14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Nebulized heparin and salbutamol versus salbutamol alone in acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease requiring mechanical ventilation: a double-blind randomized controlled trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Nebulized heparin has been effectively used in the management of many pulmonary diseases. However, its effect on mechanically ventilated patients with acute exacerbation chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) has never been studied. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of nebulized heparin and salbutamol to increase ventilator-free days (VFD) in mechanically ventilated AECOPD patients and the effect of nebulized heparin on respiratory and coagulation functions.

          Methods

          In this double-blind controlled study, 60 mechanically ventilated adult patients with AECOPD were randomly allocated into two groups; heparin and salbutamol (HS) group and salbutamol only (S) group. In the Group HS, patients received nebulized heparin (25,000 IU) and salbutamol (5 mg) every 6 hours. Patients in the Group S received nebulized salbutamol only (5 mg). The treatment was continued while patients remained ventilated for a maximum of 14 days. The primary outcome was VFDs at day 14. PaCO 2, PaO 2/FiO 2 ratio, number of nebulizations withheld, C-reactive protein (CRP) titer and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) were secondary outcomes.

          Results

          Patients in the Group HS had significantly more VFDs (4.7 ± 3.3) compared with those in the Group S (2.4 ± 2.6), P = 0.007. PaCO 2 levels, PaO 2/FiO 2, the decrease in the CRP level and the increase in the APTT from the baseline showed no evidence of difference in both groups.

          Conclusions

          The co-administration of nebulized heparin and salbutamol, compared with salbutamol alone, significantly increased (VFDs) among mechanically ventilated AECOPD patients without increasing bleeding risks.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Reappraisal of Ventilator-Free Days in Critical Care Research

          Ventilator-free days (VFDs) are a commonly reported composite outcome measure in acute respiratory distress syndrome trials. VFDs combine survival and duration of ventilation in a manner that summarizes the “net effect” of an intervention on these two outcomes. However, this combining of outcome measures makes VFDs difficult to understand and analyze, which contributes to imprecise interpretations. We discuss the strengths and limitations of VFDs and other “failure-free day” composites, and we provide a framework for when and how to use these outcome measures. We also provide a comprehensive discussion of the different analytic methods for analyzing and interpreting VFDs, including Student’s t tests and rank-sum tests, as well as competing risk regressions treating extubation as the primary outcome and death as the competing risk. Using simulations, we illustrate how the statistical test with optimal power depends on the relative contributions of mortality and ventilator duration on the composite effect size. Finally, we recommend a simple analysis and reporting framework using the competing risk approach, which provides clear information on the effect size of an intervention, a statistical test and measure of confidence with the ability to adjust for baseline factors and allow interim monitoring for trials. We emphasize that any approach to analyzing a composite outcome, including other “failure-free day” constructs, should also be accompanied by an examination of the components.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Heparin and Its Derivatives: A Systematic Review

            Background. Heparin, used clinically as an anticoagulant, also has anti-inflammatory properties. The purpose of this systematic review was to provide a comprehensive review regarding the efficacy and safety of heparin and its derivatives as anti-inflammatory agents. Methods. We searched the following databases up to March 2012: Pub Med, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid, Elsevier, and Google Scholar using combination of Mesh terms. Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) and trials with quasi-experimental design in clinical setting published in English were included. Quality assessments of RCTs were performed using Jadad score and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist. Results. A total of 280 relevant studies were reviewed and 57 studies met the inclusion criteria. Among them 48 studies were RCTs. About 65% of articles had score of 3 and higher according to Jadad score. Twelve studies had a quality score > 40% according to CONSORT items. Asthma (n = 7), inflammatory bowel disease (n = 5), cardiopulmonary bypass (n = 8), and cataract surgery (n = 6) were the most studied disease condition. Forty studies use unfractionated heparin (UFH) for intervention; the remaining studies use low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). Conclusion. Despite the conflicting results, heparin seems to be a safe and effective anti-inflammatory agent; although it is shown that heparin can decrease the level of inflammatory biomarkers and improves patient conditions, still more data from larger rigorously designed studies are needed to support use of heparin as an anti-inflammatory agent in clinical setting. However, because of the association between inflammation, atherogenesis, thrombogenesis, and cell proliferation, heparin and related compounds with pleiotropic effects may have greater therapeutic efficacy than compounds acting against a single target.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Therapeutic use of heparin beyond anticoagulation.

              Heparin has been used as an anticoagulant for decades. Recently, attention has been drawn to the non-anticoagulant activities of heparin. Experimentally and clinically those non-anticoagulant properties of heparin inhibit inflammation and metastatic spread of tumor cells. On the molecular level, heparin inhibits the function, expression and/or synthesis of adhesion molecules, cytokines, angiogenic factors and complement. However, despite a similar anticoagulant activity, those non-anticoagulant effects of heparin differ greatly among the different heparin preparations. The same holds true for the most common adverse events of heparin treatment. The incidence of immune mediated heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and cutaneous hypersensitivity responses is greatly, but not exclusively, influenced by the heparin preparation used. As the structure-function relationship of the anti-inflammatory and anti-metastatic effects of heparins are understood in more detail, and as the risk profile of different heparin preparations regarding the induction of adverse events have been identified, we propose to use the different heparin preparations according to the individual needs of each patient.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Korean J Anesthesiol
                Korean J Anesthesiol
                KJA
                Korean Journal of Anesthesiology
                Korean Society of Anesthesiologists
                2005-6419
                2005-7563
                December 2020
                28 February 2020
                : 73
                : 6
                : 509-517
                Affiliations
                Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Faculty of Medicine, Ain-Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Ibrahim Mamdouh Esmat, M.D. Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Faculty of Medicine, Ain-Shams University, 29-Ahmed Fuad St., Saint Fatima Square, Heliopolis, Cairo, Egypt Tel: +20-01001241928, Fax: +202-24346753, Email: Ibrahim_mamdouh@ 123456med.asu.edu.eg
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0289-8101
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4072-7920
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3456-0471
                Article
                kja-19418
                10.4097/kja.19418
                7714627
                32106642
                b0dfcbb1-1325-4da9-8d3c-a81c24b14382
                Copyright © The Korean Society of Anesthesiologists, 2020

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 24 October 2019
                : 26 February 2020
                : 26 February 2020
                Categories
                Clinical Research Article

                Anesthesiology & Pain management
                albuterol,artificial respiration,asthma chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap syndrome,c-reactive protein; heparin,nebulizers

                Comments

                Comment on this article