The Australasian Resuscitation In Sepsis Evaluation: FLUid or vasopressors In Emergency Department Sepsis, a multicentre observational study (ARISE FLUIDS observational study): Rationale, methods and analysis plan.

OBJECTIVE: There is uncertainty about the optimal i.v. fluid volume and timing of vasopressor commencement in the resuscitation of patients with sepsis and hypotension. We aim to study current resuscitation practices in EDs in Australia and New Zealand (the Australasian Resuscitation In Sepsis Evaluation: FLUid or vasopressors In Emergency Department Sepsis [ARISE FLUIDS] observational study). METHODS: ARISE FLUIDS is a prospective, multicentre observational study in 71 hospitals in Australia and New Zealand. It will include adult patients presenting to the ED during a 30 day period with suspected sepsis and hypotension (systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg) despite at least 1000 mL fluid resuscitation. We will obtain data on baseline demographics, clinical and laboratory variables, all i.v. fluid given in the first 24 h, vasopressor use, time to antimicrobial administration, admission to intensive care, organ failure and in-hospital mortality. We will specifically describe (i) the volume of fluid administered at the following time points: when meeting eligibility criteria, in the first 6 h, at 24 h and prior to vasopressor commencement and (ii) the frequency and timing of vasopressor use in the first 6 h and at 24 h. Screening logs will provide reliable estimates of the proportion of ED patients meeting eligibility criteria for a subsequent randomised controlled trial. DISCUSSION: This multicentre, observational study will provide insight into current haemodynamic resuscitation practices in patients with sepsis and hypotension as well as estimates of practice variation and patient outcomes. The results will inform the design and feasibility of a multicentre phase III trial of early haemodynamic resuscitation in patients presenting to ED with sepsis and hypotension.

[Which drugs are useful during resuscitation? Which are not?]. / Welche Medikamente sind bei der Reanimation sinnvoll? Welche nicht?

INTRODUCTION: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation represents a therapeutic challenge. Evidence-based guidelines, which were updated in 2015, give detailed advice on how to treat the patient. METHODS: Basic life support consists of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (30 chest compressions interrupted briefly to provide to 2 ventilations) and, if ventricular tachyarrhythmia is present, urgent cardiac defibrillation. Administration of drugs is one of the aspects of advanced life support. Vasopressors (adrenaline, vasopressin) aim to optimize coronary and cerebral perfusion. Antiarrhythmic drugs (amiodarone or lidocaine, when amiodarone is not available) are given during cardiac arrest to treat specific cardiac arrhythmias, mainly ventricular fibrillation and ventricular tachycardia. CONCLUSION: However, even in current guidelines, there is growing ambivalence towards drug treatment in the setting of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This is mainly due to a paucity of robust clinical data. Most of the studies that have addressed the efficacy and safety of drugs during resuscitation are observational studies; however, a few small randomized controlled studies also exist. Recently, two large randomized controlled studies addressing the efficacy and safety of adrenaline versus placebo and amiodarone or lidocaine versus placebo have started. Both are currently recruiting patients. The hope is that the results of these studies will help to better define the role of drugs administered during cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Pharmacotherapy in refractory anaphylaxis: when intramuscular epinephrine fails.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to provide an evidence-based overview of several pharmacotherapeutic options available for refractory anaphylaxis when intramuscular epinephrine, the drug of choice, fails to provide resolution of signs and symptoms. RECENT FINDINGS: The evidence base for the therapy of anaphylaxis is comparatively weak and is largely based on consensus expert recommendations and case reports. There is an increasing recognition that this is problematic. The level of evidence for epinephrine use in anaphylaxis is higher than for other agents. Recent systematic reviews have confirmed the lack of high-grade evidence to support use of antihistamines and corticosteroids in anaphylaxis, both of which statistically continue to be used more frequently than epinephrine. Newer pharmacotherapeutic agents have been proffered, but none has been evaluated with scientific rigor. SUMMARY: Some anaphylactic reactions are so severe that treatment is unsuccessful despite rapid recognition and treatment. Improving the evidence base for the various treatment modalities may further help minimize fatalities once anaphylaxis is recognized. Consensus expert recommendations and case reports suggest a number of pharmacotherapeutic agents that are worthy of high-quality scrutiny through randomized controlled studies in which both treatment and placebo arms receive intramuscular epinephrine injections.