Applicability of Vasopressor Trials in Adult Critical Care: A Prospective Multicentre Meta-Epidemiologic Cohort Study.

Objective: To assess the applicability of evidence from landmark randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of vasopressor treatment in critically ill adults. Study Design and Setting: This prospective, multi-center cohort study was conducted at five medical and surgical intensive care units at three tertiary care centers. Consecutive cases of newly initiated vasopressor treatment were included. The primary end point was the proportion of patients (≥18 years) who met the eligibility criteria of 25 RCTs of vasopressor therapy in critically ill adults included in the most recent Cochrane review. Multilevel Poisson regression was used to estimate the eligibility proportions with 95% confidence intervals for each trial. Secondary end points included the eligibility criteria that contributed most to trial ineligibility, and the relationship between eligibility proportions and (i) the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) score, and (ii) the recruitment-to-screening ratio of each RCT. The PRECIS-2 score was used to assess the degree of pragmatism of each trial. Results: Between January 1, 2017, and January 1, 2019, a total of 1189 cases of newly initiated vasopressor therapy were included. The median proportion of cases meeting eligibility criteria for all 25 RCTs ranged from 1.3% to 6.0%. The eligibility criteria contributing most to trial ineligibility were the exceedance of a specific norepinephrine dose, the presence of a particular shock type, and the drop below a particular blood pressure value. Eligibility proportions increased with the PRECIS-2 score but not with the recruitment-to-screening ratio of the trials. Conclusion: The applicability of evidence from available trials on vasopressor treatment in critically ill adults to patients receiving vasopressors in daily practice is limited. Applicability increases with the degree of study pragmatism but is not reflected in a high recruitment-to-screening ratio. Our findings may help researchers design vasopressor trials and promote standardized assessment and reporting of the degree of pragmatism achieved.

ECMO and cytokine removal for bridging to surgery in a patient with ischemic ventricular septal defect - a case report.

Even in the modern era of percutaneous coronary intervention, postinfarction ventricular septal defect (VSD) remains a serious and often lethal complication. Whether or not immediate surgical repair or delaying surgery a few days aided by intra-aortic counterpulsation provides the optimal strategy remains a matter of debate. An interdisciplinary approach of intensivists and cardiac surgeons in this setting is mandatory. We report the use of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and extracorporeal blood purification therapy (CytoSorb®) as bridging to surgical closure in a patient with an ischemic VSD leading to protracted cardiogenic shock after posterior myocardial infarction.

Vasopressors for hypotensive shock.

BACKGROUND: Initial goal-directed resuscitation for hypotensive shock usually includes administration of intravenous fluids, followed by initiation of vasopressors. Despite obvious immediate effects of vasopressors on haemodynamics, their effect on patient-relevant outcomes remains controversial. This review was published originally in 2004 and was updated in 2011 and again in 2016. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to compare the effect of one vasopressor regimen (vasopressor alone, or in combination) versus another vasopressor regimen on mortality in critically ill participants with shock. We further aimed to investigate effects on other patient-relevant outcomes and to assess the influence of bias on the robustness of our effect estimates. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015 Issue 6), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PASCAL BioMed, CINAHL, BIOSIS and PsycINFO (from inception to June 2015). We performed the original search in November 2003. We also asked experts in the field and searched meta-registries to identify ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing various vasopressor regimens for hypotensive shock. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors abstracted data independently. They discussed disagreements between them and resolved differences by consulting with a third review author. We used a random-effects model to combine quantitative data. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 28 RCTs (3497 participants) with 1773 mortality outcomes. Six different vasopressors, given alone or in combination, were studied in 12 different comparisons.All 28 studies reported mortality outcomes; 12 studies reported length of stay. Investigators reported other morbidity outcomes in a variable and heterogeneous way. No data were available on quality of life nor on anxiety and depression outcomes. We classified 11 studies as having low risk of bias for the primary outcome of mortality; only four studies fulfilled all trial quality criteria.In summary, researchers reported no differences in total mortality in any comparisons of different vasopressors or combinations in any of the pre-defined analyses (evidence quality ranging from high to very low). More arrhythmias were observed in participants treated with dopamine than in those treated with norepinephrine (high-quality evidence). These findings were consistent among the few large studies and among studies with different levels of within-study bias risk. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of substantial differences in total mortality between several vasopressors. Dopamine increases the risk of arrhythmia compared with norepinephrine and might increase mortality. Otherwise, evidence of any other differences between any of the six vasopressors examined is insufficient. We identified low risk of bias and high-quality evidence for the comparison of norepinephrine versus dopamine and moderate to very low-quality evidence for all other comparisons, mainly because single comparisons occasionally were based on only a few participants. Increasing evidence indicates that the treatment goals most often employed are of limited clinical value. Our findings suggest that major changes in clinical practice are not needed, but that selection of vasopressors could be better individualised and could be based on clinical variables reflecting hypoperfusion.

Vasopressors for hypotensive shock.

BACKGROUND: Initial goal directed resuscitation for shock usually includes the administration of intravenous fluids, followed by initiating vasopressors. Despite obvious immediate effects of vasopressors on haemodynamics their effect on patient relevant outcomes remains controversial. This review was originally published in 2004 and was updated in 2011. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to assess whether particular vasopressors reduce overall mortality, morbidity, and health-related quality of life. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PASCAL BioMed, CINAHL, BIOSIS, and PsycINFO (from inception to March 2010). The original search was performed in November 2003. We also asked experts in the field and searched meta-registries for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing various vasopressor regimens for hypotensive shock. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors abstracted data independently. Disagreement between the authors was discussed and resolved with a third author. We used a random-effects model for combining quantitative data. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 23 randomized controlled trials involving 3212 patients, with 1629 mortality outcomes. Six different vasopressors, alone or in combination, were studied in 11 different comparisons.All 23 studies reported mortality outcomes; length of stay was reported in nine studies. Other morbidity outcomes were reported in a variable and heterogeneous way. No data were available on quality of life or anxiety and depression outcomes. We classified 10 studies as being at low risk of bias for the primary outcome mortality; only four studies fulfilled all trial quality items.In summary, there was no difference in mortality in any of the comparisons between different vasopressors or combinations. More arrhythmias were observed in patients treated with dopamine compared to norepinephrine. Norepinephrine versus dopamine, as the largest comparison in 1400 patients from six trials, yielded almost equivalence (RR 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.03). Vasopressors used as add-on therapy in comparison to placebo were not effective either. These findings were consistent among the few large studies as well as in studies with different levels of within-study bias risk. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence of no difference in mortality between norepinephrine and dopamine. Dopamine appeared to increase the risk for arrhythmia. There is not sufficient evidence of any difference between any of the six vasopressors examined. Probably the choice of vasopressors in patients with shock does not influence the outcome, rather than any vasoactive effect per se. There is not sufficient evidence that any one of the investigated vasopressors is clearly superior over others.

Accuracy of noninvasive multiwave pulse oximetry compared with carboxyhemoglobin from blood gas analysis in unselected emergency department patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Accurate and timely diagnosis of carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning is difficult because of nonspecific symptoms. Multiwave pulse oximetry might facilitate the screening for occult poisoning by noninvasive measurement of carboxyhemoglobin (COHb), but its reliability is still unknown. We assess bias and precision of COHb oximetry compared with the criterion standard blood gas analysis. METHODS: This was a prospective diagnostic accuracy study according to STARD (Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies) criteria, performed at a tertiary care hospital emergency department. We included all patients for whom both invasive and noninvasive measurement within 60 minutes was available, regardless of their complaints, during a 1-year period. RESULTS: One thousand five hundred seventy-eight subjects were studied, of whom 17 (1.1%) received a diagnosis of CO poisoning. In accordance with this limited patient cohort, we found a bias of 2.99% COHb (1.50% for smokers, 4.33% for nonsmokers) and a precision of 3.27% COHb (2.90% for smokers, 2.98% for nonsmokers), limits of agreement from -3.55% to 9.53% COHb (-4.30% to 7.30% for smokers, -1.63% to 10.29% for nonsmokers). Upper limit of normal cutoff of 6.6% COHb had the highest sensitivity in screening for CO poisoning. Smoking status and COHb level had the most influence on the deviation between measurements. CONCLUSION: Multiwave pulse oximetry was found to measure COHb with an acceptable bias and precision. These results suggest it can be used to screen large numbers of patients for occult CO poisoning.

Therapeutic hypothermia after cardiac arrest in Lower Austria--a cross-sectional survey.

This study was undertaken to evaluate the use of therapeutic hypothermia (TH) after cardiac arrest in Lower Austria. A questionnaire was sent to intensive care units (ICUs) in Lower Austria. Methods of inducing and maintaining hypothermia, the practise of rewarming, concomitant therapies and reasons not to cool were documented. Of the 23 ICUs 10 (43%) used TH. Nine (39%) cooled their patients to 32-34°C and one to 34-35°C. Duration of cooling was 24 h (n=8, 35%), 24-48 h (n=1) or 48 h (n=1). For induction of hypothermia, ICUs used cold infusions (n=5, 22%), surface (n=7, 30%) or endovascular cooling (n=6, 26%). The same methods were used during the maintenance period. Reasons not to cool were insufficient staff resources (n=4, 17%), technical complexity of cooling (n=4, 17%) and too little information (n=3, 13%). In conclusion, TH has been poorly implemented in Lower Austria. The reasons for not using hypothermia could possibly be dispelled by education.

Life after death: posttraumatic stress disorder in survivors of cardiac arrest--prevalence, associated factors, and the influence of sedation and analgesia.

OBJECTIVE: Cardiac arrest is possibly one of the most traumatizing conditions for patients, but to date, its influence on psychic morbidity remains unknown. Posttraumatic stress disorder is a unique symptom configuration after an extreme event consisting of intrusion re-experiencing, avoidance and numbness, and hyperarousal symptoms. We studied a) the prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in long term survivors of cardiac arrest; b) the role of specific stress factors related to cardiac arrest for the development of PTSD; and c) the influence of sedation and analgesia during or after cardiac arrest on the occurrence of PTSD. DESIGN: Prospective, cohort study. SETTING: University teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Analysis was performed in cardiac arrest survivors who were discharged with favorable neurologic outcome during an 8-yr period (1991-1999). INTERVENTIONS: All patients received the Davidson Trauma Score for the assessment of PTSD and a modified German version of the EuroQol questionnaire for assessment of quality of life. Cardiac arrest circumstances and administration of sedation and analgesia were assessed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 1,630 initially resuscitated patients, 270 patients were discharged with good neurologic outcome. A total of 226 patients were contacted, and 143 patients (63% of all eligible patients) completed the study. Mean time from cardiac arrest to follow up was 45 months (range, 24-66). Thirty-nine patients (27%; 95% confidence interval, 21% to 35%) had a Davidson Trauma Score >40 and fulfilled criteria for PTSD. Patients with PTSD had a significantly lower quality of life. The only independent risk factor for the development of PTSD was younger age. There was no difference between patients with or without PTSD regarding the use of sedation and analgesia during or after cardiac arrest. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of PTSD in cardiac arrest survivors is high. Besides younger age, neither clinical factors nor the use of sedation and analgesia were associated with development of PTSD.

Active epistaxis at ED presentation is associated with arterial hypertension.

Epistaxis and hypertension are frequent in the general population, but an association is still controversial. Aim of this retrospective cohort study was to test if active epistaxis at emergency department (ED) presentation is associated with hypertension. Patients with active epistaxis at ED presentation (n = 271; 73%) were compared with controls without active bleeding (n = 101; 27%). By multivariate logistic regression modeling we found that active epistaxis was independently associated with history of hypertension (odds ratio 2.8 [95% CI 1.4 to 5.6; P =.004] adjusted for age, gender, rhinitis, diffuse bleeding, and malignant diseases). Patients with active epistaxis had higher blood pressure at presentation compared with controls (systolic blood pressure 165 v 153 mmHg, P <.001, diastolic blood pressure 85 v 77 mmHg, P <.001). Active epistaxis at ED presentation is associated with arterial hypertension.