POST INSERTION CATHETER CARE IN PERITONEAL DIALYSIS (PD) CENTRES ACROSS EUROPE. PART 2: COMPLICATION RATES AND INDIVIDUAL PATIENT OUTCOMES

The first part of this report, which looked at centre policy, showed that there was no consensus on the best way to manage a patient in the rest period between PD catheter insertion and the first use of the catheter for dialysis. This paper intends to investigate if the differences in policy had any effect on complication rate and individual patient outcomes. Data were included from 298 patients of 49 participating centres. The results revealed a high rate of catheter related complications, with half of the patients having been treated for complications including leakage (29%), malfunction (23%) or infection (10%), and a quarter of patients having been hospitalised for catheter problems. Leakage was more frequently observed in lean and obese patients and if the catheter was only immobilized for a short time period. Diabetes, having constipation at first use and having rested for less than 6 hours after catheter insertion were significant risk factors for malfunction. Infection seemed to be related to the type of catheter used and hygienic precautions (not significant) and showed a significant relationship with the frequency of dressing changes. There is still an important lack of evidence on which to develop an optimal protocol for PD catheter insertion and care before first use.     

Hematopoietic growth factors for graft failure after bone marrow transplantation: a randomized trial of granulocyte-macrophage colony- stimulating factor (GM-CSF) versus sequential GM-CSF plus granulocyte- CSF

Delay in hematologic recovery after bone marrow transplantation (BMT) can extend and amplify the risks of infection and hemorrhage, compromise patients' survival, and increase the duration and cost of hospitalization. Because current studies suggest that granulocyte- macrophage (GM) colony-stimulating factor (CSF) may potentiate the sensitivity of hematopoietic progenitor cells to G-CSF, we performed a prospective, randomized trial comparing GM-CSF (250 micrograms/m2/d x 14 days) versus sequential GM-CSF x 7 days followed by G-CSF (5 micrograms/kg/d x 7 days) as treatment for primary or secondary graft failure after BMT. Eligibility criteria included failure to achieve a white blood cell (WBC) count > or = 100/microL by day +21 or > or = 300/microL by day +28, no absolute neutrophil count (ANC) > or = 200/microL by day +28, or secondary sustained neutropenia after initial engraftment. Forty-seven patients were enrolled: 23 received GM-CSF (10 unrelated, 8 related allogeneic, and 5 autologous), and 24 received GM- CSF followed by G-CSF (12 unrelated, 7 related allogeneic, and 5 autologous). For patients receiving GM-CSF alone, neutrophil recovery (ANC > or = 500/microL) occurred between 2 and 61 days (median, 8 days) after therapy, while those receiving GM-CSF+G-CSF recovered at a similar rate of 1 to 36 days (median, 6 days; P = .39). Recovery to red blood cell (RBC) transfusion independence was slow, occurring 6 to 250 days (median, 35 days) after enrollment with no significant difference between the two treatment groups (GM-CSF: median, 30 days; GM-CSF+G- CSF; median, 42 days; P = .24). Similarly, platelet transfusion independence was delayed until 4 to 249 days (median, 32 days) after enrollment, with no difference between the two treatment groups (GM- CSF: median, 28 days; GM-CSF+G-CSF: median, 42 days; P = .38). Recovery times were not different between patients with unrelated donors and those with related donors or autologous transplant recipients. Survival at 100 days after enrollment was superior after treatment with GM-CSF alone. Only 1 of 23 patients treated with GM-CSF died versus 7 of 24 treated with GM-CSF+G-CSF who died 16 to 84 days (median, 38 days) after enrollment, yielding Kaplan-Meier 100-day survival estimates of 96% +/- 8% for GM-CSF versus 71% +/- 18% for GM-CSF+G-CSF (P = .026). These data suggest that sequential growth factor therapy with GM-CSF followed by G-CSF offers no advantage over GM-CSF alone in accelerating trilineage hematopoiesis or preventing lethal complications in patients with poor graft function after BMT.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)     

Life Support Courses: Are They Effective?

Study objective: To determine the effectiveness of life support courses for health care providers on the basis of one of three outcomes: (1) patient mortality and morbidity, (2) retention of knowledge or skills, and (3) change in practice behavior. Methods: English-language articles from 1975 to 1992 were identified through MEDLINE and ERIC searches, bibliographies of articles, and current abstracts. Studies were considered relevant if they included a study population of life support providers, an intervention of any of the identified life support courses, and assessment of at least one of the three listed outcomes. Relevant studies were selected and validity scores were assigned to them by agreement of two independent reviewers, using a structured form to assess validity. Data on setting, methods, participants, intervention, and outcomes were then abstracted and verified. Results: Seventeen of 67 identified studies pertaining to life support courses met the inclusion criteria. (1) All three mortality and morbidity studies indicated a positive impact, with an overall odds ratio of .28 (95% confidence interval [CI], .22 to .37). (2) No net increase in scores was found in 5 of 8 studies of retention of knowledge and in 8 of 9 studies of skills retention. Two of three studies reporting refresher activities yielded positive effects on knowledge retention. Outcomes were not significantly different between groups taught with modular or didactic techniques. (3) Studies assessing behavioral outcome were methodologically weak. Conclusion: Among providers, retention of knowledge and skills acquired by participation in support courses is poor. However, refresher activities increase knowledge retention. Modular courses are as good as lectures for learning course material. There is evidence that use of the Advanced Trauma Life Support course has decreased mortality and morbidity. Further studies of patient outcome and provider behaviors are warranted. [Jabbour M, Osmond MH, Klassen TP: Life support courses: Are they effective? Ann Emerg Med December 1996;28:690-698.]     

Multimorbidity and Evidence Generation

Most people with a chronic disease actually have more than one, a condition known as multimorbidity. Despite this, the evidence base to prevent adverse disease outcomes has taken a disease-specific approach. Drawing on a conference, Improving Guidelines for Multimorbid Patients, the goal of this paper is to identify challenges to the generation of evidence to support the care of people with multimorbidity and to make recommendations for improvement. We identified three broad categories of challenges: 1) challenges to defining and measuring multimorbidity; 2) challenges related to the effects of multimorbidity on study design, implementation and analysis; and 3) challenges inherent in studying heterogeneity of treatment effects in patients with differing comorbid conditions. We propose a set of recommendations for consideration by investigators and others (reviewers, editors, funding agencies, policymaking organizations) involved in the creation of evidence for this common type of person that address each of these challenges. The recommendations reflect a general approach that emphasizes broader inclusion (recruitment and retention) of patients with multimorbidity, coupled with more rigorous efforts to measure comorbidity and comorbidity burden and the influence of multimorbidity on outcomes and the effects of therapy. More rigorous examination of heterogeneity of treatment effects requires careful attention to prioritizing the most important comorbid-related questions, and also requires studies that provide greater statistical power than conventional trials have provided. Relatively modest changes in the orientation of current research along these lines can be helpful in pointing to and partially addressing selected knowledge gaps. However, producing a robust evidence base to support patient-centered decision making in complex individuals with multimorbidity, exposed to many different combinations of potentially interacting factors that can modify the risks and benefits of therapies, is likely to require a clinical research enterprise fundamentally restructured to be more fully integrated with routine clinical practice.