Critical Care

A 70-year-old woman is admitted to the intensive care unit with a pH of 7.1, an acute kidney injury (AKI), and ketonuria. She is volume depleted and her history is consistent with starvation ketosis. This LOL truly is in NAD (that’s little old lady in no acute distress, for those who haven’t read The House of God). She is clinically stable and seemingly unperturbed by the flurry of activity surrounding her admission.

Your resident is concerned by the severity of the acidosis and suggests starting an intravenous bicarbonate drip. The fellow is adamantly against it. He’s been taught that intravenous bicarbonate increases the serum pH but paradoxically causes intracellular acidosis. As the attending you elect to observe fellow autonomy – no bicarb is given. Because any debate on rounds is a “teachable moment,” you decide to review the evidence and physiology behind infusing bicarbonate.
 

What do the data reveal?

An excellent review published in CHEST in 2000 covers the physiologic effects of bicarbonate, specifically related to lactic acidosis, which our patient didn’t have. Aside from that difference, the review validates the fellow’s opinion. In short, the authors stated that a low pH may be a marker of a dangerous systemic condition, but it need not be corrected for its own sake. It is unlikely to provoke hemodynamic or respiratory compromise outside the setting of shock or hypercapnia. Intravenous bicarbonate can lead to intracellular acidosis, hypercapnia, hypocalcemia, and a reduction in oxygen delivery via the Bohr effect. The authors concluded that because the benefits are unproven and the negative effects are real, intravenous bicarbonate should not be used to correct a metabolic acidosis.

The CHEST review hardly settles the issue, though. A survey published a few years later found a majority of intensivists and nephrologists used intravenous bicarbonate to treat metabolic acidosis while the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock published in 2017 recommended against bicarbonate for acidosis. It wasn’t until 2018 that we reached the holy grail: a randomized controlled trial.

The BICAR-ICU study randomly assigned patients with a pH of 7.20 or less, PCO₂ of 45 mm Hg or less, and sodium bicarbonate concentration of 20 mmol/L or less to receive no bicarbonate versus a sodium bicarbonate drip to maintain a pH greater than 7.30. There’s additional nuance to the trial design and even more detail in the results. To summarize, there was signal for an improvement in renal outcomes across all patients, and those with AKI saw a mortality benefit. Post–BICAR-ICU iterations of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines have incorporated these findings by recommending intravenous bicarbonate for patients with sepsis who have AKI and a pH of 7.20 or less.

That’s not to say BICAR-ICU has settled the issue. Although it’s far and away the best we have, there were fewer than 400 total patients in their intention-to-treat analysis. It was open label, with lots of crossover. The primary outcome was negative for the entire population, with only a subgroup (albeit a prespecified one) showing benefit. Finally, the results weren’t stratified by etiology for the metabolic acidosis. There was also evidence of alkalosis and hypocalcemia in the treatment group.

Last but not least in terms of importance, in most cases when bicarbonate is being considered, wouldn’t some form of renal replacement therapy (RRT) be preferred? This point was raised by nephrologists and intensivists when we covered BICAR-ICU in a journal club at my former program. It’s also mentioned in an accompanying editorial. RRT timing is controversial, and a detailed discussion is outside the scope of this piece and beyond the limits of my current knowledge base. But I do know that the A in the A-E-I-O-U acute indications for dialysis pneumonic stands for acidosis.

Our patient had AKI, a pH of 7.20 or less, and a pCO₂ well under 45 mm Hg. Does BICAR-ICU support the resident’s inclination to start a drip? Sort of. The majority of patients enrolled in BICAR-ICU were in shock or were recovering from cardiac arrest, so it’s not clear the results can be generalized to our LOL with starvation ketosis. Extrapolating from studies of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) seems more appropriate, and here the data are poor but equivocal. Reviews are generally negative but don’t rule out the use of intravenous bicarbonate in certain patients with DKA.
 

Key takeaways

Our patient survived a 24-hour ICU stay with neither cardiopulmonary decompensation nor a need for RRT. Not sure how she did out of the ICU; presumably she was discharged soon after transfer. As is always the case with anecdotal medicine, the absence of a control prevents assessment of the counterfactual. Is it possible she may have done “better” with intravenous bicarbonate? Seems unlikely to me, though I doubt there would have been demonstrable adverse effects. Perhaps next time the fellow can observe resident autonomy?

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center. He reported conflicts of interest with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A 70-year-old woman is admitted to the intensive care unit with a pH of 7.1, an acute kidney injury (AKI), and ketonuria. She is volume depleted and her history is consistent with starvation ketosis. This LOL truly is in NAD (that’s little old lady in no acute distress, for those who haven’t read The House of God). She is clinically stable and seemingly unperturbed by the flurry of activity surrounding her admission.

Your resident is concerned by the severity of the acidosis and suggests starting an intravenous bicarbonate drip. The fellow is adamantly against it. He’s been taught that intravenous bicarbonate increases the serum pH but paradoxically causes intracellular acidosis. As the attending you elect to observe fellow autonomy – no bicarb is given. Because any debate on rounds is a “teachable moment,” you decide to review the evidence and physiology behind infusing bicarbonate.
 

What do the data reveal?

An excellent review published in CHEST in 2000 covers the physiologic effects of bicarbonate, specifically related to lactic acidosis, which our patient didn’t have. Aside from that difference, the review validates the fellow’s opinion. In short, the authors stated that a low pH may be a marker of a dangerous systemic condition, but it need not be corrected for its own sake. It is unlikely to provoke hemodynamic or respiratory compromise outside the setting of shock or hypercapnia. Intravenous bicarbonate can lead to intracellular acidosis, hypercapnia, hypocalcemia, and a reduction in oxygen delivery via the Bohr effect. The authors concluded that because the benefits are unproven and the negative effects are real, intravenous bicarbonate should not be used to correct a metabolic acidosis.

The CHEST review hardly settles the issue, though. A survey published a few years later found a majority of intensivists and nephrologists used intravenous bicarbonate to treat metabolic acidosis while the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock published in 2017 recommended against bicarbonate for acidosis. It wasn’t until 2018 that we reached the holy grail: a randomized controlled trial.

The BICAR-ICU study randomly assigned patients with a pH of 7.20 or less, PCO₂ of 45 mm Hg or less, and sodium bicarbonate concentration of 20 mmol/L or less to receive no bicarbonate versus a sodium bicarbonate drip to maintain a pH greater than 7.30. There’s additional nuance to the trial design and even more detail in the results. To summarize, there was signal for an improvement in renal outcomes across all patients, and those with AKI saw a mortality benefit. Post–BICAR-ICU iterations of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines have incorporated these findings by recommending intravenous bicarbonate for patients with sepsis who have AKI and a pH of 7.20 or less.

That’s not to say BICAR-ICU has settled the issue. Although it’s far and away the best we have, there were fewer than 400 total patients in their intention-to-treat analysis. It was open label, with lots of crossover. The primary outcome was negative for the entire population, with only a subgroup (albeit a prespecified one) showing benefit. Finally, the results weren’t stratified by etiology for the metabolic acidosis. There was also evidence of alkalosis and hypocalcemia in the treatment group.

Last but not least in terms of importance, in most cases when bicarbonate is being considered, wouldn’t some form of renal replacement therapy (RRT) be preferred? This point was raised by nephrologists and intensivists when we covered BICAR-ICU in a journal club at my former program. It’s also mentioned in an accompanying editorial. RRT timing is controversial, and a detailed discussion is outside the scope of this piece and beyond the limits of my current knowledge base. But I do know that the A in the A-E-I-O-U acute indications for dialysis pneumonic stands for acidosis.

Our patient had AKI, a pH of 7.20 or less, and a pCO₂ well under 45 mm Hg. Does BICAR-ICU support the resident’s inclination to start a drip? Sort of. The majority of patients enrolled in BICAR-ICU were in shock or were recovering from cardiac arrest, so it’s not clear the results can be generalized to our LOL with starvation ketosis. Extrapolating from studies of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) seems more appropriate, and here the data are poor but equivocal. Reviews are generally negative but don’t rule out the use of intravenous bicarbonate in certain patients with DKA.
 

Key takeaways

Our patient survived a 24-hour ICU stay with neither cardiopulmonary decompensation nor a need for RRT. Not sure how she did out of the ICU; presumably she was discharged soon after transfer. As is always the case with anecdotal medicine, the absence of a control prevents assessment of the counterfactual. Is it possible she may have done “better” with intravenous bicarbonate? Seems unlikely to me, though I doubt there would have been demonstrable adverse effects. Perhaps next time the fellow can observe resident autonomy?

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center. He reported conflicts of interest with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A 70-year-old woman is admitted to the intensive care unit with a pH of 7.1, an acute kidney injury (AKI), and ketonuria. She is volume depleted and her history is consistent with starvation ketosis. This LOL truly is in NAD (that’s little old lady in no acute distress, for those who haven’t read The House of God). She is clinically stable and seemingly unperturbed by the flurry of activity surrounding her admission.

Your resident is concerned by the severity of the acidosis and suggests starting an intravenous bicarbonate drip. The fellow is adamantly against it. He’s been taught that intravenous bicarbonate increases the serum pH but paradoxically causes intracellular acidosis. As the attending you elect to observe fellow autonomy – no bicarb is given. Because any debate on rounds is a “teachable moment,” you decide to review the evidence and physiology behind infusing bicarbonate.
 

What do the data reveal?

An excellent review published in CHEST in 2000 covers the physiologic effects of bicarbonate, specifically related to lactic acidosis, which our patient didn’t have. Aside from that difference, the review validates the fellow’s opinion. In short, the authors stated that a low pH may be a marker of a dangerous systemic condition, but it need not be corrected for its own sake. It is unlikely to provoke hemodynamic or respiratory compromise outside the setting of shock or hypercapnia. Intravenous bicarbonate can lead to intracellular acidosis, hypercapnia, hypocalcemia, and a reduction in oxygen delivery via the Bohr effect. The authors concluded that because the benefits are unproven and the negative effects are real, intravenous bicarbonate should not be used to correct a metabolic acidosis.

The CHEST review hardly settles the issue, though. A survey published a few years later found a majority of intensivists and nephrologists used intravenous bicarbonate to treat metabolic acidosis while the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock published in 2017 recommended against bicarbonate for acidosis. It wasn’t until 2018 that we reached the holy grail: a randomized controlled trial.

The BICAR-ICU study randomly assigned patients with a pH of 7.20 or less, PCO₂ of 45 mm Hg or less, and sodium bicarbonate concentration of 20 mmol/L or less to receive no bicarbonate versus a sodium bicarbonate drip to maintain a pH greater than 7.30. There’s additional nuance to the trial design and even more detail in the results. To summarize, there was signal for an improvement in renal outcomes across all patients, and those with AKI saw a mortality benefit. Post–BICAR-ICU iterations of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines have incorporated these findings by recommending intravenous bicarbonate for patients with sepsis who have AKI and a pH of 7.20 or less.

That’s not to say BICAR-ICU has settled the issue. Although it’s far and away the best we have, there were fewer than 400 total patients in their intention-to-treat analysis. It was open label, with lots of crossover. The primary outcome was negative for the entire population, with only a subgroup (albeit a prespecified one) showing benefit. Finally, the results weren’t stratified by etiology for the metabolic acidosis. There was also evidence of alkalosis and hypocalcemia in the treatment group.

Last but not least in terms of importance, in most cases when bicarbonate is being considered, wouldn’t some form of renal replacement therapy (RRT) be preferred? This point was raised by nephrologists and intensivists when we covered BICAR-ICU in a journal club at my former program. It’s also mentioned in an accompanying editorial. RRT timing is controversial, and a detailed discussion is outside the scope of this piece and beyond the limits of my current knowledge base. But I do know that the A in the A-E-I-O-U acute indications for dialysis pneumonic stands for acidosis.

Our patient had AKI, a pH of 7.20 or less, and a pCO₂ well under 45 mm Hg. Does BICAR-ICU support the resident’s inclination to start a drip? Sort of. The majority of patients enrolled in BICAR-ICU were in shock or were recovering from cardiac arrest, so it’s not clear the results can be generalized to our LOL with starvation ketosis. Extrapolating from studies of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) seems more appropriate, and here the data are poor but equivocal. Reviews are generally negative but don’t rule out the use of intravenous bicarbonate in certain patients with DKA.
 

Key takeaways

Our patient survived a 24-hour ICU stay with neither cardiopulmonary decompensation nor a need for RRT. Not sure how she did out of the ICU; presumably she was discharged soon after transfer. As is always the case with anecdotal medicine, the absence of a control prevents assessment of the counterfactual. Is it possible she may have done “better” with intravenous bicarbonate? Seems unlikely to me, though I doubt there would have been demonstrable adverse effects. Perhaps next time the fellow can observe resident autonomy?

