Outcome of patients with acute coronary syndrome in hospitals of different sizes. A report from the AMIS Plus Registry.

To assess the impact of admission to different hospital types on early and 1-year outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Between 1997 and 2009, 31 010 ACS patients from 76 Swiss hospitals were enrolled in the AMIS Plus registry. Large tertiary institutions with continuous (24 hour/7 day) cardiac catheterisation facilities were classified as type A hospitals, and all others as type B. For 1-year outcomes, a subgroup of patients admitted after 2005 were studied. Eleven type A hospitals admitted 15987 (52%) patients and 65 type B hospitals 15023 (48%) patients. Patients admitted into B hospitals were older, more frequently female, diabetic, hypertensive, had more severe comorbidities and more frequent non-ST segment elevation (NSTE)-ACS/unstable angina (UA). STE-ACS patients admitted into B hospitals received more thrombolysis, but less percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Crude in-hospital mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were higher in patients from B hospitals. Crude 1-year mortality of 3747 ACS patients followed up was higher in patients admitted into B hospitals, but no differences were found for MACE. After adjustment for age, risk factors, type of ACS and comorbidities, hospital type was not an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality, in-hospital MACE, 1-year MACE or mortality. Admission indicated a crude outcome in favour of hospitalisation during duty-hours while 1-year outcome could not document a significant effect. ACS patients admitted to smaller regional Swiss hospitals were older, had more severe comorbidities, more NSTE-ACS and received less intensive treatment compared with the patients initially admitted to large tertiary institutions. However, hospital type was not an independent predictor of early and mid-term outcomes in these patients. Furthermore, our data suggest that Swiss hospitals have been functioning as an efficient network for the past 12 years.

β-Lactam Monotherapy vs β-Lactam-Macrolide Combination Treatment in Moderately Severe Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The clinical benefit of adding a macrolide to a β-lactam for empirical treatment of moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To test noninferiority of a β-lactam alone compared with a β-lactam and macrolide combination in moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Open-label, multicenter, noninferiority, randomized trial conducted from January 13, 2009, through January 31, 2013, in 580 immunocompetent adult patients hospitalized in 6 acute care hospitals in Switzerland for moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. Follow-up extended to 90 days. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were treated with a β-lactam and a macrolide (combination arm) or with a β-lactam alone (monotherapy arm). Legionella pneumophila infection was systematically searched and treated by addition of a macrolide to the monotherapy arm. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of patients not reaching clinical stability (heart rate <100/min, systolic blood pressure >90 mm Hg, temperature <38.0°C, respiratory rate <24/min, and oxygen saturation >90% on room air) at day 7. RESULTS: After 7 days of treatment, 120 of 291 patients (41.2%) in the monotherapy arm vs 97 of 289 (33.6%) in the combination arm had not reached clinical stability (7.6% difference, P = .07). The upper limit of the 1-sided 90% CI was 13.0%, exceeding the predefined noninferiority boundary of 8%. Patients infected with atypical pathogens (hazard ratio [HR], 0.33; 95% CI, 0.13-0.85) or with Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) category IV pneumonia (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.59-1.10) were less likely to reach clinical stability with monotherapy, whereas patients not infected with atypical pathogens (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.80-1.22) or with PSI category I to III pneumonia (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.82-1.36) had equivalent outcomes in the 2 arms. There were more 30-day readmissions in the monotherapy arm (7.9% vs 3.1%, P = .01). Mortality, intensive care unit admission, complications, length of stay, and recurrence of pneumonia within 90 days did not differ between the 2 arms. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We did not find noninferiority of β-lactam monotherapy in patients hospitalized for moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. Patients infected with atypical pathogens or with PSI category IV pneumonia had delayed clinical stability with monotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00818610.

