Association of Vasopressin Plus Catecholamine Vasopressors vs Catecholamines Alone With Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Distributive Shock

Importance Vasopressin is an alternative to catecholamine vasopressors for patients with distributive shock—a condition due to excessive vasodilation, most frequently from severe infection. Blood pressure support with a noncatecholamine vasopressor may reduce stimulation of adrenergic receptors and decrease myocardial oxygen demand. Atrial fibrillation is common with catecholamines and is associated with adverse events, including mortality and increased length of stay (LOS). Objectives To determine whether treatment with vasopressin + catecholamine vasopressors compared with catecholamine vasopressors alone was associated with reductions in the risk of adverse events. Data Sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to February 2018. Experts were asked and meta-registries searched to identify ongoing trials. Study Selection Pairs of reviewers identified randomized clinical trials comparing vasopressin in combination with catecholamine vasopressors to catecholamines alone for patients with distributive shock. Data Extraction and Synthesis Two reviewers abstracted data independently. A random-effects model was used to combine data. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was atrial fibrillation. Other outcomes included mortality, requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT), myocardial injury, ventricular arrhythmia, stroke, and LOS in the intensive care unit and hospital. Measures of association are reported as risk ratios (RRs) for clinical outcomes and mean differences for LOS. Results Twenty-three randomized clinical trials were identified (3088 patients; mean age, 61.1 years [14.2]; women, 45.3%). High-quality evidence supported a lower risk of atrial fibrillation associated with vasopressin treatment (RR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.88]; risk difference [RD], −0.06 [95% CI, −0.13 to 0.01]). For mortality, the overall RR estimate was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82 to 0.97; RD, −0.04 [95% CI, −0.07 to 0.00]); however, when limited to trials at low risk of bias, the RR estimate was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.11). The overall RR estimate for RRT was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.51 to 1.08; RD, −0.07 [95% CI, −0.12 to −0.01]). However, in an analysis limited to trials at low risk of bias, RR was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.53 to 0.92, P for interaction = .77). There were no significant differences in the pooled risks for other outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the addition of vasopressin to catecholamine vasopressors compared with catecholamines alone was associated with a lower risk of atrial fibrillation. Findings for secondary outcomes varied

Substance abuse and intimate partner violence: treatment considerations

Given the increased use of marital- and family-based treatments as part of treatment for alcoholism and other drug disorders, providers are increasingly faced with the challenge of addressing intimate partner violence among their patients and their intimate partners. Yet, effective options for clinicians who confront this issue are extremely limited. While the typical response of providers is to refer these cases to some form of batterers' treatment, three fundamental concerns make this strategy problematic: (1) most of the agencies that provide batterers' treatment only accept individuals who are legally mandated to complete their programs; (2) among programs that do accept nonmandated patients, most substance-abusing patients do not accept such referrals or drop out early in the treatment process; and (3) available evidence suggests these programs may not be effective in reducing intimate partner violence. Given these very significant concerns with the current referral approach, coupled with the high incidence of IPV among individuals entering substance abuse treatment, providers need to develop strategies for addressing IPV that can be incorporated and integrated into their base intervention packages

Effects of resuscitation with crystalloid fluids on cardiac function in patients with severe sepsis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The use of hypertonic crystalloid solutions, including sodium chloride and bicarbonate, for treating severe sepsis has been much debated in previous investigations. We have investigated the effects of three crystalloid solutions on fluid resuscitation in severe sepsis patients with hypotension.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Ninety-four severe sepsis patients with hypotension were randomly assigned to three groups. The patients received the following injections within 15 min at initial treatment: Ns group (n = 32), 5 ml/kg normal saline; Hs group (n = 30), with 5 ml/kg 3.5% sodium chloride; and Sb group (n = 32), 5 ml/kg 5% sodium bicarbonate. Cardiac output (CO), systolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure (MAP), body temperature, heart rate, respiratory rate and blood gases were measured.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There were no differences among the three groups in CO, MAP, heart rate or respiratory rate during the 120 min trial or the 8 hour follow-up, and no significant differences in observed mortality rate after 28 days. However, improvement of MAP and CO started earlier in the Sb group than in the Ns and Hs groups. Sodium bicarbonate increased the base excess but did not alter blood pH, lactic acid or [HCO₃]^-values; and neither 3.5% hypertonic saline nor 5% sodium bicarbonate altered the Na⁺, K⁺, Ca²⁺or Cl^-levels.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>All three crystalloid solutions may be used for initial volume loading in severe sepsis, and sodium bicarbonate confers a limited benefit on humans with severe sepsis.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ISRCTN36748319.</p

Does Left Atrial Appendage Amputation During Routine Cardiac Surgery Reduce Future Atrial Fibrillation and Stroke?

Purpose of Review: Stroke is the most feared complication of atrial fibrillation. To prevent stroke, left atrial appendage exclusion has been targeted, as it is the prevalent site for formation of heart thrombi during atrial fibrillation. We review the historic development of methods for exclusion of the left atrial appendage and the evidence to support its amputation during routine cardiac surgery. Recent Findings: Evidence is not yet sufficient to routinely recommend left atrial exclusion during heart surgery, despite a high prevalence of postoperative atrial fibrillation. Observational studies indicate that electrical isolation of scarring from clip or suture techniques reduces the arrhythmogenic substrate. Summary: Randomized studies comparing different methods of closure of the left atrial appendage before amputation do not exist. Such studies are therefore warranted, as well as studies that can elucidate whether amputation is superior to leaving the left atrial appendage stump. Potentially, thrombogenic remaining pouch after closure should be addressed.</p