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center. He reported conflicts of interest with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More than 1,400 hospitals in the United States do not have a sepsis program to lead the intervention for a medical emergency that affects at least 1.7 million people, according to a recent survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

For the hospitals that do have sepsis teams, only 55% of them report that their team leaders get dedicated time to manage their sepsis programs.

“One in three people who dies in a hospital has sepsis during that hospitalization,” CDC Director Mandy Cohen, MD, MPH, noted in a statement. “That’s why CDC is calling on all U.S. hospitals to have a sepsis program and raise the bar on sepsis care by incorporating seven core elements.”
 

The sepsis seven

• Leadership: Dedicating the necessary human, financial, and information technology resources.
• Accountability: Appointing a leader responsible for program outcomes and setting concrete goals.
• Multiprofessional: Engaging key partners throughout the organization.
• Action: Implementing structures and processes to improve the identification, management, and recovery from sepsis.
• Tracking: Measuring sepsis epidemiology, outcomes, and progress toward program goals and the impact of sepsis initiatives.
• Reporting: Providing usable information on sepsis treatment and outcomes to relevant partners.
• Education: Providing sepsis education to health care professionals during onboarding and annually.

Craig Weinert, MD, MPH, a pulmonologist and critical care physician and professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, says the point the CDC is making with the announcement is that when these sepsis programs have been implemented at hospitals, they have been successful at reducing mortality. And now, the agency is urging all hospitals to implement them and support them properly.

“It’s not asking hospitals to develop new, innovative kinds of sepsis programs. This is not about new drugs or new antibiotics or new devices,” Dr. Weinert says. “This is about having hospitals dedicate organizational resources to implementing sepsis programs.”

The CDC’s announcement is aimed toward hospital administrators, Dr. Weinert adds. The agency is making the case that sepsis needs more funding in hospitals that either don’t have the programs or aren’t supporting them with dedicated resources.

There’s another message as well, Dr. Weinert says.

“COVID basically obliterated sepsis programs for two and a half years,” he says. Now the CDC is saying it’s time to divert staff back to sepsis care.
 

Stepping up sepsis care

Raymund Dantes, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, one of the developers of the core elements, says this is like a recipe for sepsis care.

Dr. Dantes compares the instructions for hospitals with getting a good restaurant up and running. And in the restaurant business, “you need more than the recipes. You need a leader or manager to ensure you have the right people working together, with the right supplies, getting the right feedback on their work to continuously improve,” he explains.

Dr. Dantes, who is also the physician lead for the Emory Healthcare Sepsis Program, says the approach is meant to be flexible to the size of the hospital, population served, and available resources.

He points out that a well-run sepsis program at a 25-bed rural hospital will look very different from the program at a 1,000-bed tertiary care hospital.

Some hospitals, Dr. Dantes says, will be starting from scratch when getting a sepsis program, and for those hospitals, the developers included a “Getting Started” section as part of the detailed, 29-page full report.

In September, Sepsis Awareness Month, the CDC will provide educational information to health care professionals, patients, families, and caregivers about preventing infections that can lead to sepsis through its ongoing Get Ahead of Sepsis campaign.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More than 1,400 hospitals in the United States do not have a sepsis program to lead the intervention for a medical emergency that affects at least 1.7 million people, according to a recent survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

For the hospitals that do have sepsis teams, only 55% of them report that their team leaders get dedicated time to manage their sepsis programs.

“One in three people who dies in a hospital has sepsis during that hospitalization,” CDC Director Mandy Cohen, MD, MPH, noted in a statement. “That’s why CDC is calling on all U.S. hospitals to have a sepsis program and raise the bar on sepsis care by incorporating seven core elements.”
 

The sepsis seven

• Leadership: Dedicating the necessary human, financial, and information technology resources.
• Accountability: Appointing a leader responsible for program outcomes and setting concrete goals.
• Multiprofessional: Engaging key partners throughout the organization.
• Action: Implementing structures and processes to improve the identification, management, and recovery from sepsis.
• Tracking: Measuring sepsis epidemiology, outcomes, and progress toward program goals and the impact of sepsis initiatives.
• Reporting: Providing usable information on sepsis treatment and outcomes to relevant partners.
• Education: Providing sepsis education to health care professionals during onboarding and annually.

Craig Weinert, MD, MPH, a pulmonologist and critical care physician and professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, says the point the CDC is making with the announcement is that when these sepsis programs have been implemented at hospitals, they have been successful at reducing mortality. And now, the agency is urging all hospitals to implement them and support them properly.

“It’s not asking hospitals to develop new, innovative kinds of sepsis programs. This is not about new drugs or new antibiotics or new devices,” Dr. Weinert says. “This is about having hospitals dedicate organizational resources to implementing sepsis programs.”

The CDC’s announcement is aimed toward hospital administrators, Dr. Weinert adds. The agency is making the case that sepsis needs more funding in hospitals that either don’t have the programs or aren’t supporting them with dedicated resources.

There’s another message as well, Dr. Weinert says.

“COVID basically obliterated sepsis programs for two and a half years,” he says. Now the CDC is saying it’s time to divert staff back to sepsis care.
 

Stepping up sepsis care

Raymund Dantes, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, one of the developers of the core elements, says this is like a recipe for sepsis care.

Dr. Dantes compares the instructions for hospitals with getting a good restaurant up and running. And in the restaurant business, “you need more than the recipes. You need a leader or manager to ensure you have the right people working together, with the right supplies, getting the right feedback on their work to continuously improve,” he explains.

Dr. Dantes, who is also the physician lead for the Emory Healthcare Sepsis Program, says the approach is meant to be flexible to the size of the hospital, population served, and available resources.

He points out that a well-run sepsis program at a 25-bed rural hospital will look very different from the program at a 1,000-bed tertiary care hospital.

Some hospitals, Dr. Dantes says, will be starting from scratch when getting a sepsis program, and for those hospitals, the developers included a “Getting Started” section as part of the detailed, 29-page full report.

In September, Sepsis Awareness Month, the CDC will provide educational information to health care professionals, patients, families, and caregivers about preventing infections that can lead to sepsis through its ongoing Get Ahead of Sepsis campaign.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More than 1,400 hospitals in the United States do not have a sepsis program to lead the intervention for a medical emergency that affects at least 1.7 million people, according to a recent survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

For the hospitals that do have sepsis teams, only 55% of them report that their team leaders get dedicated time to manage their sepsis programs.

“One in three people who dies in a hospital has sepsis during that hospitalization,” CDC Director Mandy Cohen, MD, MPH, noted in a statement. “That’s why CDC is calling on all U.S. hospitals to have a sepsis program and raise the bar on sepsis care by incorporating seven core elements.”
 

The sepsis seven

• Leadership: Dedicating the necessary human, financial, and information technology resources.
• Accountability: Appointing a leader responsible for program outcomes and setting concrete goals.
• Multiprofessional: Engaging key partners throughout the organization.
• Action: Implementing structures and processes to improve the identification, management, and recovery from sepsis.
• Tracking: Measuring sepsis epidemiology, outcomes, and progress toward program goals and the impact of sepsis initiatives.
• Reporting: Providing usable information on sepsis treatment and outcomes to relevant partners.
• Education: Providing sepsis education to health care professionals during onboarding and annually.

Craig Weinert, MD, MPH, a pulmonologist and critical care physician and professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, says the point the CDC is making with the announcement is that when these sepsis programs have been implemented at hospitals, they have been successful at reducing mortality. And now, the agency is urging all hospitals to implement them and support them properly.

“It’s not asking hospitals to develop new, innovative kinds of sepsis programs. This is not about new drugs or new antibiotics or new devices,” Dr. Weinert says. “This is about having hospitals dedicate organizational resources to implementing sepsis programs.”

The CDC’s announcement is aimed toward hospital administrators, Dr. Weinert adds. The agency is making the case that sepsis needs more funding in hospitals that either don’t have the programs or aren’t supporting them with dedicated resources.

There’s another message as well, Dr. Weinert says.

“COVID basically obliterated sepsis programs for two and a half years,” he says. Now the CDC is saying it’s time to divert staff back to sepsis care.
 

Stepping up sepsis care

Raymund Dantes, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, one of the developers of the core elements, says this is like a recipe for sepsis care.

Dr. Dantes compares the instructions for hospitals with getting a good restaurant up and running. And in the restaurant business, “you need more than the recipes. You need a leader or manager to ensure you have the right people working together, with the right supplies, getting the right feedback on their work to continuously improve,” he explains.

Dr. Dantes, who is also the physician lead for the Emory Healthcare Sepsis Program, says the approach is meant to be flexible to the size of the hospital, population served, and available resources.

He points out that a well-run sepsis program at a 25-bed rural hospital will look very different from the program at a 1,000-bed tertiary care hospital.

Some hospitals, Dr. Dantes says, will be starting from scratch when getting a sepsis program, and for those hospitals, the developers included a “Getting Started” section as part of the detailed, 29-page full report.

In September, Sepsis Awareness Month, the CDC will provide educational information to health care professionals, patients, families, and caregivers about preventing infections that can lead to sepsis through its ongoing Get Ahead of Sepsis campaign.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adults with asthma who were newly prescribed mepolizumab showed significant improvement in symptoms after 1 year regardless of comorbidities, based on data from 822 individuals.

Comorbidities including chronic rhinosinusitis with polyps (CRSwNP), gastroesophageal reflux disease GERD), anxiety and depression, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD) are common in patients with severe asthma and add to the disease burden, wrote Mark C. Liu, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.

“Some comorbidities, such as CRSwNP, share pathophysiological mechanisms with severe asthma, with interleukin-5 (IL-5),” and treatments targeting IL-5 could improve outcomes, they said.

In the real-world REALITI-A study, mepolizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets IL-5, significantly reduced asthma exacerbation and oral corticosteroid use in severe asthma patients, they said.

To assess the impact of mepolizumab on patients with comorbidities, the researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of 822 adults with severe asthma, including 321 with CRSwNP, 309 with GERD, 203 with depression/anxiety, and 81 with COPD. The findings were published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice.

The main outcomes were the rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations (CSEs) between the 12 months before and after mepolizumab initiation, and the changes from baseline in the daily maintenance use of oral corticosteroids (OCS).

Across all comorbidities, the rate of CSEs decreased significantly from the pretreatment period to the follow-up period, from 4.28 events per year to 1.23 events per year.

“A numerically greater reduction in the rate of CSEs was reported for patients with versus without CRSwNP, whereas the reverse was reported for patients with versus without COPD and depression/anxiety, although the confidence intervals were large for the with COPD subgroup,” the researchers wrote.

The median maintenance dose of oral corticosteroids decreased by at least 50% across all comorbidities after mepolizumab treatment; patients with CRSwNP had the greatest reduction (83%).

In addition, scores on the Asthma Control Questionnaire–5 decreased by at least 0.63 points, and least squared (LS) mean changes in forced expiratory volume per second (FEV₁) increased from baseline across all comorbidities after mepolizumab treatment by at least 74 mL.

Although patients with versus without CRSwNP had greater improvements, patients without GERD, depression/anxiety, and COPD had greater improvements than did those without the respective conditions with the exception of greater FEV₁ improvement in patients with vs. without COPD.

“Patients with severe asthma and comorbid CRSwNP are recognized as having a high disease burden, as demonstrated by more frequent exacerbations,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Mepolizumab may serve to reduce the disease burden of this high-risk group by targeting the common pathophysiological pathway of IL-5 and eosinophilic-driven inflammation because it has proven clinical benefits in treating asthma and CRSwNP separately and together,” and the current study findings support the use of mepolizumab for this population in particular, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the incomplete data for voluntary assessments, the post hoc design and relatively small numbers of patients in various subgroups, notably COPD, and the potential inaccurate diagnosis of COPD, the researchers noted.

“Nevertheless, because the amount of improvement in each outcome following mepolizumab treatment differed depending on the comorbidity in question, our findings highlight the impact that comorbidities and their prevalence and severity have on outcomes,” and the overall success of mepolizumab across clinical characteristics and comorbidities supports the generalizability of the findings to the larger population of adults with severe asthma, they concluded.

The study was supported by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Liu disclosed research funding from GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Gossamer Bio, and participation on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GSK, and Gossamer Bio.

Adults with asthma who were newly prescribed mepolizumab showed significant improvement in symptoms after 1 year regardless of comorbidities, based on data from 822 individuals.

Comorbidities including chronic rhinosinusitis with polyps (CRSwNP), gastroesophageal reflux disease GERD), anxiety and depression, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD) are common in patients with severe asthma and add to the disease burden, wrote Mark C. Liu, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.

“Some comorbidities, such as CRSwNP, share pathophysiological mechanisms with severe asthma, with interleukin-5 (IL-5),” and treatments targeting IL-5 could improve outcomes, they said.

In the real-world REALITI-A study, mepolizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets IL-5, significantly reduced asthma exacerbation and oral corticosteroid use in severe asthma patients, they said.

