Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Evidence basedcritcare06


Published on


Published in: Health & Medicine, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Evidence basedcritcare06

  1. 1. Evidence-based critical care – Update 2006 Joel Peerless MD 3 January 2006
  2. 2. Intensivist shortage <ul><li>Experts predict that as the US population ages, the shortage of intensivists will become increasingly acute </li></ul><ul><li>By 2020, the supply of intensivists will meet only 22% of the demand for their services </li></ul>
  3. 3. The old way… <ul><li>Intern/junior resident (Dr. X) was taught </li></ul><ul><li>a concept by his/her: </li></ul><ul><li>Senior resident </li></ul><ul><li>Chief resident </li></ul><ul><li>Fellow </li></ul><ul><li>Attending </li></ul><ul><li>Dr. X practiced what he was taught… </li></ul>
  4. 4. The old way… <ul><li>Dr. X went on to become: </li></ul><ul><li>A senior resident </li></ul><ul><li>A chief resident </li></ul><ul><li>A fellow </li></ul><ul><li>An attending </li></ul><ul><li>And taught the same concept to his/her junior resident, and so on and so on…. </li></ul>
  5. 5. The old way…”Why do you do it that way??” <ul><li>“Well, I learned this from Dr. X” </li></ul><ul><li>“We’ve always done it this way” </li></ul><ul><li>“We have good outcomes” </li></ul><ul><li>“I have an article to prove it” (more on this later…) </li></ul>
  6. 6. The old way… dopamine <ul><li>Dopamine in low doses activates dopamine receptors in the kidney </li></ul><ul><li>Renal blood flow is increased </li></ul><ul><li>Urine output is increased (sometimes) </li></ul><ul><li>The assumption, and teaching, became… </li></ul>
  7. 7. The old way… dopamine <ul><li>Dopamine is indicated for: </li></ul><ul><li>Preventing renal failure </li></ul><ul><li>Treating renal failure </li></ul><ul><li>Reversing renal vasoconstriction when vasopressors are used </li></ul><ul><li>Preventing renal failure during aortic and renal cross-clamping </li></ul><ul><li>Dopamine flowed like water (often better than urine) in ICUs worldwide </li></ul>
  8. 8. Evidence-based critical care <ul><li>THERE NOW EXISTS A MORE “SCIENTIFIC” METHOD TO PROVIDE CARE… </li></ul>
  9. 9. The new way… <ul><li>Try to adapt practice based on the quality of clinical studies that support the test or intervention – “Evidence-based” </li></ul><ul><li>A careful evaluation of existing studies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Type of trial </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Number of centers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Number of patients </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Quality of the study </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Evidence-based concepts <ul><li>The best study is: </li></ul><ul><li>Prospective </li></ul><ul><li>Randomized </li></ul><ul><li>Double Blinded – not always possible </li></ul><ul><li>Multicenter </li></ul><ul><li>Meta-analyses evaluate a number of similar studies </li></ul>
  11. 11. Evidence-based concepts <ul><li>Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for the Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock </li></ul><ul><li>11 critical care societies - international </li></ul><ul><li>Initial document: CCM March, 2004 </li></ul><ul><li>Evidence-based review: CCM supplement November, 2004 </li></ul>
  12. 12. Grading system <ul><li>Grade A: At least 2 large, randomized trials with clearcut results </li></ul><ul><li>Grade B: At least 1 large, randomized trial with clearcut results </li></ul><ul><li>Grade C: Small, randomized trials, uncertain results </li></ul>
  13. 13. Grading system <ul><li>Grade D: Nonrandomized, contemporaneous controls </li></ul><ul><li>Grade E: Nonrandomized, historical controls; case series; uncontrolled studies; expert opinion </li></ul>
  14. 14. Evidence-based critical care <ul><li>VENTILATOR MANAGEMENT OF ARDS </li></ul><ul><li>Vt settings </li></ul><ul><li>Level of PEEP </li></ul><ul><li>Use of steroids in “late” ARDS </li></ul>
  15. 15. Low tidal volume strategy <ul><li>Barotrauma </li></ul><ul><ul><li>High pressure generated with flow of air into lungs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Volume trauma (volutrauma) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Overdistention of alveoli can lead to further lung damage </li></ul></ul>
