Quiz Ref ID Invasive ventilation, one of the most frequently applied strategies in the intensive care unit (ICU), is increasingly recognized as a potentially harmful intervention.¹ There is evidence that lung-protective ventilation using low tidal volumes improves survival in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS),^2-4 but it is less certain whether tidal volume restriction benefits patients without ARDS. Two randomized clinical trials found tidal volume reduction to be associated with a lower number of pulmonary complications in patients without ARDS,^5,6 and 2 individual patient data meta-analyses suggested that tidal volume reduction may shorten the time spent on the ventilator and duration of stay in the ICU and hospital.^7,8

Introduction: A clinical suspicion of infection is mandatory for diagnosing sepsis in patients with a systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Yet, the accuracy of categorizing critically ill patients presenting to the intensive care unit (ICU) as being infected or not is unknown. We therefore assessed the likelihood of infection in patients who were treated for sepsis upon admission to the ICU, and quantified the association between plausibility of infection and mortality. Methods: We studied a cohort of critically ill patients admitted with clinically suspected sepsis to two tertiary ICUs in the Netherlands between January 2011 and December 2013. The likelihood of infection was categorized as none, possible, probable or definite by post-hoc assessment. We used multivariable competing risks survival analyses to determine the association of the plausibility of infection with mortality. Results: Among 2579 patients treated for sepsis, 13% had a post-hoc infection likelihood of “none”, and an additional 30% of only “possible”. These percentages were largely similar for different suspected sites of infection. In crude analyses, the likelihood of infection was associated with increased length of stay and complications. In multivariable analysis, patients with an unlikely infection had a higher mortality rate compared to patients with a definite infection (subdistribution hazard ratio 1.23; 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.49). Conclusions: This study is the first prospective analysis to show that the clinical diagnosis of sepsis upon ICU admission corresponds poorly with the presence of infection on post-hoc assessment. A higher likelihood of infection does not adversely influence outcome in this population. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01905033. Registered 11 July 2013.

Introduction: ICU-acquired weakness is thought to mediate physical impairments in survivors of critical illness, but few studies have investigated this thoroughly. The purpose was to investigate differences in post-ICU mortality and physical functioning between patients with and without ICU-acquired weakness at 6 months after ICU discharge. Method: ICU patients, mechanically ventilated ≥2 days, were included in a single-center prospective observational cohort study. ICU-acquired weakness was diagnosed when the average Medical Research Council score was <4 in awake and attentive patients. Post-ICU mortality was recorded until 6 months after ICU discharge; in surviving patients, physical functioning was assessed using the Short-Form Health Survey physical functioning domain. The independent effect of ICU-acquired weakness on post-ICU mortality was analyzed using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. The independent effect of ICU-acquired weakness on the physical functioning domain score was analyzed using a multivariable linear regression model. Results: Of the 156 patients included, 80 had ICU-acquired weakness. Twenty-three patients died in the ICU (20 with ICU-acquired weakness); during 6 months follow-up after ICU discharge another 25 patients died (17 with ICU-acquired weakness). Physical functioning domain scores were available for 96 survivors (39 patients with ICU-acquired weakness). ICU-acquired weakness was independently associated with an increase in post-ICU mortality (hazard ratio 3.6, 95% confidence interval, 1.3 to 9.8; P = 0.01) and with a decrease in physical functioning (β: -16.7 points; 95% confidence interval, -30.2 to -3.1; P = 0.02). Conclusion: ICU-acquired weakness is independently associated with higher post-ICU mortality and with clinically relevant lower physical functioning in survivors at 6 months after ICU discharge.

The management reporting and assessment of glycemic control lacks standardization. The use of different methods to measure the blood glucose concentration and to report the performance of insulin treatment yields major disparities and complicates the interpretation and comparison of clinical trials. We convened a meeting of 16 experts plus invited observers from industry to discuss and where possible reach consensus on the most appropriate methods to measure and monitor blood glucose in critically ill patients and on how glycemic control should be assessed and reported. Where consensus could not be reached, recommendations on further research and data needed to reach consensus in the future were suggested. Recognizing their clear conflict of interest, industry observers played no role in developing the consensus or recommendations from the meeting. Consensus recommendations were agreed for the measurement and reporting of glycemic control in clinical trials and for the measurement of blood glucose in clinical practice. Recommendations covered the following areas: How should we measure and report glucose control when intermittent blood glucose measurements are used? What are the appropriate performance standards for intermittent blood glucose monitors in the ICU? Continuous or automated intermittent glucose monitoring - methods and technology: can we use the same measures for assessment of glucose control with continuous and intermittent monitoring? What is acceptable performance for continuous glucose monitoring systems? If implemented, these recommendations have the potential to minimize the discrepancies in the conduct and reporting of clinical trials and to improve glucose control in clinical practice. Furthermore, to be fit for use, glucose meters and continuous monitoring systems must match their performance to fit the needs of patients and clinicians in the intensive care setting. See related commentary by Soto-Rivera and Agus, http://ccforum.com/content/17/3/155