<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<recommendedContent xmlns="http://api.mspoke.com">
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_407"
                     title="ICU Catheter Infections Can Be Virtually Eliminated (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.013"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/CriticalCare/InfectionControl/tb/18308?impressionId=1265776570322"
                     
      Catheter-related infections aren&apos;t inevitable in the ICU, according to a quality initiative that maintained rates at nearly zero for three years in Michigan hospitals.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;The maintenance phase, after initial implementation of low-tech measures such as handwashing and removal of unneeded catheters, saw no rebound in catheter-related infections, Peter J. Pronovost, MD, PhD, of Johns Hopkins, and colleagues reported online in &lt;em&gt;BMJ&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;The first 18 months of their &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/GeneralInfectiousDisease/4771&quot; mce_href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/GeneralInfectiousDisease/4771&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Keystone ICU initiative&lt;/a&gt; dropped catheter-related interventions from a mean of 7.7 and median of 2.2 per 1,000 catheter days down to 1.3 and 0, respectively.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;At the 36 month mark, infection rates remained almost nil, at a mean of 1.1 and median of 0 per 1,000 catheter days.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;For the most part, hospitals view these infections as inevitable, as the cost of doing business, that patients are too sick, that these can&apos;t be prevented,&quot; Pronovost told &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today&lt;/em&gt;. &quot;That&apos;s just not true.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Catheter-related infections are the number one cause of preventable death in hospitals and ICUs, ahead of even ventilator-related pneumonia, he noted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The changes seen at the 90 Michigan ICUs that stayed with the catheter-related infection initiative were impressive, representing one of the largest and longest improvements the field has seen.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Often, quality initiatives fail on durability after the study funding and resources disappear, and hospitals are left on their own, Pronovost noted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;If you push you might get some effect, but then you stop pushing  --  in other words the external control goes away  --  and the performance goes right back down,&quot; he said in an interview. &quot;It can&apos;t just be the stick that drives it.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The intervention started with 103 ICUs that implemented strategies to reduce rates of catheter-related bloodstream infections rates over 18 months, with measurement and feedback of infection rates.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The strategies aimed at improving execution of five evidence-based recommendations, as follows: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;Hand washing before insertion of the catheter&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Using gowns and full barrier precautions at catheter insertion&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Cleaning the skin with chlorhexidine before catheter insertion&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Avoiding the femoral site when possible&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Removing unnecessary catheters&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Then, over the subsequent 18-month maintenance period, ICU teams were instructed to integrate this intervention into staff orientation, to collect monthly data from hospital infection control staff, and to report infection rates to physicians and others.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Along with the sustained reduction in overall catheter-related infections, the researchers found a prolonged reduction in bloodstream infections that was significant during all study periods, compared to baseline.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Rates decreased from a mean of 7.7 and median 2.7 of per 1,000 catheter days at baseline to 1.3 and 0, respectively, at 16 to 18 months after implementation. They remained at 1.1 and 0 at months 34 to 36 (-1% versus 18 months, 95% CI -9% to +7%).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;ICU teams interviewed attributed the continuously low rates to five factors: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;Continued feedback on infection data&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Improvements in safety culture as part of the project&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;An &quot;unremitting belief in the preventability of bloodstream infections&quot;&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Involvement of senior leaders&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;A noncompetitive, shared goal to reduce infection rates throughout the state&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Of these, Pronovost called culture change in the ICUs the key factor to sustainability, although the researchers cautioned that which aspects contributed were not formally evaluated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They said they could not determine the impact incentive payments from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan to hospitals that continued their participation  --  payments that were based on performance thresholds in subsequent years.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pronovost&apos;s team is now working to implement the quality initiative state-by-state nationwide, supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Technology.