Antimicrobial lock solutions for preventing catheter-related infections in haemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing haemodialysis (HD) through a central venous catheter (CVC) are exposed to several risks, being a catheter-related infection (CRI) and a CVC lumen thrombosis among the most serious. Standard of care regarding CVCs includes their sealing with heparin lock solutions to prevent catheter lumen thrombosis. Other lock solutions to prevent CRI, such as antimicrobial lock solutions, have proven useful with antibiotics solutions, but not as yet for non-antibiotic antimicrobial solutions. Furthermore, it is uncertain if these solutions have a negative effect on thrombosis incidence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of antimicrobial (antibiotic, non-antibiotic, or both) catheter lock solutions for preventing CRI in participants undergoing HD with a CVC. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register up to 18 December 2017 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised or quasi-randomised control trials (RCTs) comparing antimicrobial (antibiotic and non-antibiotic) lock solutions to standard lock solutions, in participants using a CVC for HD, without language restriction. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, and two additional authors assessed for risk of bias and extracted data. We expressed results as rate ratios (RR) per 1000 catheter-days or 1000 dialysis sessions with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies, enrolling 4216 participants, were included in this review, however only 30 studies, involving 3392 participants, contained enough data to be meta-analysed. Risk of bias was low or unclear for most domains in the majority of the included studies.Studies compared antimicrobial lock solutions (antibiotic and non-antibiotic) to standard sealing solutions (usually heparin) of the CVC for HD. Fifteen studies used antibiotic lock solutions, 21 used non-antibiotic antimicrobial lock solutions, and 4 used both (antibiotic and non-antibiotic) lock solutions. Studies reported the incidence of CRI, catheter thrombosis, or both.Antimicrobial lock solutions probably reduces CRI per 1000 catheter-days (27 studies: RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.53; I2 = 54%; low certainty evidence), however antimicrobial lock solutions probably makes little or no difference to the risk of thrombosis per 1000 catheter days (14 studies: RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.22; I2 = 83%; very low certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis of antibiotic and the combination of both lock solutions showed that both probably reduced CRI per 1000 catheter-days (13 studies: RR 0.30, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.42; I2 = 47%) and risk of thrombosis per 1000 catheter-days (4 studies: RR 0.26, 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.49; I2 = 0%), respectively. Non-antibiotic antimicrobial lock solutions probably reduced CRI per 1000 catheter-days for tunnelled CVC (9 studies: RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.91) but probably made little or no difference with non-tunnelled CVC (4 studies: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.81). Subgroup analyses showed that antibiotic (5 studies: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.38), non-antibiotic (8 studies: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.66), and the combination of both lock solutions (3 studies: RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.81) made little or no difference to thrombosis per 1000 catheter-days compared to control lock solutions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic antimicrobial and combined (antibiotic-non antibiotic) lock solutions decreased the incidence of CRI compared to control lock solutions, whereas non-antibiotic lock solutions reduce CRI only for tunnelled CVC. The effect on thrombosis incidence is uncertain for all antimicrobial lock solutions. Our confidence in the evidence is low and very low; therefore, better-designed studies are needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of antimicrobial lock solutions.

Amiodarone versus other pharmacological interventions for prevention of sudden cardiac death.