To assess the impact of mepolizumab on patients with comorbidities, the researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of 822 adults with severe asthma, including 321 with CRSwNP, 309 with GERD, 203 with depression/anxiety, and 81 with COPD. The findings were published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice.

The main outcomes were the rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations (CSEs) between the 12 months before and after mepolizumab initiation, and the changes from baseline in the daily maintenance use of oral corticosteroids (OCS).

Across all comorbidities, the rate of CSEs decreased significantly from the pretreatment period to the follow-up period, from 4.28 events per year to 1.23 events per year.

“A numerically greater reduction in the rate of CSEs was reported for patients with versus without CRSwNP, whereas the reverse was reported for patients with versus without COPD and depression/anxiety, although the confidence intervals were large for the with COPD subgroup,” the researchers wrote.

The median maintenance dose of oral corticosteroids decreased by at least 50% across all comorbidities after mepolizumab treatment; patients with CRSwNP had the greatest reduction (83%).

In addition, scores on the Asthma Control Questionnaire–5 decreased by at least 0.63 points, and least squared (LS) mean changes in forced expiratory volume per second (FEV₁) increased from baseline across all comorbidities after mepolizumab treatment by at least 74 mL.

Although patients with versus without CRSwNP had greater improvements, patients without GERD, depression/anxiety, and COPD had greater improvements than did those without the respective conditions with the exception of greater FEV₁ improvement in patients with vs. without COPD.

“Patients with severe asthma and comorbid CRSwNP are recognized as having a high disease burden, as demonstrated by more frequent exacerbations,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Mepolizumab may serve to reduce the disease burden of this high-risk group by targeting the common pathophysiological pathway of IL-5 and eosinophilic-driven inflammation because it has proven clinical benefits in treating asthma and CRSwNP separately and together,” and the current study findings support the use of mepolizumab for this population in particular, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the incomplete data for voluntary assessments, the post hoc design and relatively small numbers of patients in various subgroups, notably COPD, and the potential inaccurate diagnosis of COPD, the researchers noted.

“Nevertheless, because the amount of improvement in each outcome following mepolizumab treatment differed depending on the comorbidity in question, our findings highlight the impact that comorbidities and their prevalence and severity have on outcomes,” and the overall success of mepolizumab across clinical characteristics and comorbidities supports the generalizability of the findings to the larger population of adults with severe asthma, they concluded.

The study was supported by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Liu disclosed research funding from GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Gossamer Bio, and participation on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GSK, and Gossamer Bio.

Adults with asthma who were newly prescribed mepolizumab showed significant improvement in symptoms after 1 year regardless of comorbidities, based on data from 822 individuals.

Comorbidities including chronic rhinosinusitis with polyps (CRSwNP), gastroesophageal reflux disease GERD), anxiety and depression, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD) are common in patients with severe asthma and add to the disease burden, wrote Mark C. Liu, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.

“Some comorbidities, such as CRSwNP, share pathophysiological mechanisms with severe asthma, with interleukin-5 (IL-5),” and treatments targeting IL-5 could improve outcomes, they said.

In the real-world REALITI-A study, mepolizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets IL-5, significantly reduced asthma exacerbation and oral corticosteroid use in severe asthma patients, they said.

To assess the impact of mepolizumab on patients with comorbidities, the researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of 822 adults with severe asthma, including 321 with CRSwNP, 309 with GERD, 203 with depression/anxiety, and 81 with COPD. The findings were published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice.

The main outcomes were the rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations (CSEs) between the 12 months before and after mepolizumab initiation, and the changes from baseline in the daily maintenance use of oral corticosteroids (OCS).

Across all comorbidities, the rate of CSEs decreased significantly from the pretreatment period to the follow-up period, from 4.28 events per year to 1.23 events per year.

“A numerically greater reduction in the rate of CSEs was reported for patients with versus without CRSwNP, whereas the reverse was reported for patients with versus without COPD and depression/anxiety, although the confidence intervals were large for the with COPD subgroup,” the researchers wrote.

The median maintenance dose of oral corticosteroids decreased by at least 50% across all comorbidities after mepolizumab treatment; patients with CRSwNP had the greatest reduction (83%).

In addition, scores on the Asthma Control Questionnaire–5 decreased by at least 0.63 points, and least squared (LS) mean changes in forced expiratory volume per second (FEV₁) increased from baseline across all comorbidities after mepolizumab treatment by at least 74 mL.

Although patients with versus without CRSwNP had greater improvements, patients without GERD, depression/anxiety, and COPD had greater improvements than did those without the respective conditions with the exception of greater FEV₁ improvement in patients with vs. without COPD.

“Patients with severe asthma and comorbid CRSwNP are recognized as having a high disease burden, as demonstrated by more frequent exacerbations,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Mepolizumab may serve to reduce the disease burden of this high-risk group by targeting the common pathophysiological pathway of IL-5 and eosinophilic-driven inflammation because it has proven clinical benefits in treating asthma and CRSwNP separately and together,” and the current study findings support the use of mepolizumab for this population in particular, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the incomplete data for voluntary assessments, the post hoc design and relatively small numbers of patients in various subgroups, notably COPD, and the potential inaccurate diagnosis of COPD, the researchers noted.

“Nevertheless, because the amount of improvement in each outcome following mepolizumab treatment differed depending on the comorbidity in question, our findings highlight the impact that comorbidities and their prevalence and severity have on outcomes,” and the overall success of mepolizumab across clinical characteristics and comorbidities supports the generalizability of the findings to the larger population of adults with severe asthma, they concluded.

The study was supported by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Liu disclosed research funding from GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Gossamer Bio, and participation on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GSK, and Gossamer Bio.

PARIS – Oxygen therapy is used too often in patients with respiratory difficulties, says one expert, and should be given only when oxygen saturation levels (SpO₂) drop below 93%, as per the current guidelines. Florian Negrello, MD, an emergency medicine specialist at University Hospital of Martinique in Fort-de-France, reiterated this message at the 2023 conference held by France’s emergency medicine society (Urgences 2023). The recommendation is intended to prevent hyperoxia; increasing evidence indicates the harmful effects of such a state on the body. 

“This is a real problem. Oxygen therapy is given all too readily despite studies now showing that excess oxygen is harmful, especially in patients with head trauma, ischemic stroke, or cardiac arrest,” stated the session’s moderator, Patrick Plaisance, MD, PhD, a doctor at Lariboisière Hospital in Paris. 
 

No proven hypoxia

Described as difficulty breathing or shortness of breath, dyspnea is common in the emergency department, occurring in 5%-9% of patients. Close to 20% of intensive care unit admissions involve patients with dyspnea. “Since this is a very subjective symptom, it’s possible it’s being underdiagnosed,” said Dr. Negrello.

Lower respiratory tract infection, acute heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and exacerbation of asthma are the four main diagnoses linked to dyspnea, but this symptom is also seen in several medical conditions (gastrointestinal, metabolic, neurologic, etc.), he noted. 

Often seen as a harmless treatment option, oxygen therapy is commonly administered to patients with breathing difficulties even when no hypoxemia is documented. This is particularly the case for patients brought into hospital via ambulance who are treated with oxygen without even having had their blood oxygen levels, SpO₂, and partial pressure of oxygen checked. 

In the United States, one of the few studies published on the topic showed that one-third of patients transported via ambulance are put on oxygen, with SpO₂ being measured in just 5% of these cases. Finally, just 17% of patients receiving oxygen were experiencing hypoxia, defined as SpO₂ < 94%. 
 

Oxidative stress 

Recently, several research studies have revealed the potential dangers of unjustified use of oxygen, which can lead to hyperoxia and increased mortality in hospitalized patients. 

A meta-analysis reported a linear relationship between severe hyperoxia, in-hospital mortality, and length of stay in intensive care. Another study revealed a greater mortality rate in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) experiencing an episode of hyperoxia, regardless of the severity of ARDS. 

Oxygen toxicity in intensive care is said to be linked to oxidative stress caused by increased growth of reactive oxygen species but also to the systemic inflammation caused by hyperoxia, explained Dr. Negrello. Excess oxygen may also cause lung lesions with necrosis, the severity of which is proportional to the fraction of inspired oxygen and the length of exposure. 

According to the most up-to-date international recommendations published in 2018 on the use of oxygen therapy in treating acute conditions, oxygen should not be used when SpO₂ ≥ 93%. When treatment has been started, it must be stopped when SpO₂ reaches 96%. SpO₂ cannot be maintained above 96%, according to experts. 

These threshold values can be found in the COVID-19 treatment guidelines produced by the French-Language Society of Respiratory Medicine, with oxygen therapy being recommended when SpO₂ < 92%, added Dr. Negrello. The aim is to maintain normal oxygen levels, with SpO₂ between 92% and 96%. 
 

Use sparingly 

For patients with COPD, the target levels are lower, due to the risk of hypercapnia (higher than normal carbon dioxide levels in the blood). Oxygen saturation levels should then be kept between 88% and 92%, “by using the minimum amount of oxygen necessary,” per the guidelines. 

“Oxygen should be used sparingly,” concluded Dr. Negrello. “To treat our patients without harming them, we must be able to use it at the right time, meaning when a patient really has low blood oxygen, by focusing on normal saturation levels as the end goal.”

SpO₂ measurement is the first step to be taken to determine oxygen requirements, followed by, if necessary, blood gas analysis once the patient has been admitted, he explained. 

Questioned at the end of his session on how long oxygen therapy can be given for, Dr. Negrello reiterated that the risk for death is correlated with the length of time spent in a state of hyperoxia but that it is difficult to establish a maximum timeframe to be adhered to strictly. 

Given that excess oxygen is harmful to patients in intensive care, “it would be better, when in doubt, to focus on physiological levels” and simply stop treatment when target saturation levels are reached. 

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – Oxygen therapy is used too often in patients with respiratory difficulties, says one expert, and should be given only when oxygen saturation levels (SpO₂) drop below 93%, as per the current guidelines. Florian Negrello, MD, an emergency medicine specialist at University Hospital of Martinique in Fort-de-France, reiterated this message at the 2023 conference held by France’s emergency medicine society (Urgences 2023). The recommendation is intended to prevent hyperoxia; increasing evidence indicates the harmful effects of such a state on the body. 

“This is a real problem. Oxygen therapy is given all too readily despite studies now showing that excess oxygen is harmful, especially in patients with head trauma, ischemic stroke, or cardiac arrest,” stated the session’s moderator, Patrick Plaisance, MD, PhD, a doctor at Lariboisière Hospital in Paris. 
 

No proven hypoxia

Described as difficulty breathing or shortness of breath, dyspnea is common in the emergency department, occurring in 5%-9% of patients. Close to 20% of intensive care unit admissions involve patients with dyspnea. “Since this is a very subjective symptom, it’s possible it’s being underdiagnosed,” said Dr. Negrello.

Lower respiratory tract infection, acute heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and exacerbation of asthma are the four main diagnoses linked to dyspnea, but this symptom is also seen in several medical conditions (gastrointestinal, metabolic, neurologic, etc.), he noted. 

Often seen as a harmless treatment option, oxygen therapy is commonly administered to patients with breathing difficulties even when no hypoxemia is documented. This is particularly the case for patients brought into hospital via ambulance who are treated with oxygen without even having had their blood oxygen levels, SpO₂, and partial pressure of oxygen checked. 

In the United States, one of the few studies published on the topic showed that one-third of patients transported via ambulance are put on oxygen, with SpO₂ being measured in just 5% of these cases. Finally, just 17% of patients receiving oxygen were experiencing hypoxia, defined as SpO₂ < 94%. 
 

Oxidative stress 

Recently, several research studies have revealed the potential dangers of unjustified use of oxygen, which can lead to hyperoxia and increased mortality in hospitalized patients. 

A meta-analysis reported a linear relationship between severe hyperoxia, in-hospital mortality, and length of stay in intensive care. Another study revealed a greater mortality rate in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) experiencing an episode of hyperoxia, regardless of the severity of ARDS. 

Oxygen toxicity in intensive care is said to be linked to oxidative stress caused by increased growth of reactive oxygen species but also to the systemic inflammation caused by hyperoxia, explained Dr. Negrello. Excess oxygen may also cause lung lesions with necrosis, the severity of which is proportional to the fraction of inspired oxygen and the length of exposure. 

According to the most up-to-date international recommendations published in 2018 on the use of oxygen therapy in treating acute conditions, oxygen should not be used when SpO₂ ≥ 93%. When treatment has been started, it must be stopped when SpO₂ reaches 96%. SpO₂ cannot be maintained above 96%, according to experts. 

These threshold values can be found in the COVID-19 treatment guidelines produced by the French-Language Society of Respiratory Medicine, with oxygen therapy being recommended when SpO₂ < 92%, added Dr. Negrello. The aim is to maintain normal oxygen levels, with SpO₂ between 92% and 96%. 
 

