Search

Perioperative nutrition with supplements containingl-arginine, ω3-polyunsaturated fatty acids, and nucleotides could boost liver function recovery, immune response, and resistance to infection after hepatic resection. We conducted a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind study to assess the effect of a perioperative nutritional supplementation with Oral Impact® in patients undergoing hepatic surgery for liver cancer. Treatment was given three times daily for 7 days before and 3 days after surgery. Primary outcome was factor V, 3 days after surgery. Thirty-five patients (placebo: 17; Oral Impact: 18) were included. Five patients (placebo: three; Oral Impact: two) were not operated and five (placebo: two; Oral Impact: three) did not undergo hepatic resection. Factor V (mean ± SD) was 70 ± 27% and 79 ± 25% (P= 0.409) 3 days after surgery and 90 ± 30% and 106 ± 16% (P= 0.066) 5 days after surgery, in placebo and Oral Impact groups, respectively. There were no significant differences between groups on other outcomes assessing liver function recovery (bile production, γ-glutamyl transferase, α-fetoprotein), immune response (CD3, CD4, CD8 cells, CD4/CD8 ratio, natural killer cells, B lymphocytes), number of infections, and tolerance. A 10-day perioperative nutritional supplementation with Oral Impact does not improve hepatic function, immune response, and resistance to infection in patients undergoing hepatic surgery for liver cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Nalmefene is a recent option in alcohol dependence treatment. Its approval was controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the aggregated data (registered as PROSPERO 2014:CRD42014014853) to compare the harm/benefit of nalmefene versus placebo or active comparator in this indication.Methods and Findings: Three reviewers searched for published and unpublished studies in Medline, the Cochrane Library, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, and bibliographies and by mailing pharmaceutical companies, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the US Food and Drug Administration. Double-blind randomized clinical trials evaluating nalmefene to treat adult alcohol dependence, irrespective of the comparator, were included if they reported (1) health outcomes (mortality, accidents/injuries, quality of life, somatic complications), (2) alcohol consumption outcomes, (3) biological outcomes, or (4) treatment safety outcomes, at 6 mo and/or 1 y. Three authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of the trials identified. Relevant trials were evaluated in full text. The reviewers independently assessed the included trials for methodological quality using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias. On the basis of the I2 index or the Cochrane's Q test, fixed or random effect models were used to estimate risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs), or standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs. In sensitivity analyses, outcomes for participants who were lost to follow-up were included using baseline observation carried forward (BOCF); for binary measures, patients lost to follow-up were considered equal to failures (i.e., non-assessed patients were recorded as not having responded in both groups). Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) versus placebo, with a total of 2,567 randomized participants, were included in the main analysis. None of these studies was performed in the specific population defined by the EMA approval of nalmefene, i.e., adults with alcohol dependence who consume more than 60 g of alcohol per day (for men) or more than 40 g per day (for women). No RCT compared nalmefene with another medication. Mortality at 6 mo (RR = 0.39, 95% CI [0.08; 2.01]) and 1 y (RR = 0.98, 95% CI [0.04; 23.95]) and quality of life at 6 mo (SF-36 physical component summary score: MD = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.32; 2.01]; SF-36 mental component summary score: MD = 1.01, 95% CI [-1.33; 3.34]) were not different across groups. Other health outcomes were not reported. Differences were encountered for alcohol consumption outcomes such as monthly number of heavy drinking days at 6 mo (MD = -1.65, 95% CI [-2.41; -0.89]) and at 1 y (MD = -1.60, 95% CI [-2.85; -0.35]) and total alcohol consumption at 6 mo (SMD = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.30; -0.10]). An attrition bias could not be excluded, with more withdrawals for nalmefene than for placebo, including more withdrawals for safety reasons at both 6 mo (RR = 3.65, 95% CI [2.02; 6.63]) and 1 y (RR = 7.01, 95% CI [1.72; 28.63]). Sensitivity analyses showed no differences for alcohol consumption outcomes between nalmefene and placebo, but the weight of these results should not be overestimated, as the BOCF approach to managing withdrawals was used.Conclusions: The value of nalmefene for treatment of alcohol addiction is not