Search

Background: We recently reported the results for a large randomized controlled trial of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) versus conventional tidal volume (CTVV) during major surgery when positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) was equal between groups. We found no difference in postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) in patients who received LTVV. However, in the subgroup of patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, LTVV was associated with a numerically lower rate of PPCs after surgery. We aimed to further assess the relationship between LTVV versus CTVV during laparoscopic surgery. Methods: We conducted a post-hoc analysis of this pre-specified subgroup. All patients received volume-controlled ventilation with an applied PEEP of 5 cmH2O and either LTVV (6 mL/kg predicted body weight [PBW]) or CTVV (10 mL/kg PBW). The primary outcome was the incidence of a composite of PPCs within seven days. Results: Three hundred twenty-eight patients (27.2%) underwent laparoscopic surgeries, with 158 (48.2%) randomised to LTVV. Fifty two of 157 patients (33.1%) assigned to LTVV and 72 of 169 (42.6%) assigned to conventional tidal volume developed PPCs within 7 days (unadjusted absolute difference, − 9.48 [95% CI, − 19.86 to 1.05]; p = 0.076). After adjusting for pre-specified confounders, the LTVV group had a lower incidence of the primary outcome than patients receiving CTVV (adjusted absolute difference, − 10.36 [95% CI, − 20.52 to − 0.20]; p = 0.046). Conclusion: In this post-hoc analysis of a large, randomised trial of LTVV we found that during laparoscopic surgeries, LTVV was associated with a significantly reduced PPCs compared to CTVV when PEEP was applied equally between both groups. Trial registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry no: 12614000790640. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Furosemide is commonly prescribed in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI). Existing data from observational studies and small clinical trials have significant limitations and have reported conflicting findings. There remains controversy on whether furosemide can impact clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with AKI; however, a survey of intensivists and nephrologists showed equipoise for high-quality evidence on this important issue. Design/Methods: This protocol summarizes the rationale and design of a phase II randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial of a low-dose continuous infusion of furosemide, titrated to the physiology parameter of urine output, in critically ill patients with early AKI. Two hundred sixteen adult critically ill patients with early evidence of AKI, defined by the RIFLE criteria, will be enrolled. Included patients will also have fulfilled ≥2 criteria of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome and achieved immediate goals of acute resuscitation. The primary outcome is progression in severity of kidney injury. Secondary outcomes include: safety, fluid balance, electrolyte balance, the need for renal replacement therapy, duration of AKI, rate of renal recovery, mortality and changes in novel serum and urine biomarkers of AKI. The primary analysis will be intention-to-treat. Planned recruitment will be complete by June 2011 and results available by December 2011. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00978354 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The issue of organ donation and of how the donor pool can or should be increased is one with significant practical, ethical and logistic implications. Here we comment on an article advocating a paradigm change in the so-called "dead donor rule". Such change would involve the societal and legal abandonment of the above rule and the introduction of mandated choice. In this commentary, we review some of the problems associated with the proposed changes as well as the problems associated with the current model. We emphasize the continuing problems with the definition of death and the physiological process of dying; we discuss the difficulties associated with a dichotomous view of death; we review the difficulties with non-beating heart donation and emphasize the current limitations of society's understanding of these complex issues. We conclude that public education remains the best approach and that such education should not be merely promotion of a particular ideology but honest debate of what is socially and morally acceptable and appropriate given the changes in vital organ support technology and the need to respect patient autonomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]