Pharmacosimulation of delays and interruptions during administration of tirofiban: a systematic comparison between EU and US dosage regimens.

Tirofiban is a glycoproteine (GP) IIb/IIIa receptor antagonist, which inhibits platelet-platelet aggregation and is a potential adjunctive antithrombotic treatment in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) or high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). It is administered intravenously as a bolus followed by continuous infusion. However, the dosage recommendations in the United States (US) and European Union (EU) differ considerably. Furthermore, in routine clinical practice, deviations from the recommendations may occur. The objective of the present study was to investigate the impact of different alterations on tirofiban plasma concentrations in US and EU administration regimens and to give suggestions for delay management in clinical practice. We therefore mathematically simulated the effects of different bolus-infusion delays and infusion interruptions in different scenarios according to the renal function. Here, we provide a systematic assessment of concentration patterns of tirofiban in the US versus EU dosage regimens. We show that differences between the two regimens have important effects on plasma drug levels. Furthermore, we demonstrate that deviations from the proper administration mode affect the concentration of tirofiban. Additionally, we calculated the optimal dosage of a second bolus to rapidly restore the initial concentration without causing overdosage. In conclusion, differences in tirofiban dosing regimens between the U.S and EU and potential infusion interruptions have important effects on drug levels that may impact on degrees of platelet inhibition and thus antithrombotic effects. Thus, the findings of our modelling studies may help to explain differences in clinical outcomes observed in previous clinical trials on tirofiban

Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) reliably stratifies octogenarians in German ICUs: a multicentre prospective cohort study

Background: In intensive care units (ICU) octogenarians become a routine patients group with aggravated therapeutic and diagnostic decision-making. Due to increased mortality and a reduced quality of life in this high-risk population, medical decision-making a fortiori requires an optimum of risk stratification. Recently, the VIP-1 trial prospectively observed that the clinical frailty scale (CFS) performed well in ICU patients in overall-survival and short-term outcome prediction. However, it is known that healthcare systems differ in the 21 countries contributing to the VIP-1 trial. Hence, our main focus was to investigate whether the CFS is usable for risk stratification in octogenarians admitted to diversified and high tech German ICUs. Methods: This multicentre prospective cohort study analyses very old patients admitted to 20 German ICUs as a sub-analysis of the VIP-1 trial. Three hundred and eight patients of 80 years of age or older admitted consecutively to participating ICUs. CFS, cause of admission, APACHE II, SAPS II and SOFA scores, use of ICU resources and ICU- and 30-day mortality were recorded. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with 30-day mortality. Results: Patients had a median age of 84 [IQR 82–87] years and a mean CFS of 4.75 (± 1.6 standard-deviation) points. More than half of the patients (53.6%) were classified as frail (CFS ≥ 5). ICU-mortality was 17.3% and 30-day mortality was 31.2%. The cause of admission (planned vs. unplanned), (OR 5.74) and the CFS (OR 1.44 per point increase) were independent predictors of 30-day survival. Conclusions: The CFS is an easy determinable valuable tool for prediction of 30-day ICU survival in octogenarians, thus, it may facilitate decision-making for intensive care givers in Germany. Trial registration: The VIP-1 study was retrospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT03134807 ) on May 1, 2017

Impella versus extracorporal life support in cardiogenic shock: a propensity score adjusted analysis

Aims: The mortality in cardiogenic shock (CS) is high. The role of specific mechanical circulatory support (MCS) systems is unclear. We aimed to compare patients receiving Impella versus ECLS (extracorporal life support) with regard to baseline characteristics, feasibility, and outcomes in CS. Methods and results: This is a retrospective cohort study including CS patients over 18 years with a complete follow-up of the primary endpoint and available baseline lactate level, receiving haemodynamic support either by Impella 2.5 or ECLS from two European registries. The decision for device implementation was made at the discretion of the treating physician. The primary endpoint of this study was all-cause mortality at 30 days. A propensity score for the use of Impella was calculated, and multivariable logistic regression was used to obtain adjusted odds ratios (aOR). In total, 149 patients were included, receiving either Impella (n = 73) or ECLS (n = 76) for CS. The feasibility of device implantation was high (87%) and similar (aOR: 3.14; 95% CI: 0.18–56.50; P = 0.41) with both systems. The rates of vascular injuries (aOR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.10–3.50; P = 0.56) and bleedings requiring transfusions (aOR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.09–2.10; P = 0.29) were similar in ECLS patients and Impella patients. The use of Impella or ECLS was not associated with increased odds of mortality (aOR: 4.19; 95% CI: 0.53–33.25; P = 0.17), after correction for propensity score and baseline lactate level. Baseline lactate level was independently associated with increased odds of 30 day mortality (per mmol/L increase; OR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.14–1.45; P < 0.001). Conclusions: In CS patients, the adjusted mortality rates of both ECLS and Impella were high and similar. The baseline lactate level was a potent predictor of mortality and could play a role in patient selection for therapy in future studies. In patients with profound CS, the type of device is likely to be less important compared with other parameters including non-cardiac and neurological factors

No impact of weather conditions on the outcome of intensive care unit patients

Global warming leads to increased exposure of humankind to meteorological variation, including short-term weather changes. Weather conditions involve changes in temperature, heat and cold, in air pressure and in air humidity. Every single condition influences the incidence and mortality of different diseases such as myocardial infarction and stroke. This study investigated the impact of weather conditions on short- and long-term mortality of 4321 critically ill patients (66 ± 14 years, 2638 men) admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) over a period of 5 years. Meteorological information (air temperature, air pressure and humidity) for the same period was retrieved. The influence of absolute weather parameters, different seasons, sudden weather changes including 'warm' and 'cold' spells on ICU and long-term mortality was analyzed. After correction for Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS-2), no impact of meteorological conditions on mortality was found. Different seasons, sudden weather changes, 'warm spells' or 'cold spells' did not affect the outcome of critically ill patients