Bioimpedance as a measure of fluids in patients with septic shock. A prospective observational study

Background

Septic shock is often treated with aggressive fluid resuscitation leading to profound fluid overload. The assessment of fluid status relies on suboptimal measures making treatment difficult. Bioelectrical impedance analysis is an alternative but the validity is unclear. The aim of this study was to determine the validity of bioelectrical impedance analysis for fluid measures in patients with septic shock.

Methods

Single-center, prospective observational cohort study. We included adult ICU patients with septic shock. We evaluated the agreement between measures on the left and right side of the patient and measures 1 h apart by two bioelectrical impedance devices. Results are presented as Bland Altman plots with 95% Limits of Agreements (LoA) and as correlations between bioelectrical impedance analysis results and clinical markers of fluids.

Results

Forty-nine patients were included. The agreement between measures on the left and the right side of the patient and after 1 h was overall without bias, but with wide LoA's. Fluid overload 1 h apart showed the most narrow 95% LoA (−2.4–2.9 L). The same wide limits of agreements were observed when comparing devices. For example, total body water with 95% LoA of −14.8 –16.7 L. Correlations between bioelectrical impedance analysis and clinical measures were low but statistically significant.

Conclusions

In patients with septic shock bioelectrical impedance analysis had no systematic errors or bias, but wide limits of agreement, indicating that the devices have a large and uncorrectable random error. Fluid status by bioelectrical impedance analysis is not sufficiently accurate to guide treatment in this group of patients.     

A prospective,double-blind,randomized, placebo-controlled study on the efficacy and safety of influenza vaccination in myasthenia gravis

Objective

To investigate the efficacy and safety of an influenza vaccination in patients with myasthenia gravis with acetylcholine receptor antibodies (AChR MG).

HPV Vaccine recommendations: does a health care provider’s gender and ethnicity matter to Unvaccinated Latina college women?

Objectives: There are disparities in the uptake of HPV vaccine among racial/ethnic minority women. The strongest predictor of HPV vaccine uptake among adult women is health care provider (HCP) recommendation; however, it is unclear how issues relating to race/ethnicity may mitigate these recommendations. Research shows that racial/ethnic and gender concordance between a patient and HCP can improve patient satisfaction, access and quality of care. If concordance contributes to improved patient-provider interactions, then it may be a factor in patient decisions regarding HPV vaccination. The objectives of this study were to (1) explore gender and ethnicity HCP preference regarding HPV vaccination among unvaccinated; and (2) understand factors associated with those preferences.

Design: Unvaccinated Latina college students (n?=?187) completed a survey that assessed HCP preferences, medical mistrust, cultural assimilation and HPV vaccine recommendation. Logistic regression models evaluated associations between above variables with HPV knowledge and preference for a female and/or Latina HCP.

Results: Most respondents had health insurance (71%), a regular HCP (64%), were US-born (67%), with foreign-born parents (74%). Thirty-four percent and 18% agreed that they would be more likely to get the HPV vaccine if the recommending HCP was female and Latino, respectively. Latina women reporting higher medical mistrust preferred a HPV vaccine recommendation from a Latino/a provider.

Conclusions: Latinas’ preferences regarding gender and ethnicity of their HCPs may affect patient-provider interactions. Increasing diversity and cultural awareness among HCPs, and providing linguistically and culturally-appropriate information may decrease patient-provider mistrust, increase uptake of the HPV vaccine, and decrease persistent cervical cancer disparities.     

The impact of current treatment modalities on the outcomes of patients with melanoma brain metastases: A systematic review

Patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBM) still have a very poor prognosis. Several treatment modalities have been investigated in an attempt to improve the management of MBM. This review aimed to evaluate the impact of current treatments for MBM on patient- and tumor-related outcomes, and to provide treatment recommendations for this patient population. A literature search in the databases PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane was conducted up to January 8, 2019. Original articles published since 2010 describing patient- and tumor-related outcomes of adult MBM patients treated with clearly defined systemic therapy were included. Information on basic trial demographics, treatment under investigation and outcomes (overall and progression-free survival, local and distant control and toxicity) were extracted. We identified 96 eligible articles, comprising 95 studies. A large variety of treatment options for MBM were investigated, either used alone or as combined modality therapy. Combined modality therapy was investigated in 71% of the studies and resulted in increased survival and better distant/local control than monotherapy, especially with targeted therapy or immunotherapy. However, neurotoxic side-effects also occurred more frequently. Timing appeared to be an important determinant, with the best results when radiotherapy was given before or during systemic therapy. Improved tumor control and prolonged survival can be achieved by combining radiotherapy with immunotherapy or targeted therapy. However, more randomized controlled trials or prospective studies are warranted to generate proper evidence that can be used to change the standard of care for patients with MBM.