BACKGROUND: Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is one of the main causes of cardiac death. There are two main strategies to prevent it: managing cardiovascular risk factors and reducing the risk of ventricular arrhythmias. Implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) constitute the standard therapy for both primary and secondary prevention; however, they are not widely available in settings with limited resources. The antiarrhythmic amiodarone has been proposed as an alternative to ICD. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of amiodarone for primary or secondary prevention in SCD compared with placebo or no intervention or any other antiarrhythmic drugs in participants at high risk (primary prevention) or who have recovered from a cardiac arrest or a syncope due to Ventricular Tachycardia/Ventricular Fibrillation, or VT/VF (secondary prevention). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO) and LILACS on 26 March 2015. We reviewed reference lists of included studies and selected reviews on the topic, contacted authors of included studies, screened relevant meetings and searched in registers for ongoing trials. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials assessing the efficacy of amiodarone versus placebo, no intervention, or other antiarrhythmics in adults. For primary prevention we considered participants at high risk for SCD. For secondary prevention we considered participants recovered from cardiac arrest or syncope due to ventricular arrhythmias. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and extracted relevant data. We contacted trial authors for missing data. We performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Three studies included more than one comparison. MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 studies (9,997 participants). Seventeen studies evaluated amiodarone for primary prevention and six for secondary prevention. Only three studies used an ICD concomitantly with amiodarone for the comparison (all of them for secondary prevention).For primary prevention, amiodarone compared to placebo or no intervention (17 studies, 8383 participants) reduced SCD (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.88), cardiac mortality (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.96) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00). The quality of the evidence was low.Compared to other antiarrhythmics (three studies, 540 participants), amiodarone reduced SCD (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.00), cardiac mortality (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.86) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.76). The quality of the evidence was moderate.For secondary prevention, amiodarone compared to placebo or no intervention (two studies, 440 participants) appeared to increase the risk of SCD (RR 4.32; 95% CI 0.87 to 21.49) and all-cause mortality (RR 3.05; 1.33 to 7.01). However, the quality of the evidence was very low. Compared to other antiarrhythmics (four studies, 839 participants) amiodarone appeared to increase the risk of SCD (RR 1.40; 95% CI 0.56 to 3.52; very low quality of evidence), but there was no effect in all-cause mortality (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.42; low quality evidence).Amiodarone was associated with an increase in pulmonary and thyroid adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low to moderate quality evidence that amiodarone reduces SCD, cardiac and all-cause mortality when compared to placebo or no intervention for primary prevention, and its effects are superior to other antiarrhythmics.It is uncertain if amiodarone reduces or increases SCD and mortality for secondary prevention because the quality of the evidence was very low.

[Is folic acid effective for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with advanced or terminal chronic kidney disease?]. / Analisis crítico de dos revisiones sistemáticas: ¿Es útil el ácido fólico para prevenir eventos cardiovasculares en pacientes con enfermedad renal crónica terminal o avanzada?

Patients with chronic kidney disease have an increased cardiovascular risk. Several non-traditional factors have been showed to be associated with this risk, including hyperhomocysteinemia. The effects of reducing homocysteine levels with folic acid supplementation have been studied in a number of randomized trials, with mixed results. In this article we critically appraise two systematic reviews providing disparate conclusions about this question and we summarize their main findings using the GRADE methodology. We conclude that there are methodological differences that may explain the mixed results in both systematic reviews. Folic acid supplementation does not reduce cardiovascular morbidity or mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease at any stage.

