Dobutamine-sparing versus dobutamine-to-all strategy in cardiac surgery: a randomized noninferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The detrimental effects of inotropes are well-known, and in many fields they are only used within a goal-directed therapy approach. Nevertheless, standard management in many centers includes administering inotropes to all patients undergoing cardiac surgery to prevent low cardiac output syndrome and its implications. Randomized evidence in favor of a patient-tailored, inotrope-sparing approach is still lacking. We designed a randomized controlled noninferiority trial in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with normal ejection fraction to assess whether an dobutamine-sparing strategy (in which the use of dobutamine was guided by hemodynamic evidence of low cardiac output associated with signs of inadequate tissue perfusion) was noninferior to an inotrope-to-all strategy (in which all patients received dobutamine). RESULTS: A total of 160 patients were randomized to the dobutamine-sparing strategy (80 patients) or to the dobutamine-to-all approach (80 patients). The primary composite endpoint of 30-day mortality or occurrence of major cardiovascular complications (arrhythmias, acute myocardial infarction, low cardiac output syndrome and stroke or transient ischemic attack) occurred in 25/80 (31%) patients of the dobutamine-sparing group (p = 0.74) and 27/80 (34%) of the dobutamine-to-all group. There were no significant differences between groups regarding the incidence of acute kidney injury, prolonged mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit or hospital length of stay. DISCUSSION: Although it is common practice in many centers to administer inotropes to all patients undergoing cardiac surgery, a dobutamine-sparing strategy did not result in an increase of mortality or occurrence of major cardiovascular events when compared to a dobutamine-to-all strategy. Further research is needed to assess if reducing the administration of inotropes can improve outcomes in cardiac surgery. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02361801. Registered Feb 2nd, 2015. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02361801.

Vasopressin Versus Norepinephrine for the Management of Septic Shock in Cancer Patients: The VANCS II Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Previous trials suggest that vasopressin may improve outcomes in patients with vasodilatory shock. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether vasopressin could be superior to norepinephrine to improve outcomes in cancer patients with septic shock. DESIGN: Single-center, randomized, double-blind clinical trial, and meta-analysis of randomized trials. SETTING: ICU of a tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: Two-hundred fifty patients 18 years old or older with cancer and septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were assigned to either vasopressin or norepinephrine as first-line vasopressor therapy. An updated meta-analysis was also conducted including randomized trials published until October 2018. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. Prespecified secondary outcomes included 90-days all-cause mortality rate; number of days alive and free of advanced organ support at day 28; and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score 24 hours and 96 hours after randomization. We also measure the prevalence of adverse effects in 28 days. A total of 250 patients were randomized. The primary outcome was observed in 71 patients (56.8%) in the vasopressin group and 66 patients (52.8%) in the norepinephrine group (p = 0.52). There were no significant differences in 90-day mortality (90 patients [72.0%] and 94 patients [75.2%], respectively; p = 0.56), number of days alive and free of advanced organ support, adverse events, or Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. CONCLUSIONS: In cancer patients with septic shock, vasopressin as first-line vasopressor therapy was not superior to norepinephrine in reducing 28-day mortality rate.

Lactated Ringer's Versus 4% Albumin on Lactated Ringer's in Early Sepsis Therapy in Cancer Patients: A Pilot Single-Center Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of the administration of 4% albumin on lactated Ringer's, when compared with lactated Ringer's alone, in the early phase of sepsis in cancer patients. DESIGN: Single-center, randomized, double-blind, controlled-parallel trial. SETTING: A tertiary care university cancer hospital. PATIENTS: Cancer patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: Between October 2014 and December 2016, patients were randomly assigned to receive either bolus of albumin in a lactated Ringer's solution or lactated Ringer's solution alone during the first 6 hours of fluid resuscitation after intensive care medicine (ICU) admission. Primary outcome was defined as death from any cause at 7 days. Secondary outcomes were defined as death from any cause within 28 days, change in Sequence Organ Failure Assessment scores from baseline to day 7, days alive and free of mechanical ventilation, days alive and free of vasopressor, renal replacement therapy during ICU stay, and length of ICU and hospital stay. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 360 patients were enrolled in the trial. At 7 days, 46 of 180 patients (26%) died in the albumin group and 40 of 180 (22%) died in the lactated Ringer's group (p = 0.5). At 28 days, 96 of 180 patients (53%) died in the albumin group and 83 of 180 (46%) died in the lactated Ringer's group (p = 0.2). No significant differences in secondary outcomes were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Adding albumin to early standard resuscitation with lactated Ringer's in cancer patients with sepsis did not improve 7-day survival.

