Charles L. Sprung

Rationale Intensive care unit (ICU) resources are limited in many hospitals. Patients with little likelihood of surviving are often admitted to ICUs. Others who might benefit from ICU are not admitted. Objective To provide an updated consensus statement on the principles and recommendations for the triage of patients for ICU beds. Design The previous Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) consensus statement was used to develop drafts of general and specific principles and recommendations. Investigators and consultants were sent the statements and responded with their agreement or disagreement. Setting The Eldicus project (triage decision making for the elderly in European intensive care units). Participants Eldicus investigators, consultants, and experts consisting of intensivists, users of ICU services, ethicists, administrators, and public policy officials. Interventions Consensus development was used to grade the statements and recommendations. Measurements and main results Consensus was defined as 80 % agreement or more. Consensus was obtained for 54 (87 %) of 62 statements including all (19) general principles, 31 (86 %) of the specific principles, and 10 (71 %) of the recommendations. Inconsistencies in responses were noted for ICU admission and discharge. Despite agreement for guidelines applying to individual patients and an objective triage score, there was no agreement for a survival cutoff for triage, not even for a chance of survival of 0.1 %. Conclusions Consensus was reached for most general and specific ICU triage principles and recommendations. Further debate and discussion should help resolve the remaining discrepancies.

Introduction: Intensive care is generally regarded as expensive, and as a result beds are limited. This has raised serious questions about rationing when there are insufficient beds for all those referred. However, the evidence for the cost effectiveness of intensive care is weak and the work that does exist usually assumes that those who are not admitted do not survive, which is not always the case. Randomised studies of the effectiveness of intensive care are difficult to justify on ethical grounds; therefore, this observational study examined the cost effectiveness of ICU admission by comparing patients who were accepted into ICU after ICU triage to those who were not accepted, while attempting to adjust such comparison for confounding factors. Methods: This multi-centre observational cohort study involved 11 hospitals in 7 EU countries and was designed to assess the cost effectiveness of admission to intensive care after ICU triage. A total of 7,659 consecutive patients referred to the intensive care unit (ICU) were divided into those accepted for admission and those not accepted. The two groups were compared in terms of cost and mortality using multilevel regression models to account for differences across centres, and after adjusting for age, Karnofsky score and indication for ICU admission. The analyses were also stratified by categories of Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II predicted mortality (< 5%, 5% to 40% and >40%). Cost effectiveness was evaluated as cost per life saved and cost per life-year saved. Results: Admission to ICU produced a relative reduction in mortality risk, expressed as odds ratio, of 0.70 (0.52 to 0.94) at 28 days. When stratified by predicted mortality, the odds ratio was 1.49 (0.79 to 2.81), 0.7 (0.51 to 0.97) and 0.55 (0.37 to 0.83) for 40% predicted mortality, respectively. Average cost per life saved for all patients was $103,771 (€82,358) and cost per life-year saved was $7,065 (€5,607). These figures decreased substantially for patients with predicted mortality higher than 40%, $60,046 (€47,656) and $4,088 (€3,244), respectively. Results were very similar when considering three-month mortality. Sensitivity analyses performed to assess the robustness of the results provided findings similar to the main analyses. Conclusions: Not only does ICU appear to produce an improvement in survival, but the cost per life saved falls for patients with greater severity of illness. This suggests that intensive care is similarly cost effective to other therapies that are generally regarded as essential.

Introduction: The benefits and use of low-dose corticosteroids (LDCs) in severe sepsis and septic shock remain controversial. Surviving sepsis campaign guidelines suggest LDC use for septic shock patients poorly responsive to fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy. Their use is suspected to be wide-spread, but paucity of data regarding global practice exists. The purpose of this study was to compare baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients treated or not treated with LDC from the international PROGRESS (PROmoting Global Research Excellence in Severe Sepsis) cohort study of severe sepsis. Methods: Patients enrolled in the PROGRESS registry were evaluated for use of vasopressor and LDC (equivalent or lesser potency to hydrocortisone 50 mg six-hourly plus 50 μg 9-alpha-fludrocortisone) for treatment of severe sepsis at any time in intensive care units (ICUs). Baseline characteristics and hospital mortality were analyzed, and logistic regression techniques used to develop propensity score and outcome models adjusted for baseline imbalances between groups. Results: A total of 8,968 patients with severe sepsis and sufficient data for analysis were studied. A total of 79.8% (7,160/8,968) of patients received vasopressors, and 34.0% (3,051/8,968) of patients received LDC. Regional use of LDC was highest in Europe (51.1%) and lowest in Asia (21.6%). Country use was highest in Brazil (62.9%) and lowest in Malaysia (9.0%). A total of 14.2% of patients on LDC were not receiving any vasopressor therapy. LDC patients were older, had more co-morbidities and higher disease severity scores. Patients receiving LDC spent longer in ICU than patients who did not (median of 12 versus 8 days; P P <0.001). After adjusting for baseline imbalances, in all mortality models (with vasopressor use), a consistent association remained between LDC and hospital mortality (odds ratios varying from 1.30 to 1.47). Conclusions: Widespread use of LDC for the treatment of severe sepsis with significant regional and country variation exists. In this study, 14.2% of patients received LDC despite the absence of evidence of shock. Hospital mortality was higher in the LDC group and remained higher after adjustment for key determinates of mortality.

Introduction: This was a planned substudy from the European observational Sepsis Occurrence in Acutely ill Patients (SOAP) study to investigate the possible impact of insulin-treated diabetes on morbidity and mortality in ICU patients. Methods: The SOAP study was a cohort, multicenter, observational study which included data from all adult patients admitted to one of 198 participating ICUs from 24 European countries during the study period. For this substudy, patients were classified according to whether or not they had a known diagnosis of insulin-treated diabetes mellitus. Outcome measures included the degree of organ dysfunction/failure as assessed by the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, the occurrence of sepsis syndromes and organ failure in the ICU, hospital and ICU length of stay, and all cause hospital and ICU mortality. Results: Of the 3147 patients included in the SOAP study, 226 (7.2%) had previously diagnosed insulin-treated diabetes mellitus. On admission, patients with insulin-treated diabetes were older, sicker, as reflected by higher simplified acute physiology system II (SAPS II) and SOFA scores, and more likely to be receiving hemodialysis than the other patients. During the ICU stay, more patients with insulin-treated diabetes required renal replacement therapy (hemodialysis or hemofiltration) than other patients. There were no significant differences in ICU or hospital lengths of stay or in ICU or hospital mortality between patients with or without insulin-treated diabetes. Using a Cox proportional hazards regression analysis with hospital mortality censored at 28-days as the dependent factor, insulin-treated diabetes was not an independent predictor of mortality. Conclusions: Even though patients with a history of insulin-treated diabetes are more severely ill and more likely to have renal failure, insulin-treated diabetes is not associated with increased mortality in ICU patients.