In-hospital Outcomes of Patients with Septic Shock and Underlying Chronic Atrial Fibrillation: A Propensity Matched Analysis from A National Dataset.

INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the most common arrhythmias among hospitalized patients. Among patients admitted with septic shock (SS), the new occurrence of atrial fibrillation has been associated with an increase in intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay and in-hospital mortality. This is partially related to further reduction in cardiac output and thus worsening organ perfusion due to atrial fibrillation. However, there is a paucity of research on the outcomes of patients who have underlying chronic AF (UCAF) and then develop SS. This study aimed to identify the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with UCAF admitted with SS compared to patients with SS without UCAF. METHODS: This study was a retrospective analysis of the 2016 and 2017 Nationwide Readmission Database. ICD-10 codes were used to identify patients with SS, and these patients were stratified into those with and without UCAF. Propensity matching analyses were performed to compare clinical outcomes and in-hospital mortality between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 353,422 patients with hospitalization for SS were identified, 5.8% (n = 20,772) of whom had UCAF. After 2:1 propensity matching, 20,719 patients were identified as having SS with UCAF, and 41,438 patients were identified as having SS without UCAF. Patients with SS and UCAF had a higher incidence of ischemic stroke [2.5% versus 2.2%, p = 0.012], length of stay [11.5 days versus 10.9 days, p < 0.001], mean total charges [$154,094 versus $144,037, p < 0.001] compared to those with SS without UCAF. In-hospital mortality was high in both groups, but was slightly higher among those with SS and UCAF than those with SS and no UCAF [34.4% versus 34.1%, p = 0.049]. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified UCAF as an adverse prognosticator for clinical outcomes. Patients with SS and UCAF need to be identified as a higher risk category of SS who will require more intensive management.

A comparison of salicylic acid levels in normal subjects after rectal versus oral dosing.

OBJECTIVES: The common practice is to use 162 mg of aspirin orally in the emergency department (ED) for patients presenting with myocardial infarction. If the patient cannot take aspirin orally in the authors' facility, then 600 mg of aspirin is given rectally. However, no strong evidence exists as to whether the oral and rectal doses provide equivalent risk protection. The authors hypothesized that the salicylic acid levels for orally and rectally administered aspirin will not be similar, because of the different dosages used and the different routes of administration. METHODS: The study sample consisted of healthy, nonpregnant, adult volunteers without active illness, who did not take any medication regularly. Each subject served as his or her own control to account for any confounding factors. The study was conducted on 2 days, separated by a 1-week washout period. On the first day, 162 mg of oral aspirin was chewed and swallowed. Salicylic acid levels were obtained at baseline (i.e., before taking the aspirin) and then 30, 60, and 90 minutes after dosing. The 600-mg aspirin suppository was self-administered 1 week later with a sample for laboratory measures again drawn at baseline and then 30, 60, and 90 minutes after dosing. RESULTS: Twenty-four subjects completed the study. The rectal suppository provided significantly more salicylic acid into the blood than the oral tablets over 90 minutes (p < 0.001). No statistical difference was noted between oral and rectal administration from baseline to 30 minutes (p > 0.05). However, mean salicylic acid levels from the rectal suppository were statistically higher than from the oral tablets from 30 to 60 minutes (p < 0.001) and from 60 to 90 minutes (p = 0.002). More than 60% of the subjects had an increasing salicylic acid level response over time to the rectal suppository. The salicylic acid level response to the oral administration was more evenly divided between those subjects whose salicylic acid levels peaked quickly and then fell or held steady (33%), those whose salicylic acid levels increased over time (29%), and those whose salicylic acid levels were measureable only after 60 minutes (25%). Although not statistically significant, these differences in group distributions for the type of salicylic acid level response between oral and rectal doses suggested the possibility of a rectal advantage. CONCLUSIONS: Whether the higher salicylic acid levels and faster absorption of the rectal aspirin translate into better clinical outcomes is unknown and cannot be concluded from our study. Previous evidence, however, has shown that 162 mg of aspirin chewed and swallowed provided lower mortality in patients presenting with myocardial infarction. Our results suggested the rectal administration of a 600-mg suppository provides sufficient levels of salicylic acid within 90 minutes to meet or exceed that of oral aspirin.