Purpose of review Severe burn injury causes significant metabolic changes and demands that make nutritional support particularly important. Feeding the severe burn patient is a real challenge in regard to the specific needs and the clinical constraints. This review aims to challenge the existing recommendations in the light of the few recently published data on nutritional support in burn patients. Recent findings Some key macro- and micro-nutrients have been recently studied in severe burn patients. Repletion, complementation or supplementation of omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin C, vitamin D, antioxidant micronutrients may be promising from a physiologic perspective, but evidence of benefits on hard outcomes is still weak due to the studies’ design. On the contrary, the anticipated positive effects of glutamine on the time to discharge, mortality and bacteremias have been disproved in the largest randomized controlled trial investigating glutamine supplementation in burns. An individualized approach in term of nutrients quantity and quality may proof highly valuable and needs to be validated in adequate trials. The combination of nutrition and physical exercises is another studied strategy that could improve muscle outcomes. Summary Due to the low number of clinical trials focused on severe burn injury, most often including limited number of patients, developing new evidence-based guidelines is challenging. More high-quality trials are needed to improve the existing recommendations in the very next future.
Abstract Aim The abdominal incision for specimen extraction could trigger postoperative pain after laparoscopic colorectal resections ( LCR s). Continuous wound infusion ( CWI ) of ropivacaine may be a valuable option for postoperative analgesia. This study was undertaken to evaluate the potential benefits of ropivacaine CWI on pain relief, metabolic stress reaction, prevention of wound hyperalgesia and residual incisional pain after LCR . A subgroup with intravenous lidocaine infusion ( IVL ) was added to discriminate between the peripheral and systemic effects of local anaesthetic infusions. Method Patients were randomly allocated to three subgroups: CWI (0.2% ropivacaine 10 ml/h for 48 h); IVL (lidocaine 1.5% at 4 ml/h for 48 h); control group. Results In all, 95 patients were randomized (86 patients analysed). Postoperative pain intensity did not differ significantly between groups. Within the first 24 h after surgery, morphine requirement was significantly lower in the CWI group compared with the IVL group, but there was no significant difference compared with the control group ( P = 0.02 and P = 0.15, respectively). The area of hyperalgesia did not differ significantly between subgroups, nor did the hyperalgesia ratio which was 1.2 cm (0.0−6.7) vs 1.9 cm (0.4−4.0) vs 2.0 cm (0.5−7.0) in the CWI , IVL and control groups respectively ( P = 0.35). The number of patients reporting residual incisional pain after 3 months (3/26 vs 4/23 vs 4/23 in the CWI , IVL and control groups respectively) did not differ significantly between the groups, nor did their metabolic stress reactions. Conclusion Ropivacaine CWI at the site of the abdominal incision did not provide any significant benefit either on analgesia or on the prevention of wound hyperalgesia after LCR .
(1) Background: The supine testing position is suitable for early quadriceps strength (QS) assessment in intensive care unit, while a seated position is more appropriate for survivors who have regained mobility. Acquiring consistent measurements is essential for longitudinal follow-up. We compared the QS generated in different settings in healthy volunteers. (2) Methods: Isometric QS was assessed using a MicroFet2 and standardised protocols comparing different modalities. Hip and knee flexion angles were, respectively, 45° and 40° (H45-K40) in the supine position, and both at 90° (H90-K90) in the seated position. Dynamometer was either handheld (non-fixed configuration, NFC), or fixed (FC) in a cubicle. (3) Results: QS in H90-K90 and H45-K40 positions were strongly correlated, but QS was higher in the later position regardless of the configuration. Compared to H45-K40, biases of 108.2N (or 28.05%) and 110.3N (27.13%) were observed in H90-K90 position, respectively, in the NFC and FC. These biases were independently and positively associated with QS (p < 0.001). For both position, there were no significant differences between QS measured in NFC or FC. (4) Conclusions: The quadriceps was less efficient in the seated position, compared to the supine position, in healthy volunteers. These findings have practical implications for further assessments and research in critically ill patients.
Abstract Background Peripheral nerve injuries (PNI) have been associated with prone positioning (PP) in mechanically ventilated (MV) patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. The aims of this retrospective study were to describe PNI prevalence 3 months (M3) after intensive care unit (ICU) discharge, whether patients survived COVID-19 or another critical illness, and to search for risk factors of PNI. Results A total of 55 COVID (62 [54–69] years) and 22 non-COVID (61.5 [48–71.5] years) patients were followed at M3, after an ICU stay of respectively 15 [9–26.5] and 13.5 [10–19.8] days. PNI symptoms were reported by 23/55 (42.6%) COVID-19 and 8/22 (36%) non-COVID-19 patients ( p = 0.798). As the incidence of PNI was similar in both groups, the entire population was used to determine risk factors. The MV duration predicted PNI occurrence (OR (CI95%) = 1.05 (1.01–1.10), p = 0.028), but not the ICU length of stay, glucocorticoids, or inflammation biomarkers. Conclusion In the present cohort, PNI symptoms were reported in at least one-third of the ICU survivors, in similar proportion whether patients suffered from severe COVID-19 or not.
Abstract Background CONCISE is an internationally agreed minimum set of outcomes for use in nutritional and metabolic clinical research in critically ill adults. Clinicians and researchers need to be aware of the clinimetric properties of these instruments and understand any limitations to ensure valid and reliable research. This systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken to evaluate the clinimetric properties of the measurement instruments identified in CONCISE. Methods Four electronic databases were searched from inception to December 2022 (MEDLINE via Ovid, EMBASE via Ovid, CINAHL via Healthcare Databases Advanced Search, CENTRAL via Cochrane). Studies were included if they examined at least one clinimetric property of a CONCISE measurement instrument or recognised variation in adults ≥ 18 years with critical illness or recovering from critical illness in any language. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures was used. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses were used in line with COSMIN guidance. The COSMIN checklist was used to evaluate the risk of bias and the quality of clinimetric properties. Overall certainty of the evidence was rated using a modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Narrative synthesis was performed and where possible, meta-analysis was conducted. Results A total of 4316 studies were screened. Forty-seven were included in the review, reporting data for 12308 participants. The Short Form-36 Questionnaire (Physical Component Score and Physical Functioning), sit-to-stand test, 6-m walk test and Barthel Index had the strongest clinimetric properties and certainty of evidence. The Short Physical Performance Battery, Katz Index and handgrip strength had less favourable results. There was limited data for Lawson Instrumental Activities of Daily Living and the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria. The risk of bias ranged from inadequate to very good. The certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to high. Conclusions Variable evidence exists to support the clinimetric properties of the CONCISE measurement instruments. We suggest using this review alongside CONCISE to guide outcome selection for future trials of nutrition and metabolic interventions in critical illness. Trial registration : PROSPERO ( CRD42023438187). Registered 21/06/2023.
