Comparative efficacy and safety of renal denervation (RDN) interventions for uncontrolled (UH) and resistant hypertension (RH) is unknown. We assessed the comparative efficacy and safety of existing RDN interventions for UH and RH. Six search engines were searched up to 1 May 2020. Primary outcomes were mean 24-h ambulatory and office systolic blood pressure (SBP). Secondary outcomes were mean 24-h ambulatory and office diastolic blood pressure (DBP), clinical outcomes, and serious adverse events. Frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses were used to evaluate effects of RDN interventions. Twenty randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 2152) were included, 15 in RH (n = 1544) and five in UH (n = 608). Intervention arms included radiofrequency (RF) in main renal artery (MRA) (n = 10), RF in MRA and branches (n = 4), RF in MRA+ antihypertensive therapy (AHT) (n = 5), ultrasound (US) in MRA (n = 3), sham (n = 8), and AHT (n = 9). RF in MRA and branches ranked as the best treatment to reduce 24-h ambulatory, daytime, and nighttime SBP and DBP versus other interventions (p-scores: 0.83 to 0.97); significant blood pressure effects were found versus sham or AHT. RF in MRA+AHT was the best treatment to reduce office SBP and DBP (p-scores: 0.84 and 0.90, respectively). RF in MRA and branches was the most efficacious versus other interventions to reduce 24-h ambulatory SBP and DBP in UH or RH.

Living donor nephrectomy (LDN) is a unique procedure in that its primary purpose is to provide physical benefit to another human being.Unfortunately for these altruistic patients, postoperative pain is a significant source of morbidity, resulting in prolonged length of stay (LOS), 1 chronic pain, 2,3 and hesitancy for future patients considering LDN. 4 Advances in surgical techniques, such as laparoscopic and robotic-assisted methods, have made considerable improvements 5,6 ; however, these techniques are still associated with significant postoperative pain. In addition to optimizing surgical techniques, many centers have also pursued multimodal pain management pathways to help continue to improve pain control and reduce complications. [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] These regimens typically include a combination of

No abstract

No abstract

Disclaimer In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. Purpose The purpose of this quality improvement project was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of peripheral vasopressor administration in an attempt to minimize the placement and improve early removal of unnecessary central lines to reduce central line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates. Methods A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients who received vasopressors via peripheral infusion over 3 months, starting at the time of guideline implementation. Results We identified 129 vasopressor orders among 79 patients that were administered peripherally. Among these orders, 3 events were documented as possible extravasation events. Forty-five patients (57%) did not require central line placement due to increasing vasopressor requirements. Standard utilization ratio data suggest minimal central line impact of the protocol implementation. December 2020 to February 2021 was associated with a large second peak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in our region. Utilization of central lines was less than predicted in December 2020 to February 2021 in 2 of our 3 intensive care units (ICUs); however, the differences were statistically significant on only 3 occasions. In the third ICU, utilization was greater than predicted, but this unit housed a majority of the most critically ill patients with COVID-19. Conclusion This study suggests that short-term use of select vasopressors at conservative doses is safe for peripheral administration and points toward efficacy at preventing central line placement. Further analysis is required to confirm efficacy.