Long-term outcome of patients hospitalized in intensive care units with central or extrapontine myelinolysis*.

OBJECTIVE: Very few data are available for critically ill patients with central or extrapontine myelinolysis and according to available evidence, the prognosis seems to be poor. We aimed to describe the baseline characteristics, the management, the long-term prognosis, and the prognostic factors in central or extrapontine myelinolysis. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study considering modified Rankin Scale score >3 or death as an unfavorable outcome. SETTING: Forty-six French intensive care units. PATIENTS: Thirty-six patients with central or extrapontine myelinolysis treated in 2000-2010. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: At baseline, 31 (86%) patients were alcoholics and 33 (92%) presented with hyponatremia. Mechanical ventilation was required in 32 (89%) patients. At 1-yr follow-up, 11 (31%) patients have died, whereas 14 (56%) survivors have returned to a Rankin score ≤ 1. Life-supporting therapies were withheld in 11 (31%) patients. Severe cerebral motor disability was the most frequently cited reason. However, five of them were still alive at 1 yr with Rankin score ≤ 1 for four of them. We found no statistical difference between the 18 (50%) patients with a favorable outcome and the 18 (50%) patients with an unfavorable outcome with regard to severity of illness, suggesting that recovery is possible and unpredictable on the basis of clinical presentation. Chronic alcoholism was less frequent in patients with a favorable outcome as compared with patient with an unfavorable outcome (13 [72%] vs. 18 [100%], p = .04). CONCLUSIONS: The prognosis of critically ill patients with central or extrapontine myelinolysis is better than thus far thought despite initial severe clinical manifestations. Regarding the high rate of decisions to withhold life-supporting therapies, the probability of a favorable outcome might be underestimated by intensivists.

Assessment of hemodynamic efficacy and safety of 6% hydroxyethylstarch 130/0.4 vs. 0.9% NaCl fluid replacement in patients with severe sepsis: the CRYSTMAS study.

INTRODUCTION: Inadequate initial treatment and delayed hemodynamic stabilization (HDS) may be associated with increased risk of death in severe sepsis patients. METHODS: In order to compare the hemodynamic efficacy and safety of 6% HES 130/0.4 and NaCl 0.9% for HDS in patients with severe sepsis, we designed a prospective, multicenter, active-controlled, double-blind, randomized study in intensive care units. RESULTS: 174 out of 196 patients reached HDS (88 and 86 patients for HES and NaCl, respectively). Significantly less HES was used to reach HDS vs. NaCl (1,379 ± 886 ml in the HES group and 1,709 ± 1,164 ml in the NaCl group (mean difference = -331 ± 1,033, 95% CI -640 to -21, P = 0.0185). Time to reach HDS was 11.8 10.1 hours vs. 14.3 ± 11.1 hours for HES and NaCl, respectively. Total quantity of study drug infused over four consecutive days, ICU and hospital LOS, and area under the curve of SOFA score were comparable. Acute renal failure occurred in 24 (24.5%) and 19 (20%) patients for HES and NaCl, respectively (P = 0.454). There was no difference between AKIN and RIFLE criteria among groups and no difference in mortality, coagulation, or pruritus up to 90 days after treatment initiation. CONCLUSION: Significantly less volume was required to achieve HDS for HES vs. NaCl in the initial phase of fluid resuscitation in severe sepsis patients without any difference for adverse events in both groups. CLINICALTRIALSGOV: NCT00464204.