Comparison of different regimens of proton pump inhibitors for acute peptic ulcer bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) improves clinical outcomes in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. However, the optimal dose and route of administration of PPIs remains controversial. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of different regimens of PPIs in the management of acute peptic ulcer bleeding using evidence from direct comparison randomized controlled trials (RCTs).We specifically intended to assess the differential effect of the dose and route of administration of PPI on mortality, rebleeding, surgical intervention, further endoscopic haemostatic treatment (EHT), length of hospital stay, transfusion requirements and adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (in The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3), MEDLINE and EMBASE (from inception to September 2010) and proceedings of major gastroenterology meetings (January 2000 to September 2010), without language restrictions. Original investigators were contacted to request missing data. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs that compared at least two different regimens of the same or a different PPI in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding, diagnosed endoscopically. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We synthesized data using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method and performed multivariate meta-regression with random permutations based on Monte Carlo simulation. We measured heterogeneity with the I² statistic and Cochrane Q test and assessed publication bias with funnel plots and Egger's test. We graded the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty two RCTs were included; risk of bias was high in 17 and unclear in 5. The main analysis included 13 studies (1716 patients) comparing "high" dose regimens (72-hour cumulative dose > 600 mg of intravenous PPI) to other doses; there was no significant heterogeneity for any clinical outcome. We found low quality evidence that did not exclude a potential reduction or increase in mortality, rebleeding, surgical interventions or endoscopic haemostatic treatment (EHT) with "high" dose regimens. For mortality, pooled risk ratio (RR) was 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.54); pooled risk difference (RD) was 0 more deaths per 100 patients treated with "high" dose (95% CI from 1 fewer to 2 more deaths per 100 treated). For rebleeding, pooled RR was 1.27 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.67); pooled RD was 2 more rebleeding events per 100 patients treated with "high" dose (95% CI from 0 fewer to 5 more rebleeding events per 100 treated). For surgical interventions, pooled RR was 1.33 (95% CI 0.63 to 2.77); pooled RD was 1 more surgical intervention per 100 patients treated with "high" dose (95% CI from 1 fewer to 2 more surgical interventions per 100 treated). For further EHT, pooled RR was 1.39 (95% CI 0.88 to 2.18), pooled RD was 2 more events per 100 patients treated with "high" dose PPI (95% CI from 1 fewer to 5 more events per 100 treated). We found moderate quality evidence suggesting no important difference between the two regimens with regards to length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) 0.26 days; 95% CI -0.08 to 0.6 days) or blood transfusion requirements (MD 0.05 units; 95% CI -0.21 to 0.3 units). There was visual and statistical evidence of "inverse" publication bias for mortality (missing small studies with favourable outcomes for "high" dose), but not for any other outcome. The results were similar for all subgroup analyses (according to risk of bias, geographical location, route of administration for non-"high" dose regimens, continuous infusion vs. bolus administration for intravenous non-"high" regimens group), sensitivity analyses (restriction to patients who had EHT for high risk stigmata, use of different dose thresholds for comparative regimens) and post hoc analyses (inclusion of all studies (N = 22) that compared at least two PPI regimens with different cumulative 72 hour doses; restriction of the previous analysis to patients who had EHT for high risk stigmata). Meta-regression analysis did not show any statistically significant associations between treatment effect (for the outcomes of mortality, rebleeding and surgical intervention) and the three study-level factors that were assessed (geographical location (Asia versus not Asia), route of PPI administration (intravenous versus oral), within-study ratio among the 72-hour cumulative doses of the two PPI regimens). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence for concluding superiority, inferiority or equivalence of high dose PPI treatment over lower doses in peptic ulcer bleeding.

Oral direct Factor Xa inhibitors versus low-molecular-weight heparin to prevent venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Thromboembolic disease is the most frequent medical complication of arthroplasty. PURPOSE: To evaluate the benefits and harms of oral direct factor Xa inhibitors versus low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1966 to December 2011), EMBASE (1980 to December 2011), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (up to December 2011), without language restrictions. References of reviews and abstracts of conferences were hand-searched. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials in patients undergoing hip or knee replacement that evaluated factor Xa inhibitors versus LMWH. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently evaluated eligibility, abstracted the data, and assessed risk for bias. DATA SYNTHESIS: In 22 trials, high-quality evidence indicated that the absolute effect of factor Xa inhibitors and LMWH does not differ in terms of all-cause mortality (risk difference, 0 fewer deaths per 1000 patients [95% CI, 2 fewer to 1 more death]) or nonfatal pulmonary embolism (risk difference, 0 fewer events per 1000 patients [CI, 1 fewer to 2 more events]). Factor Xa inhibitors can prevent 4 instances of symptomatic deep venous thrombosis per 1000 treated patients (CI, 3 to 6 fewer events; high-quality evidence) but may increase major bleeding by 2 more events per 1000 patients (CI, 0 to 4 more events; moderate-quality evidence). High, but not lower, doses of oral factor Xa inhibitors increased bleeding compared with LMWH. LIMITATIONS: Most trials did not report outcome data for a substantial proportion of the patients. In 9 trials, the follow-up period was 14 days or less. CONCLUSION: Compared with LMWH, lower doses of oral factor Xa inhibitors can achieve a small absolute risk reduction in symptomatic deep venous thrombosis without increasing bleeding.

Inhibidores directos del Factor Xa para la prevención del tromboembolismo en pacientes sometidos a reemplazo total de cadera o de rodilla. Protocolo de una revisión sistemática / Direct Factor Xa inhibitors for the prevention of thromboembolism in patients undergoing total replacement of hip or knee.Protocol of a systematic review

Los reemplazos articulares de cadera y la rodilla se encuentran entre los procedimientos quirúrgicos más comunes en América del Norte y Europa y están aumentando en frecuencia. La enfermedad tromboembólica es la complicación médica más frecuente en este tipo de pacientes. Por esta razón, las guías de práctica clínicas actuales recomiendan la tromboprofilaxis de rutina con heparinas de bajo peso molecular (HBPM), antagonistas de la vitamina K (AVK) o pentasacáridos sintéticos (fondaparinux) después de estos procedimientos. (AU)

Hip and knee joint replacements are among the most common surgical procedures in North America and Europe and are increasing in frequency. Thromboembolic disease is the most common medical complication in this type of patients. For this reason, current clinical practice guidelines recommend routine thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparins (LMWH), vitamin K antagonists (AVK) or synthetic pentasaccharides (fondaparinux) after these procedures(AU)

C(-106)T polymorphism of the aldose reductase gene and the progression rate of diabetic retinopathy.

PURPOSE: To study the C(-106)T polymorphism in the promoter of the aldose reductase (ALR2) gene: (a) its local prevalence and (b) its modulation of the susceptibility for developing retinopathy. METHODS: DNAs of 96 control subjects and 53 long-standing (duration 17.9+/-5.4 years) type-2 diabetic patients were analyzed by PCR-RFLP with BfaI enzyme. Retinopathy was graded with 2-eye, 7-field fundus color photography. The IMF-HbA1c was the arithmetic mean of all HbA1c's of each patient. RESULTS: The genotypes in the controls were CC=57 (59.4%), CT=32 (33.3%) and TT=7 (7.3%), with Hardy-Weinberg chi(2)=0.793 (p>0.50). Among 53 diabetics, CC=24 (45.3%), CT=26 (49.0%) and TT=3 (5.7%). The correlation between IMF-HbA1c and retinopathy progression rate was significant on CC (r=0.6102, p=0.0072) but not in CT+TT genotypes (r=0.26, p=0.1811). CONCLUSIONS: In Chilean adults, the frequency of the C(-106)T polymorphism of the ALR2 gene was similar to that reported by others. Type-2 diabetics with the CC genotype were more susceptible for developing retinopathy as a result of chronic hyperglycemia than those with the CT or TT genotype.

[CT angiography as the diagnostic and decision making method used for surgical indication in pulmonary hypertension due to chronic thromboembolism. Report of one case]. / AngioTAC como método de diagnóstico y decisión quirúrgica en el tromboembolismo pulmonar crónico. Discusión a propósito de un caso.

Pulmonary hypertension due to chronic pulmonary thromboembolism is frequently underdiagnosed and has a very poor prognosis if untreated. When the presence of central pulmonary artery thrombus is confirmed, thromboendarterectomy is the treatment of choice, with very good results. We report a 28 years old male with two previous episodes of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) who was admitted due to 8 months of progressive shortness of breath and a syncope. He underwent a CT pulmonary angiogram and an echocardiogram. Severe pulmonary hypertension was confirmed, secondary to a chronic pulmonary thromboembolism with an overlapped acute component. He received systemic thrombolysis with partial thrombus disappearance. Therefore a pulmonary thromboendarterectomy was performed and an inferior vena cava filter was placed. The patient was discharged with marked improvement in his functional capacity.