  16. 16. Low tidal volume strategy <ul><li>Classic practice: Vt 10-15 cc/kg </li></ul><ul><li>Hypothesis: lower Vt is protective of alveolar damage and outcome in ARDS </li></ul><ul><li>ARDS-net trial, NEJM, 2000 </li></ul><ul><li>Comparison of 6 ml/kg vs 12 ml/kg </li></ul><ul><li>861/1000 patients </li></ul><ul><li>Mortality 31% vs 39.8% </li></ul><ul><li>Reduction in mortality of 22% </li></ul>
  17. 17. Low tidal volume strategy <ul><li>When ARDS diagnosed, adjust Vt for ideal body weight </li></ul><ul><ul><li>60 kg x .6 cc/kg = 360 cc </li></ul></ul><ul><li>pCO 2 will likely increase – permissive hypercapnea </li></ul><ul><li>GRADE B </li></ul>
  18. 18. PEEP levels in ARDS <ul><li>ARDS-net, NEJM, 2004 </li></ul><ul><li>Comparison of low and high PEEP in ARDS </li></ul><ul><li>549 patients </li></ul><ul><li>Low versus high PEEP algorithm </li></ul><ul><li>All patients had low Vt </li></ul><ul><li>No difference in ventilator free days or mortality </li></ul>
  19. 19. Steroids for “late” ARDS <ul><li>Fibroproliferation can occur after 5-7 days of ARDS </li></ul><ul><li>This inflammatory process may present with worsening oxygenation, fever and leukocytosis (infection may present with same signs) </li></ul><ul><li>Case series of steroids to minimize the late inflammatory fibroproliferation </li></ul>
  20. 20. Steroids for “late” ARDS <ul><li>ARDS-net randomized placebo-controlled trial </li></ul><ul><li>Goal 200 patients over 6-8 years </li></ul><ul><li>No value in use of steroids in “late” ARDS </li></ul>
  21. 21. Other ARDS modalities <ul><li>We no longer consider: </li></ul><ul><li>Prone position </li></ul><ul><li>Inhaled nitric oxide </li></ul><ul><li>Surfactant </li></ul><ul><li>Liquid ventilation </li></ul>
  22. 22. Evidence-based critical care <ul><li>Glucose control in critically ill patients </li></ul>
  23. 23. Intensive insulin therapy <ul><li>NEJM, 2001, single center study </li></ul><ul><li>1,548 surgical patients </li></ul><ul><li>Randomized to tight vs non tight control </li></ul><ul><li>80-120 mg/dl vs 150 mg/dl </li></ul><ul><li>ICU mortality 4.6% vs 8.0% </li></ul><ul><li>43% risk reduction </li></ul>
  24. 24. Intensive insulin therapy <ul><li>50% decrease in BSI, ARF requiring RRT, critical illness polyneuropathy and transfusion requirement </li></ul><ul><li>Shorter duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU care </li></ul><ul><li>Less multiple organ failure </li></ul>
  25. 25. Intensive insulin therapy <ul><li>Mayo Clin Proc, 2004 </li></ul><ul><li>800 critically ill medical-surgical patients in a community ICU </li></ul><ul><li>Hospital mortality decreased </li></ul><ul><li>Decreased ICU LOS, ARF, transfusion requirement </li></ul><ul><li>Most benefit in septic patients </li></ul>
  26. 26. Intensive insulin therapy <ul><li>GRADE D based on original study, (randomized but single center, mainly surgical patients), likely upgrade to C </li></ul><ul><li>German study (600 patients) – negative </li></ul><ul><li>Two large scale randomized trials underway </li></ul><ul><ul><li>European study – 3500 medical/surgical patients </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Australia/NZ – 4500 medical/surgical patients </li></ul></ul>
  27. 27. Evidence-based critical care <ul><li>Activated protein-C in sepsis (Xigris) </li></ul>
  28. 30. RH Activated Protein C <ul><li>Prowess Study </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Recombinant human activated pro tein C w orldwide e valuation in s evere s epsis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Randomized, double blinded, placebo controlled </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>96 hour infusion of activated protein C (APC) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Endpoint: death at 28 days </li></ul></ul>
  29. 31. RH Activated Protein C <ul><li>Prowess study </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1690 patients (840 placebo; 850 APC) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mortality 30% vs 24.7%, p=0.005 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>6.1% reduction of death </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Serious bleeding 2% vs 3.5%, p=0.06 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Similar number of blood transfusions </li></ul></ul>
  30. 32. RH Activated Protein C <ul><li>Prowess study </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The difference in outcome was greatest in patients with an APACHE score >25 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Address study </li></ul><ul><ul><li>PRCT of RHAPC in patients with APACHE <25 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No improvement in outcome </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>May be worse outcome in SURGICAL patients with single organ dysfunction </li></ul></ul>
  31. 33. RH Activated Protein C <ul><li>Contraindications </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Internal bleeding, hemorrhagic CVA, CHI, neurosurgical procedures, surgery within 12 hours </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Many patients with abdominal sepsis require repeat explorations </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The drug is expensive ($100/kg) </li></ul>
  32. 34. RH Activated Protein C <ul><li>GRADE B for patients with severe sepsis, multiple organ dysfunction, with APACHE >25 </li></ul><ul><li>“Dear doctor” letter from Eli Lilly re: surgical patients with single organ dysfunction </li></ul>
  33. 35. Evidence-based critical care <ul><li>CORTICOSTEROIDS AND SEPTIC SHOCK </li></ul>
  34. 36. Corticosteroids and sepsis <ul><li>Old teaching: don’t give septic patients high dose steroids </li></ul><ul><li>New thought: patients with septic shock who are unresponsive to pressor agents may have adrenal insufficiency </li></ul>
  35. 37. Corticosteroids and sepsis <ul><li>Incidence of adrenal insufficiency </li></ul><ul><ul><li>30-50% in critically ill patients </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>50-60% in patients with septic shock </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Clinical presentation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>resistant hypotension </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>hyponatremia, hyperkalemia </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Low or “normal” serum cortisol level </li></ul>
  36. 38. Corticosteroids and sepsis <ul><li>JAMA, 2002; multicenter, RCT, 300 patients </li></ul><ul><li>Septic shock, vasopressor therapy </li></ul><ul><li>A baseline cortisol level of <25 mcg/dl </li></ul><ul><li>Corticotropin stimulation test (cortrosyn) </li></ul><ul><li>An increase in serum cortisol of 9 mcg/dl after corticotropin – “responders” </li></ul><ul><li>Unable to increase serum cortisol 9 mcg/dl – “nonresponders” </li></ul>
  37. 39. Corticosteroids and sepsis <ul><li>Nonresponders randomized to placebo vs hydrocortisone 50 mg IV every 6 hours + fludrocortisone </li></ul><ul><li>Mortality improved in patients with adrenal insufficiency </li></ul><ul><li>Faster time to vasopressor withdrawal </li></ul><ul><li>No difference in patients with adequate corticotropin response </li></ul>
  38. 40. Corticosteroids and sepsis <ul><li>Should low doses of corticosteroids be used in the treatment of septic shock? </li></ul><ul><li>GRADE C </li></ul><ul><li>SSC guidelines suggest steroids in pressor-dependent patients with low serum cortisol (don’t even bother with the cortrosyn stimulation) </li></ul>
  39. 41. Evidence-based critical care <ul><li>PULMONARY ARTERY CATHETER USE IN THE ICU </li></ul>
  40. 42. PA catheter use in the ICU <ul><li>Old practice: any unstable patient who didn’t respond to fluids or who had possible cardiac dysfunction; “we didn’t know where we were…” </li></ul><ul><li>Preoperative “optimization” of high risk patients </li></ul><ul><li>Old practices questioned: Connors, et al, JAMA, 1996 </li></ul><ul><li>Editorial: “abandon PACs until PRCT” </li></ul>
  41. 43. PA catheter use in the ICU <ul><li>JAMA, 2005 </li></ul><ul><li>Meta-analysis, 13 RCTs, 5051 patients </li></ul><ul><li>Use of PA catheter neither increased overall mortality or hospital days, nor conferred benefit </li></ul><ul><li>Use of the PA catheter was associated with a higher use of inotropes and vasodilators </li></ul>
  42. 44. PA catheter use in the ICU <ul><li>RCT in progress </li></ul><ul><li>ARDS-net, 1000 patient goal </li></ul><ul><li>FACTT Study: PRMCT of PAC vs CVP for management of ALI and ARDS </li></ul><ul><li>and </li></ul><ul><li>PRMCT of “fluid conservative” vs “fluid liberal” management of ALI and ARDS </li></ul>
  43. 45. Evidence-based critical care <ul><li>EARLY GOAL-DIRECTED THERAPY IN SEPSIS </li></ul>
