No abstract

Background The use of sodium polystyrene sulfonate (SPS) for the treatment of hyperkalemia lacks sufficient efficacy data in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD); however, use remains widespread. Recent evidence suggests that this population may be at risk for serious gastrointestinal adverse effects with SPS. Methods. We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study. Adult patients with CKD Stages 4, 5, or ESRD maintained on renal replacement therapy with serum potassium >5 mEq/L and receipt of SPS were screened for inclusion. Our primary outcome was decrease in potassium within 24 h post-30 g oral SPS suspended in 33% sorbitol. Secondary outcomes included decrease in potassium within 24 h from 15 or 30 g SPS doses and gastrointestinal adverse events. Results Of 596 records, 114 were included for analysis. At the first serum potassium level within 24 h post-30 g oral SPS the median potassium decrease was 0.8 mEq/L [interquartile range (IQR) 0.4–1.1; P < 0.001]. At the first potassium level within 24 h post-15 or 30 g SPS, the median potassium decrease was 0.7 mEq/L (IQR 0.4–1.0; P < 0.001]. Post-SPS potassium levels occurred 14–16 h post-SPS. Gastrointestinal side effects occurred within 30 days of SPS in 5% of patients, although only two cases were classified as possibly associated. Conclusions The use of single-dose SPS monotherapy resulted in a significant decrease in serum potassium levels within 24 h in patients with CKD Stage 4, 5, or ESRD. However, it remains unclear if SPS is associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal injury in this population.

The use of systemic antibiotics for skin and soft tissue abscesses after incision and drainage resulted in an increased rate of clinical cure. Providers should consider the use of antibiotics while balancing the risk of adverse events.

Glucagon is frequently used for the relief of esophageal impactions. This systematic review and metaanalysis were performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of glucagon for acute esophageal foreign body and food impactions. PubMed, CINAHL, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to March 1, 2018. Retrospective, observational, and randomized controlled trials assessing glucagon for the relief of acute esophageal foreign body and food impaction were included. There were no language or age restrictions. Only studies conducted on humans and with a comparator (e.g., control or placebo) were included. Study quality analysis was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Quality of evidence analysis was performed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach. A total of 1988 studies were identified, and five studies with a total of 1185 subjects were included. Treatment success occurred in 213 of 706 (30.2%) patients in the glucagon group and 158 of 479 (33.0%) patients in the control group (odds ratio [OR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-1.17, p=0.42). There was minimal statistical heterogeneity (I 2 = 14%, p=0.33). No publication bias was identified. Adverse events were identified in 24 (15.0%) patients in the glucagon group and 0 (0%) patients in the placebo group (risk difference [RD] 0.18, 95% CI 0.03-0.33, p=0.02). Vomiting events occurred more frequently in the glucagon group (17 of 160 [10.6%] vs 0 of 53 [0%]) but was not statistically significant (RD 0.07, 95% CI -0.03-0.17, p=0.19). Glucagon was not associated with a difference in treatment success but had a higher rate of adverse events for the treatment of esophageal foreign body and food impaction. Further controlled studies are needed to confirm the efficacy of glucagon with adequate power to assess adverse events.

Objective: To compare topical tranexamic acid (TXA) with control groups for the treatment of acute epistaxis assessing bleeding cessation, discharge within 2 hours, rebleeding rates, complication rates, and patient satisfaction. Data Sources: PubMed, CINAHL, LILACS, Scopus, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to November 2018. Study Selection and Data Extraction: All randomized controlled trials comparing topical TXA with control groups for the treatment of acute epistaxis in humans were included. There were no age, language, or date restrictions. Data were double extracted into a predefined worksheet, and quality analysis was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Data Synthesis: Three studies (n = 408 patients) were identified. Topical TXA was not associated with a statistically significant difference in cessation of bleeding within 30 minutes. However, more patients were discharged within 2 hours of arrival, there were fewer episodes of rebleeding within both the first 24 hours and at 1 week, and there was higher patient satisfaction in the TXA group. There was no difference identified in complication rates. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: This review compares topical TXA with control groups for epistaxis and discusses the risks and benefits of adding this therapy to usual care. Conclusions: Topical TXA appears to be a reasonable option for the treatment of acute epistaxis, with reduced rebleeding rates, shorter discharge times, and minimal risk of complications. Topical TXA may be considered as part of the treatment of acute epistaxis.