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;It seems absurd that this wouldn&apos;t be in every hospital in the country,&quot; he said in an interview. &quot;It&apos;s worked on a large scale, it&apos;s exceedingly cheap, there&apos;s no fancy technology.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Success isn&apos;t only for community hospitals, Pronovost emphasized.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Large, often academic, medical centers frequently express the conviction that their sicker, more complex ICU population wouldn&apos;t produce the same results, that their infections truly are inevitable, he said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;To them I say, Not so,&quot; he told &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today&lt;/em&gt;. &quot;We have shown at Johns Hopkins, at the University of Michigan, at Pittsburgh, using a similar but different approach, at Tufts  --  many large academic medical centers have had dramatic reductions of these infections.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The project was supported, for the period from October 2003 to September 2005, by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Michigan Health &amp;amp; Hospital Association.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Pronovost and a co-author reported receiving received lecture fees from various healthcare organizations and grant support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the National Patient Safety Agency, and the World Health Organization to study and improve quality of care, including catheter-related bloodstream infections.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Co-authors reported conflicts of interest with government agencies, Cubist, Astellas, Merck, Forrest, Cadence, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Lilly, Edward Life Sciences, and Sage.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_467"
                     title="FDA Unveils New Safety Plan for Medical Imaging"
                     score="0.011"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Radiology/DiagnosticRadiology/tb/18398?impressionId=1265776570322"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;WASHINGTON  --  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says it wants to issue new safety requirements for manufacturers of computed tomography (CT) and fluoroscopic devices to reduce unnecessary radiation from medical imaging.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The FDA&apos;s plan focuses on three procedures with high radiation doses: CT, nuclear medicine studies, and fluoroscopy. These are the greatest contributors to total radiation exposure within the U.S. population, the FDA said. That&apos;s because they require much higher radiation doses than other radiographic procedures, such as standard X-rays, dental X-rays, and mammography.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The amount of radiation Americans are exposed to from medical imaging has dramatically increased over the past 20 years,&quot; Jeffrey Shuren, MD, director of the FDA&apos;s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a prepared statement. &quot;The goal of FDA&apos;s initiative is to support the benefits associated with medical imaging while minimizing the risks.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;While the three procedures have led to early diagnosis of disease, they expose patients to ionizing radiation that may increase lifetime cancer risk  --  although there is debate within the medical community about the extent of the danger.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Radiologist Joseph Schoepf, MD, director of Cardiovascular Imaging at the Medical University of South Carolina, lauded the FDA&apos;s initiative and said it would restore the public&apos;s trust in imaging.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;It is important to note, however, that an increase in cancer mortality [from radiation] has not been observed,&quot; he added. &quot;On the contrary, cancer mortality has dramatically decreased over the past decades, in step with increased utilization of medical imaging.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The &lt;em&gt;Archives of Internal Medicine &lt;/em&gt;recently published results from two studies indicating that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/Radiology/DiagnosticRadiology/17530&quot; mce_href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/Radiology/DiagnosticRadiology/17530&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; title=&quot;CT&amp;#8200;Scans&amp;#8200;May&amp;#8200;Deliver&amp;#8200;Higher-than-Expected&amp;#8200;Radiation&amp;#8200;Doses&quot;&gt;CT scans deliver much higher doses of radiation &lt;/a&gt;than previously thought. The FDA has noted that a patient would have to get 400 standard chest X-rays to be exposed to the same level of radiation as just one CT abdomen scan.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an accompanying editorial, the journal&apos;s editor, Rita Redberg, MD, wrote that the studies &quot;make us question if we have gotten carried away in our enthusiasm&quot; for CT.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It&apos;s becoming clear, she said, that the large doses of radiation from CT scans will lead to additional cancers, which must be taken into account when physicians consider CT for their patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;By working with healthcare providers and other federal agencies, the FDA says it hopes to promote safer use of medical imaging and increase patient awareness of their radiation exposure. Part of that involves pushing providers to justify their radiation procedures and optimize the radiation dose in each one.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span&gt;Schoepf, who serves on several American College of Radiology committees that discuss the proper used of various imaging procedures, approved of the FDA&apos;s goal but cautioned against restrictions that would hinder clinicians.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;There is indeed a need for enhanced transparency, better patient education, more dialogue between patients and their healthcare providers, and increased involvement of the patient in the decision process leading up to an imaging study,&quot; Schoepf said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span&gt;&quot;What is often forgotten in this discussion is that serious injury or death, resulting from missing a potentially life-threatening diagnosis if no imaging is performed, is a much greater, more imminent, and very real risk.&quot;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In its statement, the FDA said it wants to boost efforts to develop at least one national registry of radiation doses that will capture information from a variety of imaging studies that can be used to establish benchmarks for healthcare facilities to use with patients.&lt;/p&gt;


