Hydrocortisone therapy for patients with septic shock

Background Hydrocortisone is widely used in patients with septic shock even though a survival benefit has been reported only in patients who remained hypotensive after fluid and vasopressor resuscitation and whose plasma cortisol levels did not rise appropriately after the administration of corticotropin. Methods In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned 251 patients to receive 50 mg of intravenous hydrocortisone and 248 patients to receive placebo every 6 hours for 5 days; the dose was then tapered during a 6-day period. At 28 days, the primary outcome was death among patients who did not have a response to a corticotropin test. Results Of the 499 patients in the study, 233 (46.7%) did not have a response to corticotropin (125 in the hydrocortisone group and 108 in the placebo group). At 28 days, there was no significant difference in mortality between patients in the two study groups who did not have a response to corticotropin (39.2% in the hydrocortisone group and 36.1% in the placebo group, P=0.69) or between those who had a response to corticotropin (28.8% in the hydrocortisone group and 28.7% in the placebo group, P=1.00). At 28 days, 86 of 251 patients in the hydrocortisone group (34.3%) and 78 of 248 patients in the placebo group (31.5%) had died (P=0.51). In the hydrocortisone group, shock was reversed more quickly than in the placebo group. However, there were more episodes of superinfection, including new sepsis and septic shock. Conclusions Hydrocortisone did not improve survival or reversal of shock in patients with septic shock, either overall or in patients who did not have a response to corticotropin, although hydrocortisone hastened reversal of shock in patients in whom shock was reversed. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00147004 [ClinicalTrials.gov] .)Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Post radiation chylous ascites: a case report

We report a 64 years old gentleman with unresectable right-sided retroperitoneal liposarcoma, who underwent radiotherapy & subsequently developed chylous ascites. He failed conservative management of chylous ascites and this was successfully managed with a peritoneovenous shunt. The pathophysiology and management of post radiational chylous ascites is discussed

A systematic review of techniques and interventions for improving adherence to inclusion and exclusion criteria during enrolment into randomised controlled trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Enrolment of patients into a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in violation of key inclusion or exclusion criteria, may lead to excess avoidable harm. The purpose of this paper was to systematically identify and review techniques and interventions proven to prevent or avoid inappropriate enrolment of patients into RCTs.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Methodology Register, online abstract repositories, and conference websites were searched. Experts were contacted and bibliographies of retrieved papers hand-searched. The search cut-off date was 31 August 2009.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>No primary publications were found. We identified one study in the grey literature (conference abstracts and presentations) reporting the results of an evaluation of the effectiveness of an intervention designed to prevent or avoid inappropriate enrolment of patients into an RCT. In the context of a multicentre trial, use of a dummy enrolment run-in phase was shown to reduce enrolment errors significantly (<it>P </it>< 0.001), from 16.1% during the run-in phase to < 1% after trial initiation.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our systematic search yielded only one technique or intervention shown to improve adherence to eligibility criteria during enrolment into RCTs. Given the potential harm involved in recruiting patients into a clinical trial in violation of key eligibility criteria, future research is needed to better inform those conducting clinical trials of how best to prevent enrolment errors</p

Health services changes: is a run-in period necessary before evaluation in randomised clinical trials?

Background Most randomised clinical trials (RCTs) testing a new health service do not allow a run-in period of consolidation before evaluating the new approach. Consequently, health professionals involved may feel insufficiently familiar or confident, or that new processes or systems that are integral to the service are insufficiently embedded in routine care prior to definitive evaluation in a RCT. This study aimed to determine the optimal run-in period for a new physiotherapy-led telephone assessment and treatment service known as PhysioDirect and whether a run-in was needed prior to evaluating outcomes in an RCT. Methods The PhysioDirect trial assessed whether PhysioDirect was as effective as usual care. Prior to the main trial, a run-in of up to 12 weeks was permitted to facilitate physiotherapists to become confident in delivering the new service. Outcomes collected from the run-in and main trial were length of telephone calls within the PhysioDirect service and patients’ physical function (SF-36v2 questionnaire) and Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile v2 collected at baseline and six months. Joinpoint regression determined how long it had taken call times to stabilise. Analysis of covariance determined whether patients’ physical function at six months changed from the run-in to the main trial. Results Mean PhysioDirect call times (minutes) were higher in the run-in (31 (SD: 12.6)) than in the main trial (25 (SD: 11.6)). Each physiotherapist needed to answer 42 (95% CI: 20,56) calls for their mean call time to stabilise at 25 minutes per call; this took a minimum of seven weeks. For patients’ physical function, PhysioDirect was equally clinically effective as usual care during both the run-in (0.17 (95% CI: -0.91,1.24)) and main trial (-0.01 (95% CI: -0.80,0.79)). Conclusions A run-in was not needed in a large trial testing PhysioDirect services in terms of patient outcomes. A learning curve was evident in the process measure of telephone call length. This decreased during the run-in and stabilised prior to commencement of the main trial. Future trials should build in a run-in if it is anticipated that learning would have an effect on patient outcome

