Citations

AbstractCoagulopathy is common during left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation, treatment of which can be challenging given the often‐limited ability for the right ventricle to accommodate volume transfusion after device initiation with 20% to 40% of patients developing right ventricular failure (RVF). Transfusion of plasma late on cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) combined with ultrafiltration may replace clotting factors while reducing volume administration. We compared outcomes in patients undergoing LVAD implantation receiving plasma on CPB and ultrafiltration with traditional transfusion practices. Co‐primary outcomes needed for blood product transfusion in the first 6 and 24 hours after CPB. Secondary outcomes included metrics of morbidity and mortality. 396 patients were analyzed (59 plasma on CPB). Patients receiving plasma on CPB had a greater volume of blood products transfused (3764 vs. 2741 mL first 6 hours; 6059 vs. 4305 mL first 24 hours) in unadjusted analysis. In adjusted analysis, plasma transfusion on CPB with ultrafiltration had no significant effect on the primary outcomes of blood products given in the first 6 hours (estimated effect size 982 [−428, 2392] mL, P = .17) and 24 hours (estimated effect size 1076 [−904, 3057] mL, P = .29). Patients receiving plasma on CPB were more likely on either vasopressors or inotropes at 24 hours after ICU admission (P = .01), however, indices of coagulopathy and RVF were similar between groups. While prospective studies would be necessary to definitively evaluate the clinical utility of this strategy, no signal for benefit was observed suggesting plasma should not be used for this purpose.

Abstract Background and Objectives Despite the broad utilization of component‐based transfusion strategies that aim to reconstitute whole blood during acute traumatic haemorrhage, data for haemorrhage occurring outside of trauma and surgery are limited. Methods This is an observational cohort study of adults experiencing critical non‐traumatic, non‐intraoperative haemorrhage during hospitalization at an academic medical centre from 2011 to 2015. The primary goal was to evaluate differences in plasma and platelet to red blood cell (RBC) transfusion ratios across patient demographic, clinical and laboratory characteristics. Secondarily, associations between transfusion ratios and clinical outcomes were assessed. Results Seven hundred nine patients were included: 498 (70.2%) medical and 211 (29.8%) post surgical. The gastrointestinal tract (36.7%) was the most common site of bleeding. Most patients received RBCs without plasma (35.5%) or platelets (54.2%). Among those receiving plasma, 82.3% received a plasma to RBC ratio < 1:1 at 24 h. For platelets, the most common ratio was 1–2:1 (52.9%). Transfusion ratios were generally consistent across comorbid disease severity, admission type and anatomic sites of bleeding. Higher plasma utilization was observed in the emergency department, while greater platelet utilization occurred in intensive care units. Higher transfusion ratios were observed in those with greater laboratory haemostatic abnormalities prior to the haemorrhagic event. Clinical outcome differences were limited, though greater platelet utilization in the first 24 h was associated with higher mortality and fewer hospital‐free days. Conclusions Transfusion ratios for critical non‐traumatic haemorrhage were primarily related to laboratory abnormalities preceding the haemorrhagic event and practice environments. Clinical outcome differences across ratios were limited.

Expanding the US Food and Drug Administration–approved indications for immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with cancer has resulted in therapeutic success and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Neurologic irAEs (irAE-Ns) have an incidence of 1%–12% and a high fatality rate relative to other irAEs. Lack of standardized disease definitions and accurate phenotyping leads to syndrome misclassification and impedes development of evidence-based treatments and translational research. The objective of this study was to develop consensus guidance for an approach to irAE-Ns including disease definitions and severity grading. A working group of four neurologists drafted irAE-N consensus guidance and definitions, which were reviewed by the multidisciplinary Neuro irAE Disease Definition Panel including oncologists and irAE experts. A modified Delphi consensus process was used, with two rounds of anonymous ratings by panelists and two meetings to discuss areas of controversy. Panelists rated content for usability, appropriateness and accuracy on 9-point scales in electronic surveys and provided free text comments. Aggregated survey responses were incorporated into revised definitions. Consensus was based on numeric ratings using the RAND/University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method with prespecified definitions. 27 panelists from 15 academic medical centers voted on a total of 53 rating scales (6 general guidance, 24 central and 18 peripheral nervous system disease definition components, 3 severity criteria and 2 clinical trial adjudication statements); of these, 77% (41/53) received first round consensus. After revisions, all items received second round consensus. Consensus definitions were achieved for seven core disorders: irMeningitis, irEncephalitis, irDemyelinating disease, irVasculitis, irNeuropathy, irNeuromuscular junction disorders and irMyopathy. For each disorder, six descriptors of diagnostic components are used: disease subtype, diagnostic certainty, severity, autoantibody association, exacerbation of pre-existing disease or de novo presentation, and presence or absence of concurrent irAE(s). These disease definitions standardize irAE-N classification. Diagnostic certainty is not always directly linked to certainty to treat as an irAE-N (ie, one might treat events in the probable or possible category). Given consensus on accuracy and usability from a representative panel group, we anticipate that the definitions will be used broadly across clinical and research settings.

