RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury is common in critically ill patients, many of whom receive renal-replacement therapy. However, the most effective timing for the initiation of such therapy remains uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a multinational, randomized, controlled trial involving critically ill patients with severe acute kidney injury. Patients were randomly assigned to receive an accelerated strategy of renal-replacement therapy (in which therapy was initiated within 12 hours after the patient had met eligibility criteria) or a standard strategy (in which renal-replacement therapy was discouraged unless conventional indications developed or acute kidney injury persisted for >72 hours). The primary outcome was death from any cause at 90 days. RESULTS: Of the 3019 patients who had undergone randomization, 2927 (97.0%) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (1465 in the accelerated-strategy group and 1462 in the standard-strategy group). Of these patients, renal-replacement therapy was performed in 1418 (96.8%) in the accelerated-strategy group and in 903 (61.8%) in the standard-strategy group. At 90 days, death had occurred in 643 patients (43.9%) in the accelerated-strategy group and in 639 (43.7%) in the standard-strategy group (relative risk, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 1.09; P = 0.92). Among survivors at 90 days, continued dependence on renal-replacement therapy was confirmed in 85 of 814 patients (10.4%) in the accelerated-strategy group and in 49 of 815 patients (6.0%) in the standard-strategy group (relative risk, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.24 to 2.43). Adverse events occurred in 346 of 1503 patients (23.0%) in the accelerated-strategy group and in 245 of 1489 patients (16.5%) in the standard-strategy group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill patients with acute kidney injury, an accelerated renal-replacement strategy was not associated with a lower risk of death at 90 days than a standard strategy. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; STARRT-AKI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02568722.).
Asunto(s)
Lesión Renal Aguda/terapia , Terapia de Reemplazo Renal , Lesión Renal Aguda/mortalidad , Anciano , Enfermedad Crítica/terapia , Humanos , Análisis de Intención de Tratar , Persona de Mediana Edad , Terapia de Reemplazo Renal/efectos adversos , Tiempo de Tratamiento , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Delaying renal replacement therapy (RRT) for some time in critically ill patients with severe acute kidney injury and no severe complication is safe and allows optimisation of the use of medical devices. Major uncertainty remains concerning the duration for which RRT can be postponed without risk. Our aim was to test the hypothesis that a more-delayed initiation strategy would result in more RRT-free days, compared with a delayed strategy. METHODS: This was an unmasked, multicentre, prospective, open-label, randomised, controlled trial done in 39 intensive care units in France. We monitored critically ill patients with severe acute kidney injury (defined as Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes stage 3) until they had oliguria for more than 72 h or a blood urea nitrogen concentration higher than 112 mg/dL. Patients were then randomly assigned (1:1) to either a strategy (delayed strategy) in which RRT was started just after randomisation or to a more-delayed strategy. With the more-delayed strategy, RRT initiation was postponed until mandatory indication (noticeable hyperkalaemia or metabolic acidosis or pulmonary oedema) or until blood urea nitrogen concentration reached 140 mg/dL. The primary outcome was the number of days alive and free of RRT between randomisation and day 28 and was done in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT03396757 and is completed. FINDINGS: Between May 7, 2018, and Oct 11, 2019, of 5336 patients assessed, 278 patients underwent randomisation; 137 were assigned to the delayed strategy and 141 to the more-delayed strategy. The number of complications potentially related to acute kidney injury or to RRT were similar between groups. The median number of RRT-free days was 12 days (IQR 0-25) in the delayed strategy and 10 days (IQR 0-24) in the more-delayed strategy (p=0·93). In a multivariable analysis, the hazard ratio for death at 60 days was 1·65 (95% CI 1·09-2·50, p=0·018) with the more-delayed versus the delayed strategy. The number of complications potentially related to acute kidney injury or renal replacement therapy did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: In severe acute kidney injury patients with oliguria for more than 72 h or blood urea nitrogen concentration higher than 112 mg/dL and no severe complication that would mandate immediate RRT, longer postponing of RRT initiation did not confer additional benefit and was associated with potential harm. FUNDING: Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique.
