Essentially, another study to nail the coffin shut for using n-acetylcysteine to prevent contrast-induced acute kidney injury.
Month: September 2011
Rivaroxaban Can Be Reversed, But Not Dabigatran
We all hate coumadin – difficult to control levels and causes life-threatening bleeding, but at least we can measure its activity and reverse it in a straightforward manner. However, coumadin’s days are at an end with the approval of the new oral anticoagulants – and the two most extensively evaluated are dabigatran (direct thrombin inhibitor) and rivaroxaban (factor Xa inhibitor).
Predicting Poor-Performing Residents
This is an entertaining look into the residency training experience in the United States, which is renowned for its brutality in certain specialities. As far as sleep-deprivation goes, it ranks right up there with some of the lowest quality of life professional jobs.
More Platelets In Massive Transfusion
Where are we going to get all these blood products? The rapidly growing body of literature backing early transfusion of FFP and platelets in massive transfusion protocols continues to tilt towards the 1:1:1 ratio.
This is a retrospective review of whether platelet transfusion impacts survival in trauma. They identify three categories of ratios of platelets to RBCs (>1:20, 1:2, and 1:1) and measure a variety of different outcomes. Briefly, more platelets helped with survival to 24 hours, but more platelets also increased multi-organ failure. In the end, the initial survival differences were great enough that they outweighed the additional multi-organ failure for a significant survival benefit (52% vs. 57% vs. 70%).
They exclude 25 patients who died within an hour in an effort to mitigate survival bias. However, looking at the breakdown of survival times, it looks as though almost all the mortality benefit to increased platelet ratios was realized in the first 6 hours – and then the mortality numbers worsen in tandem after that. The authors state they were unable to truly quantify retrospectively whether the patients survived because they received more platelets vs. whether patients surviving longer were able to receive more platelets, and note that prospective trials will need to be performed.
I would also note that a significant portion of their high ratio patients also received Factor VII, for whatever that’s worth.
So, we continue to await high quality prospective trials that specifically address the impact of survival bias.
“Increased Platelet:RBC Ratios Are Associated With Improved Survival After Massive Transfusion.”
http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Abstract/2011/08003/Increased_Platelet_RBC_Ratios_Are_Associated_With.2.aspx
Impedance Threshold Devices Are Useless
So, supposedly, impedance threshold devices installed inline for ventilation during CPR potentially improve hemodynamics via negative intrathoracic pressure. This is a prospective, randomized, multi-center, placebo-controlled sham study that really meets a very high standard for internal validity. Over 4000 patients in the ITD group, the sham ITD group, and the not-enrolled comparison cohort.
Short summary:
– Minimal differences between groups.
– 27.8% sham vs. 27.1% active device ROSC in the ED.
– 8.2% sham vs. 8.2% active device discharge from the hospital.
– No apparent harms from the ITD device, but no benefits either.
The most important point from this article is that we have gotten sloppy in our rush to implement supposedly new and beneficial therapies in medicine. Hypothermia, TPA for stroke, Factor VIIa, direct thrombin inhibitors, etc. and we should add impedance threshold devices to the list. The AHA has had ITD as a class IIa recommendation to improve hemodynamics since 2005 – six years of useless therapy and costs based solely on a theoretical model without proof of improved outcomes. Hammering this point home never gets old.
“A Trial of an Impedance Threshold Device in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.”
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21879897
More Mistakes In An Unfamiliar System
Probably tells us what we already know – and likely underestimates the problem.
Epinephrine Neither Wins Nor Fails
The crux of the problem – epinephrine continues to improve short-term ROSC with uncertain long-term outcome improvement.
This is a prospective out-of-hospital arrest study from Australia in which epinephrine or saline placebo was given to patients during resuscitation by EMS. And, like many studies before it, it fails to show a meaningful difference between patients receiving epinephrine and patients receiving placebo. Rather, their primary outcome of survival to hospital discharge had 1.9% with placebo and 4.0% with epinephrine – but this result was not statistically significant with a p-value of 0.15.