Use sparingly 

For patients with COPD, the target levels are lower, due to the risk of hypercapnia (higher than normal carbon dioxide levels in the blood). Oxygen saturation levels should then be kept between 88% and 92%, “by using the minimum amount of oxygen necessary,” per the guidelines. 

“Oxygen should be used sparingly,” concluded Dr. Negrello. “To treat our patients without harming them, we must be able to use it at the right time, meaning when a patient really has low blood oxygen, by focusing on normal saturation levels as the end goal.”

SpO₂ measurement is the first step to be taken to determine oxygen requirements, followed by, if necessary, blood gas analysis once the patient has been admitted, he explained. 

Questioned at the end of his session on how long oxygen therapy can be given for, Dr. Negrello reiterated that the risk for death is correlated with the length of time spent in a state of hyperoxia but that it is difficult to establish a maximum timeframe to be adhered to strictly. 

Given that excess oxygen is harmful to patients in intensive care, “it would be better, when in doubt, to focus on physiological levels” and simply stop treatment when target saturation levels are reached. 

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – Oxygen therapy is used too often in patients with respiratory difficulties, says one expert, and should be given only when oxygen saturation levels (SpO₂) drop below 93%, as per the current guidelines. Florian Negrello, MD, an emergency medicine specialist at University Hospital of Martinique in Fort-de-France, reiterated this message at the 2023 conference held by France’s emergency medicine society (Urgences 2023). The recommendation is intended to prevent hyperoxia; increasing evidence indicates the harmful effects of such a state on the body. 

“This is a real problem. Oxygen therapy is given all too readily despite studies now showing that excess oxygen is harmful, especially in patients with head trauma, ischemic stroke, or cardiac arrest,” stated the session’s moderator, Patrick Plaisance, MD, PhD, a doctor at Lariboisière Hospital in Paris. 
 

No proven hypoxia

Described as difficulty breathing or shortness of breath, dyspnea is common in the emergency department, occurring in 5%-9% of patients. Close to 20% of intensive care unit admissions involve patients with dyspnea. “Since this is a very subjective symptom, it’s possible it’s being underdiagnosed,” said Dr. Negrello.

Lower respiratory tract infection, acute heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and exacerbation of asthma are the four main diagnoses linked to dyspnea, but this symptom is also seen in several medical conditions (gastrointestinal, metabolic, neurologic, etc.), he noted. 

Often seen as a harmless treatment option, oxygen therapy is commonly administered to patients with breathing difficulties even when no hypoxemia is documented. This is particularly the case for patients brought into hospital via ambulance who are treated with oxygen without even having had their blood oxygen levels, SpO₂, and partial pressure of oxygen checked. 

In the United States, one of the few studies published on the topic showed that one-third of patients transported via ambulance are put on oxygen, with SpO₂ being measured in just 5% of these cases. Finally, just 17% of patients receiving oxygen were experiencing hypoxia, defined as SpO₂ < 94%. 
 

Oxidative stress 

Recently, several research studies have revealed the potential dangers of unjustified use of oxygen, which can lead to hyperoxia and increased mortality in hospitalized patients. 

A meta-analysis reported a linear relationship between severe hyperoxia, in-hospital mortality, and length of stay in intensive care. Another study revealed a greater mortality rate in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) experiencing an episode of hyperoxia, regardless of the severity of ARDS. 

Oxygen toxicity in intensive care is said to be linked to oxidative stress caused by increased growth of reactive oxygen species but also to the systemic inflammation caused by hyperoxia, explained Dr. Negrello. Excess oxygen may also cause lung lesions with necrosis, the severity of which is proportional to the fraction of inspired oxygen and the length of exposure. 

According to the most up-to-date international recommendations published in 2018 on the use of oxygen therapy in treating acute conditions, oxygen should not be used when SpO₂ ≥ 93%. When treatment has been started, it must be stopped when SpO₂ reaches 96%. SpO₂ cannot be maintained above 96%, according to experts. 

These threshold values can be found in the COVID-19 treatment guidelines produced by the French-Language Society of Respiratory Medicine, with oxygen therapy being recommended when SpO₂ < 92%, added Dr. Negrello. The aim is to maintain normal oxygen levels, with SpO₂ between 92% and 96%. 
 

Use sparingly 

For patients with COPD, the target levels are lower, due to the risk of hypercapnia (higher than normal carbon dioxide levels in the blood). Oxygen saturation levels should then be kept between 88% and 92%, “by using the minimum amount of oxygen necessary,” per the guidelines. 

“Oxygen should be used sparingly,” concluded Dr. Negrello. “To treat our patients without harming them, we must be able to use it at the right time, meaning when a patient really has low blood oxygen, by focusing on normal saturation levels as the end goal.”

SpO₂ measurement is the first step to be taken to determine oxygen requirements, followed by, if necessary, blood gas analysis once the patient has been admitted, he explained. 

Questioned at the end of his session on how long oxygen therapy can be given for, Dr. Negrello reiterated that the risk for death is correlated with the length of time spent in a state of hyperoxia but that it is difficult to establish a maximum timeframe to be adhered to strictly. 

Given that excess oxygen is harmful to patients in intensive care, “it would be better, when in doubt, to focus on physiological levels” and simply stop treatment when target saturation levels are reached. 

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Critical Care Network

Nonrespiratory Critical Care Section

Goals-of-care discussions are essential to management of the intensive care unit (ICU) patient. Racial inequities in end-of-life decision making have been documented for many years, with literature demonstrating that marginalized populations are less likely to have EHR-documented goals-of-care discussions and more likely to have concerns regarding clinician communication.

A recently published randomized control trial in JAMA highlights an intervention that offers promise in addressing disparities in goals-of-care conversations. Curtis, et al. studied whether priming physicians with a communication guide advising on discussion prompts and language for goals-of-care could improve the rate of documented goals-of-care discussions among hospitalized older adults with serious illness. The study found that for patients in the intervention arm, there was a significant increase in proportion of goals-of-care discussions within 30 days. Notably, the difference in documented goals-of-care discussions between arms was greater in the subgroup of patients from underserved groups (Curtis JR, et al. JAMA. 2023;329[23]:2028-37).

Nevertheless, while interventions may help increase the rate of goals-of-care discussions, it is also important to address the content of discussions themselves. You and colleagues recently published a mixed-methods study assessing the impact of race on shared decision-making behaviors during family/caregiver meetings. The authors found that while ICU physicians approached shared decision making with White and Black families similarly, Black families felt their physicians provided less validation of the family role in decision making than White families did (You H, et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2023 May;20[5]:759-62). These findings highlight the importance of ongoing work that focuses not only on quantity but also on quality of communication regarding goals-of-care for patients from diverse backgrounds.

Divya Shankar MD
Section Fellow-in-Training

Muhammad Hayat-Syed MD
Section Vice Chair

Critical Care Network

Nonrespiratory Critical Care Section

Goals-of-care discussions are essential to management of the intensive care unit (ICU) patient. Racial inequities in end-of-life decision making have been documented for many years, with literature demonstrating that marginalized populations are less likely to have EHR-documented goals-of-care discussions and more likely to have concerns regarding clinician communication.

A recently published randomized control trial in JAMA highlights an intervention that offers promise in addressing disparities in goals-of-care conversations. Curtis, et al. studied whether priming physicians with a communication guide advising on discussion prompts and language for goals-of-care could improve the rate of documented goals-of-care discussions among hospitalized older adults with serious illness. The study found that for patients in the intervention arm, there was a significant increase in proportion of goals-of-care discussions within 30 days. Notably, the difference in documented goals-of-care discussions between arms was greater in the subgroup of patients from underserved groups (Curtis JR, et al. JAMA. 2023;329[23]:2028-37).

Nevertheless, while interventions may help increase the rate of goals-of-care discussions, it is also important to address the content of discussions themselves. You and colleagues recently published a mixed-methods study assessing the impact of race on shared decision-making behaviors during family/caregiver meetings. The authors found that while ICU physicians approached shared decision making with White and Black families similarly, Black families felt their physicians provided less validation of the family role in decision making than White families did (You H, et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2023 May;20[5]:759-62). These findings highlight the importance of ongoing work that focuses not only on quantity but also on quality of communication regarding goals-of-care for patients from diverse backgrounds.

Divya Shankar MD
Section Fellow-in-Training

Muhammad Hayat-Syed MD
Section Vice Chair

Critical Care Network

Nonrespiratory Critical Care Section

Goals-of-care discussions are essential to management of the intensive care unit (ICU) patient. Racial inequities in end-of-life decision making have been documented for many years, with literature demonstrating that marginalized populations are less likely to have EHR-documented goals-of-care discussions and more likely to have concerns regarding clinician communication.

A recently published randomized control trial in JAMA highlights an intervention that offers promise in addressing disparities in goals-of-care conversations. Curtis, et al. studied whether priming physicians with a communication guide advising on discussion prompts and language for goals-of-care could improve the rate of documented goals-of-care discussions among hospitalized older adults with serious illness. The study found that for patients in the intervention arm, there was a significant increase in proportion of goals-of-care discussions within 30 days. Notably, the difference in documented goals-of-care discussions between arms was greater in the subgroup of patients from underserved groups (Curtis JR, et al. JAMA. 2023;329[23]:2028-37).

Nevertheless, while interventions may help increase the rate of goals-of-care discussions, it is also important to address the content of discussions themselves. You and colleagues recently published a mixed-methods study assessing the impact of race on shared decision-making behaviors during family/caregiver meetings. The authors found that while ICU physicians approached shared decision making with White and Black families similarly, Black families felt their physicians provided less validation of the family role in decision making than White families did (You H, et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2023 May;20[5]:759-62). These findings highlight the importance of ongoing work that focuses not only on quantity but also on quality of communication regarding goals-of-care for patients from diverse backgrounds.

Divya Shankar MD
Section Fellow-in-Training

Muhammad Hayat-Syed MD
Section Vice Chair

After much anticipation, the inaugural issues of both CHEST^®Critical Care and CHEST^®Pulmonary officially launched in late June. These new open access additions to the journal CHEST^® portfolio feature content that is permanently and freely available online for all – promoting transparency, inclusiveness, and collaboration in research – and offer authors more avenues to share their practice-changing research.

The first issue of CHEST Critical Care featured research into ICU mortality across prepandemic and pandemic cohorts in resource-limited settings in South Africa, an exploration into symptom trajectory in recipients of hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation, a narrative review of post-intensive care syndrome, and an investigation into early echocardiographic and ultrasonographic findings in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

In addition, an editorial from Hayley Gershengorn, MD, Editor in Chief of CHEST Critical Care, offers readers more insights into the need for a publication focused on the breadth of clinical topics in critical care and her goals for the new publication.

“I’m ecstatic for this launch. We are grateful to our authors for the trust they put in us and are excited to share their work with our critical care colleagues around the world,” Dr. Gershengorn said. “The editorial team and the American College of Chest Physicians staff have worked tirelessly on this journal, and it’s incredibly gratifying to see the first issue publish.”

Read the full issue and new research from the journal at www.chestcc.org.

In his own editorial featured in the inaugural issue of CHEST Pulmonary, Editor in Chief Matthew Miles, MD, MEd, FCCP, shares how the flagship journal’s proud heritage of sharing impactful clinical research – and the need to target areas of pulmonary and sleep medicine research not covered by other journals – inspired the creation of this new publication.

The issue also includes research into mobile health opportunities for asthma management, an exploration into telemedicine for patients with interstitial lung diseases, an in-depth review into the rare and often underdiagnosed disorder primary ciliary dyskinesia, research on the impact of the social vulnerability index on pulmonary embolism mortality, and an investigation into pneumothorax complications after percutaneous lung biopsy.

“I am deeply grateful to our authors, reviewers, editorial board, and staff who have contributed to the launch of our first issue,” Dr. Miles said. “The journal CHEST is known for excellence in clinically relevant research and patient management guidance. CHEST Pulmonary expands the CHEST portfolio with additional opportunity for researchers to share their work in an exclusively open access format to reach the broadest possible audience. I know our readers will enjoy learning from the research and reviews in issue one.”

Review the full issue and new articles from CHEST Pulmonary at www.chestpulmonary.org.

After much anticipation, the inaugural issues of both CHEST^®Critical Care and CHEST^®Pulmonary officially launched in late June. These new open access additions to the journal CHEST^® portfolio feature content that is permanently and freely available online for all – promoting transparency, inclusiveness, and collaboration in research – and offer authors more avenues to share their practice-changing research.

The first issue of CHEST Critical Care featured research into ICU mortality across prepandemic and pandemic cohorts in resource-limited settings in South Africa, an exploration into symptom trajectory in recipients of hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation, a narrative review of post-intensive care syndrome, and an investigation into early echocardiographic and ultrasonographic findings in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

In addition, an editorial from Hayley Gershengorn, MD, Editor in Chief of CHEST Critical Care, offers readers more insights into the need for a publication focused on the breadth of clinical topics in critical care and her goals for the new publication.

