Kristy Masters

Importance: Whether selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) reduces mortality in critically ill patients remains uncertain. Objective: To determine whether SDD reduces in-hospital mortality in critically ill adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cluster, crossover, randomized clinical trial that recruited 5982 mechanically ventilated adults from 19 intensive care units (ICUs) in Australia between April 2018 and May 2021 (final follow-up, August 2021). A contemporaneous ecological assessment recruited 8599 patients from participating ICUs between May 2017 and August 2021. Interventions: ICUs were randomly assigned to adopt or not adopt a SDD strategy for 2 alternating 12-month periods, separated by a 3-month interperiod gap. Patients in the SDD group (n = 2791) received a 6-hourly application of an oral paste and administration of a gastric suspension containing colistin, tobramycin, and nystatin for the duration of mechanical ventilation, plus a 4-day course of an intravenous antibiotic with a suitable antimicrobial spectrum. Patients in the control group (n = 3191) received standard care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality within 90 days. There were 8 secondary outcomes, including the proportion of patients with new positive blood cultures, antibiotic-resistant organisms (AROs), and Clostridioides difficile infections. For the ecological assessment, a noninferiority margin of 2% was prespecified for 3 outcomes including new cultures of AROs. Results: Of 5982 patients (mean age, 58.3 years; 36.8% women) enrolled from 19 ICUs, all patients completed the trial. There were 753/2791 (27.0%) and 928/3191 (29.1%) in-hospital deaths in the SDD and standard care groups, respectively (mean difference, -1.7% [95% CI, -4.8% to 1.3%]; odds ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.82-1.02]; P = .12). Of 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, 6 showed no significant differences. In the SDD vs standard care groups, 23.1% vs 34.6% had new ARO cultures (absolute difference, -11.0%; 95% CI, -14.7% to -7.3%), 5.6% vs 8.1% had new positive blood cultures (absolute difference, -1.95%; 95% CI, -3.5% to -0.4%), and 0.5% vs 0.9% had new C difficile infections (absolute difference, -0.24%; 95% CI, -0.6% to 0.1%). In 8599 patients enrolled in the ecological assessment, use of SDD was not shown to be noninferior with regard to the change in the proportion of patients who developed new AROs (-3.3% vs -1.59%; mean difference, -1.71% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -∞ to 4.31%] and 0.88% vs 0.55%; mean difference, -0.32% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -∞ to 5.47%]) in the first and second periods, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation, SDD, compared with standard care without SDD, did not significantly reduce in-hospital mortality. However, the confidence interval around the effect estimate includes a clinically important benefit. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02389036.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine whether selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) reduces in-hospital mortality in mechanically ventilated critically ill adults admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with acute brain injuries or conditions. METHODS: We carried out a post hoc analysis from a crossover, cluster randomized clinical trial. ICUs were randomly assigned to adopt or not to adopt a SDD strategy for two alternating 12-month periods, separated by a 3-month inter-period gap. Patients in the SDD group (n = 2791; 968 admitted to the ICU with an acute brain injury) received a 6-hourly application of an oral paste and administration of a gastric suspension containing colistin, tobramycin, and nystatin for the duration of mechanical ventilation, plus a 4-day course of an intravenous antibiotic with a suitable antimicrobial spectrum. Patients in the control group (n = 3191; 1093 admitted to the ICU with an acute brain injury) received standard care. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality within 90 days. There were four secondary clinical outcomes: death in ICU, ventilator-, ICU- and hospital-free days to day 90. RESULTS: Of 2061 patients with acute brain injuries (mean age, 55.8 years; 36.4% women), all completed the trial. In patients with acute brain injuries, there were 313/968 (32.3%) and 415/1093 (38%) in-hospital deaths in the SDD and standard care groups (unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-0.92; p = 0.004). The use of SDD was associated with statistically significant improvements in the four clinical secondary outcomes compared to standard care. There was no significant heterogeneity of treatment effect between patients with and without acute brain injuries (interaction p = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial in critically ill patients with acute brain injuries receiving mechanical ventilation, the use of SDD significantly reduced in-hospital mortality in patients compared to standard care without SDD. These findings require confirmation.

Sepsis is associated with a dysregulated inflammatory response to infection. Despite the activation of inflammation, an immune suppression is often observed, predisposing patients to secondary infections. Therapies directed at restoration of immunity may be considered but should be guided by the immune status of the patients. In this paper, we described the use of a high-dimensional flow cytometry (HDCyto) panel to assess the immunophenotype of patients with sepsis. We then isolated peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from patients with septic shock and mimicked a secondary infection by stimulating PBMCs for 4 h in vitro with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) with or without prior exposure to either IFN-γ, or LAG-3Ig. We evaluated the response by means of flow cytometry and high-resolution clustering cum differential analysis and compared the results to PBMCs from healthy donors. We observed a heterogeneous immune response in septic patients and identified two major subgroups: one characterized by hypo-responsiveness (Hypo) and another one by hyper-responsiveness (Hyper). Hypo and Hyper groups showed significant differences in the production of cytokines/chemokine and surface human leukocyte antigen-DR (HLA-DR) expression in response to LPS stimulation, which were observed across all cell types. When pre-treated with either interferon gamma (IFN-γ) or lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG)-3 recombinant fusion protein (LAG-3Ig) prior to LPS stimulation, cells from the Hypo group were shown to be more responsive to both immunostimulants than cells from the Hyper group. Our results demonstrate the importance of patient stratification based on their immune status prior to any immune therapies. Once sufficiently scaled, this approach may be useful for prescribing the right immune therapy for the right patient at the right time, the key to the success of any therapy.

Objective: To evaluate the feasibility of conducting a prospective randomised controlled trial (pRCT) comparing remifentanil and fentanyl as adjuncts to sedate mechanically ventilated patients. Design: Single-center, open-labelled, pRCT with blinded analysis. Setting: Australian tertiary intensive care unit (ICU). Participants: or study-drug hypersensitivity. Interventions: Open-label fentanyl and remifentanil infusions per existing ICU protocols. Outcomes: Primary outcomes were feasibility of recruiting ≥1 patient/week and >90 % compliance, namely no other opioid infusion used during the study period. Secondary outcomes included complications, ICU-, ventilator- and hospital-free days, and mortality (ICU, hospital). Blinded intention-to-treat analysis was performed concealing the allocation group. Results: 208 patients were enrolled (mean 3.7 patients/week). Compliance was 80.6 %. More patients developed complications with fentanyl than remifentanil: bradycardia (n = 44 versus n = 21; p < 0.001); hypotension (n = 78 versus n = 53; p < 0.01); delirium (n = 28 versus n = 15; p = 0.001). No differences were seen in ICU (24.3 % versus 27.6 %,p = 0.60) and hospital mortalities (26.2 % versus 30.5 %; p = 0.50). Ventilator-free days were higher with remifentanil (p = 0.01). Conclusions: We demonstrated the feasibility of enrolling patients for a pRCT comparing remifentanil and fentanyl as sedation adjuncts in mechanically ventilated patients. We failed to attain the study-opioid compliance target, likely because of patients with complex sedative/analgesic requirements. Secondary outcomes suggest that remifentanil may reduce mechanical ventilation duration and decrease the incidence of complications. An adequately powered multicentric phase 2 study is required to evaluate these results.