Letters

Table 2. Awareness and Use of Rating Websitesa Responses as No. (%) [95% CI] to the Following Questions (A) “Are you aware that there are websites that rate and review the following?”

a

(B) Among Those Who Answered “Yes” for (A): “In the past year, how often have you gone online to seek ratings or reviews about any the following?”

(C)

(D)

(E)

Among those who answered “>Once” or “Once” for (B): “How useful were the rating information and reviews to your decision-making for the following?”

“Have you or your family ever given ratings or written comments on websites about any of the following?”

Among those who answered “Yes” for (D): “Overall, what types of ratings or reviews have you given for the following?”b

Yes

>Once

Once

Very Useful

Somewhat Useful

Not Useful

Yes

Positive

Neutral

Negative

Cars

1916 (87) [83-89]

524 (23) [20-27]

400 (21) [17-24]

438 (48) [43-55]

457 (48) [42-54]

23 (4) [2-7]

133 (6) [4-8]

100 (80) [65-89]

32 (23) [13-38]

14 (8) [3-17]

Movies or books

1810 (82) [79-85]

766 (39) [35-44]

252 (13) [10-16]

470 (51) [45-57]

521 (47) [41-53)

24 (2) [1-5]

265 (14) [11-17]

214 (78) [66-86]

61 (26) [17-38]

49 (20) [13-31]

Electronics or appliances

1795 (81) [78-84]

696 (35) [42-40]

350 (18) [15-21]

551 (51) [46-57]

472 (46) [41-52]

18 (3) [1-5]

259 (10) [8-12]

189 (70) [60-79]

69 (24) [16-33]

58 (16) [10-24]

Restaurants

1810 (81) [78-84]

715 (40) [35-44]

264 (13) [10-16]

443 (48) [43-54]

503 (48) [42-54]

32 (4) [2-8]

287 (12) [10-14]

214 (69) [58-78]

69 (24) [16-33]

89 (25) [18-35]

Otherc

1578 (71) [67-74]

239 (13) [11-16]

265 (14) [12-18]

188 (41) [33-50]

290 (56) [47-64]

26 (3) [2-6]

143 (5) [4-7]

75 (47) [32-62]

39 (22) [13-34]

52 (30) [19-44]

Physicians

1457 (65) [61-69]

275 (17) [14-21]

268 (19) [15-23]

209 (41) [34-49]

295 (52) [44-59]

33 (7) [4-13]

126 (5) [4-7]

78 (54) [39-68]

27 (29) [17-46]

28 (19) [11-32]

Hospitals

1276 (61) [57-65]

95 (9) [6-12]

173 (13) [10-17]

114 (56) [44-66]

135 (41) [31-52]

16 (3) [1-8]

67 (3) [2-5]

41 (57) [38-75]

14 (17) [8-32]

15 (27) [13-48]

Dentists

1398 (60) [56-64]

113 (7) [5-10]

217 (15) [12-19]

128 (48) [38-58]

176 (46) [36-56]

26 (6) [3-11]

82 (4) [3-6]

52 (60) [40-78]

18 (26) [12-47]

16 (11) [3-35]

All percentages are weighted to approximate the US population and are calculated on a per-question basis excluding those who were eligible for each question but did not respond.

David A. Hanauer, MD, MS Kai Zheng, PhD Dianne C. Singer, MPH Achamyeleh Gebremariam, MS Matthew M. Davis, MD, MAPP Author Affiliations: Department of Pediatrics, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor (Hanauer); School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (Zheng); Child Health Evaluation and Research Unit, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor (Singer, Gebremariam); Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (Davis).

b

More than 1 category could be selected.

c

Indicates other service providers (mechanic, plumber, electrician, etc).

preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. 1. López A, Detz A, Ratanawongsa N, Sarkar U. What patients say about their doctors online. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(6):685-692. 2. Lagu T, Hannon NS, Rothberg MB, Lindenauer PK. Patients’ evaluations of health care providers in the era of social networking. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(9):942-946. 3. Gao GG, McCullough JS, Agarwal R, Jha AK. A changing landscape of physician quality reporting. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(1):e38. 4. Galizzi MM, Miraldo M, Stavropoulou C, et al. Who is more likely to use doctor-rating websites, and why? BMJ Open. 2012;2(6):pii:e001493.

Corresponding Author: David A. Hanauer, MD, MS, University of Michigan Medical School, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 (hanauer@med .umich.edu).

5. Kaiser Family Foundation. 2008 Update on consumers’ views of patient safety and quality information. http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress .com/2013/01/7819.pdf. Accessed October 19, 2013.

Author Contributions: Drs Hanauer and Davis had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Hanauer, Zheng, Singer, Davis. Acquisition of data: Hanauer, Singer, Gebremariam, Davis. Analysis and interpretation of data: Hanauer, Zheng, Gebremariam, Davis. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Hanauer, Zheng, Singer, Gebremariam, Davis. Statistical analysis: Gebremariam, Davis. Administrative, technical, and material support: Hanauer, Singer, Gebremariam. Study supervision: Hanauer, Zheng, Davis.

6. Emmert M, Meier F, Pisch F, Sander U. Physician choice making and characteristics associated with using physician-rating websites: cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(8):e187.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: The authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none were reported. Funding/Support: This research was conducted with the support of the C. S. Mott Children’s Hospital National Poll on Children’s Health (http://www.mottnpch.org), sponsored by the Department of Pediatrics and Communicable Diseases at the University of Michigan and the University of Michigan Health System. Role of the Sponsor: The sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data;

COMMENT & RESPONSE

Short-Acting β-Blocker Administration in Patients With Septic Shock To the Editor The study by Dr Morelli and colleagues1 evaluated the effect of short-acting β-blocker (esmolol) administration in patients with septic shock; however, we have some problems with their interpretation of the results. First, stroke volume and left ventricular stroke work index (without any difference in arterial pressure) moved in parallel in the 2 groups. Analysis of the area under the curve (AUC) is frequently used in studies of drug pharmacokinetics, but in this case, a simple visual exploration (Figure 3 in article) does

jama.com

JAMA February 19, 2014 Volume 311, Number 7

Copyright 2014 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

Downloaded From: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/ by a Nanyang Technological University User on 05/30/2015

735

Letters

not support the reported differences because the baseline values were quite different. Second, the mortality rates between the groups were different in the first few days after admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) with 11 deaths in the control group at 72 hours compared with just 1 in the esmolol group. Differences between the groups at baseline or during early resuscitation before ICU admission may have influenced these early deaths, and including data from patients who were about to die in the control group may have biased the results. Indeed, the 50% mortality rate observed in the treated group is high, but the 80% mortality in the control group is astonishing, especially in view of the limited norepinephrine requirements (0.4 μg/kg/min) and the slight elevation in blood lactate levels (1.9 mEq/L). Recent randomized controlled trials have reported mortality rates of less than 50% in similar patient populations,2,3 and, as shown in a recent multicenter study,4 mortality rates for septic shock reach 80% only when much higher doses of norepinephrine are required. Therefore, we believe that the excessive mortality in the control group was the main factor explaining the differences in outcome in these patients, rather than any beneficial effect of esmolol.

tizer and inodilator) does not increase myocardial oxygen consumption and has been described as beneficial in septic myocardial dysfunction.2 However, it is not licensed for use in many European countries (eg, United Kingdom, France, and Germany).3 Although not significant, the esmolol group had an almost 10% higher use of levosimendan compared with controls (49.4% vs 40.3%, respectively). However, the authors did not analyze the subgroup of patients not receiving levosimendan at any stage of their ICU stay. Therefore, in our opinion, the effect of esmolol may be influenced by the use of highdose levosimendan.

Diego Orbegozo Cortés, MD Fabio Silvio Taccone, MD Jean-Louis Vincent, MD, PhD

1. Morelli A, Ertmer C, Westphal M, et al. Effect of heart rate control with esmolol on hemodynamic and clinical outcomes in patients with septic shock: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2013;310(16):1683-1691.

Author Affiliations: Department of Intensive Care, Erasme University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium. Corresponding Author: Jean-Louis Vincent, MD, PhD, Erasme University Hospital, Route de Lennik 808, 1070 Brussels, Belgium ([email protected]). Conflict of Interest Disclosures: The authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none were reported. 1. Morelli A, Ertmer C, Westphal M, et al. Effect of heart rate control with esmolol on hemodynamic and clinical outcomes in patients with septic shock: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2013;310(16):1683-1691. 2. Annane D, Siami S, Jaber S, et al; CRISTAL Investigators. Effects of fluid resuscitation with colloids vs crystalloids on mortality in critically ill patients presenting with hypovolemic shock. JAMA. 2013;310(17):1809-1817. 3. Ranieri VM, Thompson BT, Barie PS, et al; PROWESS-SHOCK Study Group. Drotrecogin alfa (activated) in adults with septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(22):2055-2064. 4. Brown SM, Lanspa MJ, Jones JP, et al. Survival after shock requiring high-dose vasopressor therapy. Chest. 2013;143(3):664-671.