“I’m ecstatic for this launch. We are grateful to our authors for the trust they put in us and are excited to share their work with our critical care colleagues around the world,” Dr. Gershengorn said. “The editorial team and the American College of Chest Physicians staff have worked tirelessly on this journal, and it’s incredibly gratifying to see the first issue publish.”

Read the full issue and new research from the journal at www.chestcc.org.

In his own editorial featured in the inaugural issue of CHEST Pulmonary, Editor in Chief Matthew Miles, MD, MEd, FCCP, shares how the flagship journal’s proud heritage of sharing impactful clinical research – and the need to target areas of pulmonary and sleep medicine research not covered by other journals – inspired the creation of this new publication.

The issue also includes research into mobile health opportunities for asthma management, an exploration into telemedicine for patients with interstitial lung diseases, an in-depth review into the rare and often underdiagnosed disorder primary ciliary dyskinesia, research on the impact of the social vulnerability index on pulmonary embolism mortality, and an investigation into pneumothorax complications after percutaneous lung biopsy.

“I am deeply grateful to our authors, reviewers, editorial board, and staff who have contributed to the launch of our first issue,” Dr. Miles said. “The journal CHEST is known for excellence in clinically relevant research and patient management guidance. CHEST Pulmonary expands the CHEST portfolio with additional opportunity for researchers to share their work in an exclusively open access format to reach the broadest possible audience. I know our readers will enjoy learning from the research and reviews in issue one.”

Review the full issue and new articles from CHEST Pulmonary at www.chestpulmonary.org.

After much anticipation, the inaugural issues of both CHEST^®Critical Care and CHEST^®Pulmonary officially launched in late June. These new open access additions to the journal CHEST^® portfolio feature content that is permanently and freely available online for all – promoting transparency, inclusiveness, and collaboration in research – and offer authors more avenues to share their practice-changing research.

The first issue of CHEST Critical Care featured research into ICU mortality across prepandemic and pandemic cohorts in resource-limited settings in South Africa, an exploration into symptom trajectory in recipients of hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation, a narrative review of post-intensive care syndrome, and an investigation into early echocardiographic and ultrasonographic findings in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

In addition, an editorial from Hayley Gershengorn, MD, Editor in Chief of CHEST Critical Care, offers readers more insights into the need for a publication focused on the breadth of clinical topics in critical care and her goals for the new publication.

“I’m ecstatic for this launch. We are grateful to our authors for the trust they put in us and are excited to share their work with our critical care colleagues around the world,” Dr. Gershengorn said. “The editorial team and the American College of Chest Physicians staff have worked tirelessly on this journal, and it’s incredibly gratifying to see the first issue publish.”

Read the full issue and new research from the journal at www.chestcc.org.

In his own editorial featured in the inaugural issue of CHEST Pulmonary, Editor in Chief Matthew Miles, MD, MEd, FCCP, shares how the flagship journal’s proud heritage of sharing impactful clinical research – and the need to target areas of pulmonary and sleep medicine research not covered by other journals – inspired the creation of this new publication.

The issue also includes research into mobile health opportunities for asthma management, an exploration into telemedicine for patients with interstitial lung diseases, an in-depth review into the rare and often underdiagnosed disorder primary ciliary dyskinesia, research on the impact of the social vulnerability index on pulmonary embolism mortality, and an investigation into pneumothorax complications after percutaneous lung biopsy.

“I am deeply grateful to our authors, reviewers, editorial board, and staff who have contributed to the launch of our first issue,” Dr. Miles said. “The journal CHEST is known for excellence in clinically relevant research and patient management guidance. CHEST Pulmonary expands the CHEST portfolio with additional opportunity for researchers to share their work in an exclusively open access format to reach the broadest possible audience. I know our readers will enjoy learning from the research and reviews in issue one.”

Review the full issue and new articles from CHEST Pulmonary at www.chestpulmonary.org.

Lower doses of initial vasopressin were associated with lower mortality when used as an adjunct in patients with septic shock, according to a review of three recent studies.

“Patients with septic shock require vasoactive agents to restore adequate tissue perfusion,” writes Gretchen L. Sacha, PharmD, of the Cleveland Clinic and colleagues.

Vasopressin is an attractive alternative to norepinephrine because it avoids the adverse effects associated with catecholamines, the researchers say. Although vasopressin is the recommended second-line adjunct after norepinephrine for patients with septic shock, findings to guide its use are inconsistent and data on the timing are limited, they note.

In a review published in the journal CHEST, the researchers summarize the three large, randomized trials to date examining the use of norepinephrine and vasopressin in patients with septic shock.

In the Vasopressin in Septic Shock Trial (VASST), 382 patients with septic shock were randomized to open-label norepinephrine with blinded norepinephrine, and 382 were randomized to open-label norepinephrine with blinded adjunctive vasopressin.

After initiation of the study drug, patients randomized to vasopressin had significantly lower requirements for open-label norepinephrine (P < .001). Although no differences occurred in the primary outcome of 28-day mortality, 90-day mortality was lower in the vasopressin group.

In the Vasopressin vs Norepinephrine as Initial Therapy in Septic Shock (VANISH) trial, 204 patients with septic shock were randomized to norepinephrine and 204 to vasopressin as an initial vasoactive agent. Although no differences appeared between the groups for the two primary outcomes of 28-day mortality and days free of kidney failure, the vasopressin group had a lower frequency of the use of kidney replacement therapy (absolute difference –9.9% vs. –0.6%).

The VANISH study was limited by the fact that 85% of the patients were receiving norepinephrine when they were randomized; “therefore, this study is best described as evaluating catecholamine-adjunctive vasopressin,” the researchers say.

The third clinical trial, published only as an abstract, randomized 387 patients with septic shock who were already receiving low doses of norepinephrine to either norepinephrine with adjunctive vasopressin or norepinephrine alone. Rates of 28-day mortality were significantly lower in the vasopressin group (34.0% vs. 42.3%; P = .03).

Several meta-analyses involving multiple vasopressin receptor agonists have shown an association between reduced mortality and their use. In addition, recent observational studies have shown an association between lower mortality and the initiation of vasopressors at a lower norepinephrine-equivalent dose or lower lactate concentration.

As for clinical implications, the 2021 version of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines included a meta-analysis of 10 randomized, controlled trials that showed improved mortality associated with vasopressin use. This version of the guidelines was the first to address the timing of vasopressin initiation.

Because of insufficient evidence, the guidance was worded as “in our practice, vasopressin is usually started when the dose of norepinephrine is in the range of 0.25-0.5 mcg/kg/min,” the researchers write. “Although this is not a recommendation by the SSC for a specific threshold of catecholamine dose where vasopressin should be initiated, this statement represents clinician interest and the need for further research on the topic,” they note.

“Future studies of vasopressin should focus on the timing of its initiation at various clinical thresholds and patient selection for receipt of vasopressin,” they conclude.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences. Dr. Sacha has disclosed consulting for Wolters Kluwer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lower doses of initial vasopressin were associated with lower mortality when used as an adjunct in patients with septic shock, according to a review of three recent studies.

“Patients with septic shock require vasoactive agents to restore adequate tissue perfusion,” writes Gretchen L. Sacha, PharmD, of the Cleveland Clinic and colleagues.

Vasopressin is an attractive alternative to norepinephrine because it avoids the adverse effects associated with catecholamines, the researchers say. Although vasopressin is the recommended second-line adjunct after norepinephrine for patients with septic shock, findings to guide its use are inconsistent and data on the timing are limited, they note.

In a review published in the journal CHEST, the researchers summarize the three large, randomized trials to date examining the use of norepinephrine and vasopressin in patients with septic shock.

In the Vasopressin in Septic Shock Trial (VASST), 382 patients with septic shock were randomized to open-label norepinephrine with blinded norepinephrine, and 382 were randomized to open-label norepinephrine with blinded adjunctive vasopressin.

After initiation of the study drug, patients randomized to vasopressin had significantly lower requirements for open-label norepinephrine (P < .001). Although no differences occurred in the primary outcome of 28-day mortality, 90-day mortality was lower in the vasopressin group.

In the Vasopressin vs Norepinephrine as Initial Therapy in Septic Shock (VANISH) trial, 204 patients with septic shock were randomized to norepinephrine and 204 to vasopressin as an initial vasoactive agent. Although no differences appeared between the groups for the two primary outcomes of 28-day mortality and days free of kidney failure, the vasopressin group had a lower frequency of the use of kidney replacement therapy (absolute difference –9.9% vs. –0.6%).

The VANISH study was limited by the fact that 85% of the patients were receiving norepinephrine when they were randomized; “therefore, this study is best described as evaluating catecholamine-adjunctive vasopressin,” the researchers say.

The third clinical trial, published only as an abstract, randomized 387 patients with septic shock who were already receiving low doses of norepinephrine to either norepinephrine with adjunctive vasopressin or norepinephrine alone. Rates of 28-day mortality were significantly lower in the vasopressin group (34.0% vs. 42.3%; P = .03).

Several meta-analyses involving multiple vasopressin receptor agonists have shown an association between reduced mortality and their use. In addition, recent observational studies have shown an association between lower mortality and the initiation of vasopressors at a lower norepinephrine-equivalent dose or lower lactate concentration.

As for clinical implications, the 2021 version of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines included a meta-analysis of 10 randomized, controlled trials that showed improved mortality associated with vasopressin use. This version of the guidelines was the first to address the timing of vasopressin initiation.

Because of insufficient evidence, the guidance was worded as “in our practice, vasopressin is usually started when the dose of norepinephrine is in the range of 0.25-0.5 mcg/kg/min,” the researchers write. “Although this is not a recommendation by the SSC for a specific threshold of catecholamine dose where vasopressin should be initiated, this statement represents clinician interest and the need for further research on the topic,” they note.

“Future studies of vasopressin should focus on the timing of its initiation at various clinical thresholds and patient selection for receipt of vasopressin,” they conclude.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences. Dr. Sacha has disclosed consulting for Wolters Kluwer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lower doses of initial vasopressin were associated with lower mortality when used as an adjunct in patients with septic shock, according to a review of three recent studies.

“Patients with septic shock require vasoactive agents to restore adequate tissue perfusion,” writes Gretchen L. Sacha, PharmD, of the Cleveland Clinic and colleagues.

Vasopressin is an attractive alternative to norepinephrine because it avoids the adverse effects associated with catecholamines, the researchers say. Although vasopressin is the recommended second-line adjunct after norepinephrine for patients with septic shock, findings to guide its use are inconsistent and data on the timing are limited, they note.

In a review published in the journal CHEST, the researchers summarize the three large, randomized trials to date examining the use of norepinephrine and vasopressin in patients with septic shock.

In the Vasopressin in Septic Shock Trial (VASST), 382 patients with septic shock were randomized to open-label norepinephrine with blinded norepinephrine, and 382 were randomized to open-label norepinephrine with blinded adjunctive vasopressin.

After initiation of the study drug, patients randomized to vasopressin had significantly lower requirements for open-label norepinephrine (P < .001). Although no differences occurred in the primary outcome of 28-day mortality, 90-day mortality was lower in the vasopressin group.

In the Vasopressin vs Norepinephrine as Initial Therapy in Septic Shock (VANISH) trial, 204 patients with septic shock were randomized to norepinephrine and 204 to vasopressin as an initial vasoactive agent. Although no differences appeared between the groups for the two primary outcomes of 28-day mortality and days free of kidney failure, the vasopressin group had a lower frequency of the use of kidney replacement therapy (absolute difference –9.9% vs. –0.6%).

The VANISH study was limited by the fact that 85% of the patients were receiving norepinephrine when they were randomized; “therefore, this study is best described as evaluating catecholamine-adjunctive vasopressin,” the researchers say.

The third clinical trial, published only as an abstract, randomized 387 patients with septic shock who were already receiving low doses of norepinephrine to either norepinephrine with adjunctive vasopressin or norepinephrine alone. Rates of 28-day mortality were significantly lower in the vasopressin group (34.0% vs. 42.3%; P = .03).

Several meta-analyses involving multiple vasopressin receptor agonists have shown an association between reduced mortality and their use. In addition, recent observational studies have shown an association between lower mortality and the initiation of vasopressors at a lower norepinephrine-equivalent dose or lower lactate concentration.

As for clinical implications, the 2021 version of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines included a meta-analysis of 10 randomized, controlled trials that showed improved mortality associated with vasopressin use. This version of the guidelines was the first to address the timing of vasopressin initiation.

Because of insufficient evidence, the guidance was worded as “in our practice, vasopressin is usually started when the dose of norepinephrine is in the range of 0.25-0.5 mcg/kg/min,” the researchers write. “Although this is not a recommendation by the SSC for a specific threshold of catecholamine dose where vasopressin should be initiated, this statement represents clinician interest and the need for further research on the topic,” they note.

