Assessment of Outcomes in Patients with Heart Failure and End-Stage Kidney Disease after Fluid Resuscitation for Sepsis and Septic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis fluid resuscitation is controversial, especially for patients with volume overload risk. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommends a 30-mL/kg crystalloid fluid bolus for patients with sepsis-induced hypoperfusion. Criticism of this approach includes excessive fluid resuscitation in certain patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of guideline-concordant fluid resuscitation in patients with sepsis and heart failure (HF) or end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in patients with sepsis who qualified for guideline-directed fluid resuscitation and concomitant HF or ESKD. Those receiving crystalloid fluid boluses of at least 30 mL/kg within 3 h of sepsis diagnosis were placed in the concordant group and all others in the nonconcordant group. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS); vasoactive medications and net volume over 24 h; new mechanical ventilation, new or increased volume removal, and acute kidney injury within 48 h; and shock-free survival at 7 days. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-five patients were included in each group. In-hospital mortality was 34.4% in the concordant group and 44.8% in the nonconcordant group (p = 0.1205). The concordant group had a shorter ICU LOS (7.6 vs. 10.5 days; p = 0.0214) and hospital LOS (12.9 vs. 18.3 days; p = 0.0163), but increased new mechanical ventilation (37.6 vs. 20.8%; p = 0.0052). No differences in other outcomes were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of a 30-mL/kg fluid bolus did not affect outcomes in a cohort of patients with mixed types of HF and sepsis-induced hypoperfusion.

Efficacy and Safety of Nonvitamin K Oral Anticoagulants following Cardiac Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of nonvitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) following bioprosthetic cardiac valve replacement. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis conducted at a community teaching hospital in the southeastern United States between August 2015 and August 2018. Patients 18 years of age and older who underwent cardiac valve replacement and were prescribed oral anticoagulation were screened for inclusion. Patients were excluded if they had a mechanical valve replacement, experienced a venous thromboembolism, cerebrovascular accident, or acute coronary syndrome within 1 month before valve replacement, changed oral anticoagulation during the study period, were lost to follow-up, or declined to participate in the follow-up survey. The primary outcome was a composite of thromboembolic events within 90 days following bioprosthetic cardiac valve replacement. The safety outcome was major bleeding within 180 days of bioprosthetic cardiac valve replacement. RESULTS: The primary outcome of a composite of thromboembolic events within 90 days following bioprosthetic cardiac valve replacement occurred in 1 patient (4.3%) in the VKA group and 4 patients (7.4%) in the NOAC group. Major bleeding occurred in 2 patients (8.7%) in the VKA group and 0 patients in the NOAC group. CONCLUSION: Our study is the first to report the efficacy and safety of NOACs compared with VKA therapy following bioprosthetic cardiac valve replacement irrespective of an atrial fibrillation diagnosis. Notably, two of the thromboembolic events in the NOAC group occurred while therapy was held or inappropriately dosed; when these events are removed, the rate of thromboembolism is 3.8%. This rate is consistent with the VKA group. Our study adds to a small pool of literature regarding the use of NOACs following bioprosthetic cardiac valve replacement and suggests that NOACs may have similar efficacy and improved safety as compared with VKA therapy. Large randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm our observations.