Therapeutic Hypothermia Following Cardiopulmonary Arrest: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis

Introduction

The risk-benefit profile of therapeutic hypothermia is controversial with several randomized controlled trials providing conflicting results.

Aim of Study

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine if therapeutic hypothermia provides beneficial neurologic outcomes relative to adverse effects.

Material and Methods

MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of post-cardiac arrest patients comparing therapeutic hypothermia (~33 degrees Celsius) to normothermia or the standard of care (36 - 38 degrees Celsius). Data were collected using the Covidence systematic review software. Statistical analysis was performed by Review Manager software. Risk of bias, sensitivity, and heterogeneity were analyzed using the Cochran's Collaboration tool, trial sequential analysis (TSA) software, and I2 statistic respectively.

Results

A total of 1825 studies were screened and 5 studies (n=3614) were included. No significant differences existed between the hypothermia group and normothermia for favorable neurologic outcome (risk ratio [RR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97 to 1.41) or all-cause mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.05). When compared to normothermia, the hypothermia group had greater risk of adverse effects (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.28), which was driven by the onset of arrhythmias. Subgroup analyses revealed that therapeutic hypothermia provided greater neurologic benefit in trials with a higher percentage of subjects with shockable rhythms (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.6 to 0.88). Trial sequential analysis revealed statistical futility for therapeutic hypothermia and favorable neurologic outcome, mortality, and adverse effects.

Conclusions

Therapeutic hypothermia does not provide consistent benefit in neurologic outcome or mortality in the general cardiac arrest population. Patients with shockable rhythms may show favorable neurologic outcome with therapeutic hypothermia and further investigation in this population is warranted. Any potential benefit associated with therapeutic hypothermia must be weighed against the increased risk of adverse effects, particularly the onset of arrhythmias.

Critical Care Pharmacy Services in United States Hospitals

Background:

Critical care pharmacy activities have been described as fundamental, desirable, and optimal, but actual services provided have not been evaluated.

Objective:

To characterize the type and level of pharmacy services provided to intensive care units (ICUs).

Methods:

A 38 question survey was sent in 2 consecutive mailings to all US institutions (N = 3238) with an ICU. Questions were categorized according to clinical, educational, administrative, and scholarly activities, with levels of services stratified as fundamental, desirable, or optimal.

Results:

Completed surveys were received from 382 (11.8%) institutions encompassing 1034 ICUs. Direct clinical pharmacy activities were provided at 62.2% of ICUs. The pharmacists in those programs attended rounds 4.4 ± 1.5 days/wk, mean ± SD, and had a workweek that consisted of patient care (43% of hours worked), drug distribution (26.2%), administration (12.6%), education (10.9%), and scholarly activities (7.3%). Fundamental clinical activities performed during at least 75% of patient ICU days were providing drug information, drug therapy evaluation, drug therapy intervention, and pharmacokinetic monitoring. Conducting inservices (92.8%), a fundamental service, was the only educational activity frequently provided. Most respondents were involved with at least one multidisciplinary committee, and 45.5% conducted scholarly activities. Desirable or optimal activities were not frequently provided across all service categories.

Conclusions:

Clinical pharmacists are directly involved as caregivers in nearly two-thirds of ICUs in the US. Although they provide a range of clinical and administrative services, involvement in educational and scholarly activities is variable. The level of services provided is consistent with the criteria deemed fundamental for improving patient care. Higher-order services are far less likely to be provided.

Guidelines for reporting case studies on extracorporeal treatments in poisonings: methodology

A literature review performed by the EXtracorporeal TReatments In Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup highlighted deficiencies in the existing literature, especially the reporting of case studies. Although general reporting guidelines exist for case studies, there are none in the specific field of extracorporeal treatments in toxicology. Our goal was to construct and propose a checklist that systematically outlines the minimum essential items to be reported in a case study of poisoned patients undergoing extracorporeal treatments. Through a modified two-round Delphi technique, panelists (mostly chosen from the EXTRIP workgroup) were asked to vote on the pertinence of a set of items to identify those considered minimally essential for reporting complete and accurate case reports. Furthermore, independent raters validated the clarity of each selected items between each round of voting. All case reports containing data on extracorporeal treatments in poisoning published in Medline in 2011 were reviewed during the external validation rounds. Twenty-one panelists (20 from the EXTRIP workgroup and an invited expert on pharmacology reporting guidelines) participated in the modified Delphi technique. This group included journal editors and experts in nephrology, clinical toxicology, critical care medicine, emergency medicine, and clinical pharmacology. Three independent raters participated in the validation rounds. Panelists voted on a total of 144 items in the first round and 137 items in the second round, with response rates of 96.3% and 98.3%, respectively. Twenty case reports were evaluated at each validation round and the independent raters' response rate was 99.6% and 98.8% per validation round. The final checklist consists of 114 items considered essential for case study reporting. This methodology of alternate voting and external validation rounds was useful in developing the first reporting guideline for case studies in the field of extracorporeal treatments in poisoning. We believe that this guideline will improve the completeness and transparency of published case reports and that the systematic aggregation of information from case reports may provide early signals of effectiveness and/or harm, thereby improving healthcare decision-making.