“Future studies of vasopressin should focus on the timing of its initiation at various clinical thresholds and patient selection for receipt of vasopressin,” they conclude.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences. Dr. Sacha has disclosed consulting for Wolters Kluwer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Maintaining a slightly elevated CO₂ level (hypercapnia) for the first 24 hours in comatose patients who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest did not improve outcomes in a large randomized controlled trial.

The Targeted Therapeutic Mild Hypercapnia After Resuscitated Cardiac Arrest (TAME) study showed that the intervention failed to improve neurologic or functional outcomes or quality of life at 6 months. However, the researchers also found that slightly elevated CO₂ levels were not associated with worse outcomes.

“I think these results show that our hypothesis – that raising CO₂ levels as applied in this trial may be beneficial for these patients – was not effective, even though previous work suggested that it would be,” co–lead investigator Alistair Nichol, MD, said in an interview.

“This was a rigorous trial; the intervention was well delivered, and the results are pretty clear. Unfortunately, we have proved a null hypothesis – that this approach doesn’t seem to work,” Dr. Nichol, who is professor of critical care medicine at University College Dublin, said.

“However, we did find that hypercapnia was safe. This is an important finding, as sometimes in very sick patients such as those who develop pneumonia, we have to drive the ventilator less hard to minimize injury to the lungs, and this can lead to higher CO₂ levels,” he added. “Our results show that this practice should not be harmful, which is reassuring.”

The TAME study was presented at the Critical Care Reviews 2023 Meeting (CCR23) held in Belfast, Northern Ireland.

It was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The researchers explain that after the return of spontaneous circulation, brain hypoperfusion may contribute to cerebral hypoxia, exacerbate brain damage, and lead to poor neurologic outcomes. The partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO₂) is the major physiologic regulator of cerebrovascular tone, and increasing CO₂ levels increases cerebral blood flow.

Two previous observational studies showed that exposure to hypercapnia was associated with an increase in the likelihood of being discharged home and better neurologic outcomes at 12 months, compared with hypocapnia or normocapnia.

In addition, a physiologic study showed that deliberate increases in PaCO₂ induced higher cerebral oxygen saturations, compared with normocapnia. A phase 2 randomized trial showed that hypercapnia significantly attenuated the release of neuron-specific enolase, a biomarker of brain injury, and also suggested better 6-month neurologic recovery with hypercapnia compared with normocapnia.

The current TAME trial was conducted to try to confirm these results in a larger, more definitive study.

For the trial, 1,700 adults with coma who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were randomly assigned to receive either 24 hours of mild hypercapnia (target PaCO₂, 50-55 mm Hg) or normocapnia (target PaCO₂, 35-45 mm Hg).

The primary outcome – a favorable neurologic outcome, defined as a score of 5 or higher on the Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended at 6 months – occurred in 43.5% in the mild hypercapnia group and in 44.6% in the normocapnia group (relative risk, 0.98; P = .76).

By 6 months, 48.2% of those in the mild hypercapnia group and 45.9% in the normocapnia group had died (relative risk with mild hypercapnia, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.16). In the mild hypercapnia group, 53.4% had a poor functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 4-6, compared with 51.3% in the normocapnia group.

Health-related quality of life, as assessed by the EQ Visual Analogue Scale component of the EuroQol-5D-5L, was similar in the two groups.

In terms of safety, results showed that mild hypercapnia did not increase the incidence of prespecified adverse events.

The authors note that there is concern that mild hypercapnia may worsen cerebral edema and elevate intracranial pressure; however, elevated intracranial pressure is uncommon in the first 72 hours after the return of spontaneous circulation.

In the TAME trial, there was one case of cerebral edema in the hypercapnia group. “This is a very low rate and would be expected in a group this size, so this does not indicate a safety concern,” Dr. Nichol commented.

The researchers are planning further analyses of biological samples to look for possible prognostic markers.

“These out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients are a very diverse group, and it may be possible that some patients could have benefited from hypercapnia while others may have been harmed,” Dr. Nichol noted.

“Raising CO₂ levels does improve overall delivery of oxygen to the brain, but this might not have occurred in the right areas. It may be possible that some patients benefited, and analysis of biological samples will help us look more closely at this.”

He added that other ongoing trials are investigating hypercapnia in patients with traumatic brain injury.

“These patients are managed differently and often have probes in their brain to measure the response to CO₂, so more of a precision medicine approach is possible,” he explained.

He also noted that the TAME study, which was conducted in conjunction with the TTM-2 study investigating hypothermia in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients, has established a network of ICU teams around the world, providing an infrastructure for further trials to be performed in this patient population in the future.

The TAME trial was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Health Research Board of Ireland, and the Health Research Council of New Zealand.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Maintaining a slightly elevated CO₂ level (hypercapnia) for the first 24 hours in comatose patients who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest did not improve outcomes in a large randomized controlled trial.

The Targeted Therapeutic Mild Hypercapnia After Resuscitated Cardiac Arrest (TAME) study showed that the intervention failed to improve neurologic or functional outcomes or quality of life at 6 months. However, the researchers also found that slightly elevated CO₂ levels were not associated with worse outcomes.

“I think these results show that our hypothesis – that raising CO₂ levels as applied in this trial may be beneficial for these patients – was not effective, even though previous work suggested that it would be,” co–lead investigator Alistair Nichol, MD, said in an interview.

“This was a rigorous trial; the intervention was well delivered, and the results are pretty clear. Unfortunately, we have proved a null hypothesis – that this approach doesn’t seem to work,” Dr. Nichol, who is professor of critical care medicine at University College Dublin, said.

“However, we did find that hypercapnia was safe. This is an important finding, as sometimes in very sick patients such as those who develop pneumonia, we have to drive the ventilator less hard to minimize injury to the lungs, and this can lead to higher CO₂ levels,” he added. “Our results show that this practice should not be harmful, which is reassuring.”

The TAME study was presented at the Critical Care Reviews 2023 Meeting (CCR23) held in Belfast, Northern Ireland.

It was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The researchers explain that after the return of spontaneous circulation, brain hypoperfusion may contribute to cerebral hypoxia, exacerbate brain damage, and lead to poor neurologic outcomes. The partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO₂) is the major physiologic regulator of cerebrovascular tone, and increasing CO₂ levels increases cerebral blood flow.

Two previous observational studies showed that exposure to hypercapnia was associated with an increase in the likelihood of being discharged home and better neurologic outcomes at 12 months, compared with hypocapnia or normocapnia.

In addition, a physiologic study showed that deliberate increases in PaCO₂ induced higher cerebral oxygen saturations, compared with normocapnia. A phase 2 randomized trial showed that hypercapnia significantly attenuated the release of neuron-specific enolase, a biomarker of brain injury, and also suggested better 6-month neurologic recovery with hypercapnia compared with normocapnia.

The current TAME trial was conducted to try to confirm these results in a larger, more definitive study.

For the trial, 1,700 adults with coma who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were randomly assigned to receive either 24 hours of mild hypercapnia (target PaCO₂, 50-55 mm Hg) or normocapnia (target PaCO₂, 35-45 mm Hg).

The primary outcome – a favorable neurologic outcome, defined as a score of 5 or higher on the Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended at 6 months – occurred in 43.5% in the mild hypercapnia group and in 44.6% in the normocapnia group (relative risk, 0.98; P = .76).

By 6 months, 48.2% of those in the mild hypercapnia group and 45.9% in the normocapnia group had died (relative risk with mild hypercapnia, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.16). In the mild hypercapnia group, 53.4% had a poor functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 4-6, compared with 51.3% in the normocapnia group.

Health-related quality of life, as assessed by the EQ Visual Analogue Scale component of the EuroQol-5D-5L, was similar in the two groups.

In terms of safety, results showed that mild hypercapnia did not increase the incidence of prespecified adverse events.

The authors note that there is concern that mild hypercapnia may worsen cerebral edema and elevate intracranial pressure; however, elevated intracranial pressure is uncommon in the first 72 hours after the return of spontaneous circulation.

In the TAME trial, there was one case of cerebral edema in the hypercapnia group. “This is a very low rate and would be expected in a group this size, so this does not indicate a safety concern,” Dr. Nichol commented.

The researchers are planning further analyses of biological samples to look for possible prognostic markers.

“These out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients are a very diverse group, and it may be possible that some patients could have benefited from hypercapnia while others may have been harmed,” Dr. Nichol noted.

“Raising CO₂ levels does improve overall delivery of oxygen to the brain, but this might not have occurred in the right areas. It may be possible that some patients benefited, and analysis of biological samples will help us look more closely at this.”

He added that other ongoing trials are investigating hypercapnia in patients with traumatic brain injury.

“These patients are managed differently and often have probes in their brain to measure the response to CO₂, so more of a precision medicine approach is possible,” he explained.

He also noted that the TAME study, which was conducted in conjunction with the TTM-2 study investigating hypothermia in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients, has established a network of ICU teams around the world, providing an infrastructure for further trials to be performed in this patient population in the future.

The TAME trial was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Health Research Board of Ireland, and the Health Research Council of New Zealand.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Maintaining a slightly elevated CO₂ level (hypercapnia) for the first 24 hours in comatose patients who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest did not improve outcomes in a large randomized controlled trial.

The Targeted Therapeutic Mild Hypercapnia After Resuscitated Cardiac Arrest (TAME) study showed that the intervention failed to improve neurologic or functional outcomes or quality of life at 6 months. However, the researchers also found that slightly elevated CO₂ levels were not associated with worse outcomes.

“I think these results show that our hypothesis – that raising CO₂ levels as applied in this trial may be beneficial for these patients – was not effective, even though previous work suggested that it would be,” co–lead investigator Alistair Nichol, MD, said in an interview.

“This was a rigorous trial; the intervention was well delivered, and the results are pretty clear. Unfortunately, we have proved a null hypothesis – that this approach doesn’t seem to work,” Dr. Nichol, who is professor of critical care medicine at University College Dublin, said.

“However, we did find that hypercapnia was safe. This is an important finding, as sometimes in very sick patients such as those who develop pneumonia, we have to drive the ventilator less hard to minimize injury to the lungs, and this can lead to higher CO₂ levels,” he added. “Our results show that this practice should not be harmful, which is reassuring.”

The TAME study was presented at the Critical Care Reviews 2023 Meeting (CCR23) held in Belfast, Northern Ireland.

It was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The researchers explain that after the return of spontaneous circulation, brain hypoperfusion may contribute to cerebral hypoxia, exacerbate brain damage, and lead to poor neurologic outcomes. The partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO₂) is the major physiologic regulator of cerebrovascular tone, and increasing CO₂ levels increases cerebral blood flow.

Two previous observational studies showed that exposure to hypercapnia was associated with an increase in the likelihood of being discharged home and better neurologic outcomes at 12 months, compared with hypocapnia or normocapnia.

In addition, a physiologic study showed that deliberate increases in PaCO₂ induced higher cerebral oxygen saturations, compared with normocapnia. A phase 2 randomized trial showed that hypercapnia significantly attenuated the release of neuron-specific enolase, a biomarker of brain injury, and also suggested better 6-month neurologic recovery with hypercapnia compared with normocapnia.

The current TAME trial was conducted to try to confirm these results in a larger, more definitive study.

For the trial, 1,700 adults with coma who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were randomly assigned to receive either 24 hours of mild hypercapnia (target PaCO₂, 50-55 mm Hg) or normocapnia (target PaCO₂, 35-45 mm Hg).

The primary outcome – a favorable neurologic outcome, defined as a score of 5 or higher on the Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended at 6 months – occurred in 43.5% in the mild hypercapnia group and in 44.6% in the normocapnia group (relative risk, 0.98; P = .76).

By 6 months, 48.2% of those in the mild hypercapnia group and 45.9% in the normocapnia group had died (relative risk with mild hypercapnia, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.16). In the mild hypercapnia group, 53.4% had a poor functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 4-6, compared with 51.3% in the normocapnia group.

Health-related quality of life, as assessed by the EQ Visual Analogue Scale component of the EuroQol-5D-5L, was similar in the two groups.

In terms of safety, results showed that mild hypercapnia did not increase the incidence of prespecified adverse events.

The authors note that there is concern that mild hypercapnia may worsen cerebral edema and elevate intracranial pressure; however, elevated intracranial pressure is uncommon in the first 72 hours after the return of spontaneous circulation.

In the TAME trial, there was one case of cerebral edema in the hypercapnia group. “This is a very low rate and would be expected in a group this size, so this does not indicate a safety concern,” Dr. Nichol commented.

The researchers are planning further analyses of biological samples to look for possible prognostic markers.

“These out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients are a very diverse group, and it may be possible that some patients could have benefited from hypercapnia while others may have been harmed,” Dr. Nichol noted.

“Raising CO₂ levels does improve overall delivery of oxygen to the brain, but this might not have occurred in the right areas. It may be possible that some patients benefited, and analysis of biological samples will help us look more closely at this.”

He added that other ongoing trials are investigating hypercapnia in patients with traumatic brain injury.