established. At best, nalmefene has limited efficacy in reducing alcohol consumption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims A single administration of hydrocortisone has been shown to enhance the pressor response to phenylephrine in healthy volunteers and to norepinephrine in septic shock patients. Similar data do not exist for fludrocortisone. Since there continues to be disagreement about the utility of fludrocortisone in septic shock, we assessed the effects of a single administration of low doses of hydrocortisone (50 mg intravenously) and fludrocortisone (50 μg orally), given either alone or in combination, on phenylephrine mean arterial pressure and cardiac systolic and diastolic function dose-response relationships in 12 healthy male volunteers with hypo-aldosteronism induced by intravenous sodium loading. Methods This was a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, crossover study performed according to a 2 × 2 factorial design. Subjects received first a 2000 ml infusion of NaCl 0.9% during 2 h. Then fludrocortisone 50 μg (or its placebo) was administered orally and hydrocortisone 50 mg (or its placebo) was injected intravenously. At 1.5 h after treatment administration, incremental doses of phenylephrine were infused (from 0.01 to 3 μg kg−1 min−1), each dose being infused during 5 min. Results Both fludrocortisone ( P < 0.001) and hydrocortisone ( P = 0.002) induced a significant decrease in pressor response to phenylephrine, their effects being additive (fludrocortisone × hydrocortisone interaction, P = 0.792). The two drugs did not induce any detectable cardiac effect. Conclusions Single administrations of fludrocortisone and hydrocortisone decreased the pressor response to phenylephrine in healthy volunteers with hypo-aldosteronism. These similar effects of hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone probably express a rapid non-genomic vasodilating effect of the two steroids in the context of acute volume loading. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The benefits of low-dose steroids in septic shock remain controversial. We investigated if these low doses were able to induce their expected hormonal effects by analyzing the biological modifications observed during the study, which first demonstrated the survival benefit of low-dose steroids. Methods: This was a multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind study in which 299 septic shock patients received a 7-day treatment with a combination of hydrocortisone (50 mg intravenously four times daily) and fludrocortisone (50 μg orally once daily) or matching placebos. Gluco- and mineralocorticoid biological effects observed during the 7 days of treatment were compared between groups. Results: Steroids significantly decreased eosinophil counts from day 2 to day 7. Steroids significantly increased plasma glucose from day 2 (compared with placebos: +0.8 mmol/l) to day 7 (+1.8 mmol/l) and cholesterol from day 3 (+0.54 mmol/l) to day 7 (+0.39 mmol/l). Steroids significantly increased plasma sodium from day 3 (+2 mmol/l) to day 7 (+5 mmol/l) and significantly decreased plasma potassium on day 7 (−0.2 mmol/l). Steroids significantly decreased urinary sodium/potassium ratio from day 2 (−47 %) to day 7 (−57 %) and sodium fractional excretion from day 3 (−25 %) to day 7 (−66 %). Steroids significantly increased urine output on day 4 and 5 and osmolar clearance from day 4 to day 7, and decreased free-water clearance from day 4 to day 7, this effect being significant on day 4 and 6. Conclusions: In septic shock, low-dose steroids induced both gluco- and mineralocorticoid biological effects and seemed to improve renal function. Most of these effects appeared after 2-3 days of treatment and lasted at least until the end of treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article evaluates the efficacy and safety of the α-blocker tamsulosin hydrochloride versus placebo for the management of patients with ureteral colic owing to distal ureteral stones. Results of the multicentric, randomized, double-blind trial showed higher mean stone diameters in the placebo than the tamsulosin group. The researchers observed no difference in expulsion delay distributions, and 43 patients in the placebo group and 61 in the tamsulosin group expelled their stones within 42 days.

The article discusses a study which investigated the risks and benefits of corticosteroid treatment in severe sepsis and septic shock. The study included 17 randomized and quasi-randomized trials of corticosteroids compared to placebo in adult patients. In 12 trials, study authors found that prolonged use of low-dose corticosteroids resulted to 28-day shock reversal and reduced intensive care unit length of stay. Other trials showed the link between corticosteroids, gastrointestinal bleeding, neuromuscular weakness and hyperglycemia. Study authors claimed that corticosteroids have beneficial effect on short-term mortality.