Of course, what the lack of statistical significance means in this case is that this difference could have occurred by chance 15 times out of 100 times they performed this study – which, while not meeting the gold standard of 5 out of 100, is still a reasonably interesting clinical trend. Like all studies before it, the short-term endpoints met statistical significance, including ROSC of 8.4% for placebo and 23.5% for epinephrine. There are a few confounding differences between groups: more placebo patients had witnessed arrest, although the number with bystander CPR was the same; more placebo patients were endotracheally intubated in the field, which usually confers a survival disadvantage; and more epinephrine patients were ultimately transported to the hospital from the field.
So, there’s two ways to look at it: 1) epinephrine works, and we just need to figure out how to salvage more of those ROSC or 2) epinephrine is flogging far too great a number of lost husks back to life that will go on to consume ICU resources and expire regardless.
But, if we’re not going to give epinephrine, how do we otherwise look busy during a code? And, what happens downstream to our epinephrine ROSC that fail to leave the hospital or the ER, and can we prevent it?
I am still not sure what the right answer is – like many diseases, cardiac arrest patients are a heterogenous group in which there is almost certainly a subset of patients that benefits from epinephrine, but we don’t yet know who that might be.
“Effect of adrenaline on survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial.”
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21745533
Thanks to @cliffreid of Resus M.E! for first noting this article.
Sternal IO is the Best IO
All our cardiac arrest patients roll in these days with an IO in place – and we are full proponents of rapid, successful access in the uncontrolled field environment. But, how effective is it really in the CPR situation?
So, this is an animal study that tries to address the theoretical efficacy of intraosseous access versus central venous access. They use injection of dye tracers into Yorkshire swine for a comparison between intraosseous sternal, intraosseous tibial, and external jugular central venous cannulation.
Unfortunately, this is a good news/bad news study. The good news – peak concentrations were achieved only slightly more slowly in the arterial circulation following sternal intraosseus injection than the gold standard central venous injection. And, the peak concentrations were nearly identical. Bad news, the tibial IO was half the speed and half the arterial peak concentration of the sternal IO.
In theory, this is of relative importance depending on which medication you’re using – presumably the speed of administration matters in CPR and peak concentration may matter as well. Of course, this is limited as 1) pigs and 2) efficacy vs. effectiveness, because they’re not measuring clinical outcomes.
But it’s interesting to worry about. Too bad it’s hard to do chest compressions with your access point where your hands are supposed to go. It would be interesting to compare this result to a humeral head IO.
“Pharmacokinetics of Intraosseous and Central Venous Drug Delivery During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21871857
New Pediatrics UTI Guidelines
For children between 2 and 24 months of age, the relevant high points for EM:
– Don’t use bag urines. Catheterization or suprapubic aspiration is the only acceptable way to make a diagnosis. However, if you’re stuck, and you have to use a bag, a completely normal bag urine is diagnostic.
– Send a culture to definitively establish the diagnosis based on pyuria and/or bacteruria and the presence of at least 50,000 CFU/mL of a uropathogen.
– Oral antibiotic recommendations listed include amoxicillin-clavulanate, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and a range of oral cephalosporins for at least 7 days. They do not have any evidence to compare 7, 10, and 14 day courses. Nitrofurantoin is not appropriate.
Nothing terribly earthshaking – seems all pretty reasonable.
“Urinary Tract Infection: Clinical Practice Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of the Initial UTI in Febrile Infants and Children 2 to 24 Months.”
pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/08/24/peds.2011-1330
When Does a Repeat Head CT Have Value?
Not practice-changing, but an interesting observational report regarding when these authors found value in performing a repeat head CT after minor head trauma.
Specifically, they looked at a subgroup of patients whose initial head CT was normal after blunt trauma, but received a repeat head CT an average of ~8 hours later for an abnormal neurologic examination. These abnormal neurologic examinations were further stratified into three groups – a “persistently abnormal” exam, a “acute deterioration” in neurologic examination, and a catchall “unknown” group. The first two groups had mean GCS of 12.4 and 14.5 – but the reason why the “unknown” group is what it is – their average GCS is 4.
They found that repeating the head CT in the 61 patients they had with persistently abnormal neurologic examinations did lead to some worsening of the initial findings – but did not change management in any cases. However, 6 of the 21 patients who had an acute deterioration had a change in management, as well as 1 patient in the unknown group.
Small sample, but interesting, nonetheless.
“Utility of Repeat Head Computed Tomography in Patients With an Abnormal Neurologic Examination After Minimal Head Injury.”
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21857258