Asunto(s)
Lesión Renal Aguda/terapia , Terapia de Reemplazo Renal/métodos , Tiempo de Tratamiento , Lesión Renal Aguda/mortalidad , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Femenino , Francia , Humanos , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos/organización & administración , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Prospectivos , Terapia de Reemplazo Renal/estadística & datos numéricos , Índice de Severidad de la EnfermedadRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Trials comparing early and delayed strategies of renal replacement therapy in patients with severe acute kidney injury may have missed differences in survival as a result of mixing together patients at heterogeneous levels of risks. Our aim was to evaluate the heterogeneity of treatment effect on 60-day mortality from an early vs a delayed strategy across levels of risk for renal replacement therapy initiation under a delayed strategy. METHODS: We used data from the AKIKI, and IDEAL-ICU randomized controlled trials to develop a multivariable logistic regression model for renal replacement therapy initiation within 48 h after allocation to a delayed strategy. We then used an interaction with spline terms in a Cox model to estimate treatment effects across the predicted risks of RRT initiation. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 1107 patients (619 and 488 in the AKIKI and IDEAL-ICU trial respectively). In the pooled sample, we found evidence for heterogeneous treatment effects (P = 0.023). Patients at an intermediate-high risk of renal replacement therapy initiation within 48 h may have benefited from an early strategy (absolute risk difference, - 14%; 95% confidence interval, - 27% to - 1%). For other patients, we found no evidence of benefit from an early strategy of renal replacement therapy initiation but a trend for harm (absolute risk difference, 8%; 95% confidence interval, - 5% to 21% in patients at intermediate-low risk). CONCLUSIONS: We have identified a clinically sound heterogeneity of treatment effect of an early vs a delayed strategy of renal replacement therapy initiation that may reflect varying degrees of kidney demand-capacity mismatch.
Asunto(s)
Lesión Renal Aguda , Tiempo de Tratamiento , Lesión Renal Aguda/etiología , Humanos , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Riñón , Terapia de Reemplazo Renal/efectos adversosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) are the two main RRT modalities in patients with severe acute kidney injury (AKI). Meta-analyses conducted more than 10 years ago did not show survival difference between these two modalities. As the quality of RRT delivery has improved since then, we aimed to reassess whether the choice of IHD or CRRT as first modality affects survival of patients with severe AKI. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of two multicenter randomized controlled trials (AKIKI and IDEAL-ICU) that compared an early RRT initiation strategy with a delayed one. We included patients allocated to the early strategy in order to emulate a trial where patients would have been randomized to receive either IHD or CRRT within twelve hours after the documentation of severe AKI. We determined each patient's modality group as the first RRT modality they received. The primary outcome was 60-day overall survival. We used two propensity score methods to balance the differences in baseline characteristics between groups and the primary analysis relied on inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: A total of 543 patients were included. Continuous RRT was the first modality in 269 patients and IHD in 274. Patients receiving CRRT had higher cardiovascular and total-SOFA scores. Inverse probability weighting allowed to adequately balance groups on all predefined confounders. The weighted Kaplan-Meier death rate at day 60 was 54·4% in the CRRT group and 46·5% in the IHD group (weighted HR 1·26, 95% CI 1·01-1·60). In a complementary analysis of less severely ill patients (SOFA score: 3-10), receiving IHD was associated with better day 60 survival compared to CRRT (weighted HR 1.82, 95% CI 1·01-3·28; p < 0.01). We found no evidence of a survival difference between the two RRT modalities in more severe patients. CONCLUSION: Compared to IHD, CRRT as first modality seemed to convey no benefit in terms of survival or of kidney recovery and might even have been associated with less favorable outcome in patients with lesser severity of disease. A prospective randomized non-inferiority trial should be implemented to solve the persistent conundrum of the optimal RRT technique.
