The incidence and characteristics of bacteremia in cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: Despite improvements in both preventative and post-event care, cardiac arrest still occurs frequently with high morbidity and mortality. Bacteremia is a potential cause or complication of cardiac arrest that has received increasing notoriety in recent years. OBJECTIVES: To identify the incidence of and predictive factors for bacteremia in both inside and outside of hospital cardiac arrest patients. METHODS: Retrospective, single centered, cohort study conducted at an academic medical center. Patients 18 years of age or older with cardiac arrest and blood cultures drawn within 24 h of the event were included. RESULTS: Two-hundred sixty-three cardiac arrest patients were included, of which forty-three patients (16.3%) were bacteremic. Patients with bacteremia had higher rates of home parenteral nutrition and a history of known infection before cardiac arrest. Bacteremic patients had a higher blood urea nitrogen (30 mg/dL vs. 23, p = 0.02), serum creatinine (2.40 mg/dL  vs. 1.70, p = 0.05), and troponin (0.39 ng/mL vs. 0.12, p = 0.03) compared with the non-bacteremic group. There were no differences in duration of mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay or ICU length of stay. Mortality at 28-days was higher in the bacteremic group (79%) compared to the non-bacteremic group (60.9%, p = 0.02). No factors associated with bacteremia were identified. CONCLUSION: Bacteremia was observed in 16.3% of patients, with significant differences between the bacteremic and non-bacteremic group regarding home parenteral nutrition and known infection before the event, cardiac arrest characteristics (blood urea nitrogen, serum creatinine, and troponin), and 28-day mortality.

Midodrine as an Adjuvant to Intravenous Vasopressor Agents in Adults With Resolving Shock: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of midodrine in addition to intravenous vasopressor therapy on outcomes in adults recovering from shock. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Clinicaltrials.gov, and published abstracts were searched from inception to November 2018 for studies comparing outcomes in shock after midodrine initiation versus no midodrine. RESULTS: Three studies with 2533 patients were included. Patients in whom midodrine was added to intravenous vasopressor therapy compared to intravenous vasopressor therapy alone experienced similar intensive care unit (ICU; mean difference [MD]: 1.38 days, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.48 to 6.23, I2 = 93%) and hospital lengths of stay (MD: 4.37 days, 95% CI: -3.45 to 12.19, I2 = 93%) and intravenous vasopressor duration after midodrine initiation (MD: 7.28 days, 95% CI: -0.86 to 15.41, I2 = 97%). Mortality was similar between groups (odds ratio: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.44-1.27, I2 = 65%). Qualitative assessment of reporting biases revealed minimal location bias, moderate selective outcome reporting bias, no selective analysis reporting bias, and no conflict of interest bias. CONCLUSIONS: Midodrine had no effect on ICU or hospital length of stay. These results were highly susceptible to the study heterogeneity and availability. Future investigation into standardized initiation of midodrine at an adequate dosage with an expedited titration strategy is needed in order to assess the utility of this strategy in shock management.

Norepinephrine and Vasopressin Compared With Norepinephrine and Epinephrine in Adults With Septic Shock.

Background: The optimal adjuvant vasopressor to norepinephrine in septic shock remains controversial. Objective: To compare durations of shock-free survival between adjuvant vasopressin and epinephrine. Methods: A retrospective, single-center, matched cohort study of adults with septic shock refractory to norepinephrine was conducted. Patients receiving norepinephrine not at target mean arterial pressure (MAP; 65 mm Hg) were initiated on vasopressin or epinephrine to raise MAP to target. Vasopressin-exposed patients were matched to epinephrine-exposed patients using propensity scores. Mortality outcomes were examined using multivariable Poisson regression with robust variance estimation. Results: Of 166 patients, 96 (entire cohort) were included in the propensity score-matched cohort. Shock-free survival durations in the first 7 days were similar between epinephrine- and vasopressin-exposed patients in the matched cohort (median = 13.2 hours, interquartile range [IQR] = 0-121.0, vs median = 41.3 hours, IQR = 0-125.9; P = 0.51). Seven- and 28-day mortality rates were similar in the matched cohort (7-day: 47.9% vs 39.6%, P = 0.35; 28-day: 56.3% vs 58.3%, P = 0.84). Mortality rates were similar between epinephrine- and vasopressin-exposed patients in propensity score-matched regression models with and without adjustments at 7 (relative risk [RR] = 1.28, 95% CI = 0.92-1.79; RR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.81-1.81) and 28 days (RR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.81-1.34; RR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.69-1.34). Conclusion and Relevance: Shock-free survival durations were similar in matched epinephrine- and vasopressin-exposed groups. Adjuvant epinephrine or vasopressin alongside norepinephrine to raise MAP to target requires further investigation.