6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Sepsis Associated Delirium

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Sepsis is a potentially life-threatening condition caused by a systemic dysregulated host response to infection. The brain is particularly susceptible to the effects of sepsis with clinical manifestations ranging from mild confusion to a deep comatose state. Sepsis-associated delirium (SAD) is a cerebral manifestation commonly occurring in patients with sepsis and is thought to occur due to a combination of neuroinflammation and disturbances in cerebral perfusion, the blood brain barrier (BBB) and neurotransmission. The neurological impairment associated with SAD can persist for months or even longer, after the initial septic episode has subsided which may impair the rehabilitation potential of sepsis survivors. Early identification and treatment of the underlying sepsis is key in the management of SAD as once present it can be difficult to control. Through the regular use of validated screening tools for delirium, cases of SAD can be identified early; this allows potentially aggravating factors to be addressed promptly. The usefulness of biomarkers, neuroimaging and electroencephalopathy (EEG) in the diagnosis of SAD remains controversial. The Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) guidelines advise against the use of medications to treat delirium unless distressing symptoms are present or it is hindering the patient’s ability to wean from organ support.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Systemic LPS causes chronic neuroinflammation and progressive neurodegeneration.

          Inflammation is implicated in the progressive nature of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson's disease, but the mechanisms are poorly understood. A single systemic lipopolysaccharide (LPS, 5 mg/kg, i.p.) or tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFalpha, 0.25 mg/kg, i.p.) injection was administered in adult wild-type mice and in mice lacking TNFalpha receptors (TNF R1/R2(-/-)) to discern the mechanisms of inflammation transfer from the periphery to the brain and the neurodegenerative consequences. Systemic LPS administration resulted in rapid brain TNFalpha increase that remained elevated for 10 months, while peripheral TNFalpha (serum and liver) had subsided by 9 h (serum) and 1 week (liver). Systemic TNFalpha and LPS administration activated microglia and increased expression of brain pro-inflammatory factors (i.e., TNFalpha, MCP-1, IL-1beta, and NF-kappaB p65) in wild-type mice, but not in TNF R1/R2(-/-) mice. Further, LPS reduced the number of tyrosine hydroxylase-immunoreactive neurons in the substantia nigra (SN) by 23% at 7-months post-treatment, which progressed to 47% at 10 months. Together, these data demonstrate that through TNFalpha, peripheral inflammation in adult animals can: (1) activate brain microglia to produce chronically elevated pro-inflammatory factors; (2) induce delayed and progressive loss of DA neurons in the SN. These findings provide valuable insight into the potential pathogenesis and self-propelling nature of Parkinson's disease. (c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam or propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation: two randomized controlled trials.

            Long-term sedation with midazolam or propofol in intensive care units (ICUs) has serious adverse effects. Dexmedetomidine, an α(2)-agonist available for ICU sedation, may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and enhance patient comfort. To determine the efficacy of dexmedetomidine vs midazolam or propofol (preferred usual care) in maintaining sedation; reducing duration of mechanical ventilation; and improving patients' interaction with nursing care. Two phase 3 multicenter, randomized, double-blind trials carried out from 2007 to 2010. The MIDEX trial compared midazolam with dexmedetomidine in ICUs of 44 centers in 9 European countries; the PRODEX trial compared propofol with dexmedetomidine in 31 centers in 6 European countries and 2 centers in Russia. Included were adult ICU patients receiving mechanical ventilation who needed light to moderate sedation for more than 24 hours (midazolam, n = 251, vs dexmedetomidine, n = 249; propofol, n = 247, vs dexmedetomidine, n = 251). Sedation with dexmedetomidine, midazolam, or propofol; daily sedation stops; and spontaneous breathing trials. For each trial, we tested whether dexmedetomidine was noninferior to control with respect to proportion of time at target sedation level (measured by Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale) and superior to control with respect to duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary end points were patients' ability to communicate pain (measured using a visual analogue scale [VAS]) and length of ICU stay. Time at target sedation was analyzed in per-protocol population (midazolam, n = 233, vs dexmedetomidine, n = 227; propofol, n = 214, vs dexmedetomidine, n = 223). Dexmedetomidine/midazolam ratio in time at target sedation was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.97-1.18) and dexmedetomidine/propofol, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.92-1.08). Median duration of mechanical ventilation appeared shorter with dexmedetomidine (123 hours [IQR, 67-337]) vs midazolam (164 hours [IQR, 92-380]; P = .03) but not with dexmedetomidine (97 hours [IQR, 45-257]) vs propofol (118 hours [IQR, 48-327]; P = .24). Patients' interaction (measured using VAS) was improved with dexmedetomidine (estimated score difference vs midazolam, 19.7 [95% CI, 15.2-24.2]; P < .001; and vs propofol, 11.2 [95% CI, 6.4-15.9]; P < .001). Length of ICU and hospital stay and mortality were similar. Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam patients had more hypotension (51/247 [20.6%] vs 29/250 [11.6%]; P = .007) and bradycardia (35/247 [14.2%] vs 13/250 [5.2%]; P < .001). Among ICU patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation, dexmedetomidine was not inferior to midazolam and propofol in maintaining light to moderate sedation. Dexmedetomidine reduced duration of mechanical ventilation compared with midazolam and improved patients' ability to communicate pain compared with midazolam and propofol. More adverse effects were associated with dexmedetomidine. clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00481312, NCT00479661.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Minocycline attenuates lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced neuroinflammation, sickness behavior, and anhedonia