 &lt;p&gt;Donald Frush, MD, a radiologist at Duke Medical Center and expert in CT radiation doses in children, said that radiation doses for CT examination vary widely, depending on the size of the patient and the body area scanned, among other things.&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;&quot;However, sometimes this variation is not necessary, and the dose may be excessive,&quot; Frush said.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The ACR launched a similar registry about a year ago, according to spokesman Shawn Farley. The database is intended as a guide so a radiologist can quickly see how levels of radiation delivered in other practices and hospitals compare to what he or she is delivering.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Now that the FDA has come out in favor of doing that, we&apos;re hoping that will put a little more weight behind the process and make more facilities want to take part in this,&quot; Farley told &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;


 &lt;p&gt;Schoepf noted that European governments already require a permanent record of radiation exposure for each patient.&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;As a result, manufacturers of radiation equipment, most of whom sell their products in Europe, already have that capability, he said. So it shouldn&apos;t be difficult to implement the same standard in the U.S.&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;p&gt;&quot;Radiation exposure should be no secret,&quot; Schoepf said.&lt;/p&gt;


&lt;p&gt;The FDA will hold a public meeting March 30 and 31 to hear comments on what types of safety requirements to establish for manufacturers of CT and fluoroscopic devices. Requirements might include: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;That the radiation device display, record, and report equipment settings and radiation dose&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Alerting users when the dose exceeds the optimal dose for most patients&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Increased training for users&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Ability to capture and transmit radiation dose information to a patient&apos;s electronic medical record in addition to national dose registries &lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;This article was developed in collaboration with ABC News. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/upload/2009/10/1/14357_1.jpg&quot; mce_src=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/upload/2009/10/1/14357_1.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_329"
                     title="Nixing Routine ICU Sedation Improves Outcomes (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.007"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/CriticalCare/Intensivists/tb/18199?impressionId=1265776570322"
                     
      A protocol of no sedation in the ICU may get patients off the ventilator and back home sooner, Danish researchers found.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Unsedated patients spent 4.2 fewer days on mechanical ventilators than those treated under a more conventional protocol for daily interruption of sedation (mean 13.8 versus 9.6 days without ventilation, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.0191) in a randomized trial led by Thomas Str&amp;#248;m, MD, of Odense University Hospital.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Length of stay in the ICU and in the hospital were significantly shorter as well, the researchers reported in the Feb. 6 issue of &lt;em&gt;The Lancet&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The strategy appeared safe, with no increase in accidental extubation or other complications, Str&amp;#248;m&apos;s group said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although simpler than daily interruption of sedation, a no-sedation protocol could mean extra work for ICU staff, according to an accompanying editorial.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Laurent Brochard, MD, of the Centre Hospitalier Albert Chenevier&amp;#8211;Henri Mondor in Cr&amp;#233;teil, France, wrote that the protocol would call for &quot;more frequent individual assessment of the patient&apos;s pain, fear, anxiety, agitation, or confusion, and adaption to the ventilator.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It would also likely impose an increased workload in reassurance and patient mobilization, he said. Still, he called the results &quot;impressive and promising.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Sedation is often overused in the ICU, particularly since drugs can accumulate in critically ill patients, Brochard asserted, and daily interruption of sedation was a major breakthrough in patient care because it was shown to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/ATS/5713&quot; mce_href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/ATS/5713&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;reduce duration of ventilation&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Other benefits of the current study included reductions in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/SCCM/8240&quot; mce_href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/SCCM/8240&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;post-traumatic stress disorder&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/EmergencyMedicine/EmergencyMedicine/7931&quot; mce_href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/EmergencyMedicine/EmergencyMedicine/7931&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;complications&lt;/a&gt; such as ventilator-associated pneumonia, Str&amp;#248;m and colleagues added.