Nasal High Flow Therapy For Symptom Management in People Receiving Palliative Care.

For patients with chronic non-malignant lung disease, severe chronic breathlessness can significantly impact quality of life, causing significant disability, distress, social isolation, and recurrent hospital admissions. Caregivers for people with challenging symptoms, such as severe breathlessness, are also profoundly impacted. Despite increasing research focused on breathlessness over recent years, this symptom remains extremely difficult to manage, with no effective treatment that completely relieves breathlessness. A new potential treatment for relieving breathlessness in patients at home is nasal high flow (NHF) therapy. NHF therapy is a respiratory support system that delivers heated, humidified air (together with oxygen if required) with flows of up to 60 L/min. This case describes a patient with very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who received domiciliary NHF therapy (approximately 8 hours/day, flow rate of 20 L/min) over twelve months with good effect for the relief of severe chronic breathlessness. We discuss the management principles for severe chronic breathlessness, the physiological effects of NHF therapy and the evidence for long-term use in the community setting. With the support of respiratory and palliative care clinicians together, domiciliary NHF therapy has great potential for improving current symptom management approaches in people with life-limiting illnesses.

Does continuation of antifibrotics before lung transplantation influence post-transplant outcomes in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis?

A best evidence topic was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was: 'Does continuation of antifibrotics before lung transplantation (LTx) influence post-transplant outcomes in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) with regard to mortality, bronchial anastomotic dehiscence, reoperation for bleeding and wound complications, primary graft dysfunction or longer-term survival and allograft rejection?' A total of 261 articles were found using the reported search strategy, of which 7 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. Six out of 7 studies demonstrated equivalent post-transplant survival among IPF patients on antifibrotics before LTx compared with controls. Five out of 6 studies showed no increase in the risk of major bleeding, wound or bronchial anastomotic complications. One bi-institutional study found a higher incidence of early bronchial anastomotic dehiscence, but this difference was not statistically significant after longer term follow-up. In a study that only included IPF patients who underwent single LTx, a lower incidence of grade 3 primary graft dysfunction was reported in the antifibrotic group compared with controls. Overall, to date, only small (N < 40 in the antifibrotic group), non-risk-adjusted, retrospective observational studies have been published. Notwithstanding, the summation of available evidence suggests that, in IPF patients, continuation of antifibrotic therapy before LTx is likely safe, and the rates of perioperative bleeding, wound or bronchial anastomotic complications, as well as 30-day and 1-year survival, are similar to patients not on antifibrotics before LTx.

Antiplatelet Therapy Monitoring in Neonates and Children.

Antiplatelet agents are used for the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic disease in an increasingly complex population of pediatric patients. Despite their importance for clinical outcome, there is no consensus on the most effective monitoring strategies. This review describes the current state of knowledge focusing on antiplatelet therapy monitoring in children. The authors searched five databases (PubMed-NCBI, MEDLINE-OVID, SCOPUS-Elsevier, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane) from January 2000 to October 2017 using keywords selected a priori. Identified articles were sorted according to the antiplatelet agents administered, methods of antiplatelet monitoring, and outcome measures. Twenty studies were included, with 14 cohort studies, 3 randomized controlled trials, and 3 cross-sectional studies. Eleven different antiplatelet monitoring tools were used, with the most common being Light Transmission Aggregometry, Urinary Thromboxane, Thromboelastography with Platelet Mapping, and VerifyNow. In the majority of studies, antiplatelet therapy monitoring was used to describe adequacy or responsiveness to treatment based on laboratory cut-off values, which were not uniform and sourced from adult studies or extrapolated from test manuals. Several studies evaluated monitoring related to clinical outcome or adjusted therapy to reach predefined therapeutic targets. There was no single laboratory method found to be distinctly better for monitoring antiplatelet treatment. Associations between laboratory assays and clinical outcomes or assays and gold standard measurements were highly inconsistent. The current literature lacks consensus on clinical benefits and measurable effects of monitoring antiplatelet therapy in pediatric patients. This review highlights important areas for research required to determine the value of antiplatelet therapy monitoring in children.