Dataset Information

Changes in carbon dioxide production and oxygen uptake evaluated using indirect calorimetry in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Several clinical guidelines recommend monitoring blood lactate levels and central venous oxygen saturation for hemodynamic management of patients with sepsis. We hypothesized that carbon dioxide production (VCO₂) and oxygen extraction (VO₂) evaluated using indirect calorimetry (IC) might provide additional information to understand the dynamic metabolic changes in sepsis.

Methods

Adult patients with sepsis who required mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) of our hospital between September 2019 and March 2020 were prospectively enrolled. Sepsis was diagnosed according to Sepsis-3. Continuous measurement of VCO₂ and VO₂ using IC for 2 h was conducted within 24 h after tracheal intubation, and the changes in VCO₂ and VO₂ over 2 h were calculated as the slopes by linear regression analysis. Furthermore, temporal lactate changes were evaluated. The primary outcome was 28-day survival.

Results

Thirty-four patients with sepsis were enrolled, 26 of whom survived 76%. Significant differences in the slope of VCO₂ (- 1.412 vs. - 0.446) (p = 0.012) and VO₂ (- 2.098 vs. - 0.851) (p = 0.023) changes were observed between non-survivors and survivors. Of note, all eight non-survivors and 17 of the 26 survivors showed negative slopes of VCO₂ and VO₂ changes. For these patients, 17 survivors had a median lactate of - 2.4% changes per hour (%/h), whereas non-survivors had a median lactate of 2.6%/hr (p = 0.023).

Conclusions

The non-survivors in this study showed temporal decreases in both VCO₂ and VO₂ along with lactate elevation. Monitoring the temporal changes in VCO₂ and VO₂ along with blood lactate levels may be useful in predicting the prognosis of sepsis.

SUBMITTER: Hirayama I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8645073 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGuidelines currently recommend targeting light sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol for adults receiving mechanical ventilation. Differences exist between these sedatives in arousability, immunity, and inflammation. Whether they affect outcomes differentially in mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis undergoing light sedation is unknown.MethodsIn a multicenter, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis to receive dexmedetomidine (0.2 to 1.5 μg per kilogram of body weight per hour) or propofol (5 to 50 μg per kilogram per minute), with doses adjusted by bedside nurses to achieve target sedation goals set by clinicians according to the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS, on which scores range from -5 [unresponsive] to +4 [combative]). The primary end point was days alive without delirium or coma during the 14-day intervention period. Secondary end points were ventilator-free days at 28 days, death at 90 days, and age-adjusted total score on the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status questionnaire (TICS-T; scores range from 0 to 100, with a mean of 50±10 and lower scores indicating worse cognition) at 6 months.ResultsOf 432 patients who underwent randomization, 422 were assigned to receive a trial drug and were included in the analyses - 214 patients received dexmedetomidine at a median dose of 0.27 μg per kilogram per hour, and 208 received propofol at a median dose of 10.21 μg per kilogram per minute. The median duration of receipt of the trial drugs was 3.0 days (interquartile range, 2.0 to 6.0), and the median RASS score was -2.0 (interquartile range, -3.0 to -1.0). We found no difference between dexmedetomidine and propofol in the number of days alive without delirium or coma (adjusted median, 10.7 vs. 10.8 days; odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.26), ventilator-free days (adjusted median, 23.7 vs. 24.0 days; odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.51), death at 90 days (38% vs. 39%; hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.52), or TICS-T score at 6 months (adjusted median score, 40.9 vs. 41.4; odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.33). Safety end points were similar in the two groups.ConclusionsAmong mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis who were being treated with recommended light-sedation approaches, outcomes in patients who received dexmedetomidine did not differ from outcomes in those who received propofol. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01739933.).

Project description:PurposeSepsis is a common reason for intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality in ICU patients. Despite increasing interest in treatment strategies limiting oxygen exposure in ICU patients, no trials have compared conservative vs. usual oxygen in patients with sepsis.MethodsWe undertook a post hoc analysis of the 251 patients with sepsis enrolled in a trial that compared conservative oxygen therapy with usual oxygen therapy in 1000 mechanically ventilated ICU patients. The primary end point for the current analysis was 90-day mortality. Key secondary outcomes were cause-specific mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, ventilator-free days, vasopressor-free days, and the proportion of patients receiving renal replacement therapy in the ICU.ResultsPatients with sepsis allocated to conservative oxygen therapy spent less time in the ICU with an SpO2???97% (23.5 h [interquartile range (IQR) 8-70] vs. 47 h [IQR 11-93], absolute difference, 23 h; 95% CI 8-38), and more time receiving an FiO2 of 0.21 than patients allocated to usual oxygen therapy (20.5 h [IQR 1-79] vs. 0 h [IQR 0-10], absolute difference, 20 h; 95% CI 14-26). At 90-days, 47 of 130 patients (36.2%) assigned to conservative oxygen and 35 of 120 patients (29.2%) assigned to usual oxygen had died (absolute difference, 7 percentage points; 95% CI -?4.6 to 18.6% points; P?=?0.24; interaction P?=?0.35 for sepsis vs. non-sepsis). There were no statistically significant differences between groups for secondary outcomes but point estimates of treatment effects consistently favored usual oxygen therapy.ConclusionsPoint estimates for the treatment effect of conservative oxygen therapy on 90-day mortality raise the possibility of clinically important harm with this intervention in patients with sepsis; however, our post hoc analysis was not powered to detect the effects suggested and our data do not exclude clinically important benefit or harm from conservative oxygen therapy in this patient group.Clinical trials registryICU-ROX Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number ACTRN12615000957594.

Project description:IntroductionOxygen is the most commonly administered drug to mechanically ventilated critically ill adults, yet little is known about the optimum oxygen saturation (SpO2) target for these patients; the current standard of care is an SpO2 of 96% or above. Small pilot studies have demonstrated that permissive hypoxaemia (aiming for a lower SpO2 than normal by using a lower fractional inspired oxygen concentration (FIO2)) can be achieved in the critically ill and appears to be safe. This approach has not been evaluated in a National Health Service setting. It is possible that permissive hypoxaemia may be beneficial to critically ill patients thus it requires robust evaluation.Methods and analysisTargeted OXygen therapY in Critical illness (TOXYC) is a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate whether recruiting patients to a study of permissive hypoxaemia is possible in the UK. It will also investigate biological mechanisms that may underlie the links between oxygenation and patient outcomes. Mechanically ventilated patients with respiratory failure will be recruited from critical care units at two sites and randomised (1:1 ratio) to an SpO2 target of either 88%-92% or ≥96% while intubated with an endotracheal tube. Clinical teams can adjust FIO2 and ventilator settings as they wish to achieve these targets. Clinical information will be collected before, during and after the intervention and blood samples taken to measure markers of systemic oxidative stress. The primary outcome of this study is feasibility, which will be assessed by recruitment rate, protocol adherence and withdrawal rates. Secondary outcomes will include a comparison of standard critical care outcome measures between the two intervention groups, and the measurement of biomarkers of systemic oxidative stress. The results will be used to calculate a sample size, likely number of sites and overall length of time required for a subsequent large multicentre RCT.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by the London - Harrow Research Ethics Committee on 2 November 2017 (REC Reference 17/LO/1334) and received HRA approval on 13 November 2017. Results from this study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, at medical and scientific meetings, in the NIHR Journals Library and patient information websites.Trial registration numberNCT03287466; Pre-results.