Asunto(s)
Lesión Renal Aguda , Terapia de Reemplazo Renal Continuo , Lesión Renal Aguda/terapia , Humanos , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Estudios Prospectivos , Diálisis Renal/métodos , Terapia de Reemplazo Renal/métodosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The timing of renal replacement therapy (RRT) for severe acute kidney injury is highly debated when no life-threatening complications are present. We assessed whether a strategy of delayed versus early RRT initiation affects 28-day survival in critically ill adults with severe acute kidney injury. METHODS: In this systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomised trials published from April 1, 2008, to Dec 20, 2019, that compared delayed and early RRT initiation strategies in patients with severe acute kidney injury. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they included critically ill patients aged 18 years or older with acute kidney injury (defined as a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes [KDIGO] acute kidney injury stage 2 or 3, or, where KDIGO was unavailable, a renal Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 3 or higher). We contacted the principal investigator of each eligible trial to request individual patient data. From the included trials, any patients without acute kidney injury or who were not randomly allocated were not included in the individual patient data meta-analysis. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at day 28 after randomisation. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019125025). FINDINGS: Among the 1031 studies identified, one study that met the eligibility criteria was excluded because the recruitment period was not recent enough, and ten (including 2143 patients) were included in the analysis. Individual patient data were available for nine studies (2083 patients), from which 1879 patients had severe acute kidney injury and were randomly allocated: 946 (50%) to the delayed RRT group and 933 (50%) to the early RRT group. 390 (42%) of 929 patients allocated to the delayed RRT group and who had available data did not receive RRT. The proportion of patients who died by day 28 did not significantly differ between the delayed RRT group (366 [44%] of 837) and the early RRT group (355 [43%] of 827; risk ratio 1·01 [95% CI 0·91 to 1·13], p=0·80), corresponding to an overall risk difference of 0·01 (95% CI -0·04 to 0·06). There was no heterogeneity across studies (I2=0%; τ2=0), and most studies had a low risk of bias. INTERPRETATION: The timing of RRT initiation does not affect survival in critically ill patients with severe acute kidney injury in the absence of urgent indications for RRT. Delaying RRT initiation, with close patient monitoring, might lead to a reduced use of RRT, thereby saving health resources. FUNDING: None.
Asunto(s)
Lesión Renal Aguda/terapia , Enfermedad Crítica/terapia , Terapia de Reemplazo Renal/métodos , Prevención Secundaria/estadística & datos numéricos , Tiempo de Tratamiento/estadística & datos numéricos , Lesión Renal Aguda/clasificación , Lesión Renal Aguda/mortalidad , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Enfermedad Crítica/mortalidad , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Mortalidad , Puntuaciones en la Disfunción de Órganos , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Análisis de Supervivencia , Factores de TiempoAsunto(s)
Lesión Renal Aguda , Terapia de Reemplazo Renal , Lesión Renal Aguda/terapia , Humanos , RiñónRESUMEN
Acute kidney injury (AKI) affects many ICU patients and is responsible for increased morbidity and mortality. Although lifesaving in many situations, renal replacement therapy (RRT) may be associated with complications, and the appropriate timing of its initiation is still the subject of intense debate. An early initiation strategy can prevent some metabolic complications, whereas a delayed one may allow for renal function recovery in some patients without need for this costly and potentially dangerous technique. For years, most of the knowledge on this issue stemmed from observational studies or small randomized controlled trials. Recent randomized controlled trials have indicated that a watchful waiting strategy (in the absence of life-threatening conditions such as severe hyperkalemia or pulmonary edema) during severe AKI allowed many patients to escape RRT and did not seem to adversely affect survival compared with a strategy of immediate RRT. In addition, data suggest that a delayed strategy may reduce the rate of complications (such as catheter infection) and favor renal function recovery. Ongoing studies will have to both confirm these conclusions and clarify to what extent the delay in initiating RRT can be prolonged. Pending those results, the bulk of evidence suggests that, in the absence of potential severe complications of AKI, delaying RRT is a valid and safe strategy that may also allow for considerable cost savings.
Asunto(s)
Lesión Renal Aguda/terapia , Terapia de Reemplazo Renal/métodos , Enfermedad Crítica/terapia , Humanos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Factores de TiempoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The timing of renal-replacement therapy in critically ill patients who have acute kidney injury but no potentially life-threatening complication directly related to renal failure is a subject of debate. METHODS: In this multicenter randomized trial, we assigned patients with severe acute kidney injury (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes [KDIGO] classification, stage 3 [stages range from 1 to 3, with higher stages indicating more severe kidney injury]) who required mechanical ventilation, catecholamine infusion, or both and did not have a potentially life-threatening complication directly related to renal failure to either an early or a delayed strategy of renal-replacement therapy. With the early strategy, renal-replacement therapy was started immediately after randomization. With the delayed strategy, renal-replacement therapy was initiated if at least one of the following criteria was met: severe hyperkalemia, metabolic acidosis, pulmonary edema, blood urea nitrogen level higher than 112 mg per deciliter, or oliguria for more than 72 hours after randomization. The primary outcome was overall survival at day 60. RESULTS: A total of 620 patients underwent randomization. The Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality at day 60 did not differ significantly between the early and delayed strategies; 150 deaths occurred among 311 patients in the early-strategy group (48.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 42.6 to 53.8), and 153 deaths occurred among 308 patients in the delayed-strategy group (49.7%, 95% CI, 43.8 to 55.0; P=0.79). A total of 151 patients (49%) in the delayed-strategy group did not receive renal-replacement therapy. The rate of catheter-related bloodstream infections was higher in the early-strategy group than in the delayed-strategy group (10% vs. 5%, P=0.03). Diuresis, a marker of improved kidney function, occurred earlier in the delayed-strategy group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a trial involving critically ill patients with severe acute kidney injury, we found no significant difference with regard to mortality between an early and a delayed strategy for the initiation of renal-replacement therapy. A delayed strategy averted the need for renal-replacement therapy in an appreciable number of patients. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01932190.).
Asunto(s)
Lesión Renal Aguda/terapia , Terapia de Reemplazo Renal , Lesión Renal Aguda/mortalidad , Lesión Renal Aguda/fisiopatología , Anciano , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Estimación de Kaplan-Meier , Persona de Mediana Edad , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Tiempo de Tratamiento , OrinaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Needle aspiration (NA) is recommended as first-line treatment of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP). We aimed to assess NA success and the effect of a longer symptom onset to NA time. METHODS: A discovery phase was retrospectively conducted in the intensive care unit of Louis Mourier Hospital (January 2000 to December 2011) followed by a prospective validation cohort (January 2012 to August 2015). The primary outcome was immediate NA success defined by the absence of need for chest tube insertion within 24 hours of the procedure. RESULTS: In the discovery phase, 130 patients were admitted for PSP and 98 had NA as first-line treatment (75%). The immediate success rate of NA was 34.7% and was higher when it was performed ≥48 hours after symptom onset (57.7% vs 25%; p=0.004). In the prospective cohort, 87 patients were admitted for PSP; 71 (82%) had NA as first-step treatment. The immediate success rate was 40.8%. NA was more successful when it was performed after 48 hours of symptoms' onset (34.5% vs 7.1%; p=0.005). A delay between the first symptom and NA procedure ≥48 hours was associated with a higher success of NA (OR=13.54; 95% CI 1.37 to 133). A smaller pneumothorax estimated by Light's index was associated with NA success (OR=0.95; 95% CI 0.92 to 0.98). To what extent some of these pneumothoraces would have had a spontaneous resolution remains unknown. CONCLUSION: When managing PSP with NA, a longer symptom onset to NA time was associated with NA success. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02528734.
Asunto(s)
Neumotórax/cirugía , Toracocentesis , Tiempo de Tratamiento , Adulto , Tubos Torácicos , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Estudios Prospectivos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
Discomfort associated with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) may participate in its failure. We aimed to determine the effect of a musical intervention on respiratory discomfort during NIV in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF).An open-label, controlled trial was performed over three centres. Patients requiring NIV for ARF were randomised to either a musical intervention group (where they received a musical intervention and were subjected to visual deprivation during the first 30â min of each NIV session), a sensory deprivation group (where they wore insulating headphones and were subjected to visual deprivation during the first 30â min of each NIV session), or a control group (where they received NIV as routinely performed). The primary outcome was the change in respiratory discomfort before and after 30â min of the first NIV session.A total of 113 patients were randomised (36 in the musical intervention group, 38 in the sensory deprivation group and 39 in the control group). Median (interquartile range (IQR)) change in respiratory discomfort was 0 (-1; 1) between the musical intervention and control groups (p=0.7). Between groups comparison did not evidence any significant variation of respiratory parameters across time or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at day-90. The Peri-traumatic Distress Inventory (PDI) at intensive care unit (ICU) discharge was reduced in musical intervention group patients. However, a 30â min musical intervention did not reduce respiratory discomfort during NIV for ARF in comparison to conventional care or sensory deprivation.