β-Lactam Monotherapy vs β-Lactam-Macrolide Combination Treatment in Moderately Severe Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The clinical benefit of adding a macrolide to a β-lactam for empirical treatment of moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To test noninferiority of a β-lactam alone compared with a β-lactam and macrolide combination in moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Open-label, multicenter, noninferiority, randomized trial conducted from January 13, 2009, through January 31, 2013, in 580 immunocompetent adult patients hospitalized in 6 acute care hospitals in Switzerland for moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. Follow-up extended to 90 days. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were treated with a β-lactam and a macrolide (combination arm) or with a β-lactam alone (monotherapy arm). Legionella pneumophila infection was systematically searched and treated by addition of a macrolide to the monotherapy arm. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of patients not reaching clinical stability (heart rate <100/min, systolic blood pressure >90 mm Hg, temperature <38.0°C, respiratory rate <24/min, and oxygen saturation >90% on room air) at day 7. RESULTS: After 7 days of treatment, 120 of 291 patients (41.2%) in the monotherapy arm vs 97 of 289 (33.6%) in the combination arm had not reached clinical stability (7.6% difference, P = .07). The upper limit of the 1-sided 90% CI was 13.0%, exceeding the predefined noninferiority boundary of 8%. Patients infected with atypical pathogens (hazard ratio [HR], 0.33; 95% CI, 0.13-0.85) or with Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) category IV pneumonia (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.59-1.10) were less likely to reach clinical stability with monotherapy, whereas patients not infected with atypical pathogens (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.80-1.22) or with PSI category I to III pneumonia (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.82-1.36) had equivalent outcomes in the 2 arms. There were more 30-day readmissions in the monotherapy arm (7.9% vs 3.1%, P = .01). Mortality, intensive care unit admission, complications, length of stay, and recurrence of pneumonia within 90 days did not differ between the 2 arms. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We did not find noninferiority of β-lactam monotherapy in patients hospitalized for moderately severe community-acquired pneumonia. Patients infected with atypical pathogens or with PSI category IV pneumonia had delayed clinical stability with monotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00818610.

Parenteral nutrition in the intensive care unit: cautious use improves outcome.

Critical illness is characterised by nutritional and metabolic disorders, resulting in increased muscle catabolism, fat-free mass loss, and hyperglycaemia. The objective of the nutritional support is to limit fat-free mass loss, which has negative consequences on clinical outcome and recovery. Early enteral nutrition is recommended by current guidelines as the first choice feeding route in ICU patients. However, enteral nutrition alone is frequently associated with insufficient coverage of the energy requirements, and subsequently energy deficit is correlated to worsened clinical outcome. Controlled trials have demonstrated that, in case of failure or contraindications to full enteral nutrition, parenteral nutrition administration on top of insufficient enteral nutrition within the first four days after admission could improve the clinical outcome, and may attenuate fat-free mass loss. Parenteral nutrition is cautious if all-in-one solutions are used, glycaemia controlled, and overnutrition avoided. Conversely, the systematic use of parenteral nutrition in the ICU patients without clear indication is not recommended during the first 48 hours. Specific methods, such as thigh ultra-sound imaging, 3rd lumbar vertebra-targeted computerised tomography and bioimpedance electrical analysis, may be helpful in the future to monitor fat-free mass during the ICU stay. Clinical studies are warranted to demonstrate whether an optimal nutritional management during the ICU stay promotes muscle mass and function, the recovery after critical illness and reduces the overall costs.

Oral pregabalin as an add-on treatment for status epilepticus.

Oral antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) represent possible add-on options in refractory status epilepticus (SE). In this setting, pregabalin (PGB) has not been reported before. Over the last 42 months, we identified 11 SE episodes (10 patients) treated with PGB in our hospital. Its use was prompted by the favorable pharmacokinetic profile, devoid of drug-drug interactions. The patients mostly had refractory, partial SE. Only two patients were managed in the intensive care unit (ICU). We found a definite electroclinical response in 5 of 11, already evident 24 h after PGB introduction, and a possible response (concomitantly with other AEDs) in 3 of 11 of the episodes; 3/11 did not respond. The treatment was well tolerated. Partial SE appeared to better respond than generalized convulsive SE. PGB appears to be an interesting option as add-on treatment in refractory partial SE.