The Proinflammatory Environment in Potential Heart and Lung Donors: Prevalence and Impact of Donor Management and Hormonal Therapy

BACKGROUND: Brain stem death can elicit a potentially manipulable cardiotoxic proinflammatory cytokine response. We investigated the prevalence of this response, the impact of donor management with tri-iodothyronine (T3) and methylprednisolone (MP) administration, and the relationship of biomarkers to organ function and transplant suitability. METHODS: In a prospective randomized double-blinded factorially designed study of T3 and MP therapy, we measured serum levels of interleukin-1 and -6 (IL-1 and IL-6), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha), C-reactive protein, and procalcitonin (PCT) levels in 79 potential heart or lung donors. Measurements were performed before and after 4 hr of algorithm-based donor management to optimize cardiorespiratory function and +/-hormone treatment. Donors were assigned to receive T3, MP, both drugs, or placebo. RESULTS: Initial IL-1 was elevated in 16% donors, IL-6 in 100%, TNF-alpha in 28%, CRP in 98%, and PCT in 87%. Overall biomarker concentrations did not change between initial and later measurements and neither T3 nor MP effected any change. Both PCT (P =0.02) and TNF-alpha (P =0.044) levels were higher in donor hearts with marginal hemodynamics at initial assessment. Higher PCT levels were related to worse cardiac index and right and left ventricular ejection fractions and a PCT level more than 2 ng x mL(-1) may attenuate any improvement in cardiac index gained by donor management. No differences were observed between initially marginal and nonmarginal donor lungs. A PCT level less than or equal to 2 ng x mL(-1) but not other biomarkers predicted transplant suitability following management. CONCLUSIONS: There is high prevalence of a proinflammatory environment in the organ donor that is not affected by tri-iodothyronine or MP therapy. High PCT and TNF-alpha levels are associated with donor heart dysfunction. (C) 2009 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

Levonorgestrel intrauterine system versus medical therapy for menorrhagia

ABSTRACT: Menorrhagia is a common problem that interferes with a woman’s physical, emotional, and social life. Evidence to guide physicians for decision about therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding is lacking. One treatment option, the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (levonorgestrel-IUS), has been available in the United States since 2009. Updated meta-analyses comparing the levonorgestrel-IUS with nonhormonal and hormonal treatments showed that the levonorgestrel-IUS produced a greater reduction in menstrual blood loss at 3 to 12 months of follow-up. It is not clear whether these short-term benefits persist. Moreover, the rates of discontinuation of the levonorgestrel-IUS at 2 years are as high as 28%, and effects on bleeding-related quality of life are not known. This pragmatic, multicenter, randomized trial compared the effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-IUS with that of usual medical treatment among women with menorrhagia in a primary care setting. A total of 571 women with menorrhagia were randomized to treatment with levonorgestrel-IUS (n = 285) or usual medical treatment (n = 286). Usual treatment was tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined estrogen-progestogen, or progesterone alone. The primary study outcome measure was the patient-reported score on the condition-specific Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS) assessed over a 2-year period. The MMAS scores range from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating greater severity. Summary MMAS scores were assessed at 6, 12, and 24 months. Secondary outcome measures included general health-related quality of life, sexual-activity scores, and surgical intervention. There was a significant improvement in total MMAS scores from baseline to 6 months in both the levonorgestrel-IUS group and the usual-treatment group; the mean increase was 32.7 and 21.4 points, respectively; P < 0.001 for both comparisons. Over the 2-year follow-up, improvements were maintained in both groups but were significantly greater in the levonorgestrel-IUS group (mean between-group difference, 13.4 points; 95% confidence interval, 9.9–16.9; P < 0.001). Significantly greater improvements in all MMAS domains (practical difficulties, social life, psychological health, physical health, work and daily routine, and family life and relationships) occurred with the levonorgestrel-IUS than with the usual treatment (P < 0.001 with the use of a test for trend). This was also found for 7 of the 8 quality-of-life domains. At the 2-year end point, almost twice as many women were still using the levonorgestrel-IUS than were those receiving the usual medical treatment (64% vs 38%, P < 0.001). No significant between-group differences were noted in the rates of surgical intervention or sexual-activity scores as well as in the frequency of serious adverse events. These data show that levonorgestrel-IUS is more effective than usual medical treatment in improving the quality of life of women with menorrhagia in a primary care setting.