“These patients are managed differently and often have probes in their brain to measure the response to CO₂, so more of a precision medicine approach is possible,” he explained.

He also noted that the TAME study, which was conducted in conjunction with the TTM-2 study investigating hypothermia in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients, has established a network of ICU teams around the world, providing an infrastructure for further trials to be performed in this patient population in the future.

The TAME trial was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Health Research Board of Ireland, and the Health Research Council of New Zealand.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A new guide offers recommendations for the nonsurgical management of major hemorrhage, which is a challenging clinical problem.

Major hemorrhage is a significant cause of death and can occur in a myriad of clinical settings.

“In Ontario, we’ve been collecting quality metrics on major hemorrhages to try and make sure that a higher percentage of patients gets the best possible care when they are experiencing significant bleeding,” author Jeannie Callum, MD, professor and director of transfusion medicine at Kingston (Ont.) Health Sciences Centre and Queen’s University, also in Kingston, said in an interview. “There were some gaps, so this is our effort to get open, clear information out to the emergency doctors, intensive care unit doctors, the surgeons, and everyone else involved in managing major hemorrhage, to help close these gaps.”

The guide was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Fast care essential

The guide aims to provide answers, based on the latest research, to questions such as when to activate a massive hemorrhage protocol (MHP), which patients should receive tranexamic acid (TXA), which blood products should be transfused before laboratory results are available, how to monitor the effects of blood transfusion, and when fibrinogen concentrate or prothrombin complex concentrate should be given.

Not all recommendations will be followed, Dr. Callum said, especially in rural hospitals with limited resources. But the guide is adaptable, and rural hospitals can create protocols that are customized to their unique circumstances.

Care must be “perfect and fast” in the first hour of major injury, said Dr. Callum. “You need to get a proclotting drug in that first hour if you have a traumatic or postpartum bleed. You have to make sure your clotting factors never fail you throughout your resuscitation. You have to be fast with the transfusion. You have to monitor for the complications of the transfusion, electrolyte disturbances, and the patient’s temperature dropping. It’s a complicated situation that needs a multidisciplinary team.”

Bleeding affects everybody in medicine, from family doctors in smaller institutions who work in emergency departments to obstetricians and surgeons, she added.

“For people under the age of 45, trauma is the most common cause of death. When people die of trauma, they die of bleeding. So many people experience these extreme bleeds. We believe that some of them might be preventable with faster, more standardized, more aggressive care. That’s why we wrote this review,” said Dr. Callum.
 

Administer TXA quickly  

The first recommendation is to ensure that every hospital has a massive hemorrhage protocol. Such a protocol is vital for the emergency department, operating room, and obstetric unit. “Making sure you’ve got a protocol that is updated every 3 years and adjusted to the local hospital context is essential,” said Dr. Callum.

Smaller hospitals will have to adjust their protocols according to the capabilities of their sites. “Some smaller hospitals do not have platelets in stock and get their platelets from another hospital, so you need to adjust your protocol to what you are able to do. Not every hospital can control bleeding in a trauma patient, so your protocol would be to stabilize and call a helicopter. Make sure all of this is detailed so that implementing it becomes automatic,” said Dr. Callum.

An MHP should be activated for patients with uncontrolled hemorrhage who meet the clinical criteria of the local hospital and are expected to need blood product support and red blood cells.

“Lots of people bleed, but not everybody is bleeding enough that they need a code transfusion,” said Dr. Callum. Most patients with gastrointestinal bleeds caused by NSAID use can be managed with uncrossed matched blood from the local blood bank. “But in patients who need the full code transfusion because they are going to need plasma, clotting factor replacement, and many other drugs, that is when the MHP should be activated. Don’t activate it when you don’t need it, because doing so activates the whole hospital and diverts care away from other patients.”

TXA should be administered as soon as possible after onset of hemorrhage in most patients, with the exception of gastrointestinal hemorrhage, where a benefit has not been shown.

TXA has been a major advance in treating massive bleeding, Dr. Callum said. “TXA was invented by a Japanese husband-and-wife research team. We know that it reduces the death rate in trauma and in postpartum hemorrhage, and it reduces the chance of major bleeding with major surgical procedures. We give it routinely in surgical procedures. If a patient gets TXA within 60 minutes of injury, it dramatically reduces the death rate. And it costs $10 per patient. It’s cheap, it’s easy, it has no side effects. It’s just amazing.”

Future research must address several unanswered questions, said Dr. Callum. These questions include whether prehospital transfusion improves patient outcomes, whether whole blood has a role in the early management of major hemorrhage, and what role factor concentrates play in patients with major bleeding.
 

‘Optimal recommendations’

Commenting on the document, Bourke Tillmann, MD, PhD, trauma team leader at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and the Ross Tilley Burn Center in Toronto, said: “Overall, I think it is a good overview of MHPs as an approach to major hemorrhage.”

The review also is timely, since Ontario released its MHP guidelines in 2021, he added. “I would have liked to see more about the treatment aspects than just an overview of an MHP. But if you are the person overseeing the emergency department or running the blood bank, these protocols are incredibly useful and incredibly important.”

“This report is a nice and thoughtful overview of best practices in many areas, especially trauma, and makes recommendations that are optimal, although they are not necessarily practical in all centers,” Eric L. Legome, MD, professor and chair of emergency medicine at Mount Sinai West and Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, said in an interview.

“If you’re in a small rural hospital with one lab technician, trying to do all of these things, it will not be possible. These are optimal recommendations that people can use to the best of their ability, but they are not standard of care, because some places will not be able to provide this level of care,” he added. “This paper provides practical, reasonable advice that should be looked at as you are trying to implement transfusion policies and processes, with the understanding that it is not necessarily applicable or practical for very small hospitals in very rural centers that might not have access to these types of products and tools, but it’s a reasonable and nicely written paper.”

No outside funding for the guideline was reported. Dr. Callum has received research funding from Canadian Blood Services and Octapharma. She sits on the nominating committee with the Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies and on the data safety monitoring boards for the Tranexamic Acid for Subdural Hematoma trial and the Fibrinogen Replacement in Trauma trial. Dr. Tillmann and Dr. Legome reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A new guide offers recommendations for the nonsurgical management of major hemorrhage, which is a challenging clinical problem.

Major hemorrhage is a significant cause of death and can occur in a myriad of clinical settings.

“In Ontario, we’ve been collecting quality metrics on major hemorrhages to try and make sure that a higher percentage of patients gets the best possible care when they are experiencing significant bleeding,” author Jeannie Callum, MD, professor and director of transfusion medicine at Kingston (Ont.) Health Sciences Centre and Queen’s University, also in Kingston, said in an interview. “There were some gaps, so this is our effort to get open, clear information out to the emergency doctors, intensive care unit doctors, the surgeons, and everyone else involved in managing major hemorrhage, to help close these gaps.”

The guide was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Fast care essential

The guide aims to provide answers, based on the latest research, to questions such as when to activate a massive hemorrhage protocol (MHP), which patients should receive tranexamic acid (TXA), which blood products should be transfused before laboratory results are available, how to monitor the effects of blood transfusion, and when fibrinogen concentrate or prothrombin complex concentrate should be given.

Not all recommendations will be followed, Dr. Callum said, especially in rural hospitals with limited resources. But the guide is adaptable, and rural hospitals can create protocols that are customized to their unique circumstances.

Care must be “perfect and fast” in the first hour of major injury, said Dr. Callum. “You need to get a proclotting drug in that first hour if you have a traumatic or postpartum bleed. You have to make sure your clotting factors never fail you throughout your resuscitation. You have to be fast with the transfusion. You have to monitor for the complications of the transfusion, electrolyte disturbances, and the patient’s temperature dropping. It’s a complicated situation that needs a multidisciplinary team.”

Bleeding affects everybody in medicine, from family doctors in smaller institutions who work in emergency departments to obstetricians and surgeons, she added.

“For people under the age of 45, trauma is the most common cause of death. When people die of trauma, they die of bleeding. So many people experience these extreme bleeds. We believe that some of them might be preventable with faster, more standardized, more aggressive care. That’s why we wrote this review,” said Dr. Callum.
 

Administer TXA quickly  

The first recommendation is to ensure that every hospital has a massive hemorrhage protocol. Such a protocol is vital for the emergency department, operating room, and obstetric unit. “Making sure you’ve got a protocol that is updated every 3 years and adjusted to the local hospital context is essential,” said Dr. Callum.

Smaller hospitals will have to adjust their protocols according to the capabilities of their sites. “Some smaller hospitals do not have platelets in stock and get their platelets from another hospital, so you need to adjust your protocol to what you are able to do. Not every hospital can control bleeding in a trauma patient, so your protocol would be to stabilize and call a helicopter. Make sure all of this is detailed so that implementing it becomes automatic,” said Dr. Callum.

An MHP should be activated for patients with uncontrolled hemorrhage who meet the clinical criteria of the local hospital and are expected to need blood product support and red blood cells.

“Lots of people bleed, but not everybody is bleeding enough that they need a code transfusion,” said Dr. Callum. Most patients with gastrointestinal bleeds caused by NSAID use can be managed with uncrossed matched blood from the local blood bank. “But in patients who need the full code transfusion because they are going to need plasma, clotting factor replacement, and many other drugs, that is when the MHP should be activated. Don’t activate it when you don’t need it, because doing so activates the whole hospital and diverts care away from other patients.”

TXA should be administered as soon as possible after onset of hemorrhage in most patients, with the exception of gastrointestinal hemorrhage, where a benefit has not been shown.

TXA has been a major advance in treating massive bleeding, Dr. Callum said. “TXA was invented by a Japanese husband-and-wife research team. We know that it reduces the death rate in trauma and in postpartum hemorrhage, and it reduces the chance of major bleeding with major surgical procedures. We give it routinely in surgical procedures. If a patient gets TXA within 60 minutes of injury, it dramatically reduces the death rate. And it costs $10 per patient. It’s cheap, it’s easy, it has no side effects. It’s just amazing.”

Future research must address several unanswered questions, said Dr. Callum. These questions include whether prehospital transfusion improves patient outcomes, whether whole blood has a role in the early management of major hemorrhage, and what role factor concentrates play in patients with major bleeding.
 

‘Optimal recommendations’

Commenting on the document, Bourke Tillmann, MD, PhD, trauma team leader at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and the Ross Tilley Burn Center in Toronto, said: “Overall, I think it is a good overview of MHPs as an approach to major hemorrhage.”

The review also is timely, since Ontario released its MHP guidelines in 2021, he added. “I would have liked to see more about the treatment aspects than just an overview of an MHP. But if you are the person overseeing the emergency department or running the blood bank, these protocols are incredibly useful and incredibly important.”

“This report is a nice and thoughtful overview of best practices in many areas, especially trauma, and makes recommendations that are optimal, although they are not necessarily practical in all centers,” Eric L. Legome, MD, professor and chair of emergency medicine at Mount Sinai West and Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, said in an interview.

“If you’re in a small rural hospital with one lab technician, trying to do all of these things, it will not be possible. These are optimal recommendations that people can use to the best of their ability, but they are not standard of care, because some places will not be able to provide this level of care,” he added. “This paper provides practical, reasonable advice that should be looked at as you are trying to implement transfusion policies and processes, with the understanding that it is not necessarily applicable or practical for very small hospitals in very rural centers that might not have access to these types of products and tools, but it’s a reasonable and nicely written paper.”

No outside funding for the guideline was reported. Dr. Callum has received research funding from Canadian Blood Services and Octapharma. She sits on the nominating committee with the Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies and on the data safety monitoring boards for the Tranexamic Acid for Subdural Hematoma trial and the Fibrinogen Replacement in Trauma trial. Dr. Tillmann and Dr. Legome reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A new guide offers recommendations for the nonsurgical management of major hemorrhage, which is a challenging clinical problem.

Major hemorrhage is a significant cause of death and can occur in a myriad of clinical settings.

“In Ontario, we’ve been collecting quality metrics on major hemorrhages to try and make sure that a higher percentage of patients gets the best possible care when they are experiencing significant bleeding,” author Jeannie Callum, MD, professor and director of transfusion medicine at Kingston (Ont.) Health Sciences Centre and Queen’s University, also in Kingston, said in an interview. “There were some gaps, so this is our effort to get open, clear information out to the emergency doctors, intensive care unit doctors, the surgeons, and everyone else involved in managing major hemorrhage, to help close these gaps.”

The guide was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Fast care essential

The guide aims to provide answers, based on the latest research, to questions such as when to activate a massive hemorrhage protocol (MHP), which patients should receive tranexamic acid (TXA), which blood products should be transfused before laboratory results are available, how to monitor the effects of blood transfusion, and when fibrinogen concentrate or prothrombin complex concentrate should be given.

Not all recommendations will be followed, Dr. Callum said, especially in rural hospitals with limited resources. But the guide is adaptable, and rural hospitals can create protocols that are customized to their unique circumstances.

