Blood Purification With CytoSorb in Critically Ill Patients: Single-Center Preliminary Experience.

The CytoSorb adsorber, a blood purification therapy, is able to remove molecules in the 5-60 kDa range which comprises the majority of inflammatory mediators and some endogenous molecules. We aimed to evaluate CytoSorb therapy on clinical outcomes in critically ill patients. A retrospective case series study, from February 2016 to May 2017, was performed in 40 patients with multiple organ failure who received CytoSorb treatment. There were 28 patients with cardiogenic shock, 2 with septic shock, 9 with acute respiratory distress syndrome, and 1 with liver failure. Nineteen patients (47%) underwent extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, 11 (27%) had an intra-aortic balloon pump, 9 (22%) were implanted with Impella, 6 (15%) had a ventricular assist device, and 18 (45%) were treated with continuous veno-venous hemofiltration. After CytoSorb treatment, total bilirubin decreased from 11.6 ± 9.2 to 6.8 ± 5.1 mg/dL (P = 0.005), lactate from 12.1 ± 8.7 to 2.9 ± 2.5 mmol/L (P < 0.001), CPK from 2416 (670-8615) to 281 (44-2769) U/L (P < 0.001) and LDH from 1230 (860-3157) to 787 (536-1148) U/L (P < 0.001). The vasoactive-inotropic score after 48 h of treatment was reduced to 10 points, P = 0.009. Thirty-day mortality was 55% and ICU mortality was 52.5% at expected ICU mortality of 80%. Our study shows that CytoSorbTM treatment is effective in reducing bilirubin, lactate, CPK and LDH, in critically ill patients mainly due to cardiogenic shock. There is a need for randomized controlled trials to conclude on the potential benefits blood purification with CytoSorb in critically ill patients.

Additive Effect on Survival of Anaesthetic Cardiac Protection and Remote Ischemic Preconditioning in Cardiac Surgery: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Cardioprotective properties of volatile agents and of remote ischemic preconditioning have survival effects in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to confirm the beneficial effects of these strategies on survival in cardiac surgery, to evaluate which is the best strategy and if these strategies have additive or competitive effects. METHODS: Pertinent studies were independently searched in BioMedCentral, MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register (updated November 2013). A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. Four groups of patients were compared: total intravenous anesthesia (with or without remote ischemic preconditioning) and an anesthesia plan including volatile agents (with or without remote ischemic preconditioning). Mortality was the main investigated outcome. RESULTS: We identified 55 randomized trials published between 1991 and 2013 and including 6,921 patients undergoing cardiac surgery. The use of volatile agents (posterior mean of odds ratio = 0.50, 95% CrI 0.28-0.91) and the combination of volatile agents with remote preconditioning (posterior mean of odds ratio = 0.15, 95% CrI 0.04-0.55) were associated with a reduction in mortality when compared to total intravenous anesthesia. Posterior distribution of the probability of each treatment to be the best one, showed that the association of volatile anesthetic and remote ischemic preconditioning is the best treatment to improve short- and long-term survival after cardiac surgery, suggesting an additive effect of these two strategies. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing cardiac surgery, the use of volatile anesthetics and the combination of volatile agents with remote preconditioning reduce mortality when compared to TIVA and have additive effects. It is necessary to confirm these results with large, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded trials comparing these different strategies in cardiac and non-cardiac surgery, to establish which volatile agent is more protective than the others and how to best apply remote ischemic preconditioning.

Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam as preanesthetic medication in children: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: The preoperative period is a stressing occurrence for most people undergoing surgery, in particular children. Approximately 50-75% of children undergoing surgery develop anxiety which is associated with distress on emergence from anesthesia and with later postoperative behavioral problems. Premedication, commonly performed with benzodiazepines, reduces preoperative anxiety, facilitates separation from parents, and promotes acceptance of mask induction. Dexmedetomidine is a highly selective α2 -agonist with sedative and analgesic properties. A meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on dexmedetomidine versus midazolam was performed to evaluate its efficacy in improving perioperative sedation and analgesia, and in reducing postoperative agitation when used as a preanesthetic medication in children. METHODS: Studies were independently searched in PubMed, BioMedCentral, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials and updated on August 15th, 2014. Primary outcomes were represented by improved sedation at separation from parents, at induction of anesthesia, and reduction in postoperative agitation. Secondary outcomes were reduction in rescue analgesic drugs, and duration of surgery and anesthesia. Inclusion criteria were random allocation to treatment and comparison between dexmedetomidine and midazolam. Exclusion criteria were adult studies, duplicate publications, intravenous administration, and no data on main outcomes. RESULTS: Data from 1033 children in 13 randomized trials were analyzed. Overall, in the dexmedetomidine group there was a higher incidence of satisfactory sedation at separation from parents (314 of 424 [74%] in the dexmedetomidine group vs 196 of 391 [50%] in the midazolam group, RR = 1.30 [1.05-1.62], P = 0.02), a reduced incidence of postoperative agitation (14 of 140 [10%] vs 56 of 141 [40%], RR = 0.31 [0.13-0.73], P = 0.008), and a significant reduction in the rescue doses of analgesic drugs (49 of 241 [20%] vs 95 of 243 [39%], RR = 0.52 [0.39-0.70], P < 0.001). There was no evidence of a higher incidence of satisfactory sedation at anesthesia induction or any reduction of duration of surgery and anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: Dexmedetomidine is effective in decreasing anxiety upon separation from parents, decreasing postoperative agitation, and providing more effective postoperative analgesia when compared with midazolam.

Lung stress and strain during mechanical ventilation: any safe threshold?

RATIONALE: Unphysiologic strain (the ratio between tidal volume and functional residual capacity) and stress (the transpulmonary pressure) can cause ventilator-induced lung damage. OBJECTIVES: To identify a strain-stress threshold (if any) above which ventilator-induced lung damage can occur. METHODS: Twenty-nine healthy pigs were mechanically ventilated for 54 hours with a tidal volume producing a strain between 0.45 and 3.30. Ventilator-induced lung damage was defined as net increase in lung weight. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Initial lung weight and functional residual capacity were measured with computed tomography. Final lung weight was measured using a balance. After setting tidal volume, data collection included respiratory system mechanics, gas exchange and hemodynamics (every 6 h); cytokine levels in serum (every 12 h) and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (end of the experiment); and blood laboratory examination (start and end of the experiment). Two clusters of animals could be clearly identified: animals that increased their lung weight (n = 14) and those that did not (n = 15). Tidal volume was 38 ± 9 ml/kg in the former and 22 ± 8 ml/kg in the latter group, corresponding to a strain of 2.16 ± 0.58 and 1.29 ± 0.57 and a stress of 13 ± 5 and 8 ± 3 cm H(2)O, respectively. Lung weight gain was associated with deterioration in respiratory system mechanics, gas exchange, and hemodynamics, pulmonary and systemic inflammation and multiple organ dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: In healthy pigs, ventilator-induced lung damage develops only when a strain greater than 1.5-2 is reached or overcome. Because of differences in intrinsic lung properties, caution is warranted in translating these findings to humans.