Sustained-release morphine sulfate (SRMS) is a painkiller used in oncology. The purpose of our study was to assess its efficacy on postoperative morphine requirements in elective spine surgery. This was a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind study. Adults scheduled for spine surgery under general anesthesia were orally administered SRMS (30 mg) or a placebo 2 h before surgery. Primary endpoint was postoperative cumulated morphine consumption through patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) during the 12 h following extubation. Statistical analysis was performed using a sequential method, the triangular test. The study was stopped after the sixth analysis (51 patients had been included; placebo: 26, SRMS: 25). Age, weight, sex ratio, type of surgery, intra-operative sufentanil consumption, anesthesia duration and time to extubation were similar in the two groups. Morphine consumption through PCA during the 12 h following extubation was significantly lower in the SRMS group (mean ± SD: 10.5 ± 7.6 mg) compared with placebo group (15.6 ± 6.0 mg,P = 0.016, sequential analysis). Corresponding unbiased median estimates were 10.6 and 15.8 mg in SRMS and placebo groups, respectively. Morphine consumption through PCA during the 24 h following extubation was also significantly lower in the SRMS group (15.9 ± 12.7 mg) compared with the placebo group (23.8 ± 10.9 mg,P = 0.032). Vigilance, nausea and respiratory rate 3 and 6 h after extubation were similar in the two groups. A preoperative oral administration of SRMS (30 mg) induces a 33% reduction of postoperative morphine requirements in patients scheduled for spine surgery without inducing side effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To assess the effects of corticosteroids on mortality in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Data sources Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of corticosteroids versus placebo (or supportive treatment alone) retrieved from the Cochrane infectious diseases group's trials register, the Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Medline, Embase, and LILACS. Review method Two pairs of reviewers agreed on eligibility of trials.One reviewer entered data on to the computer and four reviewers checked them. We obtained some missing data from authors of trials and assessed methodological quality of trials. Results 16/23 trials (n =2063) were selected. Corticosteroids did not change 28 day mortality (15 trials, n =2022; relative risk 0.92,95% confidence interval 0.75 to 1.14) or hospital mortality (13 trials, n =1418;0.89,0.71 to 1.11).There was significant heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis on long courses (≥5 days) with low dose (≤300 mg hydrocortisone or equivalent) corticosteroids showed no more heterogeneity.The relative risk for mortality was 0.80 at 28 days (five trials, n =465;0.67 to 0.95) and 0.83 at hospital discharge (five trials, n =465,0.71 to 0.97). Use of corticosteroids reduced mortality in intensive care units (four trials, n =425,0.83,0.70 to 0.97), increased shock reversal at 7 days (four trials, n =425; 1.60,1.27 to 2.03) and 28 days (four trials, n =425, 1.26,1.04 to 1.52) without inducing side effects. Conclusions For all trials, regardless of duration of treatment and dose, use of corticosteroids did not significantly affect mortality.With long courses of low doses of corticosteroids, however, mortality at 28 days and hospital morality was reduced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: In a multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind trial, we showed that acquired infections in intubated patients were reduced by the combination of topical polymyxin plus tobramycin and nasal mupirocin plus chlorhexidine body wash. Because intubated patients are particularly at risk for acquired infections, we reassessed the impact of this protocol as a routine procedure to control acquired infections in the ICU. Design: Nonrandomized study comparing acquired infections in ICU patients during two 1 -year periods: the last year before (group A, n = 925) and the first year after the implementation of the protocol (group B, n = 1,022). Acquired infections were prospectively recorded. Setting: Polyvalent medical ICU at a university-affiliated hospital. Patients: All patients admitted to the ICU. Interventions: Administration of polymyxin/tobramycin/amphotericin B in the oropharynx and the gastric tube plus a mupirocin/ chlorhexidine regimen in intubated patients and standard care in the other patients. Measurements and Main Results: The comparison of acquired infection rates between groups was adjusted for differences at baseline. Infection rates were lower in group B compared with group A (5.3% vs 11.0%; p < 0.001), as were the incidence rates of total acquired infections (9.4 vs 23.6 per 1,000 patient-days; p < 0.001), intubation-related pneumonia (5.1 vs 17.1 per 1,000 ventilator-days; p < 0.001), and catheter-related bloodstream infections (1.0 vs 3.5 per 1,000 catheter-days; p = 0.03). There were fewer acquired infections caused by ceftazidime-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (0.8‰ vs 3.6‰; p < 0.001), ciprofloxacin-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (0.8%c vs 2.5‰; p = 0.02), ciprofloxacin-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (0.5‰ vs 1.6‰; p = 0.05), and colistin-resistant Gram-negative bacilli (0.7‰ vs 1.9‰; p = 0.04). Fewer patients got acquired infections due to multidrug-resistant aerobic Gram-negative bacilli (p = 0.008). Conclusions: In intubated patients, the use of topical polymyxin/ tobramycin/amphotericin B plus mupirocin/chlorhexidine was associated with the reduction of all-cause ICU-acquired infections. Long-term emergence of multidrug-resistant organisms deserves further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]