Care must be “perfect and fast” in the first hour of major injury, said Dr. Callum. “You need to get a proclotting drug in that first hour if you have a traumatic or postpartum bleed. You have to make sure your clotting factors never fail you throughout your resuscitation. You have to be fast with the transfusion. You have to monitor for the complications of the transfusion, electrolyte disturbances, and the patient’s temperature dropping. It’s a complicated situation that needs a multidisciplinary team.”

Bleeding affects everybody in medicine, from family doctors in smaller institutions who work in emergency departments to obstetricians and surgeons, she added.

“For people under the age of 45, trauma is the most common cause of death. When people die of trauma, they die of bleeding. So many people experience these extreme bleeds. We believe that some of them might be preventable with faster, more standardized, more aggressive care. That’s why we wrote this review,” said Dr. Callum.
 

Administer TXA quickly  

The first recommendation is to ensure that every hospital has a massive hemorrhage protocol. Such a protocol is vital for the emergency department, operating room, and obstetric unit. “Making sure you’ve got a protocol that is updated every 3 years and adjusted to the local hospital context is essential,” said Dr. Callum.

Smaller hospitals will have to adjust their protocols according to the capabilities of their sites. “Some smaller hospitals do not have platelets in stock and get their platelets from another hospital, so you need to adjust your protocol to what you are able to do. Not every hospital can control bleeding in a trauma patient, so your protocol would be to stabilize and call a helicopter. Make sure all of this is detailed so that implementing it becomes automatic,” said Dr. Callum.

An MHP should be activated for patients with uncontrolled hemorrhage who meet the clinical criteria of the local hospital and are expected to need blood product support and red blood cells.

“Lots of people bleed, but not everybody is bleeding enough that they need a code transfusion,” said Dr. Callum. Most patients with gastrointestinal bleeds caused by NSAID use can be managed with uncrossed matched blood from the local blood bank. “But in patients who need the full code transfusion because they are going to need plasma, clotting factor replacement, and many other drugs, that is when the MHP should be activated. Don’t activate it when you don’t need it, because doing so activates the whole hospital and diverts care away from other patients.”

TXA should be administered as soon as possible after onset of hemorrhage in most patients, with the exception of gastrointestinal hemorrhage, where a benefit has not been shown.

TXA has been a major advance in treating massive bleeding, Dr. Callum said. “TXA was invented by a Japanese husband-and-wife research team. We know that it reduces the death rate in trauma and in postpartum hemorrhage, and it reduces the chance of major bleeding with major surgical procedures. We give it routinely in surgical procedures. If a patient gets TXA within 60 minutes of injury, it dramatically reduces the death rate. And it costs $10 per patient. It’s cheap, it’s easy, it has no side effects. It’s just amazing.”

Future research must address several unanswered questions, said Dr. Callum. These questions include whether prehospital transfusion improves patient outcomes, whether whole blood has a role in the early management of major hemorrhage, and what role factor concentrates play in patients with major bleeding.
 

‘Optimal recommendations’

Commenting on the document, Bourke Tillmann, MD, PhD, trauma team leader at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and the Ross Tilley Burn Center in Toronto, said: “Overall, I think it is a good overview of MHPs as an approach to major hemorrhage.”

The review also is timely, since Ontario released its MHP guidelines in 2021, he added. “I would have liked to see more about the treatment aspects than just an overview of an MHP. But if you are the person overseeing the emergency department or running the blood bank, these protocols are incredibly useful and incredibly important.”

“This report is a nice and thoughtful overview of best practices in many areas, especially trauma, and makes recommendations that are optimal, although they are not necessarily practical in all centers,” Eric L. Legome, MD, professor and chair of emergency medicine at Mount Sinai West and Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, said in an interview.

“If you’re in a small rural hospital with one lab technician, trying to do all of these things, it will not be possible. These are optimal recommendations that people can use to the best of their ability, but they are not standard of care, because some places will not be able to provide this level of care,” he added. “This paper provides practical, reasonable advice that should be looked at as you are trying to implement transfusion policies and processes, with the understanding that it is not necessarily applicable or practical for very small hospitals in very rural centers that might not have access to these types of products and tools, but it’s a reasonable and nicely written paper.”

No outside funding for the guideline was reported. Dr. Callum has received research funding from Canadian Blood Services and Octapharma. She sits on the nominating committee with the Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies and on the data safety monitoring boards for the Tranexamic Acid for Subdural Hematoma trial and the Fibrinogen Replacement in Trauma trial. Dr. Tillmann and Dr. Legome reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Around 50% of patients develop an infection in the final months, weeks, or days before their deaths. Diagnosing an infection is complex because of the presence of symptoms that are often nonspecific and that are common in patients in decline toward the end of life. Use of antibiotic therapy in this patient population is still controversial, because the clinical benefits are not clear and the risk of pointless overmedicalization is very high.

Etiology

For patients who are receiving palliative care, the following factors predispose to an infection:

• Increasing fragility.
• Bedbound status and anorexia/cachexia syndrome.
• Weakened immune defenses owing to disease or treatments.
• Changes to skin integrity, related to venous access sites and/or bladder catheterization.

Four-week cutoff

For patients who are expected to live for fewer than 4 weeks, evidence from the literature shows that antimicrobial therapy does not resolve a potential infection or improve the prognosis. Antibiotics should therefore be used only for improving symptom management.

In practice, the most common infections in patients receiving end-of-life care are in the urinary and respiratory tracts. Antibiotics are beneficial in the short term in managing symptoms associated with urinary tract infections (effective in 60%-92% of cases), so they should be considered if the patient is not in the agonal or pre-agonal phase of death.

Antibiotics are also beneficial in managing symptoms associated with respiratory tract infections (effective in up to 53% of cases), so they should be considered if the patient is not in the agonal or pre-agonal phase of death. However, the risk of futility is high. As an alternative, opioids and antitussives could provide greater benefit for patients with dyspnea and cough.

No benefit has been observed with the use of antibiotics to treat symptoms associated with sepsis, abscesses, and deep and complicated infections. Antibiotics are therefore deemed futile in these cases.

In unclear cases, the “2-day rule” is useful. This involves waiting for 2 days, and if the patient remains clinically stable, prescribing antibiotics. If the patient’s condition deteriorates rapidly and progressively, antibiotics should not be prescribed.

Alternatively, one can prescribe antibiotics immediately. If no clinical improvement is observed after 2 days, the antibiotics should be stopped, especially if deterioration of the patient’s condition is rapid and progressive.

Increased body temperature is somewhat common in the last days and hours of life and is not generally associated with symptoms. Fever in these cases is not an indication for the use of antimicrobial therapy.

The most common laboratory markers of infection (C-reactive protein level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, leukocyte level) are not particularly useful in this patient population, because they are affected by the baseline condition as well as by any treatments given and the state of systemic inflammation, which is associated with the decline in overall health in the last few weeks of life.

The choice should be individualized and shared with patients and family members so that the clinical appropriateness of the therapeutic strategy is evident and that decisions regarding antibiotic treatment are not regarded as a failure to treat the patient.
 

The longer term

In deciding to start antibiotic therapy, consideration must be given to the patient’s overall health, the treatment objectives, the possibility that the antibiotic will resolve the infection or improve the patient’s symptoms, and the estimated prognosis, which must be sufficiently long to allow the antibiotic time to take effect.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Around 50% of patients develop an infection in the final months, weeks, or days before their deaths. Diagnosing an infection is complex because of the presence of symptoms that are often nonspecific and that are common in patients in decline toward the end of life. Use of antibiotic therapy in this patient population is still controversial, because the clinical benefits are not clear and the risk of pointless overmedicalization is very high.

Etiology

For patients who are receiving palliative care, the following factors predispose to an infection:

• Increasing fragility.
• Bedbound status and anorexia/cachexia syndrome.
• Weakened immune defenses owing to disease or treatments.
• Changes to skin integrity, related to venous access sites and/or bladder catheterization.

Four-week cutoff

For patients who are expected to live for fewer than 4 weeks, evidence from the literature shows that antimicrobial therapy does not resolve a potential infection or improve the prognosis. Antibiotics should therefore be used only for improving symptom management.

In practice, the most common infections in patients receiving end-of-life care are in the urinary and respiratory tracts. Antibiotics are beneficial in the short term in managing symptoms associated with urinary tract infections (effective in 60%-92% of cases), so they should be considered if the patient is not in the agonal or pre-agonal phase of death.

Antibiotics are also beneficial in managing symptoms associated with respiratory tract infections (effective in up to 53% of cases), so they should be considered if the patient is not in the agonal or pre-agonal phase of death. However, the risk of futility is high. As an alternative, opioids and antitussives could provide greater benefit for patients with dyspnea and cough.

No benefit has been observed with the use of antibiotics to treat symptoms associated with sepsis, abscesses, and deep and complicated infections. Antibiotics are therefore deemed futile in these cases.

In unclear cases, the “2-day rule” is useful. This involves waiting for 2 days, and if the patient remains clinically stable, prescribing antibiotics. If the patient’s condition deteriorates rapidly and progressively, antibiotics should not be prescribed.

Alternatively, one can prescribe antibiotics immediately. If no clinical improvement is observed after 2 days, the antibiotics should be stopped, especially if deterioration of the patient’s condition is rapid and progressive.

Increased body temperature is somewhat common in the last days and hours of life and is not generally associated with symptoms. Fever in these cases is not an indication for the use of antimicrobial therapy.

The most common laboratory markers of infection (C-reactive protein level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, leukocyte level) are not particularly useful in this patient population, because they are affected by the baseline condition as well as by any treatments given and the state of systemic inflammation, which is associated with the decline in overall health in the last few weeks of life.

The choice should be individualized and shared with patients and family members so that the clinical appropriateness of the therapeutic strategy is evident and that decisions regarding antibiotic treatment are not regarded as a failure to treat the patient.
 

The longer term

In deciding to start antibiotic therapy, consideration must be given to the patient’s overall health, the treatment objectives, the possibility that the antibiotic will resolve the infection or improve the patient’s symptoms, and the estimated prognosis, which must be sufficiently long to allow the antibiotic time to take effect.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Around 50% of patients develop an infection in the final months, weeks, or days before their deaths. Diagnosing an infection is complex because of the presence of symptoms that are often nonspecific and that are common in patients in decline toward the end of life. Use of antibiotic therapy in this patient population is still controversial, because the clinical benefits are not clear and the risk of pointless overmedicalization is very high.

Etiology

For patients who are receiving palliative care, the following factors predispose to an infection:

• Increasing fragility.
• Bedbound status and anorexia/cachexia syndrome.
• Weakened immune defenses owing to disease or treatments.
• Changes to skin integrity, related to venous access sites and/or bladder catheterization.

Four-week cutoff

For patients who are expected to live for fewer than 4 weeks, evidence from the literature shows that antimicrobial therapy does not resolve a potential infection or improve the prognosis. Antibiotics should therefore be used only for improving symptom management.

In practice, the most common infections in patients receiving end-of-life care are in the urinary and respiratory tracts. Antibiotics are beneficial in the short term in managing symptoms associated with urinary tract infections (effective in 60%-92% of cases), so they should be considered if the patient is not in the agonal or pre-agonal phase of death.

Antibiotics are also beneficial in managing symptoms associated with respiratory tract infections (effective in up to 53% of cases), so they should be considered if the patient is not in the agonal or pre-agonal phase of death. However, the risk of futility is high. As an alternative, opioids and antitussives could provide greater benefit for patients with dyspnea and cough.

No benefit has been observed with the use of antibiotics to treat symptoms associated with sepsis, abscesses, and deep and complicated infections. Antibiotics are therefore deemed futile in these cases.

In unclear cases, the “2-day rule” is useful. This involves waiting for 2 days, and if the patient remains clinically stable, prescribing antibiotics. If the patient’s condition deteriorates rapidly and progressively, antibiotics should not be prescribed.

Alternatively, one can prescribe antibiotics immediately. If no clinical improvement is observed after 2 days, the antibiotics should be stopped, especially if deterioration of the patient’s condition is rapid and progressive.

Increased body temperature is somewhat common in the last days and hours of life and is not generally associated with symptoms. Fever in these cases is not an indication for the use of antimicrobial therapy.

The most common laboratory markers of infection (C-reactive protein level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, leukocyte level) are not particularly useful in this patient population, because they are affected by the baseline condition as well as by any treatments given and the state of systemic inflammation, which is associated with the decline in overall health in the last few weeks of life.

The choice should be individualized and shared with patients and family members so that the clinical appropriateness of the therapeutic strategy is evident and that decisions regarding antibiotic treatment are not regarded as a failure to treat the patient.
 

The longer term

In deciding to start antibiotic therapy, consideration must be given to the patient’s overall health, the treatment objectives, the possibility that the antibiotic will resolve the infection or improve the patient’s symptoms, and the estimated prognosis, which must be sufficiently long to allow the antibiotic time to take effect.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.