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an effort to further reduce the negative effects of ICU sedation, their hospital adopted a routine protocol of no sedation for intubated medical and surgical ICU patients receiving mechanical ventilation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Given the lack of randomized data on the benefits of this strategy, the researchers randomized 140 critically ill adults expected to need more than 24 hours of ventilation to unblinded treatment without sedation or with an infusion of propofol (Diprivan) for 48 hours, then an infusion of midazolam (Versed) as needed for sedation with daily interruption until awake.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Both groups got bolus doses of morphine (2.5 or 5 mg) as needed and daily mobilization to a chair if possible.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Along with the reduction in ventilated days, the researchers found that patients on the no-sedation protocol left the ICU 9.7 days sooner on average and were discharged from the hospital 24 days earlier than those routinely sedated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;After adjustment for baseline variables, sedation remained significantly associated with increased ICU stay (HR 1.86, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.23).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The effect on hospital stay duration, though, was limited to the first 30 days (HR 3.57 for sedation, 95% CI 1.52 to 9.09).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For days 31 to 90, sedation protocol had no impact (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.54), likely because other factors, such as comorbidities, were more important when patients couldn&apos;t be weaned from ventilation, the researchers said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Complications were similar between no-sedation and sedation protocol groups as follows: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;Accidental removal of endotracheal tube (seven versus six cases, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.69)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Need for CT or MRI brain scans (five versus eight cases, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.43)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Ventilator-associated pneumonia (six versus seven cases, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.85)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Need for reintubation within 24 hours (seven versus 11 cases, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.37)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mortality in the ICU tended to be higher with sedation (38% versus 22%, P=0.06), but there was no significant difference in overall inhospital mortality between the groups (47% with sedation versus 36% without, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.27).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Overall, 18% of patients in the no-sedation group couldn&apos;t tolerate it and had to receive continuous sedation on more than two occasions, typically to permit sufficient oxygenation in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The one negative impact of the no-sedation strategy appeared to be an increase in agitated delirium (20% versus 7%, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.04) resulting in more frequent use of haloperidol (Haldol, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.0100).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Morphine, which does have a sedative effect, was used at a low level in both groups without a significant difference.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But it&apos;s likely that delirium went undetected in some sedation group patients, given the difficulty of assessing the condition even when patients are awakened routinely, Str&amp;#248;m&apos;s group said. Assessing confusion rather than hyperactive delirium might be a better strategy, they suggested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They said they plan to follow patients at one year to assess long-term psychological effects.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers and editorialist agreed that further confirmation of these results are needed in multicenter research to determine whether the strategy is generalizable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was funded by the Danish Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, the Fund of Danielsen, the Fund of Kirsten Jensa la Cour, and the Fund of Holger og Ruth Hess.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The researchers reported no conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Brochard reported that his research laboratory has received research grants from several ventilator companies (Maquet, Dr&amp;#228;ger, Philips Respironics, General Electric) but no personal relationship to disclose for the use of sedation in intensive care.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_301"
                     title="Tight Glucose Control Fails in Septic Shock (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.005"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/CriticalCare/Sepsis/tb/18160?impressionId=1265776570322"
                     
