UMEM Educational Pearls - Critical Care

Acute-On-Chronic Liver Failure

  • Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is defined as an acute deterioration of liver function in a patient with cirrhosis that is associated with organ failure and has high short-term mortality.
  • Key extrahepatic organ failures in ACLF include the renal, CNS, respiratory, circulatory, and coagulation systems.
  • With respect to CNS failure in ACLF:
    • Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is the most common manifestation
    • A normal ammonia level makes HE unlikely
    • Benzodiazepines should be avoided
    • Primary triggers for HE include infection, GIB, and aggressive diuresis
    • Treatment of HE primarily consists of lactulose and rifaximin

Show References



Bottom line: In the 2023 updated Clinical Practice Guideline, the American Burn Association recommends 2ml/kg/%TBSA (for burns >20% TBSA)as initial starting point for fluid administration in the first 48 hours, guided by clinical factors with consideration of supplemental albumin to limit fluid administration. Fresh frozen plasma should be considered in the context of a clinical trial.  Vitamin C and advanced hemodynamic monitoring are not recommended as they have not demonstrated improved outcomes.

Summary: Burn care has a paucity of high-quality research about some of the fundamental questions for resuscitation. The American Burn Association since 2010 has endorsed fluid volumes for patients with >20% TBSA (i.e. those predicted to develop burn shock) from 2ml/kg/%TBSA to 4ml/kg/%TBSA as a starting point for fluid resuscitation. Further clinical studies since then have demonstrated that lower volumes of fluid targeting urine output and other physiological variables are effective without demonstrating clear improvement in patient centered outcomes.  Further adjuncts such as albumin or fresh frozen plasma have demonstrated reduced fluid administration but no improvement in patient-centered outcomes. While “fluid creep” is increasingly recognized, demonstrating benefits in clinical trials will likely remain elusive as overall practice continues to shift towards less fluids and the adjunctive use of colloid will likely continue to expand. In addition to ABA CPGs and resources, the Joint Trauma System also has several useful resources for burn care.

Sources:

https://doi.org/10.1093/jbcr/irad125

https://jts.health.mil/assets/docs/cpgs/Burn_Care_11_May_2016_ID12.pdf



Category: Critical Care

Title: To Start Or Not To Start Vasopressor????

Keywords: vasopressor, norepinephrine, timing, septic shock (PubMed Search)

Posted: 12/5/2023 by Quincy Tran, MD, PhD (Updated: 6/24/2024)
Click here to contact Quincy Tran, MD, PhD

Settings: systemic review and meta-analysis

Participants: 2 RCTs, 21 observational studies. Fifteen studies were published between 2020-2023.

There was a total of 25721 patients with septic shock

Outcome measurement: Primary outcome was short-term mortality (ICU, hospital, 28-day, 30-day). Secondary outcomes included ICU LOS, Hospital LOS, time to achieve MAP > 65 mm Hg,

Study Results:

Composite outcome of short term mortality

  • 20 studies and 17470 patients. Early initiation of vasopressors was associated with lower odds of short term mortality (OR 0.775, 95% CI 0.673-0.893, P<0.001, I2 = 68%).
  • Early initiation of norepinephrine was associated with lower odds of short term mortality (OR 0.656, 95% CI = 0.544 to 0.790, P <0.001, I2 = 57.2%)
  • Early initiation of vasopressin was also associated with lower odds of short term mortality (OR 0.685, 95% CI 0.558-0.840, P < 0.001, I2= 57%)

 Secondary outcome:

  • Early vasopressor group was associated with lower odds of RRT use (OR 0.796, 95% CI 0.654-0.968, P = 0.022, I2 = 0%)
  • Mean Serum lactate levels at 6 hours was similar in early vasopressor group (Mean Difference 0.218, 95% CI -0.642 to 1.079, P = 0.619).
  • However, mean serum lactate levels at 6 hours was lower in early norepinephrine subgroup (mean difference -0.489, 95% CI -0.863 to -0.115, P = 0.01).

Discussion:

  • This appears to be a hot topic. When our group did this topic in 2020, there were 8 or 9 studies. Since 2020, there has been a significant increase in the number of publications, although most publications were observation studies.
  • Early initiation of norepinephrine may reduce fluid overload, not by reducing fluid input, but by improving host inflammatory response, improving endothelial cell barrier stability.
  • Counter-intuitively, early vasopressor was also found to be associated with lower incidence of arrhythmia, which the authors attributed to shorter duration of vasopressors and lower total dosage.

