Salvage therapies for refractory hypoxemia in ARDS.

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is a condition of varied etiology characterized by the acute onset (within 1 week of the inciting event) of hypoxemia, reduced lung compliance, diffuse lung inflammation and bilateral opacities on chest imaging attributable to noncardiogenic (increased permeability) pulmonary edema. Although multi-organ failure is the most common cause of death in ARDS, an estimated 10-15% of the deaths in ARDS are caused due to refractory hypoxemia, i.e.- hypoxemia despite lung protective conventional ventilator modes. In these cases, clinicians may resort to other measures with less robust evidence -referred to as "salvage therapies". These include proning, 48 h of paralysis early in the course of ARDS, various recruitment maneuvers, unconventional ventilator modes, inhaled pulmonary vasodilators, and Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). All the salvage therapies described have been associated with improved oxygenation, but with the exception of proning and 48 h of paralysis early in the course of ARDS, none of them have a proven mortality benefit. Based on the current evidence, no salvage therapy has been shown to be superior to the others and each of them is associated with its own risks and benefits. Hence, the order of application of these therapies varies in different institutions and should be applied following a risk-benefit analysis specific to the patient and local experience. This review explores the rationale, evidence, advantages and risks behind each of these strategies.

Comparing Length of Stay Between Patients Taking Rivaroxaban and Conventional Anticoagulants for Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have demonstrated non-inferiority of rivaroxaban when compared to warfarin for the treatment of pulmonary embolism and deep venous thrombosis. Analysis of data from the EINSTEIN trials has demonstrated that patients who received rivaroxaban had a shorter length of stay (LOS) compared to those who received warfarin. However, these trials had strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, and were designed for a different primary outcome. Also, data from these closely monitored clinical trials may not reflect the daily practice of medicine. OBJECTIVES: To clarify this issue further, we performed a retrospective analysis at our institution, comparing the LOS between patients discharged on rivaroxaban and other conventional anticoagulants (warfarin, enoxaparin, and enoxaparin with warfarin). METHODS: This was a retrospective study of consecutive patients admitted to our institution from January 2011 to July 2014 with newly diagnosed venous thromboembolism (VTE). Inclusion criteria were age > 18 years and objective confirmation of VTE. Exclusion criteria included diagnosis of VTE 24 h after admission, contraindication to anticoagulation, treatment with fibrinolytic agents, patients already on anticoagulation, and pregnancy. Out of 1553 consecutive patients diagnosed with VTE, a total of 414 patients met the eligibility criteria. These patients were further subdivided into four groups based on their discharge anticoagulant: rivaroxaban, warfarin, enoxaparin, and warfarin with enoxaparin. RESULTS: Patients discharged on rivaroxaban had a significantly shorter LOS compared with patients discharged on warfarin (3.5 vs. 7.0 days; p < 0.001), but not when compared to those discharged on enoxaparin alone (3.0 days) or enoxaparin with warfarin (4.0 days) (p > 0.05). The hospital incidence of bleeding and the 6-month readmission rates were not different among the different anticoagulants. CONCLUSIONS: In patients admitted with newly diagnosed VTE, those discharged on rivaroxaban had a significantly shorter LOS compared to those discharged on warfarin. In the appropriate subset of patients with VTE, treatment with rivaroxaban may result in significant cost savings for the hospital.