Impact factor 0.175

Signa Vitae

Journal of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine

Nesiritide and clinically relevant outcomes in cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized studies

Abstract

B-type natriuretic peptide is a cardiac hormone that relaxes vascular smooth muscle and causes arterial dilatation. Nesiritide has been  associated with increased urine output; reduced diuretic requirements; and suppression of aldosterone, endothelin, and norepinephrine. We have independently conducted the first systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials to determine the impact of nesiritide on renal replacement therapy and death in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. We performed a meta-analysis of 6 randomized controlled studies including 560 patients (280 receiving nesiritide and 280 assigned to the control group). Two unblinded reviewers selected randomized trials studying  nesiritide  in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Nesiritide doses ranged from 0.005 mcg/kg/min to 0.01 mcg/kg/min. Nesiritide did not reduce postoperative creatinine peak values: -0.16 [-0.42, 0.10], p for effect=0.23, p for heterogeneity<0.01, I2=90.5%) or the need for  renal replacement therapy (1/177 in the nesiritide group vs 4/176 in the control group OR 0.39 [0.07, 2.06], p for effect=0.27, p for heterogeneity=0.70, I2=0%). We observed an interesting trend toward a reduction in mortality in the nesiritide group:13/280 (4.6%) vs 22/280 (7.8%) OR 0.57 [0.28, 1.15], p for effect=0.12, p for heterogeneity=0.43, I2=0%. Nesiritide did not reduce time of mechanical ventilation -8.77 hours [-21.42, 3.88], p=0.17, length of hospital stay -2.67 days [-6.50, 1.16], p=0.17 or intensive care unit (ICU) stay -0.94 days [-2.83, 0.95], p=0.33. In conclusion, further randomized controlled trials are needed to support the hypothesis that nesiritide improves clinically relevant outcomes in cardiac surgery.

Key words: Nesiritide, meta-analysis, cardiac surgery, renal replacement therapy, mortality.

Read More

Renal function and icu

Abstract

Introduction: The mortality of acute renal failure (ARF) is 50-80% in critically ill patients and has not fallen significantly despite numerous advances in critical care strategies and renal replacement technologies over several decades. (1) A major problem with conducting research into acute renal failure (ARF) is the lack of a consensus definition (2). More than 30 different definitions of ARF have been used in the literature. This lack of a common reference point created confusion and made comparisons difficult. The Acute Dialysis Initiative (ADQI) group of experts developed and published a consensus definition of ARF. This definition goes under the acronym of RIFLE. This definition classified the patients with renal dysfunction according to the degree of impairment into patient at risk (R), with injury (I), with failure (F), with sustained loss (L) and with end stage (E) status in relation to their renal function. (2) Rifle criteria were based on changes in the patients’ glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and/or their urine output. (2)
Discussion: The prophylactic and therapeutic use of dopamine, the more studied vasoactive drug, actually has not been supported. For all other vasoactive drugs, at this moment, data available are contradictory and few conclusions can be made. To protect renal function, despite wide use of vasoactive drugs, only the maintenance of adequate volume replacement and perfusion pressure may be certainly recommended.
Conclusion: The use of vasoactive drugs is a pervasive practice in intensive care units, and hence, this area needs suitably powered, multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind studies to provide more rational indications for clinical practice.

Key words: intensive care unit, acute renal failure, renal protection, hemodynamic management, vasoactive drugs, renal replacement therapy

Read More

© 2019. Signa Vitae. Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.