Metoprolol prevents sodium retention induced by lower body negative pressure in healthy men.

BACKGROUND: Lower body negative pressure (LBNP) has been shown to induce a progressive activation of neurohormonal systems, and a renal tubular and hemodynamic response that mimics the renal adaptation observed in congestive heart failure (CHF). As beta-blockers play an important role in the management of CHF patients, the effects of metoprolol on the renal response were examined in healthy subjects during sustained LBNP. METHODS: Twenty healthy male subjects were randomized in this double blind, placebo versus metoprolol 200 mg once daily, study. After 10 days of treatment, each subject was exposed to 3 levels of LBNP (0, -10, and -20 mbar) for 1 hour, each level of LBNP being separated by 2 days. Neurohormonal profiles, systemic and renal hemodynamics, as well as renal sodium handling were measured before, during, and after LBNP. RESULTS: Blood pressure and heart rate were significantly lower in the metoprolol group throughout the study (P < 0.01). GFR and RPF were similar in both groups at baseline, and no change in renal hemodynamic values was detected at any level of LBNP. However, a reduction in sodium excretion was observed in the placebo group at -20 mbar, whereas no change was detected in the metoprolol group. An increase in plasma renin activity was also observed at -20 mbar in the placebo group that was not observed with metoprolol. CONCLUSION: The beta-blocker metoprolol prevents the sodium retention induced by lower body negative pressure in healthy subjects despite a lower blood pressure. The prevention of sodium retention may be due to a blunting of the neurohormonal response. These effects of metoprolol on the renal response to LBNP may in part explain the beneficial effects of this agent in heart failure patients.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," published in 2004. DESIGN: Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, several subsequent meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. This process was conducted independently of any industry funding. METHODS: We used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations. A strong recommendation (1) indicates that an intervention's desirable effects clearly outweigh its undesirable effects (risk, burden, cost) or clearly do not. Weak recommendations (2) indicate that the tradeoff between desirable and undesirable effects is less clear. The grade of strong or weak is considered of greater clinical importance than a difference in letter level of quality of evidence. In areas without complete agreement, a formal process of resolution was developed and applied. Recommendations are grouped into those directly targeting severe sepsis, recommendations targeting general care of the critically ill patient that are considered high priority in severe sepsis, and pediatric considerations. RESULTS: Key recommendations, listed by category, include early goal-directed resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm potential source of infection (1C); administration of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy within 1 hr of diagnosis of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1D); reassessment of antibiotic therapy with microbiology and clinical data to narrow coverage, when appropriate (1C); a usual 7-10 days of antibiotic therapy guided by clinical response (1D); source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method (1C); administration of either crystalloid or colloid fluid resuscitation (1B); fluid challenge to restore mean circulating filling pressure (1C); reduction in rate of fluid administration with rising filing pressures and no improvement in tissue perfusion (1D); vasopressor preference for norepinephrine or dopamine to maintain an initial target of mean arterial pressure > or = 65 mm Hg (1C); dobutamine inotropic therapy when cardiac output remains low despite fluid resuscitation and combined inotropic/vasopressor therapy (1C); stress-dose steroid therapy given only in septic shock after blood pressure is identified to be poorly responsive to fluid and vasopressor therapy (2C); recombinant activated protein C in patients with severe sepsis and clinical assessment of high risk for death (2B except 2C for postoperative patients). In the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage, target a hemoglobin of 7-9 g/dL (1B); a low tidal volume (1B) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure strategy (1C) for acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure in acute lung injury (1C); head of bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); avoiding routine use of pulmonary artery catheters in ALI/ARDS (1A); to decrease days of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ALI/ARDS who are not in shock (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation/analgesia (1B); using either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation with daily interruptions or lightening (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers, if at all possible (1B); institution of glycemic control (1B), targeting a blood glucose < 150 mg/dL after initial stabilization (2C); equivalency of continuous veno-veno hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1A); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding using H2 blockers (1A) or proton pump inhibitors (1B); and consideration of limitation of support where appropriate (1D). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include greater use of physical examination therapeutic end points (2C); dopamine as the first drug of choice for hypotension (2C); steroids only in children with suspected or proven adrenal insufficiency (2C); and a recommendation against the use of recombinant activated protein C in children (1B). CONCLUSIONS: There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best current care of patients with severe sepsis. Evidenced-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the first step toward improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

Regional differences in self-reported screening, prevalence and management of cardiovascular risk factors in Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: In Switzerland, health policies are decided at the local level, but little is known regarding their impact on the screening and management of cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs). We thus aimed at assessing geographical levels of CVRFs in Switzerland.¦METHODS: Swiss Health Survey for 2007 (N = 17,879). Seven administrative regions were defined: West (Leman), West-Central (Mittelland), Zurich, South (Ticino), North-West, East and Central Switzerland. Obesity, smoking, hypertension, dyslipidemia and diabetes prevalence, treatment and screening within the last 12 months were assessed by interview.¦RESULTS: After multivariate adjustment for age, gender, educational level, marital status and Swiss citizenship, no significant differences were found between regions regarding prevalence of obesity or current smoking. Similarly, no differences were found regarding hypertension screening and prevalence. Two thirds of subjects who had been told they had high blood pressure were treated, the lowest treatment rates being found in East Switzerland: odds-ratio and [95% confidence interval] 0.65 [0.50-0.85]. Screening for hypercholesterolemia was more frequently reported in French (Leman) and Italian (Ticino) speaking regions. Four out of ten participants who had been told they had high cholesterol levels were treated and the lowest treatment rates were found in German-speaking regions. Screening for diabetes was higher in Ticino (1.24 [1.09 - 1.42]). Six out of ten participants who had been told they had diabetes were treated, the lowest treatment rates were found for German-speaking regions.¦CONCLUSIONS: In Switzerland, cardiovascular risk factor screening and management differ between regions and these differences cannot be accounted for by differences in populations' characteristics. Management of most cardiovascular risk factors could be improved.

Prise en charge des facteurs de risque des maladies cardiovasculaires: qu'est-ce qui a vraiment changé en 15 ans [Management of cardiovascular diseases in adults from 1999 to 2014: what has really changed?].

Every year, a considerable number of clinical guidelines for the management of cardiovascular risk factors are issued. It may give the idea that this area is constantly evolving with regular changes for ambulatory clinical practice, including family medicine. Sometimes important differences between the various recommendations are observed. This led us to wonder about the evolution of recommendations for the management of diabetes, dyslipidemia and high blood pressure over time. This article presents a historical review of US and European recommendations between 1999 and 2014 to highlight what has actually changed.