METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from inception up to September 2019 to identify all studies that compared the predictive performance of cystatin C- and/or creatinine-based eGFR in predicting the clearance of vancomycin. The prediction errors (PEs) (the value of eGFR equations minus vancomycin clearance) were quantified for each equation and were pooled using a random-effects model. The root mean squared errors were also quantified to provide a metric for imprecision.
RESULTS: This meta-analysis included evaluations of seven different cystatin C- and creatinine-based eGFR equations in total from 26 studies and 1,234 patients. The mean PE (MPE) for cystatin C-based eGFR was 4.378 mL min-1 (95% confidence interval [CI], -29.425, 38.181), while the creatinine-based eGFR provided an MPE of 27.617 mL min-1 (95% CI, 8.675, 46.560) in predicting clearance of vancomycin. This indicates the presence of unbiased results in vancomycin clearance prediction by the cystatin C-based eGFR equations. Meanwhile, creatinine-based eGFR equations demonstrated a statistically significant positive bias in vancomycin clearance prediction.
CONCLUSION: Cystatin C-based eGFR equations are better than creatinine-based eGFR equations in predicting the clearance of vancomycin. This suggests that utilising cystatin C-based eGFR equations could result in better accuracy and precision to predict vancomycin pharmacokinetic parameters.
METHODS: We trained twenty-three participants from twelve Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) member economies about international guidelines for medical device vigilance. We developed and used six virtual cases and six questions. We divided participants into six groups and compared their opinions. We also surveyed the country's opinion to investigate the beginning point of 'patient use'. The phases of 'patient use' are divided into: 1) inspecting, 2) preparing, and 3) applying medical device.
RESULTS: As for the question on the beginning point of 'patient use,' 28.6%, 35.7%, and 35.7% of participants provided answers regarding the first, second, and third phases, respectively. In training for applying international guidelines to virtual cases, only one of the six questions reached a consensus between the two groups in all six virtual cases. For the other five questions, different judgments were given in at least two groups.
CONCLUSION: From training courses using virtual cases, we found that there was no consensus on 'patient use' point of view of medical devices. There was a significant difference in applying definitions of adverse events written in guidelines regarding the medical device associated incidents. Our results point out that international harmonization effort is needed not only to harmonize differences in regulations between countries but also to overcome diversity in perspectives existing at the site of medical device use.
METHODS: During isoflurane-supplemented remifentanil-based anesthesia for patients undergoing cardiac surgery with preoperative LV ejection fraction greater than 50% (n = 20), we analyzed the changes of S' at each isoflurane dose increment (1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 minimum alveolar concentration [MAC]: T1, T2, and T3, respectively) with a fixed remifentanil dosage (1.0 μg/min/kg) by using transesophageal echocardiography.
RESULTS: Mean S' values (95% confidence interval [CI]) at T1, T2, and T3 were 10.5 (8.8-12.2), 9.5 (8.3-10.8), and 8.4 (7.3-9.5) cm/s, respectively (P < 0.001 in multivariate analysis of variance test). Their mean differences at T1 vs. T2, T2 vs. T3, and T1 vs. T3 were -1.0 (-1.6, -0.3), -1.1 (-1.7, -0.6), and -2.1 (-3.1, -1.1) cm/s, respectively. Phenylephrine infusion rates were significantly increased (0.26, 0.22, and 0.47 μg/kg/min at T1, T2, and T3, respectively, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Isoflurane increments (1.0-2.0 MAC) dose-dependently reduced LV systolic long-axis performance during cardiac surgeries with a preserved preoperative systolic function.