Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 107
Filter
5.
Sci Rep ; 10(1): 21291, 2020 12 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33277573

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of early treatment with corticosteroids on SARS-CoV-2 clearance in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Retrospective analysis on patients admitted to the San Raffaele Hospital (Milan, Italy) with moderate/severe COVID-19 and availability of at least two nasopharyngeal swabs. The primary outcome was the time to nasopharyngeal swab negativization. A multivariable Cox model was fitted to determine factors associated with nasopharyngeal swab negativization. Of 280 patients included, 59 (21.1%) patients were treated with steroids. Differences observed between steroid users and non-users included the proportion of patients with a baseline PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 200 mmHg (45.8% vs 34.4% in steroids and non-steroids users, respectively; p = 0.023) or ≤ 100 mmHg (16.9% vs 12.7%; p = 0.027), and length of hospitalization (20 vs 14 days; p < 0.001). Time to negativization of nasopharyngeal swabs was similar in steroid and non-steroid users (p = 0.985). According to multivariate analysis, SARS-CoV-2 clearance was associated with age ≤ 70 years, a shorter duration of symptoms at admission, a baseline PaO2/FiO2 > 200 mmHg, and a lymphocyte count at admission > 1.0 × 109/L. SARS-CoV-2 clearance was not associated with corticosteroid use. Our study shows that delayed SARS-CoV-2 clearance in moderate/severe COVID-19 is associated with older age and a more severe disease, but not with an early use of corticosteroids.


Subject(s)
Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Viral Load/drug effects , Age Factors , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
6.
Anaesthesia ; 74(8): 1057-1060, 2019 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31025706

ABSTRACT

More than one million peri-operative patients die each year. Thus, small improvements in peri-operative care may save thousands of lives. However, clinicians need confidence in the robustness of trial findings. The Fragility Index may complement frequentist analysis and provide quantitative assessment of robustness. We searched MEDLINE for peri-operative critical care randomised controlled trials that reported a statistically significant difference in mortality. We identified 46 trials with 37,347 participants. The median (IQR [range]) Fragility Index was 2 (1-3 [0-49]). Eleven trials had a Fragility Index of zero (changing from the Chi-square test to Fisher's exact test removed significance) and seven trials had a Fragility Index of 1. Only 23/46 trials had a Fragility Index greater than the number of patients lost to follow-up. There was a strong positive correlation between the Fragility Index and: the number of participants, R2  = 0.97, p < 0.0001; the number of centres that recruited participants, R2  = 0.96, p < 0.0001; the number of nations that recruited participants, R2  = 0.93, p < 0.0001; and the number of deaths, R2  = 0.97, p < 0.0001. As measured by the Fragility Index, the effect of peri-operative interventions on mortality in individual randomised controlled trials are not robust.


Subject(s)
Critical Care , Perioperative Care , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Humans , Mortality
12.
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg ; 53(3): 347-353, 2017 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28089084

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair is a complex procedure performed in patients at high cardiovascular risk. High volume intra-operative bleeding is often recorded, and the amount of intra-operative blood product transfusion is associated with relevant morbidity and mortality. The aim of the study was to identify pre-operative predictors of intra-operative large volume blood transfusions (LVBT) to stratify patients pre-operatively. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of all patients who underwent open TAAA surgery at San Raffaele Scientific Institute from January 2009 to December 2015. Intra-operative red blood cell (RBC) transfusions were administered to maintain a hematocrit of at least 30%. A LVBT was defined as a transfusion of at least four RBC units, corresponding to 1000 mL. RESULTS: The study population included 428 patients: 260 (61%) received fewer than 4 RBC units, and 168 (39%) were transfused with at least 4 RBC units. In patients who underwent LVBT, higher mortality was observed after surgery (p=.003), longer intensive care unit admission (p=.004), and longer mechanical ventilation compared with less transfused patients (p=.0002). The patients who received fewer units were administered a higher dose of heparin during the surgical operation compared with patients of the LVBT group: 3400±1100 vs. 2900±1300 IU (international units) (p=.0004). Pre-operative chronic renal failure (OR 1.8), the pre-operative haemoglobin value (OR 0.8), and the need for urgent or emergent surgery (OR 3.15) were independent predictors of LVBT on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The identification of patients at risk of intra-operative LVBT during TAAA surgery is critical as these patients experience a worse outcome. Nevertheless, only few independent predictors are available for clinical practice.