To the Editor In a large randomized clinical trial of the use of a β-blocker (esmolol) in patients with severe septic shock, Dr Morelli and colleagues1 demonstrated the ability of esmolol to reduce heart rate. The use of esmolol was associated with a reduction in norepinephrine and fluid requirements and an increase in stroke volume, systemic vascular resistance, and left ventricular stroke work indices. These cardiovascular effects were not only associated with improved respiratory function and metabolic parameters but also with lower 28-day mortality. In this study,1 a significant proportion of patients received high-dose levosimendan to improve the low levels of mixed venous oxygen saturation, the increasing arterial lactate concentrations, or both. Levosimendan (a calcium sensi736

Filippo Sanfilippo, MD, PhD Cristina Santonocito, MD Marc Oliver Maybauer, MD Author Affiliations: Oxford Heart Centre, Oxford University Hospitals, Oxford, England (Sanfilippo, Santonocito); Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Philipps University, Marburg, Germany (Maybauer). Corresponding Author: Filippo Sanfilippo, MD, PhD, Oxford Heart Centre, Headley Way, Oxford OX3 9DU, England ([email protected]). Conflict of Interest Disclosures: The authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none were reported.

2. Morelli A, De Castro S, Teboul JL, et al. Effects of levosimendan on systemic and regional hemodynamics in septic myocardial depression. Intensive Care Med. 2005;31(5):638-644. 3. Orion Corporation. Orion updates information about Abbott's progress with Simdax. http://www.orion.fi/en/News-and-media/Stock-exchange-releases /Archive/4/44/. Accessed December 13, 2013.

To the Editor In a recent article, Dr Morelli and colleagues1 reported a benefit of continuous esmolol infusion in patients with septic shock. In this study, administration of esmolol titrated to maintain heart rate between 80/min and 94/min was associated with a reduction of norepinephrine and fluid requirements and a decrease in mortality (28-day mortality of 80.5% in the control group vs 49.4% in the esmolol group). Because the number of patients was limited, generalization of these results should be questioned before using esmolol in the treatment of patients with septic shock. The expected mortality according to the observed median value of the Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II) at inclusion (52 in the esmolol group and 57 in the control group) should be approximately 50%; the mortality rate observed in the control group was unusually high. As a comparison, in a recent randomized controlled study of patients with septic shock, the SAPS II at admission was quite similar, but the 28-day mortality was 25% to 27%.2 In addition, the timing and main cause of death are unusual. Refractory hypotension accounted for more than 60% of causes of death in the study by Morelli et al.1 Even though refractory shock typically leads to early death, only 25% of deaths in the control group and less than 5% in the esmolol group occurred before day 5 in the study. Similarly, median norepinephrine requirements were below 0.4 μg/kg/min at day 4.

JAMA February 19, 2014 Volume 311, Number 7

Copyright 2014 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

Downloaded From: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/ by a Nanyang Technological University User on 05/30/2015

jama.com

Letters

We also question the fluid strategy. In the study,1 patients received large amounts of fluids during the first 96 hours (ie, 21 875 mL in the esmolol group and 25 625 mL in the control group). According to the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC),3 fluid should be infused to maintain a pulmonary artery occlusion pressure of 12 mm Hg or higher and central venous pressure of at least 8 mm Hg. However, these guidelines recommend such a strategy for only the first 6 hours of resuscitation.3 Central venous pressure is not a reliable marker of hypovolemia,4 and using central venous pressure monitoring might lead to fluid overloading, with consequences such as worsening gas exchange or hemodilution. The strategy of infusing large amounts of fluids and low amounts of catecholamines could, along with patient selection, be reasons for the elevated mortality in the control group. The elevated mortality and the hemodynamic strategies used limit, in our opinion, the generalizability of this study.

type of empirical broad-spectrum antibiotics given to patients should be mentioned, as well as whether the initial antibiotics covered the infecting pathogens isolated from cultures. Third, regarding host immunity, a significantly lower platelet count was observed in the control group, which may imply depressed immune status such as early cirrhosis of the liver or concomitant viral infections.4 These concerns should be elucidated before the optimal effect of esmolol on hemodynamic change in patients with septic shock can be determined. Gen-Min Lin, MD, MPH Author Affiliation: Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. Corresponding Author: Gen-Min Lin, MD, MPH, Northwestern University, 680 N Lake Shore Dr, Ste 1400, Chicago, IL 60611 ([email protected]).

