The effects of early-phase, low- or standard- intensity continuous renal replacement therapy on acid-base control and clinical outcomes: An observational study.

INTRODUCTION: The KDIGO clinical practice guideline recommends administering an effluent volume of 20-25 mL/kg/h during continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) for acute kidney injury (AKI). Recent evidence on CRRT initiation showed that less intervention might be beneficial for renal recovery. This study aimed to explore the association between early-phase low CRRT intensity and acid-base balance corrections and clinical outcomes. METHODS: This was a single-centre, retrospective, observational study at a tertiary ICU in Japan. All adult patients requiring CRRT in the ICU were included. Eligible patients were classified into the Low group (Dialysate flow rate, QD 10.0-19.9 mL/kg/h) and the Standard group (QD ≥ 20 mL/kg/h) by the intensity of CRRT at the beginning. The primary outcomes were the changes in the acid-base parameters 6 hours after CRRT initiation. We used an inversed probability of treatment weighting analysis to estimate the association between the intensity group and the outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 194 patients were classified into the Low group (n = 144) and the Standard group (n = 50). Standard group presented with more severe acid-base disturbances, including lower pH and BE at baseline. At 6 hours after CRRT initiation, pH, BE, and SID values were comparable, even after adjusting for baseline severity. Despite the efficient correction, no evident differences were observed in clinical outcomes between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The initial standard intensity appeared to be efficient in correcting acid-base imbalance at the early phase of CRRT; however, further studies are needed to assess the impact on clinical outcomes.

[Hepatic echinococcosis that required 11 years for a definitive diagnosis: a case report].

A woman in her 80s underwent computed tomography that revealed a 22-mm-sized unilocular mass in segment 4 of her liver. The mass grew to 26mm at the 4-year follow-up and to 36mm at the 11-year follow-up, becoming a multilocular mass that invaded the bile duct. At this point, the patient was diagnosed with hepatic echinococcosis based on a serological examination and oral albendazole treatment was initiated. The patient developed cholangitis and underwent endoscopic biliary stenting 12 years after her initial diagnosis. We consider this case valuable as it allowed us to follow the natural course of hepatic echinococcosis.

[A case of systemic amyloidosis presenting with gastric emphysema].

The patient was an elderly woman in her 80s. Upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopies were conducted as a thorough analysis for cardiac amyloidosis, revealing no abnormal findings. A mucosal biopsy, however, resulted in an amyloid AA-type amyloidosis diagnosis. About 2 months later, she visited our department with sudden vomiting and epigastric pain onset. Plain abdominal radiography and computed tomography demonstrated gastric emphysema, and thus, she was admitted to our department. The gastric emphysema was alleviated with conservative treatment. Herein, we report a valuable case in which gastric emphysema manifested as a gastrointestinal tract lesion of amyloidosis.

Unfractionated heparin versus nafamostat mesylate for anticoagulation during continuous kidney replacement therapy: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Unfractionated heparin sodium and nafamostat mesylate have long been used as anticoagulants in continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT) where citrate is unavailable. This study aimed to determine whether heparin or nafamostat mesylate used during CKRT was associated with a longer filter life. METHODS: In this single-centre observational study, we included adult patients who required CKRT and used heparin or nafamostat mesylate for their first CKRT in the intensive care unit from September 1, 2013, to December 31, 2020. The primary outcome was filter life (from the start to the end of using the first filter). We used propensity score matching to adjust for the imbalance in patients' characteristics and laboratory data at the start of CKRT and compared the outcomes between the two groups. We also performed restricted mean survival time analysis to compare the filter survival times. RESULTS: We included 286 patients, 157 patients on heparin and 129 patients on nafamostat mesylate. After propensity score matching, the mean filter life with heparin was 1.58 days (N = 91, Standard deviation [SD], 1.52) and with nafamostat mesylate was 1.06 days (N = 91, SD, 0.94, p = 0.006). Multivariable regression analysis adjusted for confounding factors supported that heparin was associated with a longer filter life compared with nafamostat mesylate (regression coefficient, days, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.15, 0.89]). The between group difference of the restricted mean filter survival time in the matched cohort was 0.29 (95% CI, 0.07-0.50, p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Compared to nafamostat mesylate, heparin was associated with one-third to one-half a day longer filter life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Nasal breathing is superior to oral breathing when performing and undergoing transnasal endoscopy: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND : Transnasal endoscopy presents a technical difficulty when inserting the flexible endoscope. It is unclear whether a particular breathing method is useful for transnasal endoscopy. Therefore, we conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial to compare endoscopic operability and patient tolerance between patients assigned to nasal breathing or oral breathing groups. METHODS : 198 eligible patients were randomly assigned to undergo transnasal endoscopy with nasal breathing or with oral breathing. Endoscopists and patients answered questionnaires on the endoscopic operability and patient tolerance using a 100-mm visual analog scale ranging from 0 (non-existent) to 100 (most difficult/unbearable). The visibility of the upper-middle pharynx was recorded. RESULTS : Patient characteristics did not differ significantly between the groups. Nasal breathing showed a higher rate of good visibility of the upper-middle pharynx than oral breathing (91.9 % vs. 27.6 %; P < 0.001). Nasal breathing showed lower mean [SD] scores than oral breathing in terms of overall technical difficulty (21.0 [11.4] vs. 35.4 [15.0]; P < 0.001). Regarding patient tolerance, nasal breathing showed lower scores than oral breathing for overall discomfort (22.1 [18.8] vs. 30.5 [20.9]; P = 0.004) and other symptoms, including nasal and throat pain, choking, suffocating, gagging, belching, and bloating (all P < 0.05). The pharyngeal bleeding rate was lower in the nasal breathing group than in the oral breathing group (0 % vs. 9.2 %; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS : Nasal breathing is superior to oral breathing for those performing and undergoing transnasal endoscopy. Nasal breathing led to good visibility of the upper-middle pharynx, improved endoscopic operability, and better patient tolerance, and was safer owing to decreased pharyngeal bleeding.

Non-invasive oxygenation strategies for respiratory failure with COVID-19: A concise narrative review of literature in pre and mid-COVID-19 era.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread globally and can cause a shortage of medical resources, in particular, mechanical ventilators. High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) are frequently used for acute respiratory failure patients as alternatives to invasive mechanical ventilation. They are drawing attention because of a potential role to save mechanical ventilators. However, their effectiveness and risk of viral spread are unclear. The latest network meta-analysis of pre-COVID-19 trials reported that treatment with non-invasive oxygenation strategies was associated with improved survival when compared with conventional oxygen therapy. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a lot of clinical research on COVID-19 related acute respiratory failure has been reported. Several observational studies and small trials have suggested HFNC or NPPV as an alternative of standard oxygen therapy to manage COVID-19 related acute respiratory failure, provided that appropriate infection prevention is applied by health care workers to avoid risks of the virus transmission. Awake proning is an emerging strategy to optimise the management of patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory failure. However, the benefits of awake proning have yet to be assessed in properly designed clinical research. Although HFNC and NPPV are probably effective for acute respiratory failure, the safety data are mostly based on observational and experimental reports. As such, they should be implemented carefully if adequate personal protective equipment and negative pressure rooms are available.