Search

The authors argue for the need to consider patient safety when deciding on whether to recommend the use of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) for all indications. They discuss the basis of recommendations from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) Coordination Group for Mutual Recognition and Decentralised Procedures--Human (CMDh) that HES may be used in severe haemorrhage. A brief background on the suspension of HES licensing by the EMA Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) is included.

The article discusses the relevant moral issues at stake with respect to heart donation and transplantation following circulatory death. It notes that a 5-minute "no touch" period may ensure both due confirmation of a spontaneously irrecoverable dying process while offering the donor's family enough time with their deceased loved-one and greater sense and understanding of the finality of the situation. It notes how wasting time is illogical and injurious to both parties.

Objectives: To examine long-term survival and quality of life of patients with early septic shock.Design: Prospective, randomized, parallel-group trial.Setting: Fifty-one hospitals in Australia, New Zealand, Finland, Hong Kong, and the Republic of Ireland.Patients: One-thousand five-hundred ninety-one patients who presented to the emergency department with early septic shock between October 2008 and April 2014, and were enrolled in the Australasian Resuscitation in Sepsis Evaluation trial.Interventions: Early goal-directed therapy versus usual care.Measurements and Main Results: Long-term survival was measured up to 12 months postrandomization. Health-related quality of life was measured using the EuroQoL-5D-3L, Short Form 36 and Assessment of Quality of Life 4D at baseline, and at 6 and 12 months following randomization. Mortality data were available for 1,548 patients (97.3%) and 1,515 patients (95.2%) at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Health-related quality of life data were available for 85.1% of survivors at 12 months. There were no significant differences in mortality between groups at either 6 months (early goal-directed therapy 21.8% vs usual care 22.6%; p = 0.70) or 12 months (early goal-directed therapy 26.4% vs usual care 27.9%; p = 0.50). There were no group differences in health-related quality of life at either 6 or 12 months (EuroQoL-5D-3L utility scores at 12 mo early goal-directed therapy 0.65 ± 0.33 vs usual care 0.64 ± 0.34; p = 0.50), with the health-related quality of life of both groups being significantly lower than population norms.Conclusions: In patients presenting to the emergency department with early septic shock, early goal-directed therapy compared with usual care did not reduce mortality nor improve health-related quality of life at either 6 or 12 months. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: We compared a restrictive fluid management strategy to usual care among critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) who had received initial fluid resuscitation.Methods: This multicenter feasibility trial randomized 100 AKI patients 1:1 in seven ICUs in Europe and Australia. Restrictive fluid management included targeting negative or neutral daily fluid balance by minimizing fluid input and/or enhancing urine output with diuretics administered at the discretion of the clinician. Fluid boluses were administered as clinically indicated. The primary endpoint was cumulative fluid balance 72 h from randomization.Results: Mean (SD) cumulative fluid balance at 72 h from randomization was - 1080 mL (2003 mL) in the restrictive fluid management arm and 61 mL (3131 mL) in the usual care arm, mean difference (95% CI) - 1148 mL (- 2200 to - 96) mL, P = 0.033. Median [IQR] duration of AKI was 2 [1-3] and 3 [2-7] days, respectively (median difference - 1.0 [- 3.0 to 0.0], P = 0.071). Altogether, 6 out of 46 (13%) patients in the restrictive fluid management arm and 15 out of 50 (30%) in the usual care arm received renal replacement therapy (RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.16-0.91), P = 0.043. Cumulative fluid balance at 24 h and 7 days was lower in the restrictive fluid management arm. The dose of diuretics was not different between the groups. Adverse events occurred more frequently in the usual care arm.Conclusions: In critically ill patients with AKI, a restrictive fluid management regimen resulted in lower cumulative fluid balance and less adverse events compared to usual care. Larger trials of this intervention are justified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Erythropoietin might have neurocytoprotective effects. In this trial, we studied its effect on neurological recovery, mortality, and venous thrombotic events in patients with traumatic brain injury.Methods: Erythropoietin in Traumatic Brain Injury (EPO-TBI) was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial undertaken in 29 centres (all university-affiliated teaching hospitals) in seven countries (Australia, New Zealand, France, Germany, Finland, Ireland, and Saudi Arabia). Within 24 h of brain injury, 606 patients were randomly assigned by a concealed web-based computer-generated randomisation schedule to erythropoietin (40,000 units subcutaneously) or placebo (0·9% sodium chloride subcutaneously) once per week for a maximum of three doses. Randomisation was stratified by severity of traumatic brain injury (moderate vs severe) and participating site. With the exception of designated site pharmacists, the site dosing nurses at all sites, and the pharmacists at the central pharmacy in France, all study personnel, patients, and patients' relatives were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome, assessed at 6 months by modified intention-to-treat analysis, was improvement in the patients' neurological status, summarised as a reduction in the proportion of patients with an Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS-E) of 1-4 (death, vegetative state, and severe disability). Two equally spaced preplanned interim analyses were done (after 202 and 404 participants were enrolled). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00987454.Findings: Between May 3, 2010, and Nov 1, 2014, 606 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to erythropoietin (n=308) or placebo (n=298). Ten of these patients (six in the erythropoietin group and four in the placebo group) were lost to follow up at 6 months; therefore, data for the primary outcome analysis was available for 596 patients (302 in the erythropoietin group and 294 in the placebo group). Compared with placebo, erythropoietin did not reduce the proportion of patients with a GOS-E level of 1-4 (134 [44%] of 302 patients in the erythropoietin group vs 132 [45%] of 294 in the placebo group; relative risk [RR] 0·99 [95% CI 0·83-1·18], p=0·90). In terms of safety, erythropoietin did not significantly affect 6-month mortality versus placebo (32 [11%] of 305 patients had died at 6 months in the erythropoietin group vs 46 [16%] of 297 [16%] in the placebo group; RR 0·68 [95% CI 0·44-1·03], p=0·07) or increase the occurrence of deep venous thrombosis of the lower limbs (48 [16%] of 305 vs 54 [18%] of 298; RR 0·87 [95% CI 0·61-1·24], p=0·44).Interpretation: Following moderate or severe traumatic brain injury, erythropoietin did not reduce the number of patients with severe neurological dysfunction (GOS-E level 1-4) or increase the incidence of deep venous thrombosis of the lower limbs. The effect of erythropoietin on mortality remains uncertain.Funding: The National Health and Medical Research Council and the Transport Accident Commission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]