Adrien Bouglé, MD Jean-Paul Mira, MD, PhD

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: The author has completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none were reported.

Author Affiliations: School of Medicine, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France.

1. Morelli A, Ertmer C, Westphal M, et al. Effect of heart rate control with esmolol on hemodynamic and clinical outcomes in patients with septic shock: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2013;310(16):1683-1691.

Corresponding Author: Adrien Bouglé, MD, Paris Descartes University, 27 Rue du Faubourg Saint-Jacques, 75014 Paris, France ([email protected]).

2. Levy MM, Dellinger RP, Townsend SR, et al; Surviving Sepsis Campaign. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(2):367-374.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: The authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Dr Mira reported receiving honoraria from Astellas; serving on the scientific board of LFB Biotechnologies; and receiving honoraria and serving on the scientific board of Merck Sharp & Dohme. No other disclosures were reported.

3. Heemken R, Gandawidjaja L, Hau T. Peritonitis: pathophysiology and local defense mechanisms. Hepatogastroenterology. 1997;44(16):927-936.

1. Morelli A, Ertmer C, Westphal M, et al. Effect of heart rate control with esmolol on hemodynamic and clinical outcomes in patients with septic shock: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2013;310(16):1683-1691. 2. Annane D, Siami S, Jaber S, et al; CRISTAL Investigators. Effects of fluid resuscitation with colloids vs crystalloids on mortality in critically ill patients presenting with hypovolemic shock. JAMA. 2013;310(17):1809-1817. 3. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(2):580-637. 4. Marik PE, Baram M, Vahid B. Does central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? Chest. 2008;134(1):172-178.

To the Editor Dr Morelli and colleagues1 reported that for patients with septic shock, open-label intravenous use of esmolol was associated with reductions in heart rates to target levels without increased adverse events compared with standard care. In sepsis, outcomes are associated with the burden of infecting pathogens, adherence to the guidelines of the SSC,2 and host immunity. First, in this study, the burden of pathogens was not clear between groups. There was a difference in infection sites; the control group had 9 more patients with peritonitis and 1 more with necrotizing fasciitis than the esmolol group. These infections are predisposed to local abscess formation and may not respond well to antibiotics, requiring surgery or tube drainage.3 Also, the isolated bacterial species and rates of bacteremia should be considered. Second, the patients were randomized after 24 hours of optimization to establish an adequate circulating blood volume. Therefore, the baseline adherence to the SCC protocols during the first 6 hours was not available. Dose, timing, and

4. McCullers JA, Rehg JE. Lethal synergism between influenza virus and Streptococcus pneumoniae. J Infect Dis. 2002;186(3):341-350.

In Reply Dr Cortés and colleagues criticize the use of AUC in analyzing differences between groups due to potential baseline imbalances. However, imbalances were minimal and because AUC was calculated relative to baseline, any potential imbalance would have been adequately reflected. A linear mixed-effects model produced similar results. We concur that small differences in stroke volume and stroke work index should not be overinterpreted; however, the key message is that esmolol enabled heart rate control without deterioration of these variables. Cortés and colleagues also comment on the potential baseline disparities between groups and Dr Sanfilippo and colleagues mention the small differences in treatments (eg, the use of levosimendan in more patients in the esmolol group). In a randomized trial, statistical comparisons of baseline data between groups should not be not performed because any differences result from chance. Levosimendan had no obvious influence on outcomes (multivariable hazard ratio for mortality with esmolol was 0.34 [95% CI, 0.18-0.65] with levosimendan and 0.39 [95% CI, 0.20-0.74] without levosimendan). Although one can speculate on the influence of baseline differences and therapeutic interventions, only further randomized studies will determine their effect. Concern is expressed about the high rate of mortality for the control group. Indeed, we stressed this same point, highlighting that high-dose norepinephrine requirements and tachycardia persisting at 24 hours after initiating vasopressors identified a particularly severe subset. However, the writ-

jama.com

JAMA February 19, 2014 Volume 311, Number 7

Copyright 2014 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

Downloaded From: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/ by a Nanyang Technological University User on 05/30/2015

737

Letters

ers erroneously generalize our patient outcomes to an allcomer septic shock population. Azimi and Vincent1 reported that despite achieving hemodynamic stability, patients with septic shock and a persistently high heart rate (mean [SD], 102 [6]/min) and greater ongoing norepinephrine requirements after 24 hours subsequently died, yet lactate levels (mean [SD], 2.6 [0.6] