Shenfu!

I will readily admit I am stepping outside the bounds of my expertise with this post – with respect to the “shenfu injection” and its effects on physiology. The authors describe shenfu as “originated from Shenfu decoction, a well-known traditional Chinese formulation restoring ‘Yang’ from collapse, tonifying ‘Qi’ for relieving desertion”. More specifically, from a physiologic standpoint: “Ginsenosides and aconite alkaloids are the main active ingredients in Shenfu. Ginsenosides are the determinant contributor to the vasodilator benefit of Shenfu, whereas the alkaloids play a vital role in the cardiac electrophysiological effect of Shenfu by blocking ion channels”. In China, a pharmacologic shenfu distillate is used routinely to treat sepsis and septic shock as a 100mL daily injection – and this is a placebo-controlled trial endeavoring to demonstrate its efficacy.

At face value, the trial appears reasonable – a targeted enrollment of 160 patients with a goal of detecting a 20% difference in mortality at 28-days, based on an expected overall mortality of 40%. Their primary outcome, however, were the co-primary outcomes of “length of ICU stay, the duration of vasopressor use, illness severity, and the degree of organ dysfunction.” A proper study, of course, has a single primary outcome – and, considering the study was powered for a mortality difference, this patient-oriented outcome probably ought to have been made primary.

Regardless, from the results presented here, it is reasonable to suggest this is promising and worthy of additional evaluation. Several outcomes – ICU LOS, APACHE II score, and duration of vasopressor us – reached statistical significance favoring the intervention. The mortality outcome did not meet statistical significance with the intervention at 20.5% and the placebo at 27.8%. However, an absolute mortality improvement of 7.3% is nothing to sneeze at – and I would be happy to see more work performed to replicate or generalize these results.

“Shenfu injection for improving cellular immunity and clinical outcome in patients with sepsis or septic shock”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28029485

More CLEAR!

Ah, the CLEAR trial – a trial evaluating the efficacy of intraventricular injections of alteplase for intracerebral hemorrhage with acute obstructive hydrocephalus. In other words, treating brain bleeds with an agent responsible for brain bleeds. It is not quite as nonsensical as it seems, however, as improved resolution of the intraventricular blood is linked to improved outcomes.

This trial, however, performed over the course of six years and enrolling 500 patients, fails to find anything reliable in favor of alteplase – a rather inconsequential end to a decade’s worth of build-up from the initial and phase II trial. At the end of the day, there was no significant difference between either treatment with regard to the primary outcome, patients attaining a mRS of 0-3.

It should also be noted the preliminary results from this trial were presented last year at the International Stroke Conference with breathless coverage:
CLEAR III: tPA Clot Removal Hope for Intraventricular Hemorrhage

Along with the lead author stating “This treatment saves lives. Our results suggest that physicians should begin to think about using it for stable hemorrhagic stroke patients.”

Which, now that we can all review the results together, is obviously not the case – nor is it their conclusion in the published article. These results do raise some questions – mortality was lower in the intervention group, and patients with improve clot evacuation also tended to do better – regarding potential subgroups for benefit. However, without further prospective data to confirm these signals, this intervention should continue to be reserved for controlled trials.

“Thrombolytic removal of intraventricular haemorrhage in treatment of severe stroke: results of the randomised, multicentre, multiregion, placebo-controlled CLEAR III trial”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28081952

Some Old News About Thrombolysis Before Endovascular Therapy

We’ve spent a little bit of energy on this blog teasing out the appropriate indications for endovascular therapy, and and we’ve used a few of those words to discuss whether thrombolysis prior to is necessary. I am of the opinion: probably not.

It turns out, there are many other prominent neurologists who share that same opinion. Unfortunately, this article is just a rehash of prior data without any new specific insight. Of course, the lay medical press does their typical job of creating definitive, misleading headlines:
Stroke: No Benefit from Adding tPA to Thrombectomy
No Benefit for IV tPA Before Mechanical Thrombectomy in Ischemic Stroke

This is a small post-hoc analysis of the 291 patients undergoing treatment in the SWIFT and STAR trials. Of these, 131 did not receive thrombolysis prior to intervention, with the most common exclusion being either presence of an elevated INR and oral anticoagulation or symptom onset being >4 hours prior to hospital arrival. Other, less common exclusions included blood pressure exclusions, hypoglycemia, and prior strokes. Some patients also received bridging tPA or reduced-dose tPA, as determined appropriate by the interventionalist.

