AKI Treated with Renal Replacement Therapy in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19

Open in a separate window     

Quality of Life Impacts of Bright Light Treatment,Fluoxetine, and the Combination in Patients with Nonseasonal Major Depressive Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Objective:Bright light therapy is increasingly recommended (alone or in combination with antidepressant medication) to treat symptoms of nonseasonal major depressive disorder (MDD). However, little is known about its impacts on quality of life (QoL), a holistic, patient-valued outcome.Methods:This study utilizes secondary outcome data from an 8-week randomized, controlled, double blind trial comparing light monotherapy (n = 32), fluoxetine monotherapy (n = 30), and the combination of these (n = 27) to placebo (n = 30). QoL was assessed using the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire Short Form (Q-LES-Q-SF). Treatment-related differences in QoL improvements were assessed using a repeated measures analysis of variance. The influence of potential predictors of QoL (demographic variables and change in depressive symptoms) were investigated via hierarchical linear regression.Results:Q-LES-Q-SF scores significantly improved across all treatment conditions; however, no significant differences were observed between treatment arms. QoL remained poor relative to community norms by the end of the trial period: Across conditions, 70.6% of participants had significantly impaired QoL at the 8-week assessment. Reduction in depressive scores was a significant predictor of improved QoL, with the final model accounting for 54% of variance in QoL change scores.Conclusion:The findings of this study emphasize that improvement in QoL and reduction in depressive symptoms in MDD, while related, cannot be taken to be synonymous. Adjunctive therapies may be required to address unmet QoL needs in patients with MDD receiving antidepressant or light therapies. Further research is required to explore additional predictors of QoL in order to better refine treatments for MDD.     

Antiplatelet therapy and outcomes following endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke: A systemic review and meta-analysis

ObjectiveThe outcomes of antiplatelet therapy (APT) in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) receiving endovascular therapy (EVT) remains controversial. Thus, we sought to make a systematic review and meta-analysis of recent clinical trials to confirm the safety and efficacy of APT.MethodsAll of clinical trails were systematically retrieved from PubMed, Embase and Cochrane. The endpoints or main outcome measures included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), 3-month mortality, successful recanalisation (SR) and 3-month functional independence (FI). Odd ratios (ORs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to synthesize effect size by using random-effects models. Sensitivity analysis was performed via calculation of rest data owiting one by one.Results23 articles were included after screening. APT as an adjunct to EVT was associated with a higher likelihood of pooled successful recanalisation (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.07–2.00) and 3-month FI (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.01–1.51), no associated with sICH and 3-month mortality. However, Sensitivity analysis indicated that the association between APT and SR and 3-month FI were unstable. For patients with prior use of APT or receiving intravenous thrombolysis before EVT, no associated were found between APT and all of endpoints above.ConclusionAlthough adjuvant APT appears to increase the number of SR and 3-month FI, the results were unstable. Randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm the efficacy.     

Shock and haemodynamic monitoring

Shock is the clinical syndrome that arises from inadequate cellular oxygen metabolism which can occur when there is either insufficient oxygen delivery or impaired oxygen utilization. As a clinical syndrome, shock is associated with significant morbidity and mortality particularly if there is a delay in recognition or initiation of treatment. There are multiple mechanisms that can result in a shocked state; often clinical examination is insufficient to differentiate between such mechanisms. Clinicians must instead rely on haemodynamic monitoring devices for both diagnosis and the targeting of therapies. In this article we review the basic principles of haemodynamics, the different aetiologies of shock and explore the various haemodynamic monitoring devices available to clinicians.