The EXTRIP (EXtracorporeal TReatments In Poisoning) workgroup: guideline methodology

Extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs), such as hemodialysis and hemoperfusion, are used in poisoning despite a lack of controlled human trials demonstrating efficacy. To provide uniform recommendations, the EXTRIP group was formed as an international collaboration among recognized experts from nephrology, clinical toxicology, critical care, or pharmacology and supported by over 30 professional societies. For every poison, the clinical benefit of ECTR is weighed against associated complications, alternative therapies, and costs. Rigorous methodology, using the AGREE instrument, was developed and ratified. Methods rely on evidence appraisal and, in the absence of robust studies, on a thorough and transparent process of consensus statements. Twenty-four poisons were chosen according to their frequency, available evidence, and relevance. A systematic literature search was performed in order to retrieve all original publications regardless of language. Data were extracted on a standardized instrument. Quality of the evidence was assessed by GRADE as: High = A, Moderate = B, Low = C, Very Low = D. For every poison, dialyzability was assessed and clinical effect of ECTR summarized. All pertinent documents were submitted to the workgroup with a list of statements for vote (general statement, indications, timing, ECTR choice). A modified Delphi method with two voting rounds was used, between which deliberation was required. Each statement was voted on a Likert scale (1-9) to establish the strength of recommendation. This approach will permit the production of the first important practice guidelines on this topic.

Impact of alvimopan (entereg) on hospital costs after bowel resection: results from a large inpatient database

PURPOSE

Delayed gastrointestinal (GI) recovery after bowel resection is associated with longer hospital stays and increased health care costs. Alvimopan (Entereg), a peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonist, accelerates GI recovery after bowel-resection surgery. We undertook a study to evaluate the economic impact of alvimopan in clinical practice.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective matched cohort study using data from a large national hospital database and identified adults who had undergone small-bowel or large-bowel resection with primary anastomosis. The patients were discharged between January 1, 2009, and June 30, 2009. The surgery was performed at a hospital where alvimopan was used at least once during the study period. We matched each alvimopan patient ("user") with two controls ("non-users"). The primary outcome of total hospital costs (including the cost of alvimopan) and secondary outcomes of cost components and length of stay were compared between groups.

RESULTS

The final study cohort included 480 alvimopan patients and 960 matched controls. The mean total hospital cost was $12,865 for alvimopan patients, compared with $13,905 for controls, for a difference of $1,040 (P = 0.033). There was a non-significant trend toward lower ileus-related costs between groups ($83 for alvimopan vs. $114 for controls, P = 0.086). Pharmacy and diagnostic radiology costs did not differ significantly. The mean length of stay was 5.6 days for alvimopan patients and 6.5 days for controls (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving alvimopan capsules had significantly lower total hospital costs compared with controls. Along with other initiatives to improve quality and reduce costs of surgical care, alvimopan might be a good choice for use in the perioperative management of patients who undergo segmental bowel resection with primary anastomosis.

Alvimopan (entereg) for the management of postoperative ileus in patients undergoing bowel resection

Postoperative ileus (POI) after open abdominal surgery and bowel resection can lead to significant patient discomfort, morbidity, and prolonged length of stay in the hospital. Several factors have been implicated in the pathophysiology of POI, including surgical manipulation of the bowel, inflammation, inhibitory neural reflexes, and endogenous and exogenous opioids. Alvimopan (Entereg), approved by the FDA to accelerate upper and lower gastrointestinal (GI) recovery following partial large-bowel or small- bowel resection with primary anastomosis, represents a potential advance in the care of these patients. In five randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 clinical trials, alvimopan, compared with placebo, accelerated the time to GI recovery and hospital discharge status after bowel resection. In this article, we review the formulary details of alvimopan for in-hospital management of POI following this procedure.

Treatment of hepatorenal syndrome

Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is a type of renal failure that occurs in patients with advanced cirrhosis. It is a result of splanchnic arterial vasodilation, renal vasoconstriction, reduced effective arterial volume, and potentially reduced cardiac output. Often, HRS is a fatal complication, and the only definitive treatment currently available is liver or liver-kidney transplantation. A number of other treatment modalities have been tested for the management of HRS, but most evidence is derived from small noncontrolled studies. The primary role of these treatment options is to provide a bridge to liver transplantation. Treatment may also provide acute reversal of renal failure and some symptomatic relief, but relapse is a common occurrence. The best therapeutic options appear to be those that reverse portal hypertension, splanchnic vasodilation, and/or renal vasoconstriction. Vasopressin analogs, particularly terlipressin, have emerged as the preferred pharmacologic therapies for management of HRS. Albumin is an appropriate adjunctive therapy to terlipressin and can be used to prevent HRS in patients with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt may provide a surgical option for qualified patients with HRS. Octreotide is ineffective as monotherapy but may be used as adjunctive therapy to other vasoactive agents. Dopamine agonists, endothelin antagonists, natriuretic peptides, and nitric oxide synthase inhibitors have not been effective for reversing HRS. Artificial hepatic support therapies have demonstrated the ability to improve laboratory abnormalities in patients with HRS, but their effect on clinical outcomes has not been determined. The role of renal replacement therapies or the newer artificial hepatic support therapies need further evaluation before they can be routinely recommended.