In such a small analysis such as this, little reliable can be made of the results – except to generally say there was no obvious signal confirming nor refuting the appropriateness of thrombolysis prior to intervention. Hemorrhagic complications were similar between groups, as were patient-oriented outcomes. At the least, they offer the appropriate weak conclusion supported by these data: prospective trials are reasonable.

“Combined Intravenous Thrombolysis and Thrombectomy vs Thrombectomy Alone for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Pooled Analysis of the SWIFT and STAR Studies”
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/article-abstract/2596239

Does FEIBA Work for NOACs?

“Maybe”?

The novel oral anticoagulants – dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban – have spread in use quite rapidly. There is weak evidence supporting the use of idarucizumab for emergency reversal of dabigatran, and even weaker evidence regarding the use of adenxanet alfa. Prothrombin concentrate complexes seem to be efficacious for the Factor Xa inhibitors – but what about factor eight inhibitor bypassing agent?

This small case series from Pittsburgh addresses this question in the least helpful fashion: 11 patients and no comparison group. These 11 patients, most of whom were on rivaroxaban, received 20mg/kg of FEIBA for emergency reversal of anticoagulation in the setting of traumatic intracranial hemorrhage. The authors report 6 of these 11 had stable ICH on repeat CT following initial diagnosis, and, therefore, FEIBA is a potentially safe reversal option.

Of course, the full accounting requires us to mention the remainder of patients had radiographic progression of their injuries despite FEIBA. Most injuries were minor and not expected to have elevated 30-day mortality – and, unsurprisingly then, most survived. In the patients demonstrating substantial derangement of laboratory measures of coagulation, most showed profound improvement of the PT following FEIBA administration. Two patients also suffered subsequent thromboembolic events.

So, yes, FEIBA may be a treatment option for the Factor Xa inhibitors – but this hardly supports routine use outside a study setting as these authors seem to be doing.

“Factor Eight Inhibitor Bypassing Agent (FEIBA) for Reversal of Target-Specific Oral Anticoagulants in Life-Threatening Intracranial Bleeding”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28007364

Insight Is Insufficient

In this depressing trial, we witness a disheartening truth – physicians won’t necessarily do better, even if they know they’re not doing well.

This study tested a mixed educational and peer comparison intervention on primary care physicians in Switzerland, with an end goal of improving antibiotic stewardship for common ambulatory complaints. The “worst-performing” 2,900 physicians with respect to antibiotic prescribing rates were enrolled and randomized to the study intervention or none. The study intervention consisted of materials regarding appropriate prescribing, along with personalized feedback regarding where their prescribing rate ranked compared to the entire national cohort. The core of their hypothesis involved whether just this passive knowledge regarding their peer performance would exert normalizing influence over their practice.

Unfortunately, despite providing these physicians with this insight, as well as tools for improvement, the net effect of their intervention was effectively zero. There were some observations regarding changes in prescribing rates for certain age groups, and for certain types of antibiotics, but dredging through these secondary outcomes leads to only unreliable conclusions.

This is not particularly surprising data. These sorts of passive feedback mechanisms unhitched from material consequences have never previously been shown to be effective. There are other, more effective mechanisms – focused education, decision-support interventions, and shared decision-making – but, for a fragmented, national health system, this represented a relatively inexpensive model to test.

Try again!

“Personalized Prescription Feedback Using Routinely Collected Data to Reduce Antibiotic Use in Primary Care”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28027333

No Mandate for Hyperbaric Therapy in CO Poisoning

The new year – actually, the end of the old year – brings us a new update on the management of carbon monoxide poisoning, as distilled into an ACEP Clinical Policy statement. There are three elements to their update, addressing specific management questions in the context of carbon monoxide toxicity:

  • Don’t rely exclusively on non-invasive means for CO measurement.
  • Hyperbaric oxygen therapy is neither proven nor disproven of benefit.
  • Cardiac testing provides useful prognostic information.

The most impactful recommendation of the three is the one for HBO therapy, which is either dismissed out-of-hand or pursued with such zealotry that eligible patients are airlifted to far-flung dive chambers for treatment. In theory, HBO therapy helps reduce the delayed neuropathology and cognitive burden related to lipid peroxidation and other toxic metabolites. However, these authors appropriately synthesize the low-quality evidence into a conclusion that HBO therapy has no proven advantage to high-flow oxygen.

