Dataset Information

Corticosteroid therapy in refractory shock following cardiac arrest: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, trial.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the provision of corticosteroids improves time to shock reversal and outcomes in patients with post-cardiac arrest shock.We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial of post-cardiac arrest patients in shock, defined as vasopressor support for a minimum of 1 hour. Patients were randomized to intravenous hydrocortisone 100 mg or placebo every 8 hours for 7 days or until shock reversal. The primary endpoint was time to shock reversal.Fifty patients were included with 25 in each group. There was no difference in time to shock reversal between groups (hazard ratio: 0.83 [95% CI: 0.40-1.75], p = 0.63). We found no difference in secondary outcomes including shock reversal (52% vs. 60%, p = 0.57), good neurological outcome (24% vs. 32%, p = 0.53) or survival to discharge (28% vs. 36%, p = 0.54) between the hydrocortisone and placebo groups. Of the patients with a baseline cortisol < 15 ug/dL, 100% (6/6) in the hydrocortisone group achieved shock reversal compared to 33% (1/3) in the placebo group (p = 0.08). All patients in the placebo group died (100%; 3/3) whereas 50% (3/6) died in the hydrocortisone group (p = 0.43).In a population of cardiac arrest patients with vasopressor-dependent shock, treatment with hydrocortisone did not improve time to shock reversal, rate of shock reversal, or clinical outcomes when compared to placebo.Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00676585, registration date: May 9, 2008.

SUBMITTER: Donnino MW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4818959 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Corticosteroid therapy in refractory shock following cardiac arrest: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, trial.

Donnino Michael W MW Andersen Lars W LW Berg Katherine M KM Chase Maureen M Sherwin Robert R Smithline Howard H Carney Erin E Ngo Long L Patel Parth V PV Liu Xiaowen X Cutlip Donald D Zimetbaum Peter P Cocchi Michael N MN

Critical care (London, England) 20160403

<h4>Background</h4>The purpose of this study was to determine whether the provision of corticosteroids improves time to shock reversal and outcomes in patients with post-cardiac arrest shock.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial of post-cardiac arrest patients in shock, defined as vasopressor support for a minimum of 1 hour. Patients were randomized to intravenous hydrocortisone 100 mg or placebo every 8 hours for 7 days or until shock reversal. The primary endpoint was t ...[more]

PMID: 27038920

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAntiarrhythmic drugs have not proven to significantly improve overall survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest from shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia. How this might be influenced by the route of drug administration is not known.MethodsIn this prespecified analysis of a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial, we compared the differences in survival to hospital discharge in adults with shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who were randomly assigned by emergency medical services personnel to an antiarrhythmic drug versus placebo in the ALPS trial (Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Amiodarone, Lidocaine or Placebo Study), when stratified by the intravenous versus intraosseous route of administration.ResultsOf 3019 randomly assigned patients with a known vascular access site, 2358 received ALPS drugs intravenously and 661 patients by the intraosseous route. Intraosseous and intravenous groups differed in sex, time-to-emergency medical services arrival, and some cardiopulmonary resuscitation characteristics, but were similar in others, including time-to-intravenous/intrasosseous drug receipt. Overall hospital discharge survival was 23%. In comparison with placebo, discharge survival was significantly higher in recipients of intravenous amiodarone (adjusted risk ratio, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.06-1.50]; adjusted absolute survival difference, 5.5% [95% CI, 1.5-9.5]) and intravenous lidocaine (adjusted risk ratio, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.02-1.45]; adjusted absolute survival difference, 4.7% [95% CI, 0.7-8.8]); but not in recipients of intraosseous amiodarone (adjusted risk ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.66-1.32]) or intraosseous lidocaine (adjusted risk ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.74-1.44]). Survival to hospital admission also increased significantly when drugs were given intravenously but not intraosseously, and favored improved neurological outcome at discharge. There were no outcome differences between intravenous and intraosseous placebo, indicating that the access route itself did not demarcate patients with poor prognosis. The study was underpowered to assess intravenous/intraosseous drug interactions, which were not statistically significant.ConclusionsWe found no significant effect modification by drug administration route for amiodarone or lidocaine in comparison with placebo during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. However, point estimates for the effects of both drugs in comparison with placebo were significantly greater for the intravenous than for the intraosseous route across virtually all outcomes and beneficial only for the intravenous route. Given that the study was underpowered to statistically assess interactions, these findings signal the potential importance of the drug administration route during resuscitation that merits further investigation.

