-
JAMA Internal Medicine Jan 2021Few high-quality studies have clarified whether hypertonic saline is best administered as slow continuous infusion (SCI) therapy or rapid intermittent bolus (RIB)... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
Risk of Overcorrection in Rapid Intermittent Bolus vs Slow Continuous Infusion Therapies of Hypertonic Saline for Patients With Symptomatic Hyponatremia: The SALSA Randomized Clinical Trial.
IMPORTANCE
Few high-quality studies have clarified whether hypertonic saline is best administered as slow continuous infusion (SCI) therapy or rapid intermittent bolus (RIB) therapy for symptomatic severe hyponatremia.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the risk of overcorrection in RIB and SCI with hypertonic saline in patients with symptomatic hyponatremia.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This prospective, investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical trial enrolled 178 patients older than 18 years with moderately severe to severe hyponatremia and glucose-corrected serum sodium (sNa) levels of 125 mmol/L or less. Recruitment took place from August 24, 2016, until August 21, 2019, across emergency departments and wards of 3 general hospitals in the Republic of Korea.
INTERVENTIONS
Either RIB or SCI of hypertonic saline, 3%, for 24 to 48 hours stratified by the severity of clinical symptoms.
MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was overcorrection at any given period, defined as increase in the sNa level by greater than 12 or 18 mmol/L within 24 or 48 hours, respectively. Secondary and post hoc outcomes included efficacy and safety of the treatment approaches. The sNa concentrations were measured every 6 hours for 2 days.
RESULTS
The 178 patients (mean [SD] age, 73.1 [12.2] years; 80 (44.9%) male; mean [SD] sNa concentrations, 118.2 [5.0] mmol/L) were randomly assigned to the RIB group (n = 87) or the SCI group (n = 91). Overcorrection occurred in 15 of 87 (17.2%) and 22 of 91 (24.2%) patients in the RIB and SCI groups, respectively (absolute risk difference, -6.9% [95% CI, -18.8% to 4.9%]; P = .26). The RIB group showed lower incidence of relowering treatment than the SCI group (36 of 87 [41.4%] vs 52 of 91 [57.1%] patients, respectively; absolute risk difference, -15.8% [95% CI, -30.3% to -1.3%]; P = .04; number needed to treat, 6.3). Groups did not differ in terms of efficacy in increasing sNa concentrations nor improving symptoms, but RIB, when compared with SCI, showed better efficacy in achieving target correction rate within 1 hour (intention-to-treat analysis: 28 of 87 (32.2%) vs 16 of 91 (17.6%) patients, respectively; absolute risk difference, 14.6% [95% CI, 2%-27.2%]; P = .02; number needed to treat, 6.8; per-protocol analysis: 21 of 72 (29.2%) vs 12 of 73 (16.4%) patients, respectively; absolute risk difference, 12.7% [95% CI, -0.8% to 26.2%]; P = .07). The statistical significance of the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were similar for all outcomes except for achieving the target correction rate within 1 hour.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This randomized clinical trial found that both RIB and SIC therapies of hypertonic saline for treating hyponatremia were effective and safe, with no difference in the overcorrection risk. However, RIB had a lower incidence of therapeutic relowering treatment and tended to have a better efficacy in achieving sNa within 1 hour than SCI. RIB could be suggested as the preferred treatment of symptomatic hyponatremia, which is consistent with the current consensus guidelines.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.org Identifier: NCT02887469.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Female; Humans; Hyponatremia; Infusions, Intravenous; Male; Middle Aged; Saline Solution, Hypertonic
PubMed: 33104189
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.5519 -
JAMA Sep 2020Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the leading cause of death and disability due to trauma. Early administration of tranexamic acid may benefit patients with TBI. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
IMPORTANCE
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the leading cause of death and disability due to trauma. Early administration of tranexamic acid may benefit patients with TBI.
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether tranexamic acid treatment initiated in the out-of-hospital setting within 2 hours of injury improves neurologic outcome in patients with moderate or severe TBI.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
Multicenter, double-blinded, randomized clinical trial at 20 trauma centers and 39 emergency medical services agencies in the US and Canada from May 2015 to November 2017. Eligible participants (N = 1280) included out-of-hospital patients with TBI aged 15 years or older with Glasgow Coma Scale score of 12 or less and systolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or higher.
INTERVENTIONS
Three interventions were evaluated, with treatment initiated within 2 hours of TBI: out-of-hospital tranexamic acid (1 g) bolus and in-hospital tranexamic acid (1 g) 8-hour infusion (bolus maintenance group; n = 312), out-of-hospital tranexamic acid (2 g) bolus and in-hospital placebo 8-hour infusion (bolus only group; n = 345), and out-of-hospital placebo bolus and in-hospital placebo 8-hour infusion (placebo group; n = 309).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was favorable neurologic function at 6 months (Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended score >4 [moderate disability or good recovery]) in the combined tranexamic acid group vs the placebo group. Asymmetric significance thresholds were set at 0.1 for benefit and 0.025 for harm. There were 18 secondary end points, of which 5 are reported in this article: 28-day mortality, 6-month Disability Rating Scale score (range, 0 [no disability] to 30 [death]), progression of intracranial hemorrhage, incidence of seizures, and incidence of thromboembolic events.
RESULTS
Among 1063 participants, a study drug was not administered to 96 randomized participants and 1 participant was excluded, resulting in 966 participants in the analysis population (mean age, 42 years; 255 [74%] male participants; mean Glasgow Coma Scale score, 8). Of these participants, 819 (84.8%) were available for primary outcome analysis at 6-month follow-up. The primary outcome occurred in 65% of patients in the tranexamic acid groups vs 62% in the placebo group (difference, 3.5%; [90% 1-sided confidence limit for benefit, -0.9%]; P = .16; [97.5% 1-sided confidence limit for harm, 10.2%]; P = .84). There was no statistically significant difference in 28-day mortality between the tranexamic acid groups vs the placebo group (14% vs 17%; difference, -2.9% [95% CI, -7.9% to 2.1%]; P = .26), 6-month Disability Rating Scale score (6.8 vs 7.6; difference, -0.9 [95% CI, -2.5 to 0.7]; P = .29), or progression of intracranial hemorrhage (16% vs 20%; difference, -5.4% [95% CI, -12.8% to 2.1%]; P = .16).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Among patients with moderate to severe TBI, out-of-hospital tranexamic acid administration within 2 hours of injury compared with placebo did not significantly improve 6-month neurologic outcome as measured by the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01990768.
Topics: Adult; Antifibrinolytic Agents; Brain Diseases; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Double-Blind Method; Emergency Medical Services; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Glasgow Coma Scale; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Male; Middle Aged; Neuropsychological Tests; Patient Acuity; Survival Analysis; Time-to-Treatment; Tranexamic Acid
PubMed: 32897344
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.8958 -
Anaesthesia Dec 2020The programmed intermittent epidural bolus technique has shown superiority to continuous epidural infusion techniques, with or without patient-controlled epidural... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
The programmed intermittent epidural bolus technique has shown superiority to continuous epidural infusion techniques, with or without patient-controlled epidural analgesia for pain relief, reduced motor block and patient satisfaction. Many institutions still use patient-controlled epidural analgesia without a background infusion, and a comparative study between programmed intermittent epidural bolus and patient-controlled epidural analgesia without a background infusion has not yet been performed. We performed a randomised, two-centre, double-blind, controlled trial of these two techniques. The primary outcome was the incidence of breakthrough pain requiring a top-up dose by an anaesthetist. Secondary outcomes included: motor block; pain scores; patient satisfaction; local anaesthetic consumption; and obstetric and neonatal outcomes. We recruited 130 nulliparous women who received initial spinal analgesia, and then epidural analgesia was initiated and maintained with either programmed intermittent epidural bolus or patient-controlled epidural analgesia using ropivacaine 0.12% with sufentanil 0.75 µg·ml . The programmed intermittent epidural bolus group had a programmed bolus of 10 ml every hour, with on-demand patient-controlled epidural analgesia boluses of 5 ml with a 20 min lockout, and the patient-controlled epidural analgesia group had a 5 ml bolus with a 12 min lockout interval; the potential maximum volume per hour was the same in both groups. The patients in the programmed intermittent epidural bolus group had less frequent breakthrough pain compared with the patient-controlled epidural analgesia group, 7 (10.9%) vs. 38 (62.3%; p < 0.0001), respectively. There was a significant difference in motor block (modified Bromage score ≤ 4) frequency between groups, programmed intermittent epidural bolus group 1 (1.6%) vs. patient-controlled epidural analgesia group 8 (13.1%); p = 0.015. The programmed intermittent epidural bolus group had greater local anaesthetic consumption with fewer patient-controlled epidural analgesia boluses. Patient satisfaction scores and obstetric or neonatal outcomes were not different between groups. In conclusion, we found that a programmed intermittent epidural bolus technique using 10 ml programmed boluses and 5 ml patient-controlled epidural analgesia boluses was superior to a patient-controlled epidural analgesia technique using 5 ml boluses and no background infusion.
Topics: Adult; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Pregnancy
PubMed: 32530518
DOI: 10.1111/anae.15149 -
Critical Care (London, England) Jun 2022Fluid challenges are widely adopted in critically ill patients to reverse haemodynamic instability. We reviewed the literature to appraise fluid challenge... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Fluid challenges are widely adopted in critically ill patients to reverse haemodynamic instability. We reviewed the literature to appraise fluid challenge characteristics in intensive care unit (ICU) patients receiving haemodynamic monitoring and considered two decades: 2000-2010 and 2011-2021.
METHODS
We assessed research studies and collected data regarding study setting, patient population, fluid challenge characteristics, and monitoring. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane search engines were used. A fluid challenge was defined as an infusion of a definite quantity of fluid (expressed as a volume in mL or ml/kg) in a fixed time (expressed in minutes), whose outcome was defined as a change in predefined haemodynamic variables above a predetermined threshold.
RESULTS
We included 124 studies, 32 (25.8%) published in 2000-2010 and 92 (74.2%) in 2011-2021, overall enrolling 6,086 patients, who presented sepsis/septic shock in 50.6% of cases. The fluid challenge usually consisted of 500 mL (76.6%) of crystalloids (56.6%) infused with a rate of 25 mL/min. Fluid responsiveness was usually defined by a cardiac output/index (CO/CI) increase ≥ 15% (70.9%). The infusion time was quicker (15 min vs 30 min), and crystalloids were more frequent in the 2011-2021 compared to the 2000-2010 period.
CONCLUSIONS
In the literature, fluid challenges are usually performed by infusing 500 mL of crystalloids bolus in less than 20 min. A positive fluid challenge response, reported in 52% of ICU patients, is generally defined by a CO/CI increase ≥ 15%. Compared to the 2000-2010 decade, in 2011-2021 the infusion time of the fluid challenge was shorter, and crystalloids were more frequently used.
Topics: Critical Illness; Crystalloid Solutions; Fluid Therapy; Hemodynamic Monitoring; Hemodynamics; Humans; Shock, Septic
PubMed: 35729632
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-022-04056-3 -
Anesthesiology Apr 2020Remimazolam (CNS 7056) is a new ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine for intravenous sedation and anesthesia. Its pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics have been reported... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Remimazolam (CNS 7056) after Continuous Infusion in Healthy Male Volunteers: Part I. Pharmacokinetics and Clinical Pharmacodynamics.
BACKGROUND
Remimazolam (CNS 7056) is a new ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine for intravenous sedation and anesthesia. Its pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics have been reported for bolus administration. This study aimed to investigate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remimazolam after continuous infusion.
METHODS
Twenty healthy male volunteers (20 to 38 yr, 64 to 99 kg) received remimazolam as continuous intravenous infusion of 5 mg/min for 5 min, 3 mg/min for the next 15 min, and 1 mg/min for further 15 min. Pharmacokinetics of remimazolam and its metabolite were determined from arterial plasma concentrations. Sedation was assessed using the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation scale. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling was performed by population analysis. Hemodynamics and the electrocardiogram were also investigated.
