Acute febrile respiratory illness in the ICU: reducing disease transmission

Acute febrile respiratory illness (FRI) leading to respiratory failure is a common reason for admission to the ICU. Viral pneumonia constitutes a portion of these cases, and often the viral etiology goes undiagnosed. Emerging viral infectious diseases such as severe acute respiratory syndrome and avian influenza present with acute FRIs progressing to respiratory failure and ARDS. Therefore, early recognition of a viral cause of acute FRI leading to ARDS becomes important for protection of health-care workers (HCWs), lessening spread to other patients, and notification of public health officials. These patients often have longer courses of viral shedding and undergo higher-risk procedures that may potentially generate aerosols, such as intubation, bronchoscopy, bag-valve mask ventilation, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, and medication nebulization, further illustrating the importance of early detection and isolation. A small number of viral agents lead to acute FRI, respiratory failure, and ARDS: seasonal influenza, avian influenza, coronavirus associated with severe ARDS, respiratory syncytial virus, adenovirus, varicella, human metapneumovirus, and hantavirus. A systematic approach to early isolation, testing for these agents, and public health involvement becomes important in dealing with acute FRI. Ultimately, this approach will lead to improved HCW protection, reduction of transmission to other patients, and prevention of transmission in the community.     

Outcomes and safety of surgical lung biopsy for interstitial lung disease

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To determine the safety of surgical lung biopsy (SLB) in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD), and specifically in those with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Tertiary care university-affiliated military medical center. PATIENTS: Individuals undergoing SLB for suspected ILD. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: We examined outcomes for subjects with a clinical diagnosis of ILD who had been designated to undergo SLB. Mortality (assessed at 30 and 90 days) following SLB represented the primary end point. Morbidity resulting from complications from SLB served as a secondary end point. The cohort included 83 patients (mean [+/- SD] age, 57.3 +/- 14.2 years; men, 57.8%). IPF was eventually diagnosed in slightly more than half of the subjects. Overall, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were low (4.8% and 6.0%, respectively). Subjects with IPF did well with SLB (30-day mortality rate, 7.1%) and did not face a higher risk of either death or complications relative to individuals with non-IPF forms of ILD. The only predictors of perioperative mortality were either the need for mechanical ventilation (MV) at the time of SLB or being immunosuppressed prior to undergoing SLB. Excluding persons who met either criterion yielded an overall 90-day post-SLB mortality rate of 1.5% in persons with IPF. Approximately 40% of patients in whom IPF was eventually diagnosed were initially thought to have another form of ILD. CONCLUSIONS: Persons with IPF tolerate SLB well. Requiring MV or being immunosuppressed is associated with an increased risk for death following SLB. Safety concerns should not preclude referral for SLB in patients who are clinically suspected of having IPF.     

Outcomes associated with combined antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy

BACKGROUND: The use of antiplatelet therapy in combination with oral anticoagulants remains controversial. The objective of this study was to estimate and compare the incidence of adverse and coronary event rates between patients receiving warfarin monotherapy or warfarin and antiplatelet combination therapy. METHODS: This was a retrospective, longitudinal, pharmacoepidemiologic analysis. Adult patients receiving warfarin managed by an anticoagulation service who had documented the use of antiplatelet agents (eg, aspirin, clopidogrel, and/or dipyridamole) [ie, the combination-therapy cohort] or their nonuse (ie, the monotherapy cohort) were identified as of September 30, 2005. Utilizing integrated, electronic medical records, anticoagulation-related adverse events (eg, death, hemorrhage, or thrombosis) and coronary events were identified during a 6-month follow-up period (October 2005 through March 2006). The proportions of events were compared between cohorts. Independent associations between the cohorts and the outcomes were assessed with adjustment for potential confounding factors. RESULTS: Data from 2,560 patients in the monotherapy cohort and 1,623 patients in the combination-therapy cohort were analyzed. Patients in the combination-therapy cohort were more likely to have had anticoagulation-related hemorrhages (4.2% vs 2.0%, respectively; unadjusted p < 0.001) and coronary events (0.9% vs 0.3%, respectively; p = 0.009), but not death (0.1% vs 0.2%, respectively; unadjusted p = 0.186) or thrombotic events (0.3% vs 0.4%, respectively; unadjusted p = 0.812). With adjustment, combined warfarin and antiplatelet use was independently associated with hemorrhagic events (odds ratio [OR], 2.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.44 to 5.28), but not with coronary events (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.37 to 2.62). CONCLUSIONS: At the population level, the hemorrhagic risk associated with warfarin therapy combined with antiplatelet therapy appears to outweigh the benefits. These findings suggest that clinicians should carefully consider the risks and benefits when recommending combined antiplatelet therapy for patients receiving warfarin who do not meet the evidence-based criteria for such therapy.