Asunto(s)
Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Musicoterapia , Ventilación no Invasiva , Calidad de Vida , Insuficiencia Respiratoria/terapia , APACHE , Anciano , Femenino , Francia , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Atención Dirigida al Paciente , Estudios Prospectivos , Factores de TiempoAsunto(s)
COVID-19 , Terapia de Reemplazo Renal Continuo , Humanos , Pandemias , Terapia de Reemplazo RenalRESUMEN
RATIONALE: The optimal strategy for initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT) in patients with severe acute kidney injury in the context of septic shock and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of an early compared with a delayed RRT initiation strategy on 60-day mortality according to baseline sepsis status, ARDS status, and severity. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of the AKIKI (Artificial Kidney Initiation in Kidney Injury) trial. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Subgroups were defined according to baseline characteristics: sepsis status (Sepsis-3 definition), ARDS status (Berlin definition), Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 (SAPS 3), and Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA). Of 619 patients, 348 (56%) had septic shock and 207 (33%) had ARDS. We found no significant influence of the baseline sepsis status (P = 0.28), baseline ARDS status (P = 0.94), and baseline severity scores (P = 0.77 and P = 0.46 for SAPS 3 and SOFA, respectively) on the comparison of 60-day mortality according to RRT initiation strategy. A delayed RRT initiation strategy allowed 45% of patients with septic shock and 46% of patients with ARDS to escape RRT. Urine output was higher in the delayed group. Renal function recovery occurred earlier with the delayed RRT strategy in patients with septic shock or ARDS (P < 0.001 and P = 0.003, respectively). Time to successful extubation in patients with ARDS was not affected by RRT strategy (P = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: Early RRT initiation strategy was not associated with any improvement of 60-day mortality in patients with severe acute kidney injury and septic shock or ARDS. Unnecessary and potentially risky procedures might often be avoided in these fragile populations. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01932190).
Asunto(s)
Insuficiencia Renal/complicaciones , Insuficiencia Renal/terapia , Terapia de Reemplazo Renal/efectos adversos , Terapia de Reemplazo Renal/métodos , Síndrome de Dificultad Respiratoria/complicaciones , Choque Séptico/etiología , Choque Séptico/mortalidad , Anciano , China , Estudios de Cohortes , Femenino , Humanos , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Síndrome de Dificultad Respiratoria/etiología , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de TiempoRESUMEN
WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS TOPIC: WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW: BACKGROUND:: Oropharyngeal care with chlorhexidine to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia is currently questioned, and exhaustive microbiologic data assessing its efficacy are lacking. The authors therefore aimed to study the effect of chlorhexidine mouthwash on oropharyngeal bacterial growth, to determine chlorhexidine susceptibility of these bacteria, and to measure chlorhexidine salivary concentration after an oropharyngeal care. METHODS: This observational, prospective, single-center study enrolled 30 critically ill patients under mechanical ventilation for over 48 h. Oropharyngeal contamination was assessed by swabbing the gingivobuccal sulcus immediately before applying 0.12% chlorhexidine with soaked swabs, and subsequently at 15, 60, 120, 240, and 360 min after. Bacterial growth and identification were performed, and chlorhexidine minimal inhibitory concentration of recovered pathogens was determined. Saliva was collected in 10 patients, at every timepoint, with an additional timepoint after 30 min, to measure chlorhexidine concentration. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty bacterial samples were analyzed and identified 48 pathogens including Streptococci (27.1%) and Enterobacteriaceae (20.8%). Oropharyngeal contamination before chlorhexidine mouthwash ranged from 10 to 10 colony-forming units (CFU)/ml in the 30 patients (median contamination level: 2.5·10 CFU/ml), and remained between 8·10 (lowest) and 3·10 CFU/ml (highest count) after chlorhexidine exposure. These bacterial counts did not decrease overtime after chlorhexidine mouthwash (each minute increase in time resulted in a multiplication of bacterial count by a coefficient of 1.001, P = 0.83). Viridans group streptococci isolates had the lowest chlorhexidine minimal inhibitory concentration (4 [4 to 8] mg/l); Enterobacteriaceae isolates had the highest ones (32 [16 to 32] mg/l). Chlorhexidine salivary concentration rapidly decreased, reaching 7.6 [1.8 to 31] mg/l as early as 60 min after mouthwash. CONCLUSIONS: Chlorhexidine oropharyngeal care does not seem to reduce bacterial oropharyngeal colonization in critically ill ventilated patients. Variable chlorhexidine minimal inhibitory concentrations along with low chlorhexidine salivary concentrations after mouthwash could explain this ineffectiveness, and thus question the use of chlorhexidine for ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention.