              Background Activation of the peripheral innate immune system stimulates the secretion of CNS cytokines that modulate the behavioral symptoms of sickness. Excessive production of cytokines by microglia, however, may cause long-lasting behavioral and cognitive complications. The purpose of this study was to determine if minocycline, an anti-inflammatory agent and purported microglial inhibitor, attenuates lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced neuroinflammation, sickness behavior, and anhedonia. Methods In the first set of experiments the effect of minocycline pretreatment on LPS-induced microglia activation was assessed in BV-2 microglia cell cultures. In the second study, adult (3–6 m) BALB/c mice received an intraperitoneal (i.p.) injection of vehicle or minocycline (50 mg/kg) for three consecutive days. On the third day, mice were also injected (i.p.) with saline or Escherichia coli LPS (0.33 mg/kg) and behavior (i.e., sickness and anhedonia) and markers of neuroinflammation (i.e., microglia activation and inflammatory cytokines) were determined. In the final study, adult and aged BALB/c mice were treated with the same minocycline and LPS injection regimen and markers of neuroinflammation were determined. All data were analyzed using Statistical Analysis Systems General Linear Model procedures and were subjected to one-, two-, or three-way ANOVA to determine significant main effects and interactions. Results Minocycline blocked LPS-stimulated inflammatory cytokine secretion in the BV-2 microglia-derived cell line and reduced LPS-induced Toll-like-receptor-2 (TLR2) surface expression on brain microglia. Moreover, minocycline facilitated the recovery from sickness behavior (i.e., anorexia, weight loss, and social withdrawal) and prevented anhedonia in adult mice challenged with LPS. Furthermore, the minocycline associated recovery from LPS-induced sickness behavior was paralleled by reduced mRNA levels of Interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, and indoleamine 2, 3 dioxygenase (IDO) in the cortex and hippocampus. Finally, in aged mice, where exaggerated neuroinflammation was elicited by LPS, minocycline pretreatment was still effective in markedly reducing mRNA levels of IL-1β, TLR2 and IDO in the hippocampus. Conclusion These data indicate that minocycline mitigates neuroinflammation in the adult and aged brain and modulates the cytokine-associated changes in motivation and behavior.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Medicina (Kaunas)
                medicina
                Medicina
                MDPI
                1010-660X
                1648-9144
                18 May 2020
                May 2020
                : 56
                : 5
                : 240
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Multidisciplinary Intensive Care Research Organization (MICRO), St. James’s Hospital, St. James Street, Dublin 8, Dublin, D08 NHY1, Ireland; ben.atterton3@ 123456gmail.com
                [2 ]Polyvalent Intensive Care Unit, São Francisco Xavier Hospital, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Ocidental, 1449-005 Lisbon, Portugal; mcarolinapaulino@ 123456gmail.com (M.C.P.); pedrorpovoa@ 123456gmail.com (P.P.)
                [3 ]NOVA Medical School, CHRC, New University of Lisbon, 1099-085 Lisbon, Portugal
                [4 ]Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Research Unit of Clinical Epidemiology, OUH Odense University Hospital, 5000 Odense, Denmark
                [5 ]Hospital Clinic, IDIBAPS, Universidad de Barcelona, Ciberes, 08036 Barcelona, Spain
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: imartinl@ 123456tcd.ie
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5834-4063
                Article
                medicina-56-00240
                10.3390/medicina56050240
                7279289
                32443606
                da28f751-6fdd-4100-b2f5-93e30de24162
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 16 April 2020
                : 14 May 2020
                Categories
                Review

                sepsis,delirium,icu,dexmedetomidine
                sepsis, delirium, icu, dexmedetomidine

                Comments

                Comment on this article