BACKGROUND: Intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDS) have been utilized for over 3 decades for management of chronic pain and spasticity. Patients with IDDS may present for surgical procedures unrelated to the IDDS device, although data are limited regarding perioperative outcomes. METHODS: This is a historical matched cohort study conducted between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2016 of patients with an opioid-based IDDS versus matched control patients undergoing surgery excluding interventional pain procedures. Patients in the IDDS group were matched with up to 2 patients without an IDDS. Multivariable regression analyses were utilized to assess differences in the primary outcome of cumulative perioperative opioid consumption (ie, intraoperative and postanesthesia care unit [PACU] opioid consumption), and opioid consumption during the first 24 and 72 postoperative hours. Postoperative clinical outcomes were also assessed including escalating oxygen requirements, naloxone administration, pain-sedation mismatch, and perioperative pain service consultation. RESULTS: A total of 321 surgeries were included, 112 with IDDS and 209 controls, with median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 57 (49–64) years. Compared to matched controls, patients with an IDDS had greater perioperative opioid consumption (median [IQR] oral morphine milligram equivalents [OME] of 110 [60–163] vs 93 [IQR, 53–142]; adjusted multiplicative increase 1.28 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.03–1.59]; P = .026). IDDS patients also had greater opioid consumption in the first 24 and 72 postoperative hours (multiplicative increases of 2.23 [95% CI, 1.36–3.63], P = .001, and 2.46 [95% CI, 1.41–4.32], P = .002, respectively). There were no significant differences in postoperative oxygen requirements, naloxone administration, or pain-sedation mismatch. Inpatient pain medicine consultation was more frequent in IDDS patients compared to controls (51.8% vs 6.2%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with opioid-based IDDS received more perioperative opioids and were more likely to receive postoperative pain service consultation compared to matched controls. There were no significant differences in clinical safety outcomes, suggesting tolerance for higher opioid doses. Further research is warranted to optimize perioperative outcomes in those with IDDS.

Objective To provide evidence‐based recommendations and expert guidance for the management of systemic polyarteritis nodosa (PAN). Methods Twenty‐one clinical questions regarding diagnostic testing, treatment, and management were developed in the population, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) format for systemic, non–hepatitis B–related PAN. Systematic literature reviews were conducted for each PICO question. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations. Each recommendation required ≥70% consensus among the Voting Panel. Results We present 16 recommendations and 1 ungraded position statement for PAN. Most recommendations were graded as conditional due to the paucity of evidence. These recommendations support early treatment of severe PAN with cyclophosphamide and glucocorticoids, limiting toxicity through minimizing long‐term exposure to both treatments, and the use of imaging and tissue biopsy for disease diagnosis. These recommendations endorse minimizing risk to the patient by using established therapy at disease onset and identify new areas where adjunctive therapy may be warranted. Conclusion These recommendations provide guidance regarding diagnostic strategies, use of pharmacologic agents, and imaging for patients with PAN.

