Dyslipidemia in chronic kidney disease: randomized controlled trial of colestilan versus simvastatin in dialysis patients.

AIM: We evaluated the effects of colestilan, a non-absorbed anion-exchange resin, on lipids and lipoproteins in dialysis patients. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, flexible-dose study incorporating a placebo-controlled withdrawal period tested for superiority vs. placebo and non-inferiority vs. simvastatin. Dialysis patients with serum low-density lipoprotein (LDL-C) ≥ 100 mg/dL received colestilan 3 - 12 g/day or simvastatin 10 - 40 mg/day for 16 weeks, and were then re-randomized to continue active medication or receive placebo for 4 weeks. Co-primary endpoints were the percent change in serum LDL-C level during the active and placebo comparison phases. RESULTS: Colestilan was non-inferior to simvastatin for lowering serum LDL-C (mean changes -29.5% vs. -28.9%; difference 0.6%, 95% CI -5.7, 4.5). Colestilan was more effective than placebo at maintaining control of serum LDL-C levels during the withdrawal phase (mean change +4.4% vs. +41.7%; difference -37.4%; p < 0.001). Reductions in total cholesterol were similar with both drugs, but simvastatin was more effective at controlling triglyceride levels. Adverse events most commonly affected the gastrointestinal system. CONCLUSIONS: In dialysis patients, colestilan was more effective than placebo at maintaining control of serum LDL-C levels, was noninferior to simvastatin in terms of the reduction in LDL-C achieved, and was generally well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of hypertonic saline solutions fluid resuscitation on hypovolemic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Fluid resuscitation is a fundamental intervention in patients with hypovolemic shock resulting from trauma. Appropriate fluid resuscitation in trauma patients could reduce organ failure, until blood components are available, and hemorrhage is controlled. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the effect of hypertonic saline/dextran or hypertonic saline for fluid resuscitation on patient outcomes restricted to adults with hypovolemic shock. METHODS: We conducted a search of electronic information sources, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library and bibliographic reference lists to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating outcomes of crystalloids versus colloids in patients with hypovolemic shock. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) of groups using fixed or random-effect models. RESULTS: Fifteen studies including 3264 patients met our inclusion criteria. Survival to hospital discharge rate between research groups varied and amounted to 71.2% in hypertonic saline/dextran group vs. 68.4% for isotonic/normotonic fluid (normal saline) solutions (odds ratio [OR] = 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-1.45; I2 = 48%; p = 0.09). 28- to 30-days survival rate for hypertonic fluid solutions was 72.8% survivable, while in the case of isotonic fluid (normal saline) - 71.4% (OR = 1.13; 95% CI 0.75-1.70; I2 = 43%; p = 0.56). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis, which included only evidence from RCTs hypertonic saline/dextran or hypertonic saline compared with isotonic fluid did not result in superior 28- to 30-day survival as well as in survival to hospital discharge. However, patients with hypotension who received resuscitation with hypertonic saline/dextran had less overall mortality as patients who received conventional fluid.

Systematic review and meta-analysis appraising efficacy and safety of adrenaline for adult cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: There is a beneficial effect of adrenaline during adult cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) from cardiac arrest but there is also uncertainty about its safety and effectiveness. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of adrenaline versus non-adrenaline CPR. METHODS: PubMed, ScienceDirect, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and Google Scholar databases were searched from their inception up to 1st July 2020. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and risk of bias, with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer. Risk ratio (RR) or mean difference of groups were calculated using fixed or random-effect models. RESULTS: Nineteen trials were identified. The use of adrenaline during CPR was associated with a significantly higher percentage of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) compared to non-adrenaline treatment (20.9% vs. 5.9%; RR = 1.87; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37-2.55; p < 0.001). The use of adrenaline in CPR was associated with ROSC at 19.4% and for non-adrenaline treatment - 4.3% (RR = 3.23; 95% CI 1.89-5.53; p < 0.001). Survival to discharge (or 30-day survival) when using adrenaline was 6.8% compared to non-adrenaline treatment (5.5%; RR = 0.99; 95% CI 0.76-1.30; p = 0.97). However, the use of adrenaline was associated with a worse neurological outcome (1.6% vs. 2.2%; RR = 0.57; 95% CI 0.42-0.78; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that resuscitation with adrenaline is associated with the ROSC and survival to hospital discharge, but no higher effectiveness was observed at discharge with favorable neurological outcome. The analysis showed higher effectiveness of ROSC and survival to hospital discharge in non-shockable rhythms. But more multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed in the future.

Comparison of the UEScope videolaryngoscope with the Macintosh laryngoscope during simulated cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A randomized, cross-over, multi-center manikin study.

BACKGROUND: Endotracheal intubation (ETI) can be challenging, especially in life-threatening situations such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Videolaryngoscopes aim to ease ETI, but effort is still widely discussed. This study intended to investigate 2 different airway devices regarding the success rate of ETI during ongoing chest compressions. METHODS: This randomized, cross-over, multi-center manikin trial included 85 experienced paramedics actively working in the emergency medicine service. After a standardized training session, all paramedics underwent 3 airway scenarios using both, direct laryngoscopy using a Macintosh blade and videolaryngoscope (the UEScope): normal airway without chest compressions, normal airway with uninterrupted chest compressions, and difficult airway with uninterrupted chest compressions. The primary outcome was successful ETI, defined as successful placement of the endotracheal tube within the manikin's trachea. Secondary outcomes were number of intubation attempts, time to successful ETI, time to best glottis view, best percent of glottic opening, best glottic view score (Cormack and Lehane), occurrence of dental trauma, ease of use, and willing to reuse in real-life situations. RESULTS: The UEScope provided a better glottis visualization, and higher first pass intubation success rate compared to direct laryngoscopy in all 3 scenarios. The overall intubation success was higher, and the intubation time was shorter with the UEScope in scenario B and scenario C, but was comparable in scenario A. Dental compression occurred less often using the UEScope and paramedics rated intubation using the UEScope easier compared to direct laryngoscopy in all 3 airway scenarios. CONCLUSION: In simulated CPR scenarios, intubation with the UEScope resulted in a better glottis visualization, a higher intubation success, and a shorter intubation time compared to Macintosh laryngoscope (MAC). Moreover, in situations where the airway is difficult for ETI especially by the paramedic, the UEScope would be a better choice than the MAC. Further studies are needed to confirm these results in real-life patients.