Propafenone versus amiodarone for supraventricular arrhythmias in septic shock: a randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Acute onset supraventricular arrhythmias can contribute to haemodynamic compromise in septic shock. Both amiodarone and propafenone are available interventions, but their clinical effects have not yet been directly compared. METHODS: In this two-centre, prospective controlled parallel group double blind trial we recruited 209 septic shock patients with new-onset arrhythmia and a left ventricular ejection fraction above 35%. The patients were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either intravenous propafenone (70 mg bolus followed by 400-840 mg/24 h) or amiodarone (300 mg bolus followed by 600-1800 mg/24 h). The primary outcomes were the proportion of patients who had sinus rhythm 24 h after the start of the infusion, time to restoration of the first sinus rhythm and the proportion of patients with arrhythmia recurrence. RESULTS: Out of 209 randomized patients, 200 (96%) received the study drug. After 24 h, 77 (72.8%) and 71 (67.3%) were in sinus rhythm (p = 0.4), restored after a median of 3.7 h (95% CI 2.3-6.8) and 7.3 h (95% CI 5-11), p = 0.02, with propafenone and amiodarone, respectively. The arrhythmia recurred in 54 (52%) patients treated with propafenone and in 80 (76%) with amiodarone, p < 0.001. Patients with a dilated left atrium had better rhythm control with amiodarone (6.4 h (95% CI 3.5; 14.1) until cardioversion vs 18 h (95% CI 2.8; 24.7) in propafenone, p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Propafenone does not provide better rhythm control at 24 h yet offers faster cardioversion with fewer arrhythmia recurrences than with amiodarone, especially in patients with a non-dilated left atrium. No differences between propafenone and amiodarone on the prespecified short- and long-term outcomes were observed.

Internal jugular vein collapsibility does not predict fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients after cardiac surgery.

PURPOSE: The objective of our study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of internal jugular vein (IJV) collapsibility as a predictor of fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients after cardiac surgery. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, spontaneously breathing patients were enrolled on the first postoperative day after coronary artery bypass grafting. Hemodynamic data coupled with simultaneous ultrasound assessment of the IJV were collected at baseline and after passive leg raising test (PLR). Continuous cardiac index (CI), stroke volume (SV), and stroke volume variation (SVV) were assessed with FloTracTM/EV1000™. Fluid responsiveness was defined as an increase in CI ≥ 10% after PLR. We compared the differences in measured variables between fluid responders and non-responders and tested the ability of ultrasonographic IJV indices to predict fluid responsiveness. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were included in the study. Seventeen (31.5%) were fluid responders. The responders demonstrated significantly lower inspiratory and expiratory diameters of the IJV at baseline, but IJV collapsibility was comparable (P = 0.7). Using the cut-off point of 20%, IJV collapsibility predicted fluid responsiveness with a sensitivity of 76.5% and specificity of 38.9%, ROC AUC 0.55. CONCLUSION: In spontaneously breathing patients after surgical coronary revascularisation, collapsibility of the internal jugular vein did not predict fluid responsiveness.

Prediction of Fluid Responsiveness Using Combined End-Expiratory and End-Inspiratory Occlusion Tests in Cardiac Surgical Patients.

End-expiratory occlusion (EEO) and end-inspiratory occlusion (EIO) tests have been successfully used to predict fluid responsiveness in various settings using calibrated pulse contour analysis and echocardiography. The aim of this study was to test if respiratory occlusion tests predicted fluid responsiveness reliably in cardiac surgical patients with protective ventilation. This single-centre, prospective study, included 57 ventilated patients after elective coronary artery bypass grafting who were indicated for fluid expansion. Baseline echocardiographic measurements were obtained and patients with significant cardiac pathology were excluded. Cardiac index (CI), stroke volume and stroke volume variation were recorded using uncalibrated pulse contour analysis at baseline, after performing EEO and EIO tests and after volume expansion (7 mL/kg of succinylated gelatin). Fluid responsiveness was defined as an increase in cardiac index by 15%. Neither EEO, EIO nor their combination predicted fluid responsiveness reliably in our study. After a combined EEO and EIO, a cut-off point for CI change of 16.7% predicted fluid responsiveness with a sensitivity of 61.8%, specificity of 69.6% and ROC AUC of 0.593. In elective cardiac surgical patients with protective ventilation, respiratory occlusion tests failed to predict fluid responsiveness using uncalibrated pulse contour analysis.

Novel Methods for Predicting Fluid Responsiveness in Critically Ill Patients-A Narrative Review.

In patients with acute circulatory failure, fluid administration represents a first-line therapeutic intervention for improving cardiac output. However, only approximately 50% of patients respond to fluid infusion with a significant increase in cardiac output, defined as fluid responsiveness. Additionally, excessive volume expansion and associated hyperhydration have been shown to increase morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. Thus, except for cases of obvious hypovolaemia, fluid responsiveness should be routinely tested prior to fluid administration. Static markers of cardiac preload, such as central venous pressure or pulmonary artery wedge pressure, have been shown to be poor predictors of fluid responsiveness despite their widespread use to guide fluid therapy. Dynamic tests including parameters of aortic blood flow or respiratory variability of inferior vena cava diameter provide much higher diagnostic accuracy. Nevertheless, they are also burdened with several significant limitations, reducing the reliability, or even precluding their use in many clinical scenarios. This non-systematic narrative review aims to provide an update on the novel, less employed dynamic tests of fluid responsiveness evaluation in critically ill patients.

Disease progression of 213 patients hospitalized with Covid-19 in the Czech Republic in March-October 2020: An exploratory analysis.

We collected a multi-centric retrospective dataset of patients (N = 213) who were admitted to ten hospitals in Czech Republic and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the early phases of the pandemic in March-October 2020. The dataset contains baseline patient characteristics, breathing support required, pharmacological treatment received and multiple markers on daily resolution. Patients in the dataset were treated with hydroxychloroquine (N = 108), azithromycin (N = 72), favipiravir (N = 9), convalescent plasma (N = 7), dexamethasone (N = 4) and remdesivir (N = 3), often in combination. To explore association between treatments and patient outcomes we performed multiverse analysis, observing how the conclusions change between defensible choices of statistical model, predictors included in the model and other analytical degrees of freedom. Weak evidence to constrain the potential efficacy of azithromycin and favipiravir can be extracted from the data. Additionally, we performed external validation of several proposed prognostic models for Covid-19 severity showing that they mostly perform unsatisfactorily on our dataset.