Nephrotoxic drug prescription may contribute to acute kidney injury (AKI) occurrence and worsening among critically ill patients and thus to associated morbidity and mortality. The objectives of this study were to describe nephrotoxic drug prescription in a large intensive-care unit cohort and, through a case–control study nested in the prospective cohort, to evaluate the link of nephrotoxic prescription burden with AKI. Six hundred and seventeen patients (62%) received at least one nephrotoxic drug, among which 303 (30%) received two or more. AKI was observed in 609 patients (61%). A total of 351 patients were considered as cases developing or worsening AKI a given index day during the first week in the intensive-care unit. Three hundred and twenty-seven pairs of cases and controls (patients not developing or worsening AKI during the first week in the intensive-care unit, alive the case index day) matched on age, chronic kidney disease, and simplified acute physiology score 2 were analyzed. The nephrotoxic burden prior to the index day was measured in drug.days: each drug and each day of therapy increasing the burden by 1 drug.day. This represents a semi-quantitative evaluation of drug exposure, potentially easy to implement by clinicians. Nephrotoxic burden was significantly higher among cases than controls: odds ratio 1.20 and 95% confidence interval 1.04–1.38. Sensitivity analysis showed that this association between nephrotoxic drug prescription in the intensive-care unit and AKI was predominant among the patients with lower severity of disease (simplified acute physiology score 2 below 48). The frequently observed prescription of nephrotoxic drugs to critically ill patients may be evaluated semi-quantitatively through computing drug.day nephrotoxic burden, an index significantly associated with subsequent AKI occurrence, and worsening among patients with lower severity of disease.

Introduction: Cancer patients are at high risk of developing septic shock (SSh) and are increasingly admitted to ICU given their improved long-term prognosis. We, therefore, compared the prognosis of cancer and non-cancer patients with SSh. Methods: We conducted a monocentric, retrospective cohort study (2013–2019) on patients admitted to ICU for SSh. We compared the clinical characteristics and management and studied short- and long-term mortality with ICU and in-hospital mortality and 1-year survival according to cancer status. Results: We analyzed 239 ICU stays in 210 patients, 59.5% of whom were men (n = 125), with a median age of 66.5 (IQR 56.3–77.0). Of the 121 cancer patients (57.6% of all patients), 70 had solid tumors (33.3%), and 51 had hematological malignancies (24.3%). When comparing ICU stays of patients with versus without cancer (n = 148 vs. n = 91 stays, respectively), mortality reached 30.4% (n = 45) vs. 30.0% (n = 27) in the ICU (p = 0.95), and 41.6% (n = 59) vs. 35.6% (n = 32) in hospital (p = 0.36), respectively. ICU length of stay (LOS) was 5.0 (2.0–11.3) vs. 6.0 (3.0–15.0) days (p = 0.27), whereas in-hospital LOS was 25.5 (13.8–42.0) vs. 19.5 (10.8–41.0) days (p = 0.33). Upon multivariate analysis, renal replacement therapy (OR = 2.29, CI95%: 1.06–4.93, p = 0.03), disseminated intravascular coagulation (OR = 5.89, CI95%: 2.49–13.92, p < 0.01), and mechanical ventilation (OR = 7.85, CI95%: 2.90–21.20, p < 0.01) were associated with ICU mortality, whereas malignancy, hematological, or solid tumors were not (OR = 1.41, CI95%: 0.65–3.04; p = 0.38). Similarly, overall cancer status was not associated with in-hospital mortality (OR = 1.99, CI95%: 0.98–4.03, p = 0.06); however, solid cancers were associated with increased in-hospital mortality (OR = 2.52, CI95%: 1.12–5.67, p = 0.03). Lastly, mortality was not significantly different at 365-day follow-up between patients with and without cancer. Conclusions: In-hospital and ICU mortality, as well as LOS, were not different in SSh patients with and without cancer, suggesting that malignancies should no longer be considered a barrier to ICU admission.

Nutritional support is crucial to the management of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and the most commonly prescribed treatment in intensive care units (ICUs). International guidelines consistently indicate that enteral nutrition (EN) should be preferred over parenteral nutrition (PN) whenever possible and started as early as possible. However, no adequately designed study has evaluated whether a specific nutritional modality is associated with decreased mortality. The primary goal of this trial is to assess the hypothesis that early first-line EN, as compared to early first-line PN, decreases day 28 all-cause mortality in patients receiving IMV and vasoactive drugs for shock. The NUTRIREA-2 study is a multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial comparing early PN versus early EN in critically ill patients requiring IMV for an expected duration of at least 48 hours, combined with vasoactive drugs, for shock. Patients will be allocated at random to first-line PN for at least 72 hours or to first-line EN. In both groups, nutritional support will be started within 24 hours after IMV initiation. Calorie targets will be 20 to 25 kcal/kg/day during the first week, then 25 to 30 kcal/kg/day thereafter. Patients receiving PN may be switched to EN after at least 72 hours in the event of shock resolution (no vasoactive drugs for 24 consecutive hours and arterial lactic acid level below 2 mmol/L). On day 7, all patients receiving PN and having no contraindications to EN will be switched to EN. In both groups, supplemental PN may be added to EN after day 7 in patients with persistent intolerance to EN and inadequate calorie intake. We plan to recruit 2,854 patients at 44 participating ICUs. The NUTRIREA-2 study is the first large randomized controlled trial designed to assess the hypothesis that early EN improves survival compared to early PN in ICU patients. Enrollment started on 22 March 2013 and is expected to end in November 2015. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01802099 (registered 27 February 2013)

Introduction Pre-emptive inhaled antibiotics may be effective to reduce the occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia among critically ill patients. Meta-analysis of small sample size trials showed a favourable signal. Inhaled antibiotics are associated with a reduced emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria. The aim of this trial is to evaluate the benefit of a 3-day course of inhaled antibiotics among patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 3 days on the occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Methods and analysis Academic, investigator-initiated, parallel two group arms, double-blind, multicentre superiority randomised controlled trial. Patients invasively ventilated more than 3 days will be randomised to receive 20 mg/kg inhaled amikacin daily for 3 days or inhaled placebo (0.9% Sodium Chloride). Occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia will be recorded based on a standardised diagnostic framework from randomisation to day 28 and adjudicated by a centralised blinded committee. Ethics and dissemination The protocol and amendments have been approved by the regional ethics review board and French competent authorities (Comité de protection des personnes Ouest I, No.2016-R29). All patients will be included after informed consent according to French law. Results will be disseminated in international scientific journals. Trial registration numbers EudraCT 2016-001054-17 and NCT03149640.

International audienceno abstrac