Conclusion

More and more studies, although a RCT is still necessary, are showing that early initiation of vasopressor within 1-6 hours of septic shock would be more beneficial to patients with septic shock.

Show References



Background: 
-Initial lactate clearance over 2 hours has been used to measure pt response to resuscitation in sepsis. However, data supporting its prognostic use is lacking.
 
Study:
-Single center, retrospective cohort study in large academic center
-Adult patients (4,775) admitted through ED with suspected infection
-Lactate clearance defined as 10% decrease in 2 to 12 hrs
-Multivariable logistic regression adjusting for age, sex, cirrhosis, ESRD
 
Results:
-Lactate trajectories highly variable
-Lactate clearance was highly confounded by patient comorbidities (particularly cirrhosis)
-24-h change in peak lactate was a better prognostic indicator (but still poor)
 
Takeaway:
-In the ED, caution should be used when using lactate clearance as a single marker for assessment/prognosis, particularly if the pt has other comorbidities such as cirrhosis

Show References



Building on Dr. Winter's pearl from a couple of weeks ago, this is more evidence that a one-size-fits-all approach to fluid volume for resuscitation in sepsis doesn't fit.
This update to a previous systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 trials concluded that lower-volume IV fluid goals "probably result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality" or "little to no difference in serious adverse events" compared with higher IVF volumes.  
Summary: This is yet another study suggesting that a lower fluid volume goal is probably better, or at least isn't harmful, but is not the pratice-changing paper everyone is looking for.
Happy Thanksgiving Everyone!
 
 
 
 
 

Show References



Category: Critical Care

Title: Steroids for Pneumonia? Here we go again...

Keywords: Pneumonia, Corticosteroids, Steroids, Respiratory Failure, Infection (PubMed Search)

Posted: 11/9/2023 by Mark Sutherland, MD
Click here to contact Mark Sutherland, MD

For the folks who have been in practice for a while, you may be aware of the roller-coaster evidence base looking at steroids for pneumonia.  Once thought to be beneficial and clearly indicated, of late steroids for pneumonia have fallen out of favor.  Hamad et al have published an excellent (and brief) review in Clinical Infectious Diseases which suggests the pendulum might be swinging back in favor of giving steroids to patients with pneumonia.  It's a ~5 minute read, so I recommend glancing through it yourself, but below are my two cents (solely my opinion) on where we are with steroids for pneumonia.

Take Home Points (OPINION ALERT):

1) When you have a condition present that you consider an indication for steroids (e.g. severe COVID-19 for sure; septic shock, s. pneumo infection, and ARDS depending on how you feel about the existing literature) --> strongly consider giving steroids unless there's a contraindication

2) When you have an undifferentiated patient who MAY have one of these conditions (e.g. pneumonia with COVID pending, patient potentially in ARDS or high risk of going into ARDS, etc) who is very sick --> it is reasonable to give steroids (if no contraindication) or not give steroids.  My tendency is to lean towards giving steroids in these cases, but do be aware that society guidelines recommend against steroids here (although debatable if they just haven't caught up to more recent literature)

3) When you have an undifferentiated patient who may have one of these conditions, but is NOT very sick --> I do not think there is significant enough evidence to support empiric steroids

4) Factors that might push you one way or another:

  • Severity of disease (more severe favors giving steroids),
  • Pathogen (COVID-19 and s. pneumo favor steroids),
  • What formulation of steroids you have availabile.  Some of these studies used continuous hydrocortisone infusions, for example, which most hospitals don't routinely do.
  • Comorbidities (uncontrolled diabetes, wound healing issues, risk for opportunistic infections might argue against giving steroids)

Show References



IV Fluid Resuscitation

  • IVF administration is one of the most common interventions in the resuscitation of critically ill patients.
  • The primary goals of IVFs are to augment cardiac output and increase O2 delivery.
  • The amount and type of IVF must take into account the patient's pathophysiology and type of shock.
  • Sepsis remains one of the most common causes of distributive shock in the ED and ICU.
  • Large volumes of IVF in sepsis often do not increase cardiac output and frequently lead to organ congestion.
  • Rather than a fixed dose, an individualized approach to IVFs in sepsis based on the patient's history, exam, labs, monitoring, and serial reassessments is likely to lead to better outcomes. 

Show References



Settings: Retrospective study of a national inpatient database (Japan).

Participants:

  • All patients who were admitted between April 1, 2018 and March 31, 2021 with a SOFA score > 2 on admission day.
  • Propensity score matching using SOFA score at admission was used to group patients according to the first unit of admission. The units of admissions were: ICU, High-dependency unit (HDU, which is also called Intermediate care unit), general ward.

Outcome measurement: Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, after propensity score matching.

Study Results:

  • There were 19770 patients admitted to the IC, 23066 patients in the HDU and 54,234 patients in the ward.
  • There were no significant differences in in-hospital mortality among cohorts with SOFA scores of 3–5.
  • Patients with SOFA => 6 and admitted to the ICU or HDU were associated with lower mortality than patients with same SOFA score but admitted to the ward (Risk difference -2.3 (95% CI -4.6 to -0.1, P=0.041).
  • Patients who had SOFA > 12 and was admitted to the ICU group were associated with significantly lower in-hospital mortality than those with similar SOFA score but was admitted to the HDU (Risk difference -4.3, 95% CI -7.5 to -1.0, P = 0.010)

Discussion:

  • Most of the high SOFA scores among ICU patients were due to norepinephrine or mechanical ventilation.
  • Patients with SOFA 2-5 and were admitted to the ICU/HDU were associated with higher mortality than those admitted to the ward. This was mostly from patients who needed intensive monitoring, and not support for organ failure.
  • ICU admission is also associated with certain adverse events (2).

Conclusion:

Risk-stratifying patients according to SOFA score is a potential strategy for appropriate admission strategies.

 

Show References



Bottom line: As part of a systematic protocol, peripheral pressors administered through a peripheral line greater 22Ga or larger reduced the number of days of central venous catheter (CVC) use in a MICU population at an academic medical center. 35 (5.5%) patients had an extravasation event all with “minimal” tissue injury complications. None required surgery. 51.6% of patients did not require a CVC as a result of the protocol

 

Details

  • Six hundred thirty-five patients received peripherally administered norepinephrine.
  • The median number of CVC days avoided per patient was 1 [IQR 0, 2] days
  • 311 patients (51.6%) never required CVC insertion.
  • Extravasation of norepinephrine occurred in 35 patients (75.8 events/1,000 d of PIVC infusion [95% CI, 52.8-105.4 events/1,000 d of PIVC infusion]).
  • Most extravasations caused no or minimal tissue injury.
  • No patient required surgical intervention.

 

Notes on protocol

PIV were placed and confirmed with US, were between wrist and AC fossa with q2h patency checks. Max allowable dose of NE 15 mcg/min with requirement that patients be able to report pain at site. Initially, max infusion time was set at 48h but was eventually liberalized to indefinite use. 

 

Show References



The BRASH syndrome (Bradycardia, Renal failure, AV nodal blockade, Shock, Hyperkalemia) has been increasingly described in the literature in the past 3-5 years.  

The inciting factor is generally considered to be something that prompts acute kidney injury, often hypovolemia of some sort.  Rather than AV nodal blocker overdose or severe hyperkalemia causing conduction problems, the combination of AV nodal blocker use (most often beta-blockers, but can be any type) and hyperkalemia (often only moderate) has a synergistic effect on cardiac conduction with ensuing bradycardia that can devolve into a cycle of worsening renal perfusion and shock.

Treatment is supportive, but most effective when the syndrome is recognized and all parts simultaneously managed.  ED physicians should be familiar with its existence for targeted whole-syndrome stabilization and to avoid diagnostic delay.