[Ten-year follow-up of kidney transplantation with living unrelated donor]. / Análise de 10 anos de seguimento de transplantesrenais com doador vivo não aparentado.

INTRODUCTION: In the current era of scarcity of kidneys available for transplantation, and chronic anti-HLA-mediated rejection as a main cause of graft loss, continuous demonstration of the long-term survival of grafts from living unrelated kidney donors (LURD) is paramount. OBJECTIVE: Analyze long-term kidney graft and patient outcomes using LURD, and compare them with living related donors (LRD). METHODS: We analyzed the 389 first renal transplantations performed with a living donor (281 LRD and 108 LURD), in a single center, from January 1998 through December 2007. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between LRD and LURD as refers to patient survival (89.1% vs. 84.7%, p = 0.40, respectively) and graft survival (81.1% vs. 68.9%, p = 0.77, respectively), 10 years post-transplantation. On Cox proportional regression model of multivariate analysis, panel reactive antibodies (PRA) > 10% and the occurrence of acute rejection in the first year posttransplantation were the only independent predictors of graft loss (HR 2.54, 95% CI 1.35 -4.78; p < 0.05 and HR 4.1, 95% CI 2.04 - 4.78; p < 0.05, respectively). CONCLUSION: LURD are an important source of organs for renal transplantation, with results similar to those obtained with LRD, regardless of HLA matching.

Análise de 10 anos de seguimento de transplantesrenais com doador vivo não aparentado / Ten-year follow-up of kidney transplantation with living unrelated donor

INTRODUÇÃO: No contexto atual da elevada escassez de órgãos para o transplante renal e do reconhecimento cada vez maior da rejeição crônica mediada por anticorpos anti-HLA como uma importante causa de perda do enxerto, uma contínua demonstração da boa evolução a longo prazo de transplantes renais com doadores vivos não aparentados (DVNA) é de suma importância. OBJETIVOS: Analisar a sobrevida do enxerto e dos pacientes transplantados com DVNA, e compará-la com doadores vivos aparentados (DVA). MÉTODOS: Foram analisados 389 primeiros transplantes renais com doador vivo realizados em um único centro, entre janeiro de 1998 e dezembro de 2007, 281 com DVA e 108 com DVNA. RESULTADOS: Não houve diferença significativa na sobrevida dos pacientes (89,1 por cento vs. 84,7 por cento, p = 0,40) e do enxerto (81,1 por cento vs. 68,9 por cento, p = 0,77), em 10 anos de seguimento, entre DVA e DVNA, respectivamente. Na análise multivariada do modelo de regressão proporcional de Cox, a reatividade contra painel (PRA) > 10 por cento e a ocorrência de rejeição aguda no 1º ano após o transplante foram os únicos preditores independentes de perda do enxerto (OR 2,54, IC 95 por cento 1,35 - 4,78; p < 0,05 e OR 4,1, IC 95 por cento 2,04 -4,78; p < 0,05, respectivamente). CONCLUSÃO: Transplantes renais com DVNA representam uma importante fonte de órgãos para suprir uma crescente demanda, com resultados semelhantes aos transplantes com DVA, independente da compatibilidade HLA.

INTRODUCTION: In the current era of scarcity of kidneys available for transplantation, and chronic anti-HLA-mediated rejection as a main cause of graft loss, continuous demonstration of the long-term survival of grafts from living unrelated kidney donors (LURD) is paramount. OBJECTIVE: Analyze long-term kidney graft and patient outcomes using LURD, and compare them with living related donors (LRD). METHODS: We analyzed the 389 first renal transplantations performed with a living donor (281 LRD and 108 LURD), in a single center, from January 1998 through December 2007. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between LRD and LURD as refers to patient survival (89.1 percent vs. 84.7 percent, p = 0.40, respectively) and graft survival (81.1 percent vs. 68.9 percent, p = 0.77, respectively), 10 years post-transplantation. On Cox proportional regression model of multivariate analysis, panel reactive antibodies (PRA) > 10 percent and the occurrence of acute rejection in the first year posttransplantation were the only independent predictors of graft loss (HR 2.54, 95 percent CI 1.35 -4.78; p < 0.05 and HR 4.1, 95 percent CI 2.04 - 4.78; p < 0.05, respectively). CONCLUSION: LURD are an important source of organs for renal transplantation, with results similar to those obtained with LRD, regardless of HLA matching.