Objective To provide evidence‐based recommendations and expert guidance for the management of giant cell arteritis (GCA) and Takayasu arteritis (TAK) as exemplars of large vessel vasculitis. Methods Clinical questions regarding diagnostic testing, treatment, and management were developed in the population, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) format for GCA and TAK (27 for GCA, 27 for TAK). Systematic literature reviews were conducted for each PICO question. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. Recommendations were developed by the Voting Panel, comprising adult and pediatric rheumatologists and patients. Each recommendation required ≥70% consensus among the Voting Panel. Results We present 22 recommendations and 2 ungraded position statements for GCA, and 20 recommendations and 1 ungraded position statement for TAK. These recommendations and statements address clinical questions relating to the use of diagnostic testing, including imaging, treatments, and surgical interventions in GCA and TAK. Recommendations for GCA include support for the use of glucocorticoid‐sparing immunosuppressive agents and the use of imaging to identify large vessel involvement. Recommendations for TAK include the use of nonglucocorticoid immunosuppressive agents with glucocorticoids as initial therapy. There were only 2 strong recommendations; the remaining recommendations were conditional due to the low quality of evidence available for most PICO questions. Conclusion These recommendations provide guidance regarding the evaluation and management of patients with GCA and TAK, including diagnostic strategies, use of pharmacologic agents, and surgical interventions.

Objective To provide evidence‐based recommendations and expert guidance for the management of systemic polyarteritis nodosa (PAN). Methods Twenty‐one clinical questions regarding diagnostic testing, treatment, and management were developed in the population, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) format for systemic, non–hepatitis B–related PAN. Systematic literature reviews were conducted for each PICO question. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations. Each recommendation required ≥70% consensus among the Voting Panel. Results We present 16 recommendations and 1 ungraded position statement for PAN. Most recommendations were graded as conditional due to the paucity of evidence. These recommendations support early treatment of severe PAN with cyclophosphamide and glucocorticoids, limiting toxicity through minimizing long‐term exposure to both treatments, and the use of imaging and tissue biopsy for disease diagnosis. These recommendations endorse minimizing risk to the patient by using established therapy at disease onset and identify new areas where adjunctive therapy may be warranted. Conclusion These recommendations provide guidance regarding diagnostic strategies, use of pharmacologic agents, and imaging for patients with PAN.

Objective To provide evidence‐based recommendations and expert guidance for the management of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis (AAV), including granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), microscopic polyangiitis (MPA), and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA). Methods Clinical questions regarding the treatment and management of AAV were developed in the population, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) format (47 for GPA/MPA, 34 for EGPA). Systematic literature reviews were conducted for each PICO question. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations. Each recommendation required ≥70% consensus among the Voting Panel. Results We present 26 recommendations and 5 ungraded position statements for GPA/MPA, and 15 recommendations and 5 ungraded position statements for EGPA. This guideline provides recommendations for remission induction and maintenance therapy as well as adjunctive treatment strategies in GPA, MPA, and EGPA. These recommendations include the use of rituximab for remission induction and maintenance in severe GPA and MPA and the use of mepolizumab in nonsevere EGPA. All recommendations are conditional due in part to the lack of multiple randomized controlled trials and/or low‐quality evidence supporting the recommendations. Conclusion This guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and the Vasculitis Foundation for the management of AAV and provides guidance to health care professionals on how to treat these diseases.

Objective To provide evidence‐based recommendations and expert guidance for the management of giant cell arteritis (GCA) and Takayasu arteritis (TAK) as exemplars of large vessel vasculitis. Methods Clinical questions regarding diagnostic testing, treatment, and management were developed in the population, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) format for GCA and TAK (27 for GCA, 27 for TAK). Systematic literature reviews were conducted for each PICO question. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. Recommendations were developed by the Voting Panel, comprising adult and pediatric rheumatologists and patients. Each recommendation required ≥70% consensus among the Voting Panel. Results We present 22 recommendations and 2 ungraded position statements for GCA, and 20 recommendations and 1 ungraded position statement for TAK. These recommendations and statements address clinical questions relating to the use of diagnostic testing, including imaging, treatments, and surgical interventions in GCA and TAK. Recommendations for GCA include support for the use of glucocorticoid‐sparing immunosuppressive agents and the use of imaging to identify large vessel involvement. Recommendations for TAK include the use of nonglucocorticoid immunosuppressive agents with glucocorticoids as initial therapy. There were only 2 strong recommendations; the remaining recommendations were conditional due to the low quality of evidence available for most PICO questions. Conclusion These recommendations provide guidance regarding the evaluation and management of patients with GCA and TAK, including diagnostic strategies, use of pharmacologic agents, and surgical interventions.