Veno-arterial CO2 difference and lactate for prediction of early mortality after cardiac arrest

Patients admitted to intensive care after cardiac arrest are at risk of circulatory shock and early mortality due to cardiovascular failure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of the veno-arterial pCO₂ difference (∆pCO₂; central venous CO₂ – arterial CO₂) and lactate to predict early mortality in postcardiac arrest patients. This was a pre-planned prospective observational sub-study of the target temperature management 2 trial. The sub-study patients were included at five Swedish sites. Repeated measurements of ∆pCO₂ and lactate were conducted at 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 48, and 72 h after randomization. We assessed the association between each marker and 96-h mortality and their prognostic value for 96-h mortality. One hundred sixty-three patients were included in the analysis. Mortality at 96 h was 17%. During the initial 24 h, there was no difference in ∆pCO₂ levels between 96-h survivors and non-survivors. ∆pCO₂ measured at 4 h was associated with an increased risk of death within 96 h (adjusted odds ratio: 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02–1.29; p = .018). Lactate levels were associated with poor outcome over multiple measurements. The area under the receiving operating curve to predict death within 96 h was 0.59 (95% CI: 0.48–0.74) and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.72–0.92) for ∆pCO₂ and lactate, respectively. Our results do not support the use of ∆pCO₂ to identify patients with early mortality in the postresuscitation phase. In contrast, non-survivors demonstrated higher lactate levels in the initial phase and lactate identified patients with early mortality with moderate accuracy.     

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.     

Pre-COVID-19 Social Determinants of Health Among Mexican Migrants in Los Angeles and New York City and Their Increased Vulnerability to Unfavorable Health Outcomes During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health - COVID-19 has disproportionally affected underrepresented minorities (URM) and low-income immigrants in the United States. The aim of the study is to...     

Is serum C-terminal telopeptide cross-link of type 1 collagen a reliable parameter for predicting the risk of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws? A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy

Clinical Oral Investigations - To determine the usefulness of Serum C-terminal telopeptide cross-link of type 1 collagen (sCTX) as a preoperative marker for predicting the risk of developing...     

Good clinical research practice (GCRP) in pharmacodynamic studies of neuromuscular blocking agents III: The 2023 Geneva revision

The set of guidelines for good clinical research practice in pharmacodynamic studies of neuromuscular blocking agents was developed following an international consensus conference in Copenhagen in 1996 (Viby-Mogensen et al., Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1996, 40 , 59–74); the guidelines were later revised and updated following the second consensus conference in Stockholm in 2005 (Fuchs-Buder et al., Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2007, 51 , 789–808). In view of new devices and further development of monitoring technologies that emerged since then, (e.g., electromyography, three-dimensional acceleromyography, kinemyography) as well as novel compounds (e.g., sugammadex) a review and update of these recommendations became necessary. The intent of these revised guidelines is to continue to help clinical researchers to conduct high-quality work and advance the field by enhancing the standards, consistency, and comparability of clinical studies. There is growing awareness of the importance of consensus-based reporting standards in clinical trials and observational studies. Such global initiatives are necessary in order to minimize heterogeneous and inadequate data reporting and to improve clarity and comparability between different studies and study cohorts. Variations in definitions of endpoints or outcome variables can introduce confusion and difficulties in interpretation of data, but more importantly, it may preclude building of an adequate body of evidence to achieve reliable conclusions and recommendations. Clinical research in neuromuscular pharmacology and physiology is no exception.