Subject(s)
Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic/surgery , Blood Loss, Surgical/prevention & control , Erythrocyte Transfusion , Vascular Surgical Procedures , Aged , Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic/mortality , Chi-Square Distribution , Databases, Factual , Erythrocyte Transfusion/adverse effects , Erythrocyte Transfusion/mortality , Female , Hematocrit , Humans , Italy , Length of Stay , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Multivariate Analysis , Odds Ratio , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Predictive Value of Tests , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome , Vascular Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Vascular Surgical Procedures/mortality
13.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand ; 60(7): 892-900, 2016 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27117753

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Previous studies showed that desmopressin decreases post-operative blood loss in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. These studies were small and never studied the effect of desmopressin in patients with active bleeding. Objective of the study was to determine whether desmopressin reduces red blood cells transfusion requirements in patients with active bleeding after cardiac surgery who had been pre-treated with tranexamic acid. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study randomized elective patients with bleeding after cardiac surgery despite pre-treatment with tranexamic acid, to receive placebo (saline solution) or a single administration of desmopressin (0.3 µg/kg in saline solution). The primary endpoint was the number of patients requiring red blood cells transfusion after randomization and during hospital stay. Secondary end points were: blood loss from chest tubes during the first 24 h after study drug administration, hours of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit stay, and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: The study was interrupted after inclusion of 67% of the planned patients for futility. The number of patients requiring red blood cells transfusion after randomization was 37/68 (54%) in desmopressin group and 33/67 (49%) in placebo group (P = 0.34) with no difference in blood loss: 575 (interquartile 422-770) ml in desmopressin group and 590 (476-1013) ml in placebo group (P = 0.42), mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit stay or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter randomized trial demonstrated that, in patients pre-treated with tranexamic acid, desmopressin should not be expected to improve treatment of patients who experience bleeding after cardiac surgery.


Subject(s)
Cardiac Surgical Procedures , Deamino Arginine Vasopressin/therapeutic use , Hemostatics/therapeutic use , Postoperative Hemorrhage/drug therapy , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Treatment Outcome
15.
Br J Anaesth ; 115(5): 656-75, 2015 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26475799

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Inotropes and vasopressors are frequently administered to critically ill patients in order to improve haemodynamic function and restore adequate organ perfusion. However, some studies have suggested a possible association between inotrope administration and increased mortality. We therefore performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials published in the last 20 yr to investigate the effect of these drugs on mortality. METHODS: BioMedCentral, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register were searched (all updated April 8th, 2015). Inclusion criteria were: random allocation to treatment, at least one group receiving an inotropic or vasopressor drug compared with at least one group receiving a non-inotropic/vasopressor treatment, study published after 1st January 1994, and systemic drug administration. Exclusion criteria were overlapping populations, studies published as abstract only, crossover studies, paediatric studies and lack of data on mortality. RESULTS: A total of 28 280 patients from 177 trials were included. Overall, pooled estimates showed no difference in mortality between the group receiving inotropes/vasopressors and the control group [4255/14 036 (31.7%) vs. 4277/14 244 (31.8%), risk ratio=0.98 (0.96-1.01), P for effect=0.23, P for heterogeneity=0.30, I2=6%]. A reduction in mortality was associated with inotrope/vasopressor therapy use in settings of vasoplegic syndromes, sepsis and cardiac surgery. Levosimendan was the only drug associated with improvement in survival. Subgroup analysis did not identify any groups with increased mortality associated with inotrope/vasopressor therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review found that inotrope/vasopressor therapy is not associated with differences in mortality in the overall population and in the majority of subsettings.


