19 Jul 08
Posted in Cardiac arrest/Resuscitation at 18:29 by Laci
By P-Y Gueugniaud, J-S David, E Chanzy, H Hubert, P-Y Dubien, et al
NEJM 2008;359:21-30
During the administration of advanced cardiac life support for resuscitation from cardiac arrest, a combination of vasopressin and epinephrine may be more effective than epinephrine or vasopressin alone, but evidence is insufficient to make clinical recommendations.
Methods
In a multicenter study, we randomly assigned adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest to receive successive injections of either 1 mg of epinephrine and 40 IU of vasopressin or 1 mg of epinephrine and saline placebo, followed by administration of the same combination of study drugs if spontaneous circulation was not restored and subsequently by additional epinephrine if needed. The primary end point was survival to hospital admission; the secondary end points were return of spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital discharge, good neurologic recovery, and 1-year survival.
Results
A total of 1442 patients were assigned to receive a combination of epinephrine and vasopressin, and 1452 to receive epinephrine alone. The treatment groups had similar baseline characteristics except that there were more men in the group receiving combination therapy than in the group receiving epinephrine alone (P=0.03). There were no significant differences between the combination-therapy and the epinephrine-only groups in survival to hospital admission (20.7% vs. 21.3%; relative risk of death, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.05), return of spontaneous circulation (28.6% vs. 29.5%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.06), survival to hospital discharge (1.7% vs. 2.3%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.02), 1-year survival (1.3% vs. 2.1%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.02), or good neurologic recovery at hospital discharge (37.5% vs. 51.5%; relative risk, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.81 to 2.06).
Conclusions
As compared with epinephrine alone, the combination of vasopressin and epinephrine during advanced cardiac life support for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest does not improve outcome.
Permalink
31 May 08
Posted in Arrhythmia, Cardiac arrest/Resuscitation at 16:26 by Laci
By M Haïssaguerre, N Derval, F Sacher, L Jesel, I Deisenhofer, L de Roy, J-L Pasquié, A Nogami et al
N Engl J Med 2008;358:2016-2023
Early repolarization is a common electrocardiographic finding that is generally considered to be benign. Its potential to cause cardiac arrhythmias has been hypothesized from experimental studies, but it is not known whether there is a clinical association with sudden cardiac arrest.
Method
We reviewed data from 206 case subjects at 22 centers who were resuscitated after cardiac arrest due to idiopathic ventricular fibrillation and assessed the prevalence of electrocardiographic early repolarization. The latter was defined as an elevation of the QRS–ST junction of at least 0.1 mV from baseline in the inferior or lateral lead, manifested as QRS slurring or notching. The control group comprised 412 subjects without heart disease who were matched for age, sex, race, and level of physical activity. Follow-up data that included the results of monitoring with an implantable defibrillator were obtained for all case subjects.
Result
Early repolarization was more frequent in case subjects with idiopathic ventricular fibrillation than in control subjects (31% vs. 5%, P<0.001). Among case subjects, those with early repolarization were more likely to be male and to have a history of syncope or sudden cardiac arrest during sleep than those without early repolarization. In eight subjects, the origin of ectopy that initiated ventricular arrhythmias was mapped to sites concordant with the localization of repolarization abnormalities. During a mean (±SD) follow-up of 61±50 months, defibrillator monitoring showed a higher incidence of recurrent ventricular fibrillation in case subjects with a repolarization abnormality than in those without such an abnormality (hazard ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.2 to 3.5; P=0.008).
Conclusions
Among patients with a history of idiopathic ventricular fibrillation, there is an increased prevalence of early repolarization.
Permalink
10 Jul 06
Posted in Cardiac arrest/Resuscitation, Hypothermia at 17:53 by Laci
By RM Merchant, J Soar, MB Skrifvars, T Silfvast, DP Edelson, F Ahmad, et al
Critical Care Medicine 2006;34:1865-1873
We sought to evaluate current physician use of therapeutic hypothermia after cardiac arrest, to ascertain reasons for nonadoption of this treatment, and to determine current cooling techniques employed.
Design
Web-based survey.
Setting
International physician cohort in the United States, UK, and Finland.
Subjects
Physicians (MD or DO) caring for resuscitated cardiac arrest patients.
Interventions
An anonymous Web-based survey was distributed to physicians identified through United States-based critical care, cardiology, and emergency medicine directories and critical care networks in the UK and Finland. Recipients were queried regarding use of postresuscitation therapeutic hypothermia.
Measurements and Main Results
Of the final 13,272 surveys actually distributed to physicians, 2,248 (17%) were completed. Most respondents were attending physicians (82%) at teaching hospitals (76%) who practiced critical care (35%), cardiology (20%), or emergency medicine (22%). Of all replies, 74% of United States respondents and 64% of non-United States respondents had never used therapeutic hypothermia. United States emergency medicine physician adoption of cooling was significantly less than that of United States intensivists (16% vs. 34%, p < .05). The most often cited reasons for nonuse by respondents were "not enough data," "not part of Advanced Cardiac Life Support guidelines," and "too technically difficult to use." Factors associated with increased use included non-United States residence, critical care specialty, and larger hospital size.
Conclusions
Physician utilization of cooling after cardiac arrest remains low. For improved adoption of therapeutic hypothermia, our data suggest that development of better cooling methodology and recent incorporation into resuscitation guidelines may improve use.
Permalink
28 Mar 06
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