|
LITERATURE
MONITOR: A REVIEW OF RECENTLY
PUBLISHED CLINICAL
ARTICLES
SHOULD YOU ALWAYS
TREAT FEVER IN ICU PATIENTS?
Should fever in ICU patients be treated routinely? No, according to the results of a prospective study from Switzerland.
Gozzoli and colleagues randomized 18 surgical ICU patients with temperatures of 38.5°C or higher to external cooling with blankets, ice packs, and cloths, and 20 similar patients to no antipyretic therapy. Excluded from the study were patients who were receiving parallel antipyretic drug treatment. The primary outcome measure was a reduction in fever in 24 hours.
At 24 hours, the mean temperature fell from 38.9°C to 37.6°C in the treated patients, and from 38.8°C to 37.7°C in the controls. The discomfort level was similar in both groups. After 24 hours, fever recurred in four (22%) and two patients (10%), respectively. Both groups had similar ICU stays (median, six days each), hospital stays (median, 22 vs 23 days, respectively), and mortality rate (two [11%] vs three [15%], respectively).
The authors estimate that
at their institution the annual cost (in US dollars) of antipyretic therapy for
about 18 febrile ICU patients per month would be $10,000 when acetaminophen is
used, $10,500 when cooling is done with blankets, and $29,000 for ice packs. They
note that while treatment of fever may not be worthwhile in all ICU patients,
they do recommend it for patients with temperatures above 40.5°C, especially
in the presence of neurotrauma or other acute neurologic diseases, severe hypoxemia,
malignant hyperthermia, or heat shock.
Gozzoli V, Schöttker P, Suter
PM, Ricou B. Is it worth treating fever in intensive care unit patients? Preliminary
results from a randomized trial of the effect of external cooling. Arch Intern
Med. 2001;161:121-123.
GAUGING QUALITY
OF LIFE IN KIDS WITH OBSTRUCTIVE SLEEP DISORDERS
A six-item questionnaire is a valid, easily administered instrument for comparing health-related quality-of-life changes over time in children with obstructive sleep disorders (OSDs). The instrument (OSD-6) may provide useful information when used before and after surgery, as well as in the absence of any intervention, according to the authors of a prospective, multicenter study.
The investigators recruited
100 caregivers of children with OSDs (age range, 2.1 to 12.9 years) to administer
the instrument to the children in their care. The questionnaire covers six domains,
with scores ranging from 0 (no problem) to 6 (it couldn't be worse); the types
of problems covered in the questionnaire are listed in Table 1. Forty-five caregivers
completed another survey within three weeks of the first to determine test-retest
reliability, and 62 completed another survey after their children had undergone
adenotonsillectomy to evaluate the questionnaire's responsiveness to clinical
change. An additional 12 caregivers whose children did not undergo surgery filled
out another survey more than three weeks after the first.
Test-retest reliability was
good for all domains except activity limitations. Among the 62 children who underwent
adenotonsillectomy, postsurgical OSD scores were found to have decreased substantially
in 55 (88.7%); the mean change among these children was 3.0. Among the other 12
children for whom surveys were filled out more than three weeks later, the mean
change was 0.35.
The authors suggest that a
caregiver who completes the OSD-6 may be more attuned to a child's quality of
life than a physician who has only brief contact with the child.
|
Table 1
QUALITY-OF-LIFE SURVEY
FOR KIDS WITH OBSTRUCTIVE SLEEP DISORDERS
|
| Type of problems covered |
Examples |
| Physical suffering |
Sore or dry throat,
nasal congestion, completely blocked nose, bed-wetting. |
| Sleep disturbance |
Snoring, choking or gasping for air,
restless sleep, difficulty awakening from sleep. |
| Speech or swallowing
problems |
Choking on foods,
difficulty swallowing certain foods, muffled speech, nasal-sounding speech. |
| Emotional distress |
Irritability, sadness, restlessness,
poor appetite, difficulty paying attention. |
| Activity limitations |
Had difficulty in
playing, participating or excelling at sports, or attending school. |
| Caregiver concerns |
Worried or concerned about the child,
inconvenienced by the child's health problems. |
| Adapted from
de Serres et al. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000. |
de Serres LM, Derkay C, Astley
S, et al. Measuring quality of life in children with obstructive sleep disorders.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000;126:1423-1429.
SYMPTOMATIC ASTHMA LINKD TO PERSISTENT T-CELL ACTIVATION
Asthma that remains symptomatic despite regular treatment with inhaled and/or oral corticosteroids is associated with persistent airway T-lymphocyte activation. However, there may not be concomitant eosinophil recruitment and activation in the airways, say the authors of this prospective study.
Redington and associates compared airway inflammatory changes in five patients with severe, chronic, corticosteroid-dependent, symptomatic asthma with similar changes in nine control patients with asthma that was clinically well controlled with inhaled corticosteroids. At the time of the study, the five symptomatic patients were being treated with oral prednisolone and high-dose inhaled corticosteroids.
Compared with the controls, the symptomatic patients had a significantly greater proportion of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid T lymphocytes that were positive for the activation markers CD25 and HLA-DR. Bronchial biopsy specimens in both groups showed similar numbers of mast cells, eosinophils, and T lymphocytes. The number of subepithelial eosinophil cells did not correlate significantly with expression of either of the T-lymphocyte activation markers in the symptomatic patients but correlated significantly with expression of both markers in the controls.
Redington AE, Wilson JW, Walls
AF, et al. Persistent airway T-lymphocyte activation in chronic corticosteroid-treated
symptomatic asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2000;85:501-507.
NOCTURNAL PPV IS OF LIMITED VALUE IN COPD
In patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) provides only limited benefit, according to the authors of a prospective, controlled trial.
Casanova et al compared the effectiveness of standard treatment plus nocturnal NPPV with that of conventional standard treatment alone in 52 patients with stable, severe COPD. The 12-month study was completed by 20 patients randomized to nocturnal nasal ventilation with bi-level positive pressure ventilation and by 24 control subjects who continued on standard treatment.
At three months, the NPPV patients had an insignificantly lower number of hospital admissions and episodes of endotracheal intubation; however, even these small differences were not apparent at six or 12 months. Similarly, no significant changes were observed in arterial blood gas results, forced expiratory volume in one second, forced vital capacity, or lung volumes. Dyspnea improved significantly in the NPPV group by the end of the third month, but by six months the improvement was less apparent.
The authors suggest that NPPV may be of benefit in selected patients who can tolerate higher pressures and who could be closely monitored. However, the small proportion of suitable candidates for such treatment limits its clinical value
Casanova C, Celli BR, Tost
L, et al. Long-term controlled trial of nocturnal nasal positive pressure ventilation
in patients with severe COPD. Chest. 2000;118:1582-1590.
|
|