conducted between October 1991 and September 1995 in 2 teaching hospital adult intensive care units in France. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 189 consecutive patients who met clinical criteria for septic shock. INTERVENTION: A short corticotropin stimulation test was performed in all patients by intravenously injecting 0.25 mg of tetracosactrin; blood samples were taken immediately before the test (T0) and 30 (T30) and 60 (T60) minutes afterward. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Twenty-eight-day mortality as a function of variables collected at the onset of septic shock, including cortisol levels before the corticotropin test and the cortisol response to corticotropin (delta max, defined as the difference between T0 and the highest value between T30 and T60). RESULTS: The 28-day mortality was 58% (95% confidence interval [CI], 51%-65%) and median time to death was 17 days (95% CI, 14-27 days). In multivariate analysis, independent predictors of death (P < or = .001 for all) were McCabe score greater than 0, organ system failure score greater than 2, arterial lactate level greater than 2.8 mmol/L, ratio of PaO2 to fraction of inspired oxygen no more than 160 mm Hg, cortisol level at T0 greater than 34 microg/dL and delta max no more than 9 microg/dL. Three groups of patient prognoses were identified: good (cortisol level at T0 < or = 34 microg/dL and delta max > 9 microg/dL; 28-day mortality rate, 26%), intermediate (cortisol level at T0 34 microg/dL and delta max < or = 9 microg/dL or cortisol level at T0 > 34 microg/dL and delta max > 9 microg/dL; 28-day mortality rate, 67%), and poor (cortisol level at T0 > 34 microg/dL and delta max < or = 9 microg/dL; 28-day mortality rate, 82%). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that a short corticotropin test has a good prognostic value and could be helpful in identifying patients with septic shock at high risk for death.

INTRODUCTION: Sexual health is an integral part of overall health. Sexual dysfunction can have a major impact on quality of life and psychosocial and emotional well-being. AIM: To provide evidence-based, expert-opinion consensus guidelines for clinical management of sexual dysfunction in men. METHODS: An international consultation collaborating with major urologic and sexual medicine societies convened in Paris, July 2009. More than 190 multidisciplinary experts from 33 countries were assembled into 25 consultation committees. Committee members established scope and objectives for each chapter. Following an exhaustive review of available data and publications, committees developed evidence-based guidelines in each area. Main Outcome Measures. New algorithms and guidelines for assessment and treatment of sexual dysfunctions were developed based on work of previous consultations and evidence from scientific literature published from 2003 to 2009. The Oxford system of evidence-based review was systematically applied. Expert opinion was based on systematic grading of medical literature, and cultural and ethical considerations. RESULTS: Algorithms, recommendations, and guidelines for sexual dysfunction in men are presented. These guidelines were developed in an evidence-based, patient-centered, multidisciplinary manner. It was felt that all sexual dysfunctions should be evaluated and managed following a uniform strategy, thus the International Consultation of Sexual Medicine (ICSM-5) developed a stepwise diagnostic and treatment algorithm for sexual dysfunction. The main goal of ICSM-5 is to unmask the underlying etiology and/or indicate appropriate treatment options according to men's and women's individual needs (patient-centered medicine) using the best available data from population-based research (evidence-based medicine). Specific evaluation, treatment guidelines, and algorithms were developed for every sexual dysfunction in men, including erectile dysfunction; disorders of libido, orgasm, and ejaculation; Peyronie's disease; and priapism. CONCLUSIONS: Sexual dysfunction in men represents a group of common medical conditions that need to be managed from a multidisciplinary perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To develop consensus statements for the diagnosis and management of corticosteroid insufficiency in critically ill adult patients. PARTICIPANTS: A multidisciplinary, multispecialty task force of experts in critical care medicine was convened from the membership of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. In addition, international experts in endocrinology were invited to participate. DESIGN/METHODS: The task force members reviewed published literature and provided expert opinion from which the consensus was derived. The consensus statements were developed using a modified Delphi methodology. The strength of each recommendation was quantified using the Modified GRADE system, which classifies recommendations as strong (grade 1) or weak (grade 2) and the quality of evidence as high (grade A), moderate (grade B), or low (grade C) based on factors that include the study design, the consistency of the results, and the directness of the evidence. RESULTS: The task force coined the term critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency to describe the dysfunction of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis that occurs during critical illness. Critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency is caused by adrenal insufficiency together with tissue corticosteroid resistance and is characterized by an exaggerated and protracted proinflammatory response. Critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency should be suspected in hypotensive patients who have responded poorly to fluids and vasopressor agents, particularly in the setting of sepsis. At this time, the diagnosis of tissue corticosteroid resistance remains problematic. Adrenal insufficiency in critically ill patients is best made by a delta total serum cortisol of < 9 microg/dL after adrenocorticotrophic hormone (250 microg) administration or a random total cortisol of < 10 microg/dL. The benefit of treatment with glucocorticoids at this time seems to be limited to patients with vasopressor-dependent septic shock and patients with early severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (PaO2/FiO2 of < 200 and within 14 days of onset). The adrenocorticotrophic hormone stimulation test should not be used to identify those patients with septic shock or acute respiratory distress syndrome who should receive glucocorticoids. Hydrocortisone in a dose of 200 mg/day in four divided doses or as a continuous infusion in a dose of 240 mg/day (10 mg/hr) for > or = 7 days is recommended for septic shock. Methylprednisolone in a dose of 1 mg x kg(-1) x day(-1) for > or = 14 days is recommended in patients with severe early acute respiratory distress syndrome. Glucocorticoids should be weaned and not stopped abruptly. Reinstitution of treatment should be considered with recurrence of signs of sepsis, hypotension, or worsening oxygenation. Dexamethasone is not recommended to treat critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency. The role of glucocorticoids in the management of patients with community-acquired pneumonia, liver failure, pancreatitis, those undergoing cardiac surgery, and other groups of critically ill patients requires further investigation. CONCLUSION: Evidence-linked consensus statements with regard to the diagnosis and management of corticosteroid deficiency in critically ill patients have been developed by a multidisciplinary, multispecialty task force.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Hyponatraemia, defined as a serum sodium concentration <135 mmol/l, is the most common disorder of body fluid and electrolyte balance encountered in clinical practice. It can lead to a wide spectrum of clinical symptoms, from subtle to severe or even life threatening, and is associated with increased mortality, morbidity and length of hospital stay in patients presenting with a range of conditions. Despite this, the management of patients remains problematic. The prevalence of hyponatraemia in widely different conditions and the fact that hyponatraemia is managed by clinicians with a broad variety of backgrounds have fostered diverse institution- and speciality-based approaches to diagnosis and treatment. To obtain a common and holistic view, the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), the European Society of Endocrinology (ESE) and the European Renal Association - European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA), represented by European Renal Best Practice (ERBP), have developed the Clinical Practice Guideline on the diagnostic approach and treatment of hyponatraemia as a joint venture of three societies representing specialists with a natural interest in hyponatraemia. In addition to a rigorous approach to methodology and evaluation, we were keen to ensure that the document focused on patient-important outcomes and included utility for clinicians involved in everyday practice.

We performed ninety-five consecutive Latarjet procedures for the treatment of recurrent anterior instability of the shoulder between 1969 and 1983. In 1993, we retrospectively reviewed the clinical and radiographic results that were available for fifty-six patients (fifty-eight shoulders) who had been followed for an average of 143 years (range, ten to twenty-three years). The purpose of the study was to determine the prevalence of glenohumeral osteoarthrosis and the factors related to its development after the Latarjet procedure. The procedure was performed for the treatment of recurrent anterior dislocation in fifty shoulders and painful recurrent anterior subluxation in eight. All patients had a radiographic evaluation (three anteroposterior radiographs, with the humerus in external, neutral, and internal rotation, and one lateral radiograph) before the operation and at the latest follow-up examination. At the time of the latest follow-up, none of the patients had recurrent dislocation, six patients had apprehension with regard to possible dislocation, and one had occasional subluxation. According to the system of Rowe et al., fifty-one (88 per cent) of the fifty-eight shoulders had an excellent or good result; five (9 per cent), a fair result; and two (3 per cent), a poor result. Twenty-two shoulders had no glenohumeral osteoarthrosis. Thirty-four shoulders had centered glenohumeral osteoarthrosis (the humeral head remained in front of the center of the glenoid cavity), which was grade 1 in twenty-five shoulders, grade 2 in four, grade 3 in three, and grade 4 in two, and two shoulders had grade-4 eccentric glenohumeral osteoarthrosis (the humeral head was more proximal than normal in relation to the center of the glenoid cavity). Postoperative grade-1 glenohumeral osteoarthrosis, unlike the higher grades, had no effect on the function of the shoulder.