As with any therapy for which the evidence is poor, there are proponents on both sides and substantial practice variation. This Clinical Policy does not state HBO is inappropriate or not beneficial for carbon monoxide poisoning, merely the evidence is inconclusive. Sometimes, when the evidence is insufficient to provide an answer, the magnitude of benefit is small or clinically unimportant. In this case, I’m not even sure such a conclusion regarding the scope of benefit can be made – the foundational evidence is simply too unreliable to make any practice-influencing recommendations.

“Clinical Policy: Critical Issues in the Evaluation and Management of Adult Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department With Acute Carbon Monoxide Poisoning”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27993310

Taking Post-Arrest to the Cath Lab

There has been a fair bit of debate regarding the utility of taking post-arrest patients to cardiac catheterization. Clearly, ST-elevation myocardial infarction should receive intervention – although, it can sometimes be challenging to identify on post-arrest EKG. Much less has been determined regarding the treatment of those without STEMI.

This is – as is most of the relevant literature – a retrospective review of patients with cardiac arrest, as identified from a multi-center therapeutic hypothermia registry. These authors record the location of arrest, previously known coronary artery disease, the initial rhythm as shockable or unshockable, and EKG findings. They defined clinically important CAD by the presence of an intervention following cardiac catheterization, including PCI, stenting, or coronary artery bypass grafting.

Entertainingly, the authors hypothesis is “the incidence of coronary intervention would be uncommon (<5%)” – which, if it truly is their hypothesis, it is contradicted by most of their citations, including a meta-analysis citing an overall incidence of CAD in post-arrest patients ranging from 59-71%. Regardless, there were 1,396 patients with known initial rhythms, about 2/3rds of which were non-shockable. About 60% of shockable rhythms and 20% of unshockable rhythms underwent cardiac catheterization. After removing those with obvious STEMI on their EKG, there were 97 patients in their cohort of interest, 24 (24.7%) of whom underwent intervention.

This, therefore, is the “unexpectedly high” incidence of coronary intervention in this non-shockable rhythm cohort without STEMI on EKG. However, as these authors do appropriately note, these data should not specifically inform practice change. The findings in those patients undergoing catheterization are skewed by selection bias, including measured and unmeasured confounders influencing the decision to take patients for potential intervention. In an older population characteristic of a cardiac arrest cohort, some coronary disease is likely on any diagnostic test – and, in this clinical context, it seems intervention would be much more likely than not. Finally, intervention does not equate to a culprit lesion for cardiac arrest, further distancing these results as a surrogate for patient-oriented outcomes.

Despite the “surprise” these authors report, they likely overestimate any evidence for benefit in this post-arrest population, and better characterization of specific high-yield circumstances is needed.

“Incidence of coronary intervention in cardiac arrest survivors with non-shockable initial rhythms and no evidence of ST-elevation MI (STEMI)”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27888672

Chest X-Ray Utility in Syncope Lost in Translation

Again, straight out of the ACEP Daily News briefing: “Patients Presenting To ED With Complaints Of Syncope Should Still Undergo Routine Chest X-Rays, Research Suggests.”

This accurately reports the lead of the linked lay medical press article: “ED Patients With Syncope Should Undergo Chest X-Rays

But, it does not accurately reflect the authors’ discussion or conclusions regarding the utility of chest x-ray in syncope.

This is a retrospective evaluation of patients presenting with syncope and having a chest x-ray between 2003 and 2006 – a secondary analysis of the “Boston Syncope Criteria” study. There were 575 patients included in their analysis, 116 of whom had a defined adverse event within 30 days. Of the patients with positive findings on CXR, 15 of those 18 went on to have an adverse event – and I presume this association led to the perpetuation of this headline.

However, in the greater context: only 18 patients out of 575 had abnormal CXR findings, and even the vast majority of patients with adverse events had normal normal CXR findings. Then, an obvious selection bias should be clear with regard to obtaining CXR in those patients with the appropriate clinical indications – such as a suspicion for CHF or pneumonia. Patients go on to have adverse events because of the morbidity associated with concomitant clinical syndromes, of which the findings on CXR are only one small part of their evaluation.

In short, no, CXR is so low-yield it need not be performed anywhere remotely near routinely in syncope. It may be performed to evaluate a specific presenting symptom related to a syncopal event, but, if anything, these data should indicate it ought be performed less frequently.

“Utility of Chest Radiography in Emergency Department Patients Presenting with Syncope”
http://westjem.com/original-research/utility-of-chest-radiography-in-emergency-department-patients-presenting-with-syncope.html