1.
Nebulized versus intravenous tranexamic acid for hemoptysis: A pilot randomized controlled trial
Gopinath B, Ranjan Mishra P, Aggarwal P, Nayaka R, Rajaram Naik S, Kappagantu V, Shrimal P, Ramaswami A, Bhoi S, Jamshed N, et al
Chest. 2022
-
-
-
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Tranexamic acid (TA) is used to control bleeding in patients with hemoptysis. However, the effectiveness of the different routes of TA administration has not been studied. RESEARCH QUESTION Does nebulized route of Tranexamic Acid (TA) administration reduce the amount of hemoptysis compared to intravenous route in patients presenting to emergency department (ED) with hemoptysis? METHODS We conducted a pragmatic, open labelled, cluster randomized, parallel single centered pilot trial of nebulized TA (500mg tid) versus intravenous TA (500mg tid) in adult patients presenting to emergency department with active hemoptysis. The primary outcome was cessation of bleeding at 30 min. Secondary outcome included amount of hemoptysis at 6h, 12h and 24 h; interventional procedures and side effects of TA. Patients who were hemodynamically unstable or requiring immediate interventional procedure or mechanical ventilation were excluded from the study. RESULTS Of the 55 patients in each arm, hemoptysis cessation at 30 minutes after TA administration was significantly higher in nebulized arm (n=40) compared to intravenous arm (n=28) [X2 (1, n=110)=5.55, p=0.0019]. Also, hemoptysis amount reduced significantly in nebulization arm at all time periods of observation (P value 30min=0.011, at 6h=0.002, 12h=0.0008, 24h=0.005). Fewer patients in nebulized arm required bronchial artery embolization (13 vs 21, P value=0.024) and thereby higher discharge rates from the ED (67.92% vs 39.02%, P value=0.005). Two patients in nebulized arm had asymptomatic bronchoconstriction which resolved after short acting beta agonist nebulization. No patient discharged from ED underwent any interventional procedure or revisited the ED with rebleed during the 72 hours follow up period. INTERPRETATION Nebulized TA may be more efficacious than intravenous TA in reducing the amount of hemoptysis and need for ED interventional procedures. Future larger studies are needed to further explore the potential of nebulized TA compared to intravenous TA in patients with mild hemoptysis.
PICO Summary
Population
Adult patients presenting to emergency department with active hemoptysis (n= 110).
Intervention
Nebulized tranexamic acid (TA), (n= 55).
Comparison
Intravenous TA (n= 55).
Outcome
Hemoptysis cessation at 30 minutes after TA administration was significantly higher in the nebulized arm (n= 40) compared with the intravenous arm (n= 28), (X2 (1, n= 110) = 5.55). Hemoptysis amount reduced significantly in the nebulization arm at all time periods of observation (30 minutes, 6, 12 and 24 hours). Fewer patients in the nebulized arm required bronchial artery embolization (13 vs. 21) and thereby higher discharge rates from the emergency department (ED), (67.92% vs. 39.02%). Two patients in the nebulized arm had asymptomatic bronchoconstriction which resolved after short acting beta agonist nebulization. No patient discharged from ED underwent any interventional procedure or revisited the ED with rebleed during the 72 hours follow up period.
2.
A randomized-controlled trial comparing 20% albumin to plasmalyte in patients with cirrhosis and sepsis-induced hypotension [ALPS trial]
Maiwall R, Kumar A, Pasupuleti SSR, Hidam AK, Tevethia H, Kumar G, Sahney A, Mitra LG, Sarin SK
Journal of hepatology. 2022
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM The choice of resuscitation fluid in cirrhosis patients with sepsis-induced hypotension (SIH) is unclear. 5% albumin has been superior to normal saline in the FRISC study. We compared the efficacy and safety of 20% albumin, which has greater oncotic properties with plasmalyte in reversing SIH. METHODS Critically-ill cirrhosis(CIC) patients underwent open-label randomization to receive either 20% albumin [0.5-1.0gm/kg over 3 hours; n=50] or plasmalyte (30ml/kg over 3 hours, n=50). The primary end-point of the study was the attainment of mean arterial pressure (MAP) above 65 mmHg at three hours. RESULTS Baseline characteristics were comparable in albumin and plasmalyte groups; arterial lactate(mmol/L) [6.16±3.18 vs. 6.38±4.77; p=0.78), MAP (mmHg) [51.4±6.52 vs. 49.9±4.45; p=0.17] and SOFA score [10.8±2.96 vs. 11.1±4.2; p=0.68] respectively. Most patients were alcoholics (39%) and had pneumonia (40%). In the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, albumin was superior to plasmalyte in achieving the primary end-point (62% vs. 22%; p<0.001). A rapid decline in arterial lactate (P=0.03), a lesser proportion of dialysis [48% vs. 62%; p=0.16], and a higher time to initiation of dialysis (in hours) [68.13±47.79 vs. 99.7± 63.4; p=0.06] was seen with albumin. However, the 28-day mortality was not different (58% vs. 62%, p=0.57). Patients in the albumin group required discontinuation of therapy in 11 (22%) patients due to adverse effects compared to none in plasmalyte group. CONCLUSION In patients with cirrhosis and SIH, 20% albumin transiently improves the hemodynamics with early lactate clearance than plasmalyte but needs monitoring as it is more often attended with pulmonary complications. Both fluids provide comparable 28 days survival. NCT02721238 LAY SUMMARY The current randomized controlled trial performed in critically ill patients with cirrhosis and sepsis-induced hypotension highlights that 20% albumin restores hemodynamics but causes more pulmonary complications than plasmalyte. The impact on renal functions was also modest. These effects did not result in improvement in deaths at 28-days. Plasmalyte is safer and well-tolerated and can be considered for volume resuscitation in patients with cirrhosis and sepsis-induced hypotension.
3.
The efficacy and safety of plasma exchange in patients with sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Rimmer, Houston BL, Kumar A, Abou-Setta AM, Friesen C, Marshall JC, Rock G, Turgeon AF, Cook DJ, Houston DS, et al
Critical Care (London, England). 2014;18((6):):699.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Sepsis and septic shock are leading causes of intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. They are characterized by excessive inflammation, upregulation of procoagulant proteins and depletion of natural anticoagulants. Plasma exchange has the potential to improve survival in sepsis by removing inflammatory cytokines and restoring deficient plasma proteins. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of plasma exchange in patients with sepsis. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Scopus, reference lists of relevant articles, and grey literature for relevant citations. We included randomized controlled trials comparing plasma exchange or plasma filtration with usual care in critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock. Two reviewers independently identified trials, extracted trial-level data and performed risk of bias assessments using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality reported at longest follow-up. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. RESULTS Of 1,957 records identified, we included four unique trials enrolling a total of 194 patients (one enrolling adults only, two enrolling children only, one enrolling adults and children). The mean age of adult patients ranged from 38 to 53 years (n=128) and the mean age of children ranged from 0.9 to 18 years (n=66). All trials were at unclear to high risk of bias. The use of plasma exchange was not associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.52, I(2) 60%). In adults, plasma exchange was associated with reduced mortality (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.96; I(2) 0%), but was not in children (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.38; I(2) 60%). None of the trials reported ICU or hospital lengths of stay. Only one trial reported adverse events associated with plasma exchange including six episodes of hypotension and one allergic reaction to fresh frozen plasma. CONCLUSIONS Insufficient evidence exists to recommend plasma exchange as an adjunctive therapy for patients with sepsis or septic shock. Rigorous randomized controlled trials evaluating clinically relevant patient-centered outcomes are required to evaluate the impact of plasma exchange in this condition.
4.
The efficacy and safety of therapeutic apheresis in sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Rimmer EK, Houston BL, Kumar A, Abou-Setta A, Friesen C, Turgeon AF, Cook DJ, Houston DS, Zarychanski R
Blood. 2013;122((21):):1119.