IMPORTANCE β-Blocker therapy may control heart rate and attenuate the deleterious effects of β-adrenergic receptor stimulation in septic shock. However, β-Blockers are not traditionally used for this condition and may worsen cardiovascular decompensation related through negative inotropic and hypotensive effects.OBJECTIVE To investigate the effect of the short-acting β-blocker esmolol in patients with severe septic shock. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTSOpen-label, randomized phase 2 study, conducted in a university hospital intensive care unit (ICU) between November 2010 and July 2012, involving patients in septic shock with a heart rate of 95/min or higher requiring high-dose norepinephrine to maintain a mean arterial pressure of 65 mm Hg or higher. INTERVENTIONSWe randomly assigned 77 patients to receive a continuous infusion of esmolol titrated to maintain heart rate between 80/min and 94/min for their ICU stay and 77 patients to standard treatment. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESOur primary outcome was a reduction in heart rate below the predefined threshold of 95/min and to maintain heart rate between 80/min and 94/min by esmolol treatment over a 96-hour period. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic and organ function measures; norepinephrine dosages at 24, 48, 72, and 96 hours; and adverse events and mortality occurring within 28 days after randomization. RESULTS Targeted heart rates were achieved in all patients in the esmolol group compared with those in the control group. The median AUC for heart rate during the first 96 hours was −28/min (IQR, −37 to −21) for the esmolol group vs −6/min (95% CI, −14 to 0) for the control group with a mean reduction of 18/min (P < .001). For stroke volume index, the median AUC for esmolol was 4 mL/m 2 (IQR, −1 to 10) vs 1 mL/m 2 for the control group (IQR, −3 to 5; P = .02), whereas the left ventricular stroke work index for esmolol was 3 mL/m 2 (IQR, 0 to 8) vs 1 mL/m 2 for the control group (IQR, −2 to 5; P = .03). For arterial lactatemia, median AUC for esmolol was −0.1 mmol/L (IQR, −0.6 to 0.2) vs 0.1 mmol/L for the control group (IQR, −0.3 for 0.6; P = .007); for norepinephrine, −0.11 μg/kg/min (IQR, −0.46 to 0.02) for the esmolol group vs −0.01 μg/kg/min (IQR, −0.2 to 0.44) for the control group (P = .003). Fluid requirements were reduced in the esmolol group: median AUC was 3975 mL/24 h (IQR, 3663 to 4200) vs 4425 mL/24 h (IQR, 4038 to 4775) for the control group (P < .001). We found no clinically relevant differences between groups in other cardiopulmonary variables nor in rescue therapy requirements. Twenty-eight day mortality was 49.4% in the esmolol group vs 80.5% in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.59; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEFor patients in septic shock, open-label use of esmolol vs standard care was associated with reductions in heart rates to achieve target levels, without increased adverse events. The observed improvement in mortality and other secondary clinical outcomes warrants further investigation.

AlloSCT is the most potent postremission therapy for AML and is particularly active for patients 45 to 59 years of age and/or those with high-risk cytogenetics.

BackgroundTolerance of ambiguity, or the extent to which ambiguous situations are perceived as desirable, is an important component of the attitudes and behaviors of medical students. However, few studies have compared this trait across the years of medical school. General practitioners are considered to have a higher ambiguity tolerance than specialists. We compared ambiguity tolerance between general practitioners and medical students.MethodsWe designed a cross-sectional study to evaluate the ambiguity tolerance of 622 medical students in the first to sixth academic years. We compared this with the ambiguity tolerance of 30 general practitioners. We used the inventory for measuring ambiguity tolerance (IMA) developed by Reis (1997), which includes three measures of ambiguity tolerance: openness to new experiences, social conflicts, and perception of insoluble problems.ResultsWe obtained a total of 564 complete data sets (return rate 90.1%) from medical students and 29 questionnaires (return rate 96.7%) from general practitioners. In relation to the reference groups defined by Reis (1997), medical students had poor ambiguity tolerance on all three scales. No differences were found between those in the first and the sixth academic years, although we did observe gender-specific differences in ambiguity tolerance. We found no differences in ambiguity tolerance between general practitioners and medical students.ConclusionsThe ambiguity tolerance of the students that we assessed was below average, and appeared to be stable throughout the course of their studies. In contrast to our expectations, the general practitioners did not have a higher level of ambiguity tolerance than the students did.

Antibiotic-associated diarrhea is an important clinical problem, associated with morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Our randomized, placebo controlled multicenter trial do not support the efficacy of Saccharomyces boulardii in the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea.

An improved method of sample size calculation for the one-sample log-rank test is provided. The one-sample log-rank test may be the method of choice if the survival curve of a single treatment group is to be compared with that of a historic control. Such settings arise, for example, in clinical phase-II trials if the response to a new treatment is measured by a survival endpoint. Present sample size formulas for the one-sample log-rank test are based on the number of events to be observed, that is, in order to achieve approximately a desired power for allocated significance level and effect the trial is stopped as soon as a certain critical number of events are reached. We propose a new stopping criterion to be followed. Both approaches are shown to be asymptotically equivalent. For small sample size, though, a simulation study indicates that the new criterion might be preferred when planning a corresponding trial. In our simulations, the trial is usually underpowered, and the aspired significance level is not exploited if the traditional stopping criterion based on the number of events is used, whereas a trial based on the new stopping criterion maintains power with the type-I error rate still controlled.