Comparison of management options for specific antibody deficiency.

Background: Specific antibody deficiency is a primary immunodeficiency characterized by normal immunoglobulins with an inadequate response to polysaccharide antigen vaccination. This disease can result in recurrent infections, the most common being sinopulmonary infections. Treatment options include clinical observation, prophylactic antibiotic therapy, and immunoglobulin supplementation therapy, each with limited clinical data about their efficacy. Objective: This study aimed to identify whether there was a statistically significant difference in the rate of infections for patients who were managed with clinical observation, prophylactic antibiotics, or immunoglobulin supplementation therapy. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted. Patients were eligible for the study if they had normal immunoglobulin levels, an inadequate antibody response to polysaccharide antigen-based vaccination, and no other known causes of immunodeficiency. Results: A total of 26 patients with specific antibody deficiency were identified. Eleven patients were managed with immunoglobulin supplementation, ten with clinical observation, and five with prophylactic antibiotic therapy. The frequency of antibiotic prescriptions was assessed for the first year after intervention. A statistically significant rate of decreased antibiotic prescriptions after intervention was found for patients treated with immunoglobulin supplementation (n = 11; p = 0.0004) and for patients on prophylactic antibiotics (n = 5; p = 0.01). There was no statistical difference in antibiotic prescriptions for those patients treated with immunoglobulin supplementation versus prophylactic antibiotics (p = 0.21). Conclusion: Prophylactic antibiotics seemed to be equally effective as immunoglobin supplementation therapy for the treatment of specific antibody deficiency. Further studies are needed in this area.

Serum lactate poorly predicts central venous oxygen saturation in critically ill patients: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Serum lactate and central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2) are commonly used and commonly recommended as markers of tissue oxygenation in shock states. Medical literature has both explicitly stated and implied that the two biomarkers are interchangeable in the management of patients with shock. However, there have been relatively few direct comparisons of these tests in clinical circumstances, and the relationship between them is uncertain. The objective of our study was to evaluate whether simultaneous or near-simultaneous measurements of lactate and ScvO2 reveal a consistent relationship between these two biomarkers. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in an urban, academic US hospital. All adults in ICUs between March 2007 and March 2017 who had a lactate measurement and ScvO2 or mixed venous oxygen saturation (SvO2) measurement made +/- 1 h from the lactate were included. Linear and non-linear correlations of ScvO2 and lactate were assessed in a variety of shock states. RESULTS: Two thousand sixty-two patients were included. Lactate and ScvO2 correlated poorly (r 2 = 0.0041, p = 0.0019). This was true for patients with ScvO2 ≤ 65% (r 2 = 0.0431, p < 0.001), patients with normal kidney and liver function (r 2 = 0.0517, p < 0.001), and septic shock patients (r 2 = 0.0037, p = 0.17). For patients with an O2 extraction ratio ≥ 50%, lactate and ScvO2 were strongly correlated (r 2 = 0.93, p = 0.0019), but these patients represented only 2.8% of patients in whom the ratio could be calculated. CONCLUSIONS: Lactate can predict ScvO2 when patients are at or below the critical oxygen delivery threshold, but relatively few shock patients meet this criterion. In the overall population of critically ill patients, serum lactate predicts ScvO2 poorly, even after controlling for factors that may affect lactate production. Lactate and ScvO2 should not be assumed to be interchangeable markers of tissue oxygenation/perfusion.