  • Shock – If hypovolemic, IV fluid resuscitation. Concomitantly or if still hypotensive, epinephrine infusion is recommended as it provides both chronotropy and inotropy, and also assists with hyperkalemia.
  • Hyperkalemia – usually mild/moderate; IV calcium for any ECG abnormalities, intracellular shifting medications, and kaliuresis (may require high-dose loop diuretics, with IV fluids if needed to maintain volume)
  • Bradycardia – will usually respond to IV calcium and chronotropy (epinephrine, isoproterenol); pacing rarely but sometimes needed
  • Renal failure – IVF and perfusion support as noted above, but patients may require dialysis if renal failure is severe and hyperkalemia is unable to be medically managed

Show References



Category: Critical Care

Title: CPAP vs HFNC for undifferentiated acute respiratory failure

Keywords: NIPPV, CPAP, HFNC, High Flow, Respiratory Failure (PubMed Search)

Posted: 9/12/2023 by Mark Sutherland, MD
Click here to contact Mark Sutherland, MD

When patients fail simple respiratory support therapies like nasal cannula or non-rebreather, it is often a point of debate whether to move next to High Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) or Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation (NIPPV).  This study randomized patients in acute respiratory failure (ARF) to CPAP, a form of NIPPV, vs HFNC.  They looked at all comers in ARF, and primary outcome was need for intubation.  Importantly, they excluded asthma/COPD exacerbation, for which BiPAP is typically considered the first line therapy due to improved CO2 clearance.

They found a significantly lower number of patients required intubation in the CPAP (28.9%) group than the HFNC (42.6%) group (p=0.006).  They hypothesized that the enhanced PEEP improved oxygenation (hypoxia being a common trigger for moving to intubation), but as opposed to BiPAP,  the lack of additional driving pressure limited tidal volumes and Patient Self-Inflicted Lung Injury (P-SILI), which is a known mechanism of ARDS and mortality.  They use this argument to explain why trials like FLORALI, pitting HFNC vs BiPAP, tend to not find an advantage for the NIPPV arm.  While this rationale makes sense, it should be noted that the study does not directly investigate if this was the reason for the difference, and for what its worth the inverse argument that using driving pressure to reduce respiratory rate, hypercarbia, and work of breathing (other very common indications for intubation) would also theoretically reduce intubations.  Furthermore, it's not clear why reducing P-SILI, which tends to cause mortality on a much longer duration, would improve the short-term outcome of need for intubation.

 

Bottom Line: This study demonstrated a benefit to CPAP over HFNC in terms of decreasing need for intubation amongst non-asthma/non-COPD patients with acute respiratory failure, and offered a physiologic rationale but one that requires further verification and discussion.  While it may be reasonable to choose CPAP instead of HFNC in marginal patients at risk of intubation (but stable enough to trial noninvasive support first), in my opinion more studies are likely needed before a wholesale change in practice.  The study also does not take into consideration the enhanced comfort and compliance we tend to see with HFNC over NIPPV, which should be considered as well.  

Show References



Pearls for the Patient in Cardiogenic Shock

  • Cardiogenic shock is generally defined as tissue hypoperfusion due to ineffective cardiac output.
  • Despite therapeutic advances, 30-day mortality for cardiogenic shock can reach 50%.
  • Though there are several different phenotypes and severity of staging, consider the following pearls in the initial resuscitation of patients with cardiogenic shock:
    • Early arterial line placement for accurate blood pressure monitoring.
    • Supplemental oxygen to maintain O2 > 90%.
    • NIPPV to reduce the work of breathing for patients with pulmonary edema.
    • Use of lung-protective ventilation for patients who require intubation and mechanical ventilation.
    • Vasopressor and inotrope therapy for hemodynamic support.
      • Norepinephrine is the preferred first-line vasopressor. 
      • Dobutamine or milrinone for inotrope support.
    • Early revascularization for patients with cardiogenic shock due to acute MI.

Show References



Settings: Single ICU in Poland, randomized trial

Participants: intubated patients who needed arterial catheter placement. Patients who had adequate access to one axillary and one femoral artery were eligible.

Patients were randomized 1:1 for axillary or femoral artery cannulation.

Outcome measurement: Primary outcome was cannulation success rate. Secondary outcomes were first pass success rate, number of attempts.

Study Results:

  • A total of 109 patients with data: 55 patients in the Axillary group vs. 54 for femoral group.
  • Cannulation success rate for axillary group was 96.4% vs. 96% for femoral group
  • First pass success rate for Axillary group was 69% vs. Femoral group of 74% (p=0.56)
  • Total number of procedural complications (puncture of opposite wall of artery, puncture of adjacent vein, periarterial extravasation, ischemia of extremity) was non-statistically different between groups.

