28 Mar 06
Posted in General, Non-invasive ventilation at 18:56 by Laci
By KM Ho, K Wong
Critical Care 2006, 10:R49 http://ccforum.com/content/10/2/R49
Introduction
We conducted the present study to investigate the potential beneficial and adverse effects of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) compared with bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP) noninvasive ventilation in patients with cardiogenic pulmonary oedema.
Method
We included randomized controlled studies comparing CPAP and BiPAP treatment in patients with cardiogenic pulmonary oedema from the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (2005 issue 3), and EMBASE and MEDLINE databases (1966 to 1 December 2005), without language restriction. Two reviewers reviewed the quality of the studies and independently performed data extraction.
Results
Seven randomized controlled studies, including a total of 290 patients with cardiogenic pulmonary oedema, were considered. The hospital mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32–1.78; P = 0.52; I2 = 0%) and risk for requiring invasive ventilation (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.33–1.94; P = 0.62; I2 = 0%) were not significantly different between patients treated with CPAP and those treated with BiPAP. Stratifying studies that used either fixed or titrated pressure during BiPAP treatment and studies involving patients with or without hypercapnia did not change the results. The duration of noninvasive ventilation required until the pulmonary oedema resolved (weighted mean difference [WMD] in hours = 3.65, 95% CI -12.12 to +19.43; P = 0.65, I2 = 0%) and length of hospital stay (WMD in days = -0.04, 95% CI -2.57 to +2.48; P = 0.97, I2 = 0%) were also not significantly different between the two groups. Based on the limited data available, there was an insignificant trend toward an increase in new onset acute myocardial infarction in patients treated with BiPAP (RR 2.10, 95% CI 0.91–4.84; P = 0.08; I2 = 25.3%).
Conclusion
BiPAP does not offer any significant clinical benefits over CPAP in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema. Until a large randomized controlled trial shows significant clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of BiPAP versus CPAP in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema, the choice of modality will depend mainly on the equipment available.
Permalink
Posted in Cardiac arrest/Resuscitation, General at 18:55 by Laci
By JJ De Waele, E AJ Hoste and M LNG Malbrain
Critical Care 2006, 10:R51 http://ccforum.com/content/10/2/R51
Introduction
Abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) is increasingly recognized in critically ill patients, and the deleterious effects of increased intraabdominal pressure (IAP) are well documented. Surgical decompression through a midline laparotomy or decompressive laparotomy remains the sole definite therapy for ACS, but the effect of decompressive laparotomy has not been studied in large patient series.
Methods
We reviewed English literature from 1972 to 2004 for studies reporting the effects of decompressive laparotomy in patients with ACS. The effect of decompressive laparotomy on IAP, patient outcome and physiology were analysed.
Results
Eighteen studies including 250 patients who underwent decompressive laparotomy could be included in the analysis. IAP was significantly lower after decompression (15.5 mmHg versus 34.6 mmHg before, p < 0.001), but intraabdominal hypertension persisted in the majority of the patients. Mortality in the whole group was 49.2% (123/250). The effect of decompressive laparotomy on organ function was not uniform, and in some studies no effect on organ function was found. Increased PaO2/FIO2 ratio (PaO2 = partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood, FiO2 = fraction of inspired oxygen) and urinary output were the most pronounced effects of decompressive laparotomy.
Conclusion
The effects of decompressive laparotomy have been poorly investigated, and only a small number of studies report its effect on parameters of organ function. Although IAP is consistently lower after decompression, mortality remains considerable. Recuperation of organ dysfunction after decompressive laparotomy for ACS is variable.
Permalink
Posted in Critical Care, Infection, Sepsis at 18:53 by Laci
By P Damas, C Garweg, M Monchi, M Nys, JL Canivet, D Ledoux and JC Preiser
Critical Care 2006, 10:R52 http://ccforum.com/content/10/2/R52
Introduction
Combination antibiotic therapy for ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) is often used to broaden the spectrum of activity of empirical treatment. The relevance of such synergy is commonly supposed but poorly supported. The aim of the present study was to compare the clinical outcome and the course of biological variables in patients treated for a VAP, using a monotherapy with a beta-lactam versus a combination therapy.
Methods
Patients with VAP were prospectively randomised to receive either cefepime alone or cefepime in association with amikacin or levofloxacin. Clinical and inflammatory parameters were measured on the day of inclusion and thereafter.
Results
Seventy-four mechanically ventilated patients meeting clinical criteria for VAP were enrolled in the study. VAP was microbiologically confirmed in 59 patients (84%). Patients were randomised to receive cefepime (C group, 20 patients), cefepime with amikacin (C-A group, 19 patients) or cefepime with levofloxacin (C-L group, 20 patients). No significant difference was observed regarding the time course of temperature, leukocytosis or C-reactive protein level. There were no differences between length of stay in the intensive care unit after infection, nor in ventilator free days within 28 days after infection. No difference in mortality was observed.
Conclusion
Antibiotic combination using a fourth generation cephalosporin with either an aminoside or a fluoroquinolone is not associated with a clinical or biological benefit when compared to cephalosporin monotherapy against common susceptible pathogens causing VAP.
Permalink
Posted in Critical Care, Pneumonia, Procalcitonin, Sepsis at 18:53 by Laci
By S Gaïni, OG Koldkjær, C Pedersen and SS Pedersen
Critical Care 2006, 10:R53 http://ccforum.com/content/10/2/R53
Introduction
Clinicians are in need of better diagnostic markers in diagnosing infections and sepsis. We studied the ability of procalcitonin, lipopolysaccharide-binding protein, IL-6 and C-reactive protein to identify patients with infection and sepsis.
Methods
Plasma and serum samples were obtained on admission from patients with suspected community-acquired infections and sepsis. Procalcitonin was measured with a time-resolved amplified cryptate emission technology assay. Lipopolysaccharide-binding protein and IL-6 were measured with a chemiluminescent immunometric assay.
Results
Of 194 included patients, 106 had either infection without systemic inflammatory response syndrome or sepsis. Infected patients had significantly elevated levels of procalcitonin, lipopolysaccharide-binding protein, C-reactive protein and IL-6 compared with noninfected patients (P < 0.001). In a receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis, C-reactive protein and IL-6 performed best in distinguishing between noninfected and infected patients, with an area under the curve larger than 0.82 (P < 0.05). IL-6, lipopolysaccharide-binding protein and C-reactive protein performed best in distinguishing between systemic inflammatory response syndrome and sepsis, with an area under the curve larger than 0.84 (P < 0.01). Procalcitonin performed best in distinguishing between sepsis and severe sepsis, with an area under the curve of 0.74 (P < 0.01).
Conclusion
C-reactive protein, IL-6 and lipopolysaccharide-binding protein appear to be superior to procalcitonin as diagnostic markers for infection and sepsis in patients admitted to a Department of Internal Medicine. Procalcitonin appears to be superior as a severity marker.
Permalink
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »