Browsing by Subject "ILL PATIENTS"

Sort by: Order: Results:

Now showing items 1-3 of 3
  • Tarvasmäki, Tuukka; Lassus, Johan; Varpula, Marjut; Sionis, Alessandro; Sund, Reijo; Kober, Lars; Spinar, Jindrich; Parissis, John; Banaszewski, Marek; Cardoso, Jose Silva; Carubelli, Valentina; Di Somma, Salvatore; Mebazaa, Alexandre; Harjola, Veli-Pekka; CardShock Study Investigators (2016)
    Background: Vasopressors and inotropes remain a cornerstone in stabilization of the severely impaired hemodynamics and cardiac output in cardiogenic shock (CS). The aim of this study was to analyze current real-life use of these medications, and their impact on outcome and on changes in cardiac and renal biomarkers over time in CS. Methods: The multinational CardShock study prospectively enrolled 219 patients with CS. The use of vasopressors and inotropes was analyzed in relation to the primary outcome, i.e., 90-day mortality, with propensity score methods in 216 patients with follow-up data available. Changes in cardiac and renal biomarkers over time until 96 hours from baseline were analyzed with linear mixed modeling. Results: Patients were 67 (SD 12) years old, 26 % were women, and 28 % had been resuscitated from cardiac arrest prior to inclusion. On average, systolic blood pressure was 78 (14) and mean arterial pressure 57 (11) mmHg at detection of shock. 90-day mortality was 41 %. Vasopressors and/or inotropes were administered to 94 % of patients and initiated principally within the first 24 hours. Noradrenaline and adrenaline were given to 75 % and 21 % of patients, and 30 % received several vasopressors. In multivariable logistic regression, only adrenaline (21 %) was independently associated with increased 90-day mortality (OR 5.2, 95 % CI 1.88, 14.7, p = 0.002). The result was independent of prior cardiac arrest (39 % of patients treated with adrenaline), and the association remained in propensity-score-adjusted analysis among vasopressor-treated patients (OR 3.0, 95 % CI 1.3, 7.2, p = 0.013); this was further confirmed by propensity-score-matched analysis. Adrenaline was also associated, independent of prior cardiac arrest, with marked worsening of cardiac and renal biomarkers during the first days. Dobutamine and levosimendan were the most commonly used inotropes (49 % and 24 %). There were no differences in mortality, whether noradrenaline was combined with dobutamine or levosimendan. Conclusion: Among vasopressors and inotropes, adrenaline was independently associated with 90-day mortality in CS. Moreover, adrenaline use was associated with marked worsening in cardiac and renal biomarkers. The combined use of noradrenaline with either dobutamine or levosimendan appeared prognostically similar.
  • Levy, Bruno; Clere-Jehl, Raphael; Legras, Annick; Morichau-Beauchant, Tristan; Leone, Marc; Frederique, Ganster; Quenot, Jean-Pierre; Kimmoun, Antoine; Cariou, Alain; Lassus, Johan; Harjola, Veli-Pekka; Meziani, Ferhat; Louis, Guillaume; Rossignol, Patrick; Duarte, Kevin; Girerd, Nicolas; Mebazaa, Alexandre; Vignon, Philippe (2018)
    BACKGROUND Vasopressor agents could have certain specific effects in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) after myocardial infarction, which may influence outcome. Although norepinephrine and epinephrine are currently the most commonly used agents, no randomized trial has compared their effects, and intervention data are lacking. OBJECTIVES The goal of this paper was to compare in a prospective, double-blind, multicenter, randomized study, the efficacy and safety of epinephrine and norepinephrine in patients with CS after acute myocardial infarction. METHODS The primary efficacy outcome was cardiac index evolution, and the primary safety outcome was the occurrence of refractory CS. Refractory CS was defined as CS with sustained hypotension, end-organ hypoperfusion and hyperlactatemia, and high inotrope and vasopressor doses. RESULTS Fifty-seven patients were randomized into 2 study arms, epinephrine and norepinephrine. For the primary efficacy endpoint, cardiac index evolution was similar between the 2 groups (p = 0.43) from baseline (H0) to H72. For the main safety endpoint, the observed higher incidence of refractory shock in the epinephrine group (10 of 27 [37%] vs. norepinephrine 2 of 30 [7%]; p = 0.008) led to early termination of the study. Heart rate increased significantly with epinephrine from H2 to H24 while remaining unchanged with norepinephrine (p <0.0001). Several metabolic changes were unfavorable to epinephrine compared with norepinephrine, including an increase in cardiac double product (p = 0.0002) and lactic acidosis from H2 to H24 (p <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS In patients with CS secondary to acute myocardial infarction, the use of epinephrine compared with norepinephrine was associated with similar effects on arterial pressure and cardiac index and a higher incidence of refractory shock. (Study Comparing the Efficacy and Tolerability of Epinephrine and Norepinephrine in Cardiogenic Shock [OptimaCC]; NCT01367743) (J AmColl Cardiol 2018; 72: 173-82) (C) 2018 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
  • Bjorn, Annika; Pudas-Tahka, Sanna-Mari; Salantera, Sanna; Axelin, Anna (2017)
    Aim: To evaluate the impact of video education on critical care nurses' knowledge and skills in using a behavioural pain assessment tool for intensive care patients and to explore the nurses' experiences with video education. Methods: Forty-eight nurses in one intensive care unit watched an educational video on the use of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool, then assessed pain in two patients with the tool and took a knowledge test. The researcher made parallel pain assessments. Interrater reliability of patients' pain assessment between nurses and the researcher was determined to examine nurses' skills in using the tool after education. Twenty nurses were interviewed about their experiences with the video education. Interviews were analysed with deductive thematic analysis. Results: The knowledge test scores indicated that the nurses learned the principles of how to use the tool. The interrater reliability of pain assessments reached a moderate level of agreement during the painful procedure, with a weighted kappa coefficient value of 0.48, CL [0.37, 0.58]. The nurses perceived video education positively, but requested additional interaction. Conclusions: Video education is useful in teaching the principles of using a pain assessment tool. Additional clinical training is required for nurses to reach adequate skills in using the tool. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.