Search

Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to examine the impact of antipyretic therapy on mortality in critically ill septic adults.Data Sources: Literature searches were implemented in Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and ClinicalTrials.gov through February 2016.Study Selection: Inclusion criteria were observational or randomized studies of septic patients, evaluation of antipyretic treatment, mortality reported, and English-language version available. Studies were excluded if they enrolled pediatric patients, patients with neurologic injury, or healthy volunteers. Criteria were applied by two independent reviewers.Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently extracted data and evaluated methodologic quality. Outcomes included mortality, frequency of shock reversal, acquisition of nosocomial infections, and changes in body temperature, heart rate, and minute ventilation. Randomized and observational studies were analyzed separately.Data Synthesis: Eight randomized studies (1,507 patients) and eight observational studies (17,432 patients) were analyzed. Antipyretic therapy did not reduce 28-day/hospital mortality in the randomized studies (relative risk, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.77-1.13; I = 0.0%) or observational studies (odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.54-1.51; I = 76.1%). Shock reversal (relative risk, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.68-1.90; I = 51.6%) and acquisition of nosocomial infections (relative risk, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.61-2.09; I = 61.0%) were also unchanged. Antipyretic therapy decreased body temperature (mean difference, -0.38°C; 95% CI, -0.63 to -0.13; I = 84.0%), but not heart rate or minute ventilation.Conclusions: Antipyretic treatment does not significantly improve 28-day/hospital mortality in adult patients with sepsis.This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the accuracy of bedside ultrasound for confirmation of central venous catheter position and exclusion of pneumothorax compared with chest radiography.Data Sources: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, reference lists, conference proceedings and ClinicalTrials.gov.Study Selection: Articles and abstracts describing the diagnostic accuracy of bedside ultrasound compared with chest radiography for confirmation of central venous catheters in sufficient detail to reconstruct 2 × 2 contingency tables were reviewed. Primary outcomes included the accuracy of confirming catheter positioning and detecting a pneumothorax. Secondary outcomes included feasibility, interrater reliability, and efficiency to complete bedside ultrasound confirmation of central venous catheter position.Data Extraction: Investigators abstracted study details including research design and sonographic imaging technique to detect catheter malposition and procedure-related pneumothorax. Diagnostic accuracy measures included pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio.Data Synthesis: Fifteen studies with 1,553 central venous catheter placements were identified with a pooled sensitivity and specificity of catheter malposition by ultrasound of 0.82 (0.77-0.86) and 0.98 (0.97-0.99), respectively. The pooled positive and negative likelihood ratios of catheter malposition by ultrasound were 31.12 (14.72-65.78) and 0.25 (0.13-0.47). The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound for pneumothorax detection was nearly 100% in the participating studies. Bedside ultrasound reduced mean central venous catheter confirmation time by 58.3 minutes. Risk of bias and clinical heterogeneity in the studies were high.Conclusions: Bedside ultrasound is faster than radiography at identifying pneumothorax after central venous catheter insertion. When a central venous catheter malposition exists, bedside ultrasound will identify four out of every five earlier than chest radiography. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

B Learning Objectives: b Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) for central venous catheter (CVC) placement is now recognized as a best practice that is endorsed by national agencies and is reflected in national quality measures used for public reporting and reimbursement. Earlier literature reported CVC placement to be associated with mechanical complications including CVC malposition (up to 14%) and iatrogenic pneumothorax (up to 3.3%) of internal jugular vein and subclavian vein CVC insertion attempts. Eligible patients included any ED or ICU patient with placement of an internal jugular vein or subclavian vein CVC insertion attempt. [Extracted from the article]