Severity Assessment of Lower Respiratory Tract Infection in Malawi: Derivation of a Novel Index (SWAT-Bp) Which Outperforms CRB-65

OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity of CRB-65 (Confusion, Respiratory rate >30 breaths/min, BP<90/60 mmHg, age >65 years) as a pneumonia severity index in a Malawian hospital population, and determine whether an alternative score has greater accuracy in this setting. DESIGN: Forty three variables were prospectively recorded during the first 48 hours of admission in all patients admitted to Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital, Malawi, for management of lower respiratory tract infection over a two month period (N = 240). Calculation of sensitivity and specificity for CRB-65 in predicting mortality was followed by multivariate modeling to create a score with superior performance in this population. RESULTS: Median age 37, HIV prevalence 79.9%, overall mortality 18.3%. CRB-65 predicted mortality poorly, indicated by the area under the ROC curve of 0.649. Independent predictors of death were: Male sex, “S” (AOR 2.6); Wasting, “W” (AOR 6.6); non-ambulatory, “A” (AOR 2.5); Temp >38°C or <35°C, “T” (AOR 3.2); BP<100/60, “Bp” (AOR 3.7). Combining these factors to form a severity index (SWAT-Bp) predicted mortality with high sensitivity and specificity (AUC: 0.867). Mortality for scores 0–5 was 0%, 3.3%, 7.4%, 29.2%, 61.5% and 87.5% respectively. A score ≥3 was 84% sensitive and 77% specific for mortality prediction, with a negative predictive value of 95.8%. CONCLUSION: CRB-65 performs poorly in this population. The SWAT-Bp score can accurately stratify patients; ≤2 indicates non-severe infection (mortality 4.4%) and ≥3 severe illness (mortality 45%)

Fluid challenges in intensive care: the FENICE study A global inception cohort study

Fluid challenges (FCs) are one of the most commonly used therapies in critically ill patients and represent the cornerstone of hemodynamic management in intensive care units. There are clear benefits and harms from fluid therapy. Limited data on the indication, type, amount and rate of an FC in critically ill patients exist in the literature. The primary aim was to evaluate how physicians conduct FCs in terms of type, volume, and rate of given fluid; the secondary aim was to evaluate variables used to trigger an FC and to compare the proportion of patients receiving further fluid administration based on the response to the FC.This was an observational study conducted in ICUs around the world. Each participating unit entered a maximum of 20 patients with one FC.2213 patients were enrolled and analyzed in the study. The median [interquartile range] amount of fluid given during an FC was 500 ml (500-1000). The median time was 24 min (40-60 min), and the median rate of FC was 1000 [500-1333] ml/h. The main indication for FC was hypotension in 1211 (59 %, CI 57-61 %). In 43 % (CI 41-45 %) of the cases no hemodynamic variable was used. Static markers of preload were used in 785 of 2213 cases (36 %, CI 34-37 %). Dynamic indices of preload responsiveness were used in 483 of 2213 cases (22 %, CI 20-24 %). No safety variable for the FC was used in 72 % (CI 70-74 %) of the cases. There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients who received further fluids after the FC between those with a positive, with an uncertain or with a negatively judged response.The current practice and evaluation of FC in critically ill patients are highly variable. Prediction of fluid responsiveness is not used routinely, safety limits are rarely used, and information from previous failed FCs is not always taken into account