Project description:Background and objectivesMyasthenia gravis (MG) is an autoimmune disease characterized by dysfunction at the neuromuscular junction. Treatment frequently includes corticosteroids (CSs) and IV immunoglobulin (IVIG). This study was conducted to determine whether immune globulin (human), 10% caprylate/chromatography purified (IGIV-C) could facilitate CS dose reduction in CS-dependent patients with MG.MethodsIn this randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial, CS-dependent patients with MG (Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America Class II-Iva; AChR+) received a loading dose of 2 g/kg IGIV-C over 2 days (maximum 80 g/d) or placebo at week 0 (baseline). Maintenance doses (1 g/kg IGIV-C or placebo) were administered every 3 weeks through week 36. Tapering of CS was initiated at week 9 and continued through week 36 unless the patient worsened (quantitative MG score ≥4 points from baseline). CS doses were increased (based on the current CS dose) in patients who worsened. Patients were withdrawn if worsening failed to improve within 6 weeks or if a second CS increase was required. The primary efficacy end point (at week 39) was a ≥50% reduction in CS dose. Secondary and safety end points were assessed throughout the study and follow-up (weeks 42 and 45). The study results and full protocol are available at clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02473965.ResultsThe primary end point (≥50% reduction in CS dose) showed no significant difference between the IGIV-C treatment (60.0% of patients) and placebo (63.3%). There were no significant differences for secondary end points. Safety data indicated that IGIV-C was well tolerated.DiscussionIn this study, IGIV-C was not more effective than placebo in reducing daily CS dose. These results suggest that the effects of IGIV-C and CS are not synergistic and may be mechanistically different.Trial registration informationThe trial was registered on clinicaltrialsregister.eu (EudraCT #: 2013-005099-17) and clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT02473965).Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class II evidence that IVIG infusions in adult patients with MG do not increase the percentage of patients achieving a ≥50% reduction in corticosteroid dose compared with placebo.

Project description:BackgroundVeno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation has increasingly emerged as a feasible treatment to mitigate the progressive multiorgan dysfunction that occurs during cardiac arrest, in support of further resuscitation efforts.ObjectivesBecause the recent systematic review commissioned in 2018 by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Advanced Life Support task did not include studies without a control group, our objective was to conduct a review incorporating these studies to increase available evidence supporting the use of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) for cardiac arrest patients, while waiting for high-quality evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index (Web of Science) were searched for eligible studies from database inception to July 20, 2020. The population of interest was adult patients who had suffered cardiac arrest in any setting. We included all cohort studies with 1 exposure/1 group and descriptive studies (ie, case series studies). We excluded RCTs, non-RCTs, and observational analytic studies with a control group. Outcomes included short-term survival and favorable neurological outcome. Short-term outcomes (ie, hospital discharge, 30 days, and 1 month) were combined into a single category.ResultsOur searches of databases and other sources yielded a total of 4302 citations. Sixty-two eligible studies were included (including a combined total of 3638 participants). Six studies were of in-hospital cardiac arrest, 34 studies were of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and 22 studies included both in-hospital and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Seven hundred and sixty-eight patients of 3352 (23%) had short-term survival; whereas, 602 of 3366 (18%) survived with favorable neurological outcome, defined as a cerebral performance category score of 1 or 2.ConclusionsCurrent clinical evidence is mostly drawn from observational studies, with their potential for confounding selection bias. Although studies without controls cannot supplant case-control or cohort studies, several ECPR studies without a control group show successful resuscitation with impressive results that may provide valuable information to inform a comparison.

Project description:BackgroundStaphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is a common cause of severe community-acquired and hospital-acquired infection worldwide. We tested the hypothesis that adjunctive rifampicin would reduce bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death, by enhancing early S aureus killing, sterilising infected foci and blood faster, and reducing risks of dissemination and metastatic infection.MethodsIn this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults (≥18 years) with S aureus bacteraemia who had received ≤96 h of active antibiotic therapy were recruited from 29 UK hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequential randomisation list to receive 2 weeks of adjunctive rifampicin (600 mg or 900 mg per day according to weight, oral or intravenous) versus identical placebo, together with standard antibiotic therapy. Randomisation was stratified by centre. Patients, investigators, and those caring for the patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was time to bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death (all-cause), from randomisation to 12 weeks, adjudicated by an independent review committee masked to the treatment. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial was registered, number ISRCTN37666216, and is closed to new participants.FindingsBetween Dec 10, 2012, and Oct 25, 2016, 758 eligible participants were randomly assigned: 370 to rifampicin and 388 to placebo. 485 (64%) participants had community-acquired S aureus infections, and 132 (17%) had nosocomial S aureus infections. 47 (6%) had meticillin-resistant infections. 301 (40%) participants had an initial deep infection focus. Standard antibiotics were given for 29 (IQR 18-45) days; 619 (82%) participants received flucloxacillin. By week 12, 62 (17%) of participants who received rifampicin versus 71 (18%) who received placebo experienced treatment failure or disease recurrence, or died (absolute risk difference -1·4%, 95% CI -7·0 to 4·3; hazard ratio 0·96, 0·68-1·35, p=0·81). From randomisation to 12 weeks, no evidence of differences in serious (p=0·17) or grade 3-4 (p=0·36) adverse events were observed; however, 63 (17%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 39 (10%) in the placebo group had antibiotic or trial drug-modifying adverse events (p=0·004), and 24 (6%) versus six (2%) had drug interactions (p=0·0005).InterpretationAdjunctive rifampicin provided no overall benefit over standard antibiotic therapy in adults with S aureus bacteraemia.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.

Dataset Information

Corticosteroid therapy in refractory shock following cardiac arrest: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, trial.

Publications

Corticosteroid therapy in refractory shock following cardiac arrest: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets