RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Up to 50% of patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF) show resistance to diuretics. This condition contributes to a prolonged hospital length of stay and a higher risk of death. This review aimed to investigate whether a diuretic therapeutic approach more effective than furosemide alone exists for patients with diuretic-resistant AHF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating diuretic therapy in patients with diuretic-resistant AHF. We searched Pubmed, BioMed Central, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. RESULTS: Six RCTs were identified, involving a total of 845 patients. The P-score ranges from 0.6663 for furosemide to 0.2294 for the tolvaptan-furosemide. We found no significant differences in efficacy for any drug comparison. CONCLUSIONS: None of the diuretics considered in RCTs performed to date (tolvaptan, metolazone, hydrochlorothiazide, indapamide) appear to be more effective than furosemide therapy alone for the treatment of patients with diuretic-resistant AHF.
Asunto(s)
Inhibidores de Anhidrasa Carbónica/uso terapéutico , Diuréticos/uso terapéutico , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/tratamiento farmacológico , Enfermedad Aguda , Resistencia a Medicamentos/efectos de los fármacos , Humanos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: A growing body of evidence points out that a large amount of patients with sepsis are admitted and treated in medical ward (MW). With most of the sepsis studies conducted in intensive care unit (ICU), these patients, older and with more comorbidities have received poor attention. Provided the differences between the two groups of patients, results of diagnostic and therapeutic trials from ICU should not be routinely transferred to MW, where sepsis seems to be at least as common as in ICU. METHODS: We analyzed clinical trials on novel tools for an early diagnosis of sepsis published in the last two year adopting strict research criteria. Moreover we conducted a target review of the literature on non-invasive monitoring of severe sepsis and septic shock. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The combination of innovative and non-invasive tools for sepsis rule in/out, as quick alternatives to blood cultures (gold standard) with bedside integrated ultrasonography could impact triage, diagnosis and prognosis of septic patients managed in MW, preventing ICU admissions, poor outcomes and costly complications, especially in elderly that are usually highly vulnerable to invasive procedures.