  44. 46. Early goal-directed therapy <ul><li>“Standard” goals for sepsis (resuscitation) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>MAP > 65 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CVP 8-12 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Urine output >0.5 cc/hr </li></ul></ul>
  45. 47. Early goal-directed therapy <ul><li>DO 2 = Hgb (SaO 2 ) x 1.34 x CI x 10 </li></ul><ul><li>“ Supranormal” goals for PAC (1980s) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>CI > 4.5 L/min/m 2 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>DO 2 I > 600 ml O 2 /min/m 2 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>VO 2 I > 170 ml 0 2 /min/m 2 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Fluids, blood, inotropes, pressors… </li></ul><ul><li>We could measure our progress with a calculator!! </li></ul>
  46. 48. Early goal-directed therapy <ul><li>Supranormal goals disproven in established sepsis (NEJM x2) </li></ul><ul><li>Will this theory work if we get to the patient earlier? </li></ul>
  47. 49. Early goal-directed therapy <ul><li>NEJM, 2001, Henry Ford Hospital </li></ul><ul><li>263 ED patients </li></ul><ul><li>Control group: MAP, CVP, UO </li></ul><ul><li>Protocol group: MAP, CVP, UO, SCVO 2 >70 </li></ul><ul><li>Mortality 46.5 vs 30.5%, p=.009 </li></ul>
  48. 50. Early goal-directed therapy <ul><li>There IS value to optimizing cardiac output, oxygen delivery and SVO 2 if you intervene early enough </li></ul><ul><li>(Is it really the SVO 2 that makes the difference, or is it resuscitation??) </li></ul>
  49. 51. Evidence-based critical care <ul><li>ANTIBIOTICS and INFECTION CONTROL </li></ul><ul><li>WHO NEEDS TREATMENT AND FOR HOW LONG </li></ul><ul><li>VENTILATOR ASSOCIATED PNEUMONIA </li></ul><ul><li>CATHETER-RELATED BACTERIAL STREAM INFECTION </li></ul><ul><li>C-DIFFICILE COLITIS </li></ul>
  50. 52. Who needs antibiotics? <ul><li>Systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) </li></ul><ul><li>Fever means inflammation , not necessarily infection </li></ul><ul><li>Emergence of multiresistant bacteria </li></ul><ul><li>Treating fever alone or fever + WBC without a source of infection is usually not in the best interest of the patient </li></ul>
  51. 53. Duration of antibiotic coverage <ul><li>Minimal data over duration of antibiotic usage for most infections </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Bacteremia – 2 weeks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Endocarditis – 6 weeks </li></ul></ul><ul><li>What about “double coverage” for pneumonia </li></ul><ul><ul><li>SPACE bugs: S erratia, P seudomonas, A cinetobacter, C itrobacter, E nterobacter </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>VAP coverage was always 2 weeks </li></ul></ul>
  52. 54. SICU antibiotic usage <ul><li>Perioperative coverage – single dose or 24 hours of coverage </li></ul><ul><li>UTI – 5 days </li></ul><ul><li>Sinusitis – 5-7 days </li></ul><ul><li>Bacteremia – 10 days </li></ul>
  53. 55. Evidence-based critical care <ul><li>VENTILATOR-ASSOCIATED PNEUMONIA </li></ul><ul><li>DIAGNOSIS </li></ul><ul><li>TREATMENT </li></ul><ul><li>PREVENTION </li></ul>
  54. 56. Ventilator-associated pneumonia - diagnosis <ul><li>Classic teaching: Fever, WBC, purulent sputum, + culture, infiltrate </li></ul><ul><li>75% of intubated patients are colonized with GNB after 3 days in the ICU </li></ul><ul><li>You could have bronchitis or sinusitis + atelectasis, or pulmonary edema </li></ul><ul><li>Endotracheal aspirate vs BAL </li></ul><ul><ul><li>BAL samples give quantitative cultures </li></ul></ul>
  55. 57. Ventilator-associated pneumonia - diagnosis <ul><li>Fever/WBC, + culture without purulent sputum or CXR – NO ANTIBIOTICS </li></ul><ul><li>Fever/WBC, purulent sputum or changing CXR, + sputum culture -> empiric therapy </li></ul><ul><li>Fever/WBC, purulent sputum or changing CXR, + sputum culture -> BAL + empiric therapy </li></ul>
  56. 58. Ventilator-associated pneumonia treatment <ul><li>JAMA, 2003 </li></ul><ul><li>PRCDBT, 51 French ICUs, 401 patients </li></ul><ul><li>VAP treatment for 8 vs 15 days </li></ul><ul><li>No excess mortality, recurrent infections, ventilator days, ICU LOS with 8 day treatment </li></ul><ul><li>But, recurrence of VAP was higher with PSD </li></ul>
