The hospital-based evaluation of laxative prophylaxis in ICU (HELP-ICU): A pilot cluster-crossover randomized clinical trial

Diarrhea during critical illness: a multicenter cohort study

PURPOSE

To study the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of diarrhea during the stay in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

Prospective cohort of consecutive adults in the ICU for > 24 h during a 10-week period across 12 intensive care units (ICUs) internationally. The explored outcomes were: (1) incidence of diarrhea, (2) Clostridioides difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD); (3) ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS) and mortality in patients with diarrhea. We fit generalized linear models to evaluate the predictors, management, morbidity and mortality associated with diarrhea.

RESULTS

Among 1109 patients aged 61.4 (17.5) [mean (standard deviation)] years, 981(88.5%) were medical and 645 (58.2%) were mechanically ventilated. The incidence was 73.8% (818 patients, 73.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 71.1-76.6) using the definition of the World Health Organisation (WHO). Incidence varied across definitions (Bristol 53.5%, 95% CI 50.4-56.7; Bliss 37.7%, 95% CI 34.9-40.4). Of 99 patients with diarrhea undergoing CDAD testing, 23 tested positive (2.2% incidence, 95% CI 1.5-3.4). Independent predictors included enteral nutrition (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.16-1.31, p < 0.001), antibiotic days (RR 1.02, 95% CI 1.02-1.03, p < 0.001), and suppositories (RR 1.14 95% CI 1.06-1.22, p < 0.001). Opiates decreased diarrhea risk (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.68-0.86, p < 0.001). Diarrhea prompted management modifications (altered enteral nutrition or medications: RR 10.25, 95% CI 5.14-20.45, p < 0.001) or other consequences (fecal management device or CDAD testing: RR 6.16, 95% CI 3.4-11.17, p < 0.001). Diarrhea was associated with a longer time to discharge for ICU or hospital stay, but was not associated with hospital mortality.

CONCLUSION

Diarrhea is common, has several predictors, and prompts changes in patient care, is associated with longer time to discharge but not mortality.

Nutrition, defecation, and the lower gastrointestinal tract during critical illness

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of this report is to delineate the correlation between constipation as a manifestation of impaired gastrointestinal transit with adverse clinical outcomes, to identify risk factors, which predispose to this condition, and outline a management scheme for prophylactic treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

Constipation is common in the ICU, affecting upwards of 60-85% of critically ill patients. As suggested by case series and observational studies, constipation may be an independent prognostic factor identifying patients with greater disease severity, higher likelihood of organ dysfunction, longer duration of mechanical ventilation, prolonged hospital length of stay, and possibly reduced survival. Treating constipation is a low priority for intensivists often relegated to the nursing service, and few ICUs have well designed protocols in place for a bowel regimen. Small randomized controlled trials show improvement in certain outcome parameters in response to a daily lactulose therapy; hospital length of stay, sequential organ failure assessment scores, and duration of mechanical ventilation. However, aggregating the data from these studies in two separate meta-analyses showed that the effect of a bowel regimen on these three endpoints were not statistically different.

SUMMARY

No causal relationship can be determined between constipation and adverse outcomes. Nonetheless, a clinical correlation seems to exist. Whether constipation is an epiphenomenon or simply a reflection of greater severity of critical illness, at some point it may contribute to worsening morbidity in the ICU. A graded prophylactic bowel regimen should help reverse impairment of the gastrointestinal transit and aid in reducing its deleterious impact on the hospital course of the critically ill patient.

Rationale, Methodological Quality, and Reporting of Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trials in Critical Care Medicine: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Compared with individual-patient randomized controlled trials, cluster randomized controlled trials have unique methodological and ethical considerations. We evaluated the rationale, methodological quality, and reporting of cluster randomized controlled trials in critical care studies.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic searches of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register were performed.

STUDY SELECTION

We included all cluster randomized controlled trials conducted in adult, pediatric, or neonatal critical care units from January 2005 to September 2019.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently screened citations, reviewed full texts, protocols, and supplements of potentially eligible studies, abstracted data, and assessed methodology of included studies.