Subject(s)
Cardiotonic Agents/therapeutic use , Critical Illness/therapy , Vasoconstrictor Agents/therapeutic use , Cardiotonic Agents/adverse effects , Critical Illness/mortality , Heart Failure/drug therapy , Heart Failure/mortality , Humans , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Vasoconstrictor Agents/adverse effects
16.
Minerva Anestesiol ; 2015 Oct 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26474269

ABSTRACT

Modern Critical Care aims at improving patient-centered outcomes, not limited to survival. Recently, along with traditional research evaluating single drugs or procedures, more elusive elements have been evaluated, like organizational and teamwork aspects, delivery of critical care before Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission and after discharge. The aim of this review is to offer an up-to-date, comprehensive, and maybe "visionary" big picture of Critical Care in the near future beyond its traditional boundaries. In particular, we wish to suggest key elements that will allow a leap forward in terms of quality of care. Patient-centeredness will be the main issue, taking the patient's wishes into account more than in the past. This means improving communication with patients and their relatives, and pursuing a holistic approach: we should pay more attention to natural light, noise reduction, music, prevention of sleep fragmentation, soft colors for walls, privacy, psychological support. An open visiting policy should be the standard. End-of-Life practices should become centered on patient wishes and dignity. Rapid response teams will bring timely critical care services to patients outside ICUs, preventing avoidable adverse events and unplanned ICU admission. In ICU, standardized protocols, checklists, daily goals sheets, advanced information technology and multidisciplinary rounds will improve quality of care and safety. Multicenter studies will be made easier and research should become part of daily practice in most ICU. Finally, the post ICU syndrome should be prevented and treated by a well-designed longitudinal care model taking care of patients from the ICU to the outpatient setting.

17.
Br J Anaesth ; 115(4): 511-9, 2015 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26385661

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Guidelines support the use of a restrictive strategy in blood transfusion management in a variety of clinical settings. However, recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) performed in the perioperative setting suggest a beneficial effect on survival of a liberal strategy. We aimed to assess the effect of liberal and restrictive blood transfusion strategies on mortality in perioperative and critically ill adult patients through a meta-analysis of RCTs. METHODS: We searched PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Transfusion Evidence Library, and Google Scholar up to 27 March 2015, for RCTs performed in perioperative or critically ill adult patients, receiving a restrictive or liberal transfusion strategy, and reporting all-cause mortality. We used a fixed or random-effects model to calculate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for pooled data. We assessed heterogeneity using Cochrane's Q and I(2) tests. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 90-day follow-up. RESULTS: Patients in the perioperative period receiving a liberal transfusion strategy had lower all-cause mortality when compared with patients allocated to receive a restrictive transfusion strategy (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.66‒1.00; P=0.05; I(2)=25%; Number needed to treat=97) with 7552 patients randomized in 17 trials. There was no difference in mortality among critically ill patients receiving a liberal transfusion strategy when compared with the restrictive transfusion strategy (OR 1.10; 95% CI 0.99‒1.23; P=0.07; I(2)=34%) with 3469 patients randomized in 10 trials. CONCLUSION: According to randomized published evidence, perioperative adult patients have an improved survival when receiving a liberal blood transfusion strategy.


Subject(s)
Blood Transfusion/statistics & numerical data , Critical Care/methods , Critical Illness/mortality , Perioperative Care/mortality , Perioperative Care/methods , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Critical Care/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Perioperative Care/statistics & numerical data , Survival Analysis , Treatment Outcome
18.
Br J Anaesth ; 115(1): 25-32, 2015 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26089444

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Epidurals provide excellent analgesia for cardiac surgery and may reduce complications. However, their use has been tempered because of concern of the rare, but serious complication of epidural haematoma. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the effect of epidural on survival and the risk estimate of epidural haematoma. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature (Pubmed, Embase, Scopus and the Cochrane Register) and a meta-analysis of the available randomized and case-matched studies were performed to estimate the effect on survival. An international, directed and viral anonymous survey was performed to identify the incidence of haematomas with a corresponding estimate of the number of epidurals performed. RESULTS: Of 66 randomized and case-matched studies, 57 trials including 6383 patients reported the incidence of all-cause mortality at the longest follow up available, with a significant reduction with epidurals (59/3123 [1.9%] vs 108/3260 [3.3%] in the control arm, RR 0.65 [95% CI 0.48-0.86], P=0.003, NNT=70). No epidural haematoma was reported in these 66 trials (3320 epidurals). All other literature revealed nine haematomas in 13,100 patients. Through the anonymous, web-based, viral, international survey, we identified 16 further, non-published, epidural haematomas from 72,400 positioned epidurals. Therefore, a total of 25 haematomas have been identified from an estimate of 88,820 positioned epidurals, producing an estimated risk of 1:3552 (95% CI 1:2552-1:5841). CONCLUSIONS: The use of epidural analgesia in cardiac surgery is associated with a reduction in mortality (NNT=70), and with an estimated risk of epidural haematoma of 1:3552.


Subject(s)
Analgesia, Epidural , Cardiac Surgical Procedures , Analgesia, Epidural/adverse effects , Humans , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Risk Assessment , Survival Analysis
19.
Br J Anaesth ; 114(5): 746-56, 2015 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25652947

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Inodilators are commonly used in critically ill patients, but their effect on survival has not been properly studied to date. The objective of this work was to conduct a network meta-analysis on the effects of inodilators on survival in adult cardiac surgery patients, and to compare and rank drugs that have not been adequately compared in head-to-head trials. METHODS: Relevant studies were independently searched in BioMedCentral, MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials (updated on May 1, 2014). The criteria for inclusion were: random allocation to treatment with at least one group receiving dobutamine, enoximone, levosimendan, or milrinone and at least another group receiving the above inodilators or placebo, performed in cardiac surgical patients. The endpoint was to identify differences in mortality at longest follow-up available. RESULTS: The 46 included trials were published between 1995 and 2014 and randomised 2647 patients. The Bayesian network meta-analysis found that only the use of levosimendan was associated with a decrease in mortality when compared with placebo (posterior mean of OR=0.48, 95% CrI 0.28 to 0.80). The posterior distribution of the probability for each inodilator to be the best and the worst drug showed that levosimendan is the best agent to improve survival after cardiac surgery. The sensitivity analyses performed did not produce different interpretative result. CONCLUSION: Levosimendan seems to be the most efficacious inodilator to improve survival in cardiac surgery.


Subject(s)
Cardiac Surgical Procedures/mortality , Vasodilator Agents/pharmacology , Bayes Theorem , Critical Illness/mortality , Dobutamine/pharmacology , Enoximone/pharmacology , Humans , Hydrazones/pharmacology , Milrinone/pharmacology , Pyridazines/pharmacology , Simendan
20.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand ; 59(1): 17-24, 2015 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25312519

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: One of the most commonly used hypnotics is propofol. Several studies performed in cardiac surgery suggested an increased mortality in patients receiving a propofol-based total intravenous anaesthesia. Furthermore, the possibility of infections and the 'propofol syndrome' have suggested that propofol might be dangerous. Nonetheless, propofol is widely used in different settings because of its characteristics: fast induction, rapid elimination, short duration of action, smooth recovery from anaesthesia, few adverse effects, no teratogenic effects, characteristics that have undoubtedly contributed to its popularity. The effect of propofol on survival is unknown. We decided to carry out a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled studies ever performed on propofol vs. any comparator in any clinical setting. METHODS: Pertinent studies were independently searched in BioMedCentral, PubMed, Embase, Clinicaltrial.gov, and Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials by expert investigators. The following inclusion criteria were used: random allocation to treatment, comparison between propofol and any comparator in any clinical setting. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-three studies randomizing 14,516 patients were included. No differences in mortality between patients receiving propofol [349/6957 (5.0%)] vs. any comparator [340/7559 (4.5%)] were observed in the overall population [risk ratio = 1.05, 95% confidence interval (0.93 to 1.18), P = 0.5] and in several sub-analyses. CONCLUSION: Inspite of theoretical concerns, propofol has no detrimental effect on survival according to the largest meta-analysis of randomized trials ever performed on hypnotic drug.


Subject(s)
Anesthesia, Intravenous , Propofol/pharmacology , Cardiac Surgical Procedures/mortality , Humans , Propofol/adverse effects , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...