Angiotensin II for the Treatment of Vasodilatory Shock

BACKGROUND Vasodilatory shock that does not respond to high-dose vasopressors is associated with high mortality. We investigated the effectiveness of angiotensin II for the treatment of patients with this condition. METHODS We randomly assigned patients with vasodilatory shock who were receiving more than 0.2 mu g of norepinephrine per kilogram of body weight per minute or the equivalent dose of another vasopressor to receive infusions of either angiotensin II or placebo. The primary end point was a response with respect to mean arterial pressure at hour 3 after the start of infusion, with response defined as an increase from baseline of at least 10 mm Hg or an increase to at least 75 mm Hg, without an increase in the dose of background vasopressors. RESULTS A total of 344 patients were assigned to one of the two regimens; 321 received a study intervention (163 received angiotensin II, and 158 received placebo) and were included in the analysis. The primary end point was reached by more patients in the angiotensin II group (114 of 163 patients, 69.9%) than in the placebo group (37 of 158 patients, 23.4%) (odds ratio, 7.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.76 to 13.3; P<0.001). At 48 hours, the mean improvement in the cardiovascular Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (scores range from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating more severe dysfunction) was greater in the angiotensin II group than in the placebo group (-1.75 vs. -1.28, P = 0.01). Serious adverse events were reported in 60.7% of the patients in the angiotensin II group and in 67.1% in the placebo group. Death by day 28 occurred in 75 of 163 patients (46%) in the angiotensin II group and in 85 of 158 patients (54%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.07; P = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS Angiotensin II effectively increased blood pressure in patients with vasodilatory shock that did not respond to high doses of conventional vasopressors. (Funded by La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company; ATHOS-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02338843.)Peer reviewe

Management of new onset loss of sense of smell during the COVID-19 pandemic - BRS Consensus Guidelines

OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of the study is to provide recommendations for the investigation and management of patients with new onset loss of sense of smell during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: After undertaking a literature review, we used the RAND/UCLA methodology with a multi-step process to reach consensus about treatment options, onward referral, and imaging. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: An expert panel consisting of 15 members was assembled. A literature review was undertaken prior to the study and evidence was summarised for the panellists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The panel undertook a process of ranking and classifying appropriateness of different investigations and treatment options for new onset loss of sense of smell during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a 9-point Likert scale, panellists scored whether a treatment was: Not recommended, optional, or recommended. Consensus was achieved when more than 70% of responses fell into the category defined by the mean. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on the majority of statements after 2 rounds of ranking. Disagreement meant no recommendation was made regarding one treatment, using Vitamin A drops. Alpha-lipoic acid was not recommended, olfactory training was recommended for all patients with persistent loss of sense of smell of more than 2 weeks duration, and oral steroids, steroid rinses, and omega 3 supplements may be considered on an individual basis. Recommendations regarding the need for referral and investigation have been made. CONCLUSION: This study identified the appropriateness of olfactory training, different medical treatment options, referral guidelines and imaging for patients with COVID-19-related loss of sense of smell. The guideline may evolve as our experience of COVID-19 develops

CSF Rhinorrhea After Endonasal Intervention to the Skull Base (CRANIAL) — Part 2:Impact of COVID-19

Background During the pandemic, there has been a concern about the increased risk of perioperative mortality for patients with COVID-19, and the transmission risk to healthcare workers, particularly during endonasal neurosurgical operations. The Pituitary Society produced recommendations to guide management during this era. We sought to assess contemporary neurosurgical practice and the impact of COVID-19. Methods A multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study was conducted at twelve tertiary neurosurgical units (UK and Ireland). Data were collected from March 23rd-July 31st, 2020 inclusive. Data points collected were patient demographics, pre-operative COVID-19 testing, intra-operative operative modifications, and 30-day COVID infection rates. Results 124 patients were included. 116 patients (n=116/124, 94%) underwent COVID-19 testing pre-operatively (TSA: 97/105, 92%; EEA: 19/19, 100%). One patient (n=1/115, 1%) tested positively for COVID-19 pre-operatively, requiring a delay of operation until the infection was confirmed as resolved. Asides from transient diabetes insipidus; no other complications were reported for this case. All theatre staff wore at least level 2 PPE. Adaptations to surgical techniques included minimising drilling, draping modifications, and using nasal iodine wash. At 30 days postoperatively, there was no evidence of COVID infection (symptoms or on formal testing) in our cohort, and no mortality. Conclusions Preoperative screening protocols and operative modifications have facilitated endonasal neurosurgery during the COVID-19 pandemic, with Pituitary Society guidelines followed for the majority of these operations. There was no evidence of COVID infection in our cohort, and no mortality, supporting the use of risk mitigation strategies to continue endonasal neurosurgery in subsequent pandemic waves

CSF Rhinorrhoea After Endonasal Intervention to the Skull Base (CRANIAL) - Part 1: Multicenter Pilot Study

Background: CRANIAL (CSF Rhinorrhoea After Endonasal Intervention to the Skull Base) is a prospective, multicentre observational study seeking to determine: (1) the scope of skull base repair methods used; and (2) corresponding rates of postoperative CSF rhinorrhoea in endonasal transsphenoidal (TSA) expanded endonasal approaches (EEA) for skull base tumours. We sought to pilot the project - assessing the feasibility and acceptability by gathering preliminary data. / Methods: A prospective, observational cohort pilot study was carried out at twelve tertiary UK neurosurgical units. Feedback regarding project positives and challenges were qualitatively analysed. / Results: 187 cases were included, 159 TSA (85%) and 28 EEA (15%). The most common pathologies included: pituitary adenomas (n=141/187), craniopharyngiomas (n=13/187) and skull-base meningiomas (n=4/187). The most common skull base repair techniques used were tissue glues (n=132/187, most commonly Tisseel®), grafts (n=94/187, most commonly fat autograft or Spongostan™) and vascularised flaps (n=51/187, most commonly nasoseptal). These repairs were most frequently supported by nasal packs (n=125/187) and lumbar drains (n=22/187). Biochemically-confirmed CSF rhinorrhoea occurred in 6/159 (3.8%) TSA and 2/28 (7.1%) EEA. Four TSA (3%) and two EEA (7%) cases required operative management for CSF rhinorrhoea (CSF diversion or direct repair). Qualitative feedback was largely positive (themes included: user-friendly and efficient data collection, strong support from senior team members) demonstrating acceptability. / Conclusions: Our pilot experience highlights the acceptability and feasibility of CRANIAL. There is a precedent for multicentre dissemination of this project, in order to establish a benchmark of contemporary skull base neurosurgery practice, particularly with respect to EEA cases

CSF Rhinorrhoea After Endonasal Intervention to the Skull Base (CRANIAL) - Part 1:Multicenter Pilot Study

Background CRANIAL (CSF Rhinorrhoea After Endonasal Intervention to the Skull Base) is a prospective, multicentre observational study seeking to determine: (1) the scope of skull base repair methods used; and (2) corresponding rates of postoperative CSF rhinorrhoea in endonasal transsphenoidal (TSA) expanded endonasal approaches (EEA) for skull base tumours. We sought to pilot the project - assessing the feasibility and acceptability by gathering preliminary data. Methods A prospective, observational cohort pilot study was carried out at twelve tertiary UK neurosurgical units. Feedback regarding project positives and challenges were qualitatively analysed. Results 187 cases were included, 159 TSA (85%) and 28 EEA (15%). The most common pathologies included: pituitary adenomas (n=141/187), craniopharyngiomas (n=13/187) and skull-base meningiomas (n=4/187). The most common skull base repair techniques used were tissue glues (n=132/187, most commonly Tisseel®), grafts (n=94/187, most commonly fat autograft or Spongostan™) and vascularised flaps (n=51/187, most commonly nasoseptal). These repairs were most frequently supported by nasal packs (n=125/187) and lumbar drains (n=22/187). Biochemically-confirmed CSF rhinorrhoea occurred in 6/159 (3.8%) TSA and 2/28 (7.1%) EEA. Four TSA (3%) and two EEA (7%) cases required operative management for CSF rhinorrhoea (CSF diversion or direct repair). Qualitative feedback was largely positive (themes included: user-friendly and efficient data collection, strong support from senior team members) demonstrating acceptability. Conclusions Our pilot experience highlights the acceptability and feasibility of CRANIAL. There is a precedent for multicentre dissemination of this project, in order to establish a benchmark of contemporary skull base neurosurgery practice, particularly with respect to EEA cases. Keywords Cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhoeaCSFCerebrospinal fluid leakskull base surgeryendoscopic endonasalEE