DATA SYNTHESIS

From 1,902 citations, 59 cluster randomized controlled trials met criteria. Most focused on quality improvement (24, 41%), antimicrobial therapy (9, 15%), or infection control (9, 15%) interventions. Designs included parallel-group (25, 42%), crossover (21, 36%), and stepped-wedge (13, 22%). Concealment of allocation was reported in 21 studies (36%). Thirteen studies (22%) reported at least one method of blinding. The median total sample size was 1,660 patients (interquartile range, 813-4,295); the median number of clusters was 12 (interquartile range, 5-24); and the median patients per cluster was 141 (interquartile range, 54-452). Sample size calculations were reported in 90% of trials, but only 54% met Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidance for sample size reporting. Twenty-seven of the studies (46%) identified a fixed number of available clusters prior to trial commencement, and only nine (15%) prespecified both the number of clusters and patients required to detect the expected effect size. Overall, 36 trials (68%) achieved the total prespecified sample size. When analyzing data, 44 studies (75%) appropriately adjusted for clustering when analyzing the primary outcome. Only 12 (20%) reported an intracluster coefficient (median 0.047 [interquartile range, 0.01-0.13]).

CONCLUSIONS

Cluster randomized controlled trials in critical care typically involve a small and fixed number of relatively large clusters. The reporting of key methodological aspects of these trials is often inadequate.

Are Classic Bedside Exam Findings Required to Initiate Enteral Nutrition in Critically Ill Patients: Emphasis on Bowel Sounds and Abdominal Distension

The general physical examination of a patient is an axiom of critical care medicine, but evidence to support this practice remains sparse. Given the lack of evidence for a comprehensive physical examination of the entire patient on admission to the intensive care unit, which most clinicians consider an essential part of care, should clinicians continue the practice of a specialized gastrointestinal system physical examination when commencing enteral nutrition in critically ill patients? In this review of literature related to gastrointestinal system examination in critically ill patients, the focus is on gastrointestinal sounds and abdominal distension. There is a summary of what these physical features represent, an evaluation of the evidence regarding use of these physical features in patients after abdominal surgery, exploration of the rationale for and against using the physical findings in routine practice, and detail regarding what is known about each feature in critically ill patients. Based on the available evidence, it is recommended that an isolated symptom, sign, or bedside test does not provide meaningful information. However, it is submitted that a comprehensive physical assessment of the gastrointestinal system still has a role when initiating or administering enteral nutrition: specifically, when multiple features are present, clinicians should consider further investigation or intervention.

Content analysis of bowel protocols for the management of constipation in adult critically ill patients

PURPOSE

Alterations in bowel habits are common during critical illness, and bowel protocols are gaining acceptance. Our objective was to characterize bowel protocols in a cross-sectional analysis of ICUs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We engaged 44 adult ICUs and performed content analysis of bowel protocols, addressing initiation criteria, medications incorporated, medication escalation, discontinuation criteria, stool assessment methods, and protocol contraindications.

RESULTS

Bowel protocols operated in 33/44 ICUs (79.5%). The commonest medications were senna (81.0%) and bisacodyl (75.6%). Less common agents were sodium phosphate (45.9%), glycerin (43.2%), docusate sodium (43.2%), polyethylene glycol 3350 (37.8%), lactulose (29.7%), sodium citrate (16.2%), milk of magnesia (13.5%) and mineral oil (16.2%). Bowel protocols were activated by nurses (62.8%) based on initiation criteria [no bowel movement for 24-96 h (35.1%), opioid use (18.9%), "at risk for constipation" (13.5%), stool on digital rectal exam (10.8%), feeding initiation (10.8%), and ICU admission (8.1%)]. Laxative escalation criteria included time from last bowel movement (59.4%), opioid use (18.9%) and no stool on digital rectal exam (10.8%), while 15 (40.5%) included diarrhea as a discontinuation criterion.

CONCLUSIONS

Bowel protocols have variable initiation, escalation, and discontinuation criteria incorporating different classes of laxatives, reflecting unclear evidence about optimal bowel management strategies in ICU.