Login To See Content

To see additional content on this page, you must be logged in. If you don't have a login yet, click here to open the registration form.
Resources > Reviews >

Articles, journals and books

 

We are all aware of the role of ACE inhibitors and Angiotensin-II blockers in managing chronic heart failure and how B-blockers went from HF bad boy to recommended therapy, led largely by Carvedilol.

Spironolactone has become an established part of therapy following the publication of the RALES trial waaay back in 1999, with mortality and morbidity benefits and decreased frequency of hospital admission for acute exacerbations of chronic heart failure. Other aldosterone receptor blocking agents have been added to the mix, with agents like Eplerenone (EMPHASIS-HF, NEJM 2011 - a trial that was stopped early when a pre-planned threshold had been crossed. Watch out!) looking similarly promising, though you need to be aware of the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

So what's new in heart failure management?

chest banner

Well, the big news has to be the publication of the CHEST trial in the NEJM this month. It was conducted in Australia and New Zealand, along the same lines of enquiry as the SAFE trial.

The Berlin definition of ARDS has been endorsed by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, the American Thoracic Society and the Society of Critical Care Medicine. It was first aired at the 24th Annual ESICM Conference in October 2011 (Watch Marco Ranieri discuss it here.) and we outlined it in December.

The new definition has been published in JAMA and is freely available here.

PulmCCM.org has provided a concise review of the key elements here.

Honour and integrity has prevailed! The PROWESS-SHOCK trial of Drotrecogin Alpha (activated) in septic shock has been published in this week's NEJM. It is a significant negative trial and fair play for not burying it (See ICN Reviews - The PROWESS of Xigris gets SHOCKed).

PROWESS was a MC-DB-PC-RCT published in 2001 and demonstrated a 6% absolute reduction in 28-day all-cause mortality in patients with severe sepsis (infection + SIRS + MOF). The greatest benefit was seen in the sickest patients, with an APACHE-II > 24. But almost immediately there were concerns.

  • Results not replicated in less severe sepsis populations (APACHE-II < 24)
  • Results not replicated in children with sepsis
  • Concern over a change in the batch of cells used to produce the drug mid-way through the trial
  • Concerns about the increased incidence of serious bleeding (3.5 percent vs. 2.0 percent, P=0.06)

So Marco Ranieri and his group set about evaluating the role of Drotrecogin Alpha in the sickest PROWESS population, which is the PROWESS-SHOCK trial.

For those of us with a secure job, this might come as good news. For those of us still flailing about in the temporary market, we might be a little worried.

The delicate issue of 24 hour in-house staffing by fully qualified intensivists has steadily lifted from a quiet back corridor whisper to a genuine topic of conversation. It has been part of the "jobs for post Fellowship intensivists" concerns at the last two New Fellow's Conferences, held in conjunction with the CICM Annual Scientific Meeting, and comes up at various CICM committee meetings. The major themes of clinical benefit to patients and the need to create positions for newly qualified intensivists appears to be pushing us inevitably towards a 24/7 model.

More Articles...

Page 1 of 3

Start
Prev
1
Our Sponsors
Banner
Banner
ICN Home
Follow us on Twitter
Follow Us on Facebook
Subscribe to the ICN RSS feed