Asunto(s)
Antiinfecciosos Locales/uso terapéutico , Bacterias/efectos de los fármacos , Clorhexidina/uso terapéutico , Enfermedad Crítica , Antisépticos Bucales/uso terapéutico , Orofaringe/microbiología , Respiración Artificial , Anciano , Antiinfecciosos Locales/análisis , Antiinfecciosos Locales/farmacología , Clorhexidina/análisis , Clorhexidina/farmacología , Recuento de Colonia Microbiana , Cuidados Críticos , Enterobacteriaceae/efectos de los fármacos , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Pruebas de Sensibilidad Microbiana , Persona de Mediana Edad , Neumonía Asociada al Ventilador/microbiología , Neumonía Asociada al Ventilador/prevención & control , Estudios Prospectivos , Saliva/química , Streptococcus/efectos de los fármacosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: An outbreak of Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) in liver transplant recipients occurred between 2009 and 2011 at the Beaujon University Hospital just after immediate-release tacrolimus was replaced by extended-release tacrolimus. We conducted a retrospective study to analyze the transmission mode of Pneumocystis, the role of the change in the immunosuppressive regimen, and the factors associated with PCP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To analyze transmission, we built a transmission map. Two control groups were built. First, to assess the role of the change from tacIR to tacER, cases were matched to controls transplanted before 2009 (tacIR control group). Tacrolimus trough concentrations were compared between the 2 groups. Then, to assess factors associated with PCP, each PCP case was matched to 2 control patients: the one transplanted just before and the one just after (PCPAsFact control group). No PCP prophylaxis was given to any patient. RESULTS: Fifteen cases of PCP were recorded. A contact between a case and a patient who developed PCP afterward was identified in 4 occasions. The comparison of tacrolimus trough concentrations did not conclude to a difference in the exposure to the drug. Lymphopenia was the only factor independently associated with the occurrence of PCP (odds ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.61-0.99, P = .04). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that patient-to-patient transmission was not the main mode of transmission of PCP. We found no evidence that the switch from tacIR to tacER led to an overexposure to tacrolimus. Our results suggest the possibility of targeted prophylaxis in immunosuppressed liver transplant recipients.
Asunto(s)
Brotes de Enfermedades/prevención & control , Trasplante de Hígado/efectos adversos , Infecciones Oportunistas/epidemiología , Pneumocystis carinii/aislamiento & purificación , Neumonía por Pneumocystis/epidemiología , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Profilaxis Antibiótica/métodos , Femenino , Francia/epidemiología , Humanos , Huésped Inmunocomprometido , Inmunosupresores/efectos adversos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Infecciones Oportunistas/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones Oportunistas/inmunología , Infecciones Oportunistas/microbiología , Pneumocystis carinii/patogenicidad , Neumonía por Pneumocystis/tratamiento farmacológico , Neumonía por Pneumocystis/microbiología , Neumonía por Pneumocystis/transmisión , Estudios Retrospectivos , Combinación Trimetoprim y Sulfametoxazol/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Weaning from mechanical ventilation (MV) may be impeded by the occurrence of agitation. Loxapine has the ability to control agitation without affecting spontaneous ventilation. The aim of this study was to establish whether loxapine would reduce MV weaning duration in agitated patients. METHODS: We performed a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group, randomised trial. Patients who were potential candidates for weaning but exhibited agitation (Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale score ≥ 2) after sedation withdrawal were randomly assigned to receive either loxapine or placebo. In case of severe agitation, conventional sedation was immediately resumed. The primary endpoint was the time between first administration of loxapine or placebo and successful extubation. RESULTS: The trial was discontinued after 102 patients were enrolled because of an insufficient inclusion rate. Median times to successful extubation were 3.2 days in the loxapine group and 5 days in the placebo group (relative risk 1.2, 95% CI 0.75-1.88, p = 0.45). During the first 24 h, sedation was more frequently resumed in the placebo group (44% vs 17%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this prematurely stopped trial, loxapine did not significantly shorten weaning from MV. However, loxapine reduced the need for resuming sedation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01193816 . Registered on 26 August 2010.