Practical recommendations on incorporating new oral anticoagulants into routine practice.

The use of new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) is expected to rise significantly in upcoming years. Therefore, it is important to understand the potential uses, side effects, and management of these agents in routine practice. NOACs have major pharmacologic advantages over warfarin, including a rapid onset and offset of action, fewer drug interactions, and predictable pharmacokinetics. These agents are gaining popularity among both physicians and patients because of their ease of administration and the advantage of eliminating the requirement for regular coagulation monitoring. NOACs work to prevent and treat thrombosis by targeting either thrombin (as with dabigatran) or factor Xa (as with rivaroxaban and apixaban). In this review, we discuss practical recommendations for the use of NOACs and the risks and benefits of incorporating them into routine practice.

The Effects of Dexmedetomidine and Remifentanil on Hemodynamic Stability and Analgesic Requirement After Craniotomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesia for craniotomies should blunt responses to noxious stimuli, whereas subsequently leaving patients sufficiently alert for early neurological evaluation. The aim was to compare postoperative blood pressure control, pain, and opioid requirement after anesthesia with dexmedetomidine versus remifentanil. We therefore tested 2 primary hypotheses: (1) intraoperative administration of dexmedetomidine provides better control of postoperative blood pressure than remifentanil; and (2) patients given dexmedetomidine have less postoperative pain and use less opioid. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults having elective brain tumor excisions under balanced general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation were randomized to an infusion of remifentanil (0.08 to 0.15 µg/kg/min, n=71) or dexmedetomidine (0.2 to 0.7 µg/kg/h, n=68). Patients also received propofol, rocuronium, fentanyl, and sevoflurane. The mean arterial pressure (MAP) and pain were recorded at 15, 30, 45, 60, and 90 postoperative minutes. Outcomes were assessed with joint hypothesis testing, evaluating noninferiority and superiority. RESULTS: Compared with remifentanil, the use of dexmedetomidine was associated with reduced postoperative MAP (88±12 vs. 98±11 mm Hg), with estimated mean difference (97.5% confidence interval) of -10 (-13, -4) mm Hg, P<0.001, and mean visual analog pain score (2.9±2.6 vs. 5.1±2.4 points), with estimated mean difference of -5 (-10, -3) points, P<0.001, and required less median opioid consumption (5 [0, 10] vs. 10 [7, 15] mg morphine equivalents), with estimated median difference of -5 (-10, -3) mg, P<0.001. Dexmedetomidine was both noninferior and superior to remifentanil in maintaining postoperative hemodynamics and providing improved pain control. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative dexmedetomidine better controlled postoperative MAP and provided superior analgesia in patients undergoing craniotomy.

Diagnosis and detection of sarcoidosis: an official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline

The diagnosis of sarcoidosis is not standardized but is based on three major criteria: a compatible clinical presentation, finding nonnecrotizing granulomatous inflammation in one or more tissue samples, and the exclusion of alternative causes of granulomatous disease. There are no universally accepted measures to determine if each diagnostic criterion has been satisfied; therefore, the diagnosis of sarcoidosis is never fully secure. Systematic reviews and, when appropriate, meta-analyses were performed to summarize the best available evidence. The evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and then discussed by a multidisciplinary panel. Recommendations for or against various diagnostic tests were formulated and graded after the expert panel weighed desirable and undesirable consequences, certainty of estimates, feasibility, and acceptability. The clinical presentation, histopathology, and exclusion of alternative diagnoses were summarized. On the basis of the available evidence, the expert committee made 1 strong recommendation for baseline serum calcium testing, 13 conditional recommendations, and best practice statement. All evidence was very low quality.The panel used systematic reviews of the evidence to inform clinical recommendations in favor of or against various diagnostic tests in patients with suspected or known sarcoidosis. The evidence and recommendations should be revisited as new evidence becomes available.