  57. 59. Ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention <ul><li>Subglottic suctioning of secretions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Additional suction port above the ETT cuff </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Some studies suggest decreased VAP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Who will get them, will you risk changing the tube?? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Role of gastric contents </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Gastric residuals: not shown to correlate with VAP (a major cause of poor nutrition) </li></ul></ul>
  58. 60. Ventilator-associated pneumonia <ul><li>What is known </li></ul><ul><ul><li>More likely from mouth contents than from regurgitation of stomach contents </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Head of bed 30 degrees up is the only proven preventive technique!! </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Early effective antibiotic therapy is essential !! </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Start with broad-spectrum coverage, then taper antibiotics based on EA/BAL results </li></ul></ul>
  59. 61. Catheter-related BSI <ul><li>Prevention – what doesn’t work </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Changing lines every three days </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Performing wire changes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Putting antibiotic solutions (goop) on the site </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Antibiotic lock solutions </li></ul></ul>
  60. 62. Catheter-related BSI <ul><li>Prevention – what DOES work </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Subclavian site </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Prep: Chlorhexidine (not povidone) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Barrier precautions: Hat, mask, gown, gloves, FULL body drape </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Antiseptic coated catheters ($$$; beware of hospital administrators) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Management of stopcocks: alcohol prior to injections, keep ports closed </li></ul></ul>
  61. 64. C-difficile colitis <ul><li>Related to indiscriminate antibiotic usage </li></ul><ul><li>May occur with only a single dose of antibiotics (even perioperative coverage) </li></ul><ul><li>May require colectomy </li></ul><ul><li>May be fatal </li></ul><ul><li>A huge topic in the lay press and certainly will be seized on by the legal community </li></ul>
  62. 65. Infection control techniques <ul><li>We all have the power to limit the occurrence of hospital acquired infections </li></ul><ul><li>Hand washing is the most effective method of limiting hospital acquired infections </li></ul>
  63. 66. Infection control techniques <ul><li>Soap and water </li></ul><ul><li>Hand disinfectant solutions : Steris product, Purell </li></ul><ul><li>Remember: C-difficile toxin spores are not killed by hand solutions; use soap and water </li></ul><ul><li>Wear protective gowns and mask when examining c-diff patients </li></ul>
  64. 67. EBM in perspective
  65. 68. EBM in perspective <ul><li>We have very good data (A) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>DVT prophylaxis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Stress ulcer prophylaxis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Spontaneous breathing trials </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Preventive practices for CR-BSI </li></ul></ul>
  66. 69. EBM in perspective <ul><li>We have good data (B), but these studies can likely never be repeated </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Early goal-directed therapy in septic shock </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Activated protein-C for severe sepsis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Low Vt in ARDS </li></ul></ul>
  67. 70. EBM in perspective <ul><li>We have good data (B) that will probably never get better despite further studies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Crystalloids vs colloids, albumin </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bicarbonate in acidosis </li></ul></ul><ul><li>We are able to eliminate unproven or potentially unsafe practices </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NO for ARDS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Prone positioning for ARDS </li></ul></ul>