IMPORTANCE: Evidence supporting the choice of intravenous colloid vs crystalloid solutions for management of hypovolemic shock remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To test whether use of colloids compared with crystalloids for fluid resuscitation alters mortality in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with hypovolemic shock. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicenter, randomized clinical trial stratified by case mix (sepsis, trauma, or hypovolemic shock without sepsis or trauma). Therapy in the Colloids Versus Crystalloids for the Resuscitation of the Critically Ill (CRISTAL) trial was open label but outcome assessment was blinded to treatment assignment. Recruitment began in February 2003 and ended in August 2012 of 2857 sequential ICU patients treated at 57 ICUs in France, Belgium, North Africa, and Canada; follow-up ended in November 2012. INTERVENTIONS: Colloids (n = 1414; gelatins, dextrans, hydroxyethyl starches, or 4% or 20% of albumin) or crystalloids (n = 1443; isotonic or hypertonic saline or Ringer lactate solution) for all fluid interventions other than fluid maintenance throughout the ICU stay. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was death within 28 days. Secondary outcomes included 90-day mortality; and days alive and not receiving renal replacement therapy, mechanical ventilation, or vasopressor therapy. RESULTS: Within 28 days, there were 359 deaths (25.4%) in colloids group vs 390 deaths (27.0%) in crystalloids group (relative risk [RR], 0.96 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.04]; P = .26). Within 90 days, there were 434 deaths (30.7%) in colloids group vs 493 deaths (34.2%) in crystalloids group (RR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.86 to 0.99]; P = .03). Renal replacement therapy was used in 156 (11.0%) in colloids group vs 181 (12.5%) in crystalloids group (RR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.83 to 1.03]; P = .19). There were more days alive without mechanical ventilation in the colloids group vs the crystalloids group by 7 days (mean: 2.1 vs 1.8 days, respectively; mean difference, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.09 to 0.48] days; P = .01) and by 28 days (mean: 14.6 vs 13.5 days; mean difference, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.14 to 2.06] days; P = .01) and alive without vasopressor therapy by 7 days (mean: 5.0 vs 4.7 days; mean difference, 0.30 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.50] days; P = .04) and by 28 days (mean: 16.2 vs 15.2 days; mean difference, 1.04 [95% CI, -0.04 to 2.10] days; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among ICU patients with hypovolemia, the use of colloids vs crystalloids did not result in a significant difference in 28-day mortality. Although 90-day mortality was lower among patients receiving colloids, this finding should be considered exploratory and requires further study before reaching conclusions about efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00318942.

According to a recent hypothesis, venous thrombosis results from the concurrence of several factors. This hypothesis was assessed in patients with portal or hepatic venous thrombosis by simultaneously investigating most of the currently identified prothrombotic disorders, local precipitating factors, and other risk factors such as oral contraceptive use. Patients with a tumorous obstruction and patients with cirrhosis with portal vein thrombosis were excluded. The prothrombotic disorders that were investigated included classical and occult myeloproliferative disorders; antiphospholipid syndrome; protein C; protein S and antithrombin deficiency; factor V Leiden; factor II; and methylene-tetrahydrofolate-reductase gene mutations. We found 1 or several prothrombotic disorders and a local precipitating factor in 26 and 10 of the 36 patients with portal vein thrombosis, respectively; and in 28 and none of the 32 patients with hepatic vein thrombosis, respectively. We found a combination of prothrombotic disorders in 5 and 9 patients with portal and hepatic vein thrombosis, respectively, whereas such a combination is expected in less than 1% of asymptomatic subjects. Of the 10 patients with a local precipitating factor, 8 had a prothrombotic disorder. Of the 13 patients who use oral contraceptives, 10 had a prothrombotic disorder. We conclude that portal or hepatic venous thrombosis should be regarded as an index for 1 or several prothrombotic disorders, whether or not local precipitating factors or oral contraceptive use are found. Concurrence of prothrombotic disorders is more common than expected. Extensive investigation of prothrombotic disorders and anticoagulation should be considered in patients with portal or hepatic venous thrombosis.

This is the second half of a two-part document updating the standard of care recommendations for spinal muscular atrophy published in 2007. This part includes updated recommendations on pulmonary management and acute care issues, and topics that have emerged in the last few years such as other organ involvement in the severe forms of spinal muscular atrophy and the role of medications. Ethical issues and the choice of palliative versus supportive care are also addressed. These recommendations are becoming increasingly relevant given recent clinical trials and the prospect that commercially available therapies will likely change the survival and natural history of this disease.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) comprise of a large and heterogeneous group of infections including bacterial, viral, and other aetiologies. In recent years, procalcitonin (PCT), a blood marker for bacterial infections, has emerged as a promising tool to improve decisions about antibiotic therapy (PCT-guided antibiotic therapy). Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated the feasibility of using procalcitonin for starting and stopping antibiotics in different patient populations with ARIs and different settings ranging from primary care settings to emergency departments, hospital wards, and intensive care units. However, the effect of using procalcitonin on clinical outcomes is unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane review and individual participant data meta-analysis first published in 2012 designed to look at the safety of PCT-guided antibiotic stewardship. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review based on individual participant data was to assess the safety and efficacy of using procalcitonin for starting or stopping antibiotics over a large range of patients with varying severity of ARIs and from different clinical settings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE, and Embase, in February 2017, to identify suitable trials. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov to identify ongoing trials in April 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs of adult participants with ARIs who received an antibiotic treatment either based on a procalcitonin algorithm (PCT-guided antibiotic stewardship algorithm) or usual care. We excluded trials if they focused exclusively on children or used procalcitonin for a purpose other than to guide initiation and duration of antibiotic treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two teams of review authors independently evaluated the methodology and extracted data from primary studies. The primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and treatment failure at 30 days, for which definitions were harmonised among trials. Secondary endpoints were antibiotic use, antibiotic-related side effects, and length of hospital stay. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using multivariable hierarchical logistic regression adjusted for age, gender, and clinical diagnosis using a fixed-effect model. The different trials were added as random-effects into the model. We conducted sensitivity analyses stratified by clinical setting and type of ARI. We also performed an aggregate data meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: From 32 eligible RCTs including 18 new trials for this 2017 update, we obtained individual participant data from 26 trials including 6708 participants, which we included in the main individual participant data meta-analysis. We did not obtain individual participant data for four trials, and two trials did not include people with confirmed ARIs. According to GRADE, the quality of the evidence was high for the outcomes mortality and antibiotic exposure, and quality was moderate for the outcomes treatment failure and antibiotic-related side effects.Primary endpoints: there were 286 deaths in 3336 procalcitonin-guided participants (8.6%) compared to 336 in 3372 controls (10.0%), resulting in a significantly lower mortality associated with procalcitonin-guided therapy (adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.99, P = 0.037). We could not estimate mortality in primary care trials because only one death was reported in a control group participant. Treatment failure was not significantly lower in procalcitonin-guided participants (23.0% versus 24.9% in the control group, adjusted OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.01, P = 0.068). Results were similar among subgroups by clinical setting and type of respiratory infection, with no evidence for effect modification (P for interaction > 0.05). Secondary endpoints: procalcitonin guidance was associated with a 2.4-day reduction in antibiotic exposure (5.7 versus 8.1 days, 95% CI -2.71 to -2.15, P < 0.001) and lower risk of antibiotic-related side effects (16.3% versus 22.1%, adjusted OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.82, P < 0.001). Length of hospital stay and intensive care unit stay were similar in both groups. A sensitivity aggregate-data analysis based on all 32 eligible trials showed similar results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated meta-analysis of individual participant data from 12 countries shows that the use of procalcitonin to guide initiation and duration of antibiotic treatment results in lower risks of mortality, lower antibiotic consumption, and lower risk for antibiotic-related side effects. Results were similar for different clinical settings and types of ARIs, thus supporting the use of procalcitonin in the context of antibiotic stewardship in people with ARIs. Future high-quality research is needed to confirm the results in immunosuppressed patients and patients with non-respiratory infections.

