Quiz Ref ID In distributive shock, widespread vasodilation leads to decreased systemic vascular resistances and mean arterial pressure (MAP).¹ If not reversed, end-organ hypoperfusion results in significant morbidity; mortality rates reached 50% in observational studies conducted in 2013 and 2014.^2,3 Sepsis is the most common cause of distributive shock. It can also occur after cardiovascular surgery, spinal cord injury, or arise as a consequence of anaphylaxis or prolonged hypoperfusion.^1,4

Single centre studies support No Touch (NT) saphenous vein graft (SVG) harvesting technique. The primary objective of the SUPERIOR SVG study was to determine whether NT versus conventional (CON) SVG harvesting was associated with improved SVG patency 1 year after coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (CABG). Adults undergoing isolated CABG with at least 1 SVG were eligible. CT angiography was performed 1-year post CABG. Leg adverse events were assessed with a questionnaire. A systematic review was performed for published NT graft patency studies and results aggregated including the SUPERIOR study results. Two hundred and-fifty patients were randomized across 12-centres (NT 127 versus CON 123 patients). The primary outcome (study SVG occlusion or cardiovascular (CV) death) was not significantly different in NT versus CON (NT: 7/127 (5.5%), CON 13/123 (10.6%), p = 0.15). Similarly, the proportion of study SVGs with significant stenosis or total occlusion was not significantly different between groups (NT: 8/102 (7.8%), CON: 16/107 (15.0%), p = 0.11). Vein harvest site infection was more common in the NT patients 1 month postoperatively (23.3% vs 9.5%, p < 0.01). Including this study’s results, in a meta-analysis, NT was associated with a significant reduction in SVG occlusion, Odds Ratio 0.49, 95% Confidence Interval 0.29–0.82, p = 0.007 in 3 randomized and 1 observational study at 1 year postoperatively. The NT technique was not associated with improved patency of SVGs at 1-year following CABG while early vein harvest infection was increased. The aggregated data is supportive of an important reduction of SVG occlusion at 1 year with NT harvesting. NCT01047449 .

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the efficacy and safety of clonidine as a sedative in critically ill patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. We performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane trial registry. We identified RCTs that compared clonidine to any non-clonidine regimen in critically ill patients, excluding neonates, requiring mechanical ventilation. The GRADE method was used to assess certainty of evidence. We included eight RCTs (n = 642 patients). In seven of the trials clonidine was used for adjunctive rather than stand-alone sedation. There was no difference in the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference (MD) 0.05 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.65 to 0.75, I 2 = 86%, moderate certainty), ICU mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.98, 95% CI = 0.51 to 1.90, I 2 = 0%, low certainty), or ICU length of stay (MD 0.04 days, 95% CI = -0.46 to 0.53, I 2 = 16%, moderate certainty), with clonidine. There was a significant reduction in the total dose of narcotics (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.26, 95% CI = -0.50 to -0.02, I 2 = 0%, moderate certainty) with clonidine use. Clonidine was associated with increased incidence of clinically significant hypotension (RR 3.11, 95% CI = 1.64 to 5.87, I 2 = 0%, moderate certainty). Until further RCTs are performed, data remains insufficient to support the routine use of clonidine as a sedative in the mechanically ventilated population. Clonidine may act as a narcotic-sparing agent, albeit with an increased risk of clinically significant hypotension.

BACKGROUND: LAAOS III (Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Study III) showed that left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion reduces the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing cardiac surgery. This article examines the effect of LAA occlusion on stroke reduction according to variation in the use of oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy. METHODS: Information regarding OAC use was collected at every follow-up visit. Adjusted proportional hazards modeling, including using landmarks of hospital discharge, 1 and 2 years after randomization, evaluated the effect of LAA occlusion on the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, according to OAC use. Adjusted proportional hazard modeling, with OAC use as a time-dependent covariate, was also performed to assess the effect of LAA occlusion, according to OAC use throughout the study. RESULTS: At hospital discharge, 3027 patients (63.5%) were receiving a vitamin K antagonist, and 879 (18.5%) were receiving a non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (direct OAC), with no difference in OAC use between treatment arms. There were 2887 (60.5%) patients who received OACs at all follow-up visits, 1401 (29.4%) who received OAC at some visits, and 472 (9.9%) who never received OACs. The effect of LAA occlusion on the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism was consistent after discharge across all 3 groups: hazard ratios of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.51–0.96), 0.63 (95% CI, 0.43–0.94), and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.32–1.79), respectively. An adjusted proportional hazards model with OAC use as a time-dependent covariate showed that the reduction in stroke or systemic embolism with LAA occlusion was similar whether patients were receiving OACs or not. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of LAA occlusion was consistent whether patients were receiving OACs or not. LAA occlusion provides thromboembolism reduction in patients independent of OAC use.

Blood products frequently are administered to critically ill patients. Considering recent trials and practice variability, a comprehensive review of current evidence was deemed essential to offer pertinent guidance to critical care practitioners. This American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) guidelines panel examined the literature on RBC transfusions among critically ill patients overall and specific subgroups, including patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), cardiac surgery, isolated troponin elevation, and septic shock, to provide evidence-based recommendations. A panel of experts developed six Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome questions addressing RBC transfusions in critically ill patients and performed a comprehensive evidence review. The panel applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach to assess the certainty of evidence and to formulate and grade recommendations. A modified Delphi technique was used to reach consensus on the recommendations. The initial search identified a total of 3,082 studies, and after the initial screening, 38 articles were reviewed. Among them, 23 studies met inclusion criteria, comprising 22 randomized controlled trials and one cohort study. Based on the analysis of these studies, the panel formulated two strong and four conditional recommendations. The overall quality of evidence for recommendations ranged from very low to moderate. In most critically ill patients, a restrictive strategy was preferable to a permissive approach because it does not increase the risk of death or complications, but does decrease RBC use significantly. Data from critically ill subpopulations also supported a restrictive approach, except in patients with ACS, for whom favoring a restrictive approach could increase adverse outcomes.