Discussion:

  • There was higher rate of dysfunction of arterial pressure curve among Axillary group (15%) vs. femoral group (2%, P = 0.016).  The reason for this finding is not quite clear.
  • Needle visibility was worse with the femoral group. There were 75% patients with excellent and good view for the Axillary group, vs. 24% for the femoral group. This could be due to the difference between out-of-plane cannulation for femoral group vs. in-plane cannulation for axillary group.
  • There was overall low rate of complications.

Conclusion:

Ultrasound-guided cannulation of the axillary artery via the infraclavicular route is non-inferior to the cannulation of the common femoral artery. When cannulation of the radial or femoral artery is not available, we can consider axillary artery via the infraclavicular approach.

 

 

 

Show References



Background:
There has been interest in vitamin C as an adjunctive therapy in patients with systemic inflammation and vasoplegia to reduce inflammation. While it was suggested that vitamin C may have some benefit (along with hydrocortisone and thiamine) in septic shock, the LOVIT trial showed possible harm from high-dose vitamin C administration in septic ICU patients. The  VALENCIA trial sought to evaluate whether vitamin C could reduce the duration of vasopressor therapy in patients with moderate vasoplegic shock.

Study:
-double-blinded RCT at two tertiary centers, 71 patients (36 to placebo, 35 to vitamin C)
-adult patients with vasoplegic shock of any cause
-vasopressor requirement >10 μg/min of norepi after hypovolemia was excluded
-notable exclusion criteria: end-stage renal failure and expected survival <12 hrs

Results:
-65 pts with septic shock, 6 pts with non-infectious cause
-no significant difference in the duration of vasopressors between the treatment group (median, 44 h [95% CI, 37-54 hrs]) and the control group (55 hrs [95% CI, 33-66 hrs])
-also no statistically significant difference in the vasopressor dose at 12 hourly time points, ICU or 28-day mortality and ICU or hospital length of stay

Take-home points:
Small study that ultimately may be under-powered but did not show that vitamin C reduces vasopressor duration in moderate vasoplegic shock

Show References



Targeted Therapeutic Mild Hypercapnia after Resuscitated Cardiac Arrest (TAME)

Current guidelines recommend normocapnia for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), the TAME Study asked is mild hypercapnia better?

  • Smaller previous studies have shown some benefits for hypercapnia including some improved outcomes:
    • Increased likelihood of discharge home and better 12 month neurologic outcomes
  • The TAME study enrolled adults with OHCA with presumed cardiac or unknown cause within 3 hours of ROSC who were unconcious
  • Unwitnessed, asystolic, hypothermic, pregnant, or ICH patients were excluded.
    • ECMO and Severe COPD patients on home O2 also excluded
  • Randomization to either 24 hours of PaCO2:
    • Intervention arm:  50-55 mmHg
    • Control: 35-45 mmHg
  • Strong design with strong methodology, adequate power, and good protocol adherence (>65% of measurements in group limitations) 
  • Protocol violations in 8% of hypercapnia and 3% of normocapnia groups
  • Missing primary outcome data in 7% of patients.
  • Note: concurrent TTM trial (TTM2) was allowed to cross-enroll. Addressed with adequate statistical methodology
  • Primary outcome (Favorable neurological outcome (GOSE ≥ 5)
    • 43.5% (mild hypercapnia) vs 44.6% (normocapnia)
      • ARR 0.98 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.11)
  • Secondary outcomes: no differences

Conclusion: "In patients with coma who were resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, targeted mild hypercapnia did not lead to better neurologic outcomes at 6 months than targeted normocapnia."

Show References



Category: Critical Care

Title: CT FIRST: Should we pan-CT everyone post-ROSC?

Keywords: OHCA, ROSC, cardiac arrest, resuscitation, CT, pan-scan, computed tomography (PubMed Search)

Posted: 7/25/2023 by Kami Windsor, MD
Click here to contact Kami Windsor, MD

 

Background: Prior evidence1,2 has suggested that early “pan-scan” after ROSC provides clinically-relevant information that assists in the care of the patient in question, when the cause of OHCA is unclear.

The recent CT FIRST trial looked at patients pre- and post- implementation of a protocol for head-to-pelvis CT within 6 hours of ROSC for adult patients without known cause or evidence of possible cardiac etiology, stable enough for scan. *Patients with GFR <30 were excluded from assignment to CT, although were included in the post/CT cohort if their treating doctors ordered CT scans based on perceived clinical need. To balance this, a similar number of patients with GFR <30 were included in the pre/“standard of care” cohort.

  • Pre/SOC cohort (143 pts) vs. Post/SOC+CT cohort (104 pts)
  • CT protocol: Dry head CT, CTA chest, venous phase CT abd/pelvis
  • In pre/SOC group, CTs ordered by treating docs in 52% (one or mix of the above CTs)

Outcomes After Protocol (Pre- vs. Post-):

  • Increased identification of OHCA diagnosis (75% vs. 92%, p = 0.001)
    • In SOC + CT group, diagnosis only found by CT in 13%
    • In SOC group, diagnosis only found by CT in 17%
  • Faster OHCA diagnosis (14.1h vs. 3.1h, p= 0.0001)
     
  • Fewer delays in time-critical diagnoses* (62% vs. 12%, p= 0.001)  *both OHCA dx and resuscitation-related injury
     
  • No difference in ultimate diagnosis of time-critical diagnoses, rates of AKI, or survival to hospital discharge, allergic contrast reactions (0), scan complications (0), inappropriate treatments based on CT findings (0)

 

Bottom Line: Early pan-CT allows for earlier definitive diagnosis and stabilization without increase in adverse events. While this earlier diagnosis does not seem to yield better survival, earlier stabilization may provide some benefits in terms of resource allocation and disposition, a notable benefit during our current crisis of staffing shortages and ED boarding. 

 

CT FIRST

Show References



Category: Critical Care

Title: Platelet Transfusion before CVC Placement

Keywords: Central Lines, Platelets, Bleeding (PubMed Search)

Posted: 7/18/2023 by Mark Sutherland, MD (Updated: 6/24/2024)
Click here to contact Mark Sutherland, MD

Central Venous Catheter (CVC; aka central line) placement is a common procedure in both the ED and ICU, and while overall quite safe, does carry some risk.  In particular, many of us regularly are confronted with the challenge of placing a line in a patient with profound thrombocytopenia, which can result in significant bleeding.  In these cases, should we give platelets before we place the line?

Van Baarle et al published a randomized study in NEJM comparing an empiric 1u platelet transfusion vs no transfusion in patients with a platelet count of 10,000-50,000, prior to line placement.  The study included both HD and non-HD (e.g. TLC) lines, from all three major access sites, in patients in their ICU or hematology ward.  They found statistically fewer serious bleeding events in the transfusion group (4.8%) vs no transfusion group (11.9%).  The study wasn't powered to look at more patient oriented outcomes like mortality, but I'm sure we can all agree less bleeding is probably a good thing.  Also importantly, this study did not evaluate the risks/benefits of delaying line placement to obtain platelets when the line is urgently needed, so I would not recommend extending this to conclude platelets must be given before line placement if the line is needed for something highly time-sensitive (e.g. only available access to infuse pressors in a hypotensive patient).  

 

Bottom Line: It is probably beneficial and appropriate to provide prophylactic platelet transfusion prior to CVC placement in patients with a platelet count less than 50,000, assuming circumstances allow.  

Show References



Settings: Retrospective data from 3 Dutch EDs (development of the score), 2 Denmark ED (for validation of the score). The novel score (International Early Warning Score) will be composed of the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) + Age +Sex

Components of the National Early Warning Score:

  • Respiratory rate,
  • oxygen saturation,
  • supplemental oxygen (yes/no),
  • Temperature,
  • Systolic blood pressure,
  • heart rate,
  • level of consciousness (Alert vs. not).

Participants: All adult patients in the Netherlands Emergency department Evaluation Database (NEED) and Danish Multicenter Cohort (DMC).

Outcome measurement: in-hospital mortality, including death in EDs.

Study Results:

  • 95553 (2314, 2.5% died) patients were used for development of the score, 14809 patients (365, 2.5% died) were in the validation cohort.
  • The IEWS provides higher AUROC (0.87, 95% CI 0.85-0.88) than the NEWS (AUROC 0.82, 95% CI 0.80-0.84) in the validation cohort.
  • The IEWS for the age group 18-65 years (AUROC 0.86, 95% CI 0.80-0.91) had the most improvement, compared to NEWS (AUROC 0.82, 95% CI 0.75-0.89).