RESULTS
Pharmacokinetics was best described by a three-compartment model for remimazolam and a two-compartment model with transit compartment for the metabolite. Remimazolam showed a high clearance (1.15 ± 0.12 l/min, mean ± SD), a small steady-state volume of distribution (35.4 ± 4.2 l) and a short terminal half-life (70 ± 10 min). The simulated context-sensitive halftime after an infusion of 4 h was 6.8 ± 2.4 min. Loss of consciousness was observed 5 ± 1 min after start, and full alertness was regained 19 ± 7 min after stop of infusion. Pharmacodynamics of Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation score was best described by a sigmoid probability model with effect site compartment. The half-maximum effect site concentration for a Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation score less than or equal to 1 was 695 ± 239 ng/ml. The equilibration half-time between central and effect compartment was 2.7 ± 0.6 min. Mean arterial blood pressure decreased by 24 ± 6%, and heart rate increased by 28 ± 15%. Spontaneous breathing was maintained throughout the study. There was no significant prolongation of the QT interval of the electrocardiogram observed.
CONCLUSIONS
Remimazolam was characterized by a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic profile with fast onset, fast recovery, and moderate hemodynamic side effects.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Benzodiazepines; Cross-Over Studies; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Electrocardiography; Electroencephalography; Healthy Volunteers; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Infusions, Intravenous; Male; Prospective Studies; Young Adult
PubMed: 31972655
DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000003103 -
JAMA Oncology Jul 2019Sorafenib is the first-line treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein invasion; however, it has shown unsatisfactory survival benefit. Sorafenib plus... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Sorafenib Plus Hepatic Arterial Infusion of Oxaliplatin, Fluorouracil, and Leucovorin vs Sorafenib Alone for Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Portal Vein Invasion: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
IMPORTANCE
Sorafenib is the first-line treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein invasion; however, it has shown unsatisfactory survival benefit. Sorafenib plus hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) of oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFOX) has shown promising results for these patients in a previous phase 2 study.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the efficacy and safety of sorafenib plus HAIC compared with sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein invasion.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This randomized, open-label clinical trial enrolled 818 screened patients. Of the 818 participants, 247 with hepatocellular carcinoma and portal vein invasion were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequence to receive sorafenib plus HAIC or sorafenib. This trial was conducted at 5 hospitals in China and enrolled patients from April 1, 2016, to October 10, 2017, with a follow-up period of 10 months.
INTERVENTIONS
Randomization to receive 400 mg sorafenib twice daily (sorafenib group) or 400 mg sorafenib twice daily plus HAIC (SoraHAIC group) (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, fluorouracil bolus 400 mg/m2 on day 1, and fluorouracil infusion 2400 mg/m2 for 46 hours, every 3 weeks).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary endpoint was overall survival by intention-to-treat analysis. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least 1 dose of study treatment.
RESULTS
For 247 patients (median age, 49 years; range, 18-75 years; 223 men and 24 women), median overall survival was 13.37 months (95% CI, 10.27-16.46) in the SoraHAIC group vs 7.13 months (95% CI, 6.28-7.98) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.35; 95% CI, 0.26-0.48; P < .001). The SoraHAIC group showed a higher response rate than the sorafenib group (51 [40.8%] vs 3 [2.46%]; P < .001), and a longer median progression-free survival (7.03 [95% CI, 6.05-8.02] vs 2.6 [95% CI, 2.15-3.05] months; P < .001). Grade 3/4 adverse events that were more frequent in the SoraHAIC group than in the sorafenib group included neutropenia (12 [9.68%] vs 3 [2.48%]), thrombocytopenia (16 [12.9%] vs 6 [4.96%]), and vomiting (8 [6.45%] vs 1 [0.83%]).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Sorafenib plus HAIC of FOLFOX improved overall survival and had acceptable toxic effects compared with sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and portal vein invasion.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02774187.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Female; Fluorouracil; Humans; Infusions, Intra-Arterial; Leucovorin; Liver Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Organoplatinum Compounds; Portal Vein; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Sorafenib; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 31070690
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0250