To update the epidemiology of septic shock we analyzed clinical, microbiologic, and outcome variables from 100,554 intensive care unit admissions on the Collège des Utilisateurs de Bases de données en Réanimation (CUB-Réa) database, collected from 22 hospitals over a 8-year period, 1993 to 2000. The overall frequency of septic shock was 8.2 per 100 admissions (i.e., 8,251 stays). It increased from 7.0 (in 1993) to 9.7 per 100 admissions (in 2000). The distribution analysis of the sites of infection and of the types of pathogens showed an increase in the rate of pulmonary infection (p = 0.001) and of multiresistant bacteria-related septic shock (p = 0.001). The crude mortality was 60.1% and declined from 62.1% (in 1993) to 55.9 (in 2000) (p = 0.001). As compared with matched intensive care unit admissions without sepsis, the excess risk of death due to septic shock was 25.7 (95% confidence interval, 24.0-27.3) and the matched odds ratio of death was 3.9 (95% confidence interval, 3.5-4.3). The frequency of septic shock is increasing with more multiresistant strains. Its crude mortality rate is decreasing, but patients with septic shock still have a high excess risk of death than critically ill patients who are nonseptic.

BACKGROUND: Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) is an important clinical problem. Prospective studies of the incidence, characteristics and risk factors of CPSP are needed. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to evaluate the incidence and risk factors of CPSP. DESIGN: A multicentre, prospective, observational trial. SETTING: Twenty-one hospitals in 11 European countries. PATIENTS: Three thousand one hundred and twenty patients undergoing surgery and enrolled in the European registry PAIN OUT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain-related outcome was evaluated on the first postoperative day (D1) using a standardised pain outcome questionnaire. Review at 6 and 12 months via e-mail or telephonic interview used the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and the DN4 (Douleur Neuropathique four questions). Primary endpoint was the incidence of moderate to severe CPSP (numeric rating scale, NRS ≥3/10) at 12 months. RESULTS: For 1044 and 889 patients, complete data were available at 6 and 12 months. At 12 months, the incidence of moderate to severe CPSP was 11.8% (95% CI 9.7 to 13.9) and of severe pain (NRS ≥6) 2.2% (95% CI 1.2 to 3.3). Signs of neuropathic pain were recorded in 35.4% (95% CI 23.9 to 48.3) and 57.1% (95% CI 30.7 to 83.4) of patients with moderate and severe CPSP, respectively. Functional impairment (BPI) at 6 and 12 months increased with the severity of CPSP (P < 0.01) and presence of neuropathic characteristics (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis identified orthopaedic surgery, preoperative chronic pain and percentage of time in severe pain on D1 as risk factors. A 10% increase in percentage of time in severe pain was associated with a 30% increase of CPSP incidence at 12 months. CONCLUSION: The collection of data on CPSP was feasible within the European registry PAIN OUT. The incidence of moderate to severe CPSP at 12 months was 11.8%. Functional impairment was associated with CPSP severity and neuropathic characteristics. Risk factors for CPSP in the present study were chronic preoperative pain, orthopaedic surgery and percentage of time in severe pain on D1. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01467102.