Discussion:

  • The study excluded patients whom did not have 2 sets of vital signs, thus, “very sick” or “not sick” patients would be excluded.
  • This novel score was not compared with the updated NEWS2, which incorporates hypercapnia and confusion. Additionally, this novel score was also not compared with another popular score, Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS). Both the NEWS and MEWS scores have been studied extensively in the literature, thus, have been adopted in clinical use.

Conclusion:

This multicenter study showed that IEWS perform better than the NEWS for predicting in-hospital mortality for ED patients.

 

Show References



Category: Critical Care

Title: Upper GI Bleed, Cirrhosis, and Antibiotic Prophylaxis

Keywords: Upper GI Hemorrhage, Cirrhosis, Antibiotic Prophylaxis, SBP, ceftriaxone (PubMed Search)

Posted: 6/6/2023 by Zach Rogers, MD (Updated: 6/24/2024)
Click here to contact Zach Rogers, MD

Prophylactic antibiotic use in cirrhotic patients with an upper GI bleed has been demonstrated to have a mortality benefit in multiple randomized clinical trials. Some trials as well demonstrated a decreased risk of rebleeding as well as a shorter hospital length of stay (1,2).

The exact means of protection is not entirely clear and its benefit is seen in both variceal and nonvariceal hemorrhages as well as in cirrhotic patient both with and without ascites.

There does appears to be a close interplay between cirrhosis bleeding risk and infection, with infection being a common precipitating factor for upper GI bleed.

The antibiotic of choice is ceftriaxone 1 gram IV daily for seven days. Although in case of allergy/intolerance, fluoroquinolones or aminoglycosides may be used as alternatives (3).

Bottom line:

All forms of upper GI hemorrhage in cirrhotic patients warrant prophylactic antibiotic use (regardless of the presence of ascites) as well as a diligent search and exclusion of possible infectious sources.

 

Show References



Category: Critical Care

Title: Thrombocytopenia and CVCs -- Are Platelet Transfusions Needed?

Keywords: thrombocytopenia, bleeding, hemorrhage, platelets, transfusions, central lines, CVCs (PubMed Search)

Posted: 5/30/2023 by Kami Windsor, MD
Click here to contact Kami Windsor, MD

Question

Background: In general practice, platelets are typically transfused for invasive procedures when the platelet count falls below 50 x 109/L. Regarding the placement of central venous catheters (CVCs), there is minimal data to support or refute decisions to transfuse platelets in these patients, although the 2015 Clinical Practice Guideline from the AABB (formerly, the American Association of Blood Banks) recommends deferring platelet transfusion until a platelet count of 20 x 109/L for CVC placement [weak recommendation, low quality evidence].1

In a study published this month in NEJM,2 van Baarle et al. performed a multicenter randomized controlled noninferiority trial comparing platelet transfusion to no transfusion in patients with platelets 10 to 50 x 109/L prior to US-guided CVC insertion. The primary outcome was the occurrence of catheter-related bleeding Grades 2-4 (Grade 1 = oozing; managed with <20 min of manual compression, not requiring RBC transfusion, & Grades 2-4 is everything else up to death) within 24 hours post-procedure. 

  • Noninferiority was not met, with primary outcome in 4.8% vs. 11.9% of transfused and nontransfused patients, respectively (RR 2.45, 90% CI: 1.27 to 4.70).
  • Major catheter-related bleeding (Grades 3-4) occured in 2.1% vs 4.9% (RR 2.43, 90% CI: 0.75 to 7.93).  
  • Other factors associated with higher bleeding risk included hematologic malignancy, platelets 10-20 x 109/L, and tunneled catheter placement.
  • Difference in bleeding rates between transfusion vs. no-transfusion groups was higher however, in patients with platelets 20-30 x 109/L (0 vs 15.7%), those receiving nontunneled lines (3.6% vs 10.8%), or CVCs placed in the subclavian vein (2.8% vs 18.6%). 

Bottom Line: The jury is still out on best platelet transfusion practices prior to CVC placement, but I would strongly consider prophylactic platelet transfusion in patients with platelets < 30 x 109/L, those with underlying hematologic malignancy, and patients receiving larger CVCs such as dialysis lines. How much to transfuse in those with more severe thrombocytopenia is uncertain.

Separately, I would also strongly recommend use of US-guidance for any CVC placement in this population as well, based on practical common sense and some supportive literature as well.5

Show Answer

Show References