  68. 71. EBM in perspective <ul><li>We practice with lots of E’s – these probably can’t ethically be studied </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Use of antibiotics early in sepsis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Draining abscesses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Giving fluids for hypovolemia </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Vasopressors in septic shock </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mechanical ventilation in respiratory failure </li></ul></ul>
  69. 72. EBM in perspective – the good <ul><li>We know the quality of the data </li></ul><ul><li>Development of consensus statements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ASA, SCCM, ACCP, EAST </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li> </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Guidelines and protocols </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Keep us current and consistent in our care </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Allows ongoing monitoring of practices </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Educate our trainees </li></ul></ul>
  70. 73. EBM in perspective – the bad <ul><li>Extending data to non-studied or non-proven conditions: </li></ul><ul><li>Low tidal volumes for all : There is no data that patients who do not have ARDS should be ventilated with low tidal volumes </li></ul><ul><li>Daily breaks in sedation : It is not reasonable to break sedation in some patients: ARDS, elevated ICP, etc </li></ul>
  71. 74. EBM in perspective – the bad <ul><li>Blanket referrals to EBM: </li></ul><ul><li>PAC usage in critically ill patients : A PAC may still be useful in managing your patient </li></ul><ul><li>The anti-dopamine conspiracy : Lancet, 2000: 328 patients; 23 ICUs; no effect on renal dysfunction, LOS or mortality </li></ul>
  72. 75. EBM in perspective: the bad <ul><li>There are patients with low urine output or impending renal failure secondary to low cardiac output who may benefit from the use of low dose dopamine </li></ul>
  74. 77. EBM in perspective – keep reading <ul><li>The data may change !! </li></ul><ul><li>JAMA, July 13, 2005 </li></ul><ul><li>Contradicted findings (16%) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hormone therapy and CAD risk </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Vitamin E and CAD risk </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Vit A and breast cancer </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Monoclonal AB to endotoxin (HA1A) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Nitric oxide in ARDS </li></ul></ul>
  75. 78. EBM in perspective – keep reading <ul><li>Studies with initially stronger effects (16%) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Zidovudine in HIV </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Angioplasty vs TPA in AMI </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>TPA in CVA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CEA and risk reduction of CVA or death </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Acetylcysteine preventing contrast nephropathy </li></ul></ul>
  76. 79. EBM in perspective – reading the literature <ul><li>Cautious use of “the literature”, “landmark” articles </li></ul><ul><ul><li>It’s easy to quote the last line of the abstract </li></ul></ul><ul><li>LOOK FOR THE EDITORIAL </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Comments on the quality and limitations of the study </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“This study raises more questions than it answers” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“Large, randomized trials are needed” </li></ul></ul>
  77. 80. Summary <ul><li>We should use EBM consensus statements to keep our knowledge current </li></ul><ul><li>Reaching the highest rankings (grade A) may be limited by ethics, resource restrictions and marketing strategies </li></ul><ul><li>Be watchful for “new” data or negation of previously accepted data </li></ul>
  78. 81. Summary <ul><li>Realize that the public is watching our adherence to practice guidelines </li></ul><ul><li>Accept the fact that external monitoring of evidence-based practices and outcomes will be standard in the future </li></ul><ul><li>Be proactive in maintaining high standards of care </li></ul>