      Septic shock patients treated with a corticosteroid get no survival advantage from tight glucose control or addition of a second corticosteroid to provide more mineralocorticoid activity, according to results of a randomized trial.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Aiming for normoglycemia at 80 to 110 mg/dL rather than the standard 150 mg/dL had no impact on inhospital mortality rates (45.9% versus 42.9%, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.50), Djillali Annane, MD, of H&amp;#244;pital Raymond Poincar&amp;#233; in Garches, France, and colleagues found.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Inhospital mortality was likewise similar whether patients got hydrocortisone (Solu-Cortef) alone or with the addition of fludrocortisone ([Florinef] 42.9% versus 45.8%, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.50), they reported in the Jan. 27 issue of the &lt;em&gt;Journal of the American Medical Association&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This aggressive treatment strategy should not be routine, the researchers recommended.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;These findings largely match the general lack of benefit seen with tight glycemic control in recent studies with ICU patients overall.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The prematurely terminated &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/SCCM/5096&quot; mce_href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/SCCM/5096&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;European Glucontrol Trial&lt;/a&gt; found no mortality benefit but a seven-fold higher risk of hypoglycemia with an 80 to 110 mg/dL target in the ICU.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/CriticalCare/Intensivists/13397&quot; mce_href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/CriticalCare/Intensivists/13397&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;NICE-SUGAR&lt;/a&gt; study, 90-day mortality was actually higher in the tight glucose control group (27.9% versus 24.9%, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.02), although there was a trend for benefit in patients who got corticosteroids (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.06).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Glucose targets are being re-evaluated across medicine as the &quot;lower is better&quot; paradigm has had a safety asterisk added everywhere from diabetes care to the ICU, noted Richard Bergenstal, MD, American Diabetes Association president for medicine and science.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;All of a sudden it&apos;s becoming more than a single number,&quot; he told &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today&lt;/em&gt;. &quot;Now be it inpatient or outpatient, we&apos;re realizing that ... you have to do it while you&apos;re minimizing hypoglycemia.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A more nuanced and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/Diabetes/13818&quot; mce_href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/Diabetes/13818&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;individualized&lt;/a&gt; strategy is prudent, Bergenstal agreed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The current clinical uncertainty underscores the need for large-scale international cooperation to get adequately powered trials, according to an accompanying editorial.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In it, Greet Van den Berghe, MD, PhD, of the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium, cautioned that Annane&apos;s Corticosteroids and Intensive Insulin Therapy for Septic Shock (COIITSS) study was grossly underpowered.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The initial studies that led to rapid adoption of intensive insulin therapy in ICUs around the world had suggested an absolute reduction in mortality of only 3%, whereas the COIITSS study projected a 12.5% absolute benefit.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;More importantly, the study achieved mean glucose levels of only between 120 and 130 mg/dL in the intervention group for whom the aim was 80 to 110 mg/dL, which resulted in considerable overlap with the standard care group for whom mean levels were about 145 mg/dL.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This could account for the lack of difference in outcome, Van den Berghe said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But the intensive insulin group did have &quot;markedly&quot; lower blood glucose levels for the duration of their ICU stay and spent more time in the 80 to 110 mg/dL range compared with the standard care group (both &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.00001), the researchers noted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Because corticosteroids further aggravate the &quot;diabetes of injury&quot; seen with septic shock, Annane&apos;s group undertook a multicenter trial of 509 adults treated for septic shock with multiple organ dysfunction over a three year period at 11 ICUs in France.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Patients were randomly assigned to tight glucose control using continuous intravenous insulin infusion to target a glucose level of 80 to 110 mg/dL or conventional insulin therapy targeted to guidelines-recommended 150 mg/dL or under. They were additionally randomized to receive hydrocortisone alone (50-mg bolus every six hours) or in combination with fludrocortisone (50-&amp;#956;g tablets once daily) for seven days.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Aside from the lack of inhospital mortality advantage, tight glucose control also failed to produce a benefit for the following secondary endpoints: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;Overall survival (hazard ratio 1.04, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.78) &lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt; ICU length of stay for survivors (median 10 versus nine days, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.68)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Duration of hospital stay overall (24 versus 22 days, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.87)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Median vasopressor-free days (four for both, P=0.58)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Median mechanical ventilation-free days (10 versus 13, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.51)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Nor was there evidence for interaction with fludrocortisone in the primary endpoint (relative risk 0.89 versus 0.91 hydrocortisone alone, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.31) or benefit in any other endpoint.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The one effect of intensive insulin appeared to be an increase in episodes of severe hypoglycemia, defined by glucose falling below 40 mg/dL (mean 0.29 versus 0.14 episodes per patient, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.003).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, having hypoglycemia did not increase the risk of death in intervention group patients compared with controls (45.2% versus 50%).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers cautioned that the study did not rule out a benefit from some degree of glucose control compared with none.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They also noted that healthcare providers were not blinded to administration of fludrocortisone, for which no placebo was available.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was funded by the Assistance Publique&amp;#8211;H&amp;#244;pitaux de Paris. The researchers reported no conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Van den Berghe, through the Catholic University of Leuven, reported receiving structural research financing from the Methusalem program, funded by the Flemish government.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Bergenstal reported receiving research funding and serving on advisory boards for various pharmaceutical companies related to novel diabetes drugs but without any personal financial compensation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_318"
                     title="Preop CT May Reduce Unnecessary Appendectomy (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.003"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Surgery/GeneralSurgery/tb/18185?impressionId=1265776570322"
                     
      Using computed tomography (CT) to diagnose appendicitis may reduce the likelihood of removing healthy organs in women under 45, but not among other groups, a retrospective study showed.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Over a 10-year period, the use of preoperative CT increased from 18.5% of patients who ultimately had their appendices removed to 94.2% (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.00001), according to Courtney Coursey, MD, of Duke University Medical Centeri, and colleagues.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;During the same time period, the rate of negative appendectomy (removal of a healthy organ) declined, although the trend was significant only among women 45 and younger (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.0001), the researchers reported in the February issue of &lt;em&gt;Radiology&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;We believe our study . . . supports the use of preoperative CT, particularly in the evaluation of women of reproductive age suspected of having acute appendicitis,&quot; they wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They acknowledged the radiation risk and potential overuse of CT scans, but concluded, &quot;We believe that the risk of unnecessary surgery justifies the use of CT in patients in whom the clinical diagnosis of appendicitis is uncertain.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Previous studies looking at the link between the use of preoperative CT and the negative appendectomy rate have yielded mixed results.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So Coursey and her colleagues looked at the relationship using data from 1998 to 2007 for 925 adult patients who underwent an appendectomy at Duke. Two-thirds had a preoperative CT no more than 48 hours before surgery.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although the overall negative appendectomy fell by nearly half during the study (16.7% to 8.7%, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.0001), it was driven almost entirely by a reduction among women 45 and younger (42.9% to 7.1%, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.0001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;However, the timing of the decline in negative appendectomy rates for women 45 years and younger could not be proved to be associated with the increase in CT use,&quot; the researchers noted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There were no significant trends in older women or in men of any age.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The lack of a decline in the negative appendectomy rates for men and women older than 45 years may be a consequence of the initially low rates resulting in low power,&quot; the authors wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;During the study, false-negative CT scans ranged from 0% to 20%, with lower rates in the later years of the study.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;False-positive scans fluctuated between 1.7% to 10%. A drop in rates of false-positive scans was associated with advances in CT technology.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers noted some limitations of the study, including the retrospective design and the failure to evaluate the effect of CT detector configuration on diagnostic performance.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, they wrote, the measure of CT use to diagnose appendicitis was biased because the analysis excluded cases in which CT had ruled out appendicitis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;One of Coursey&apos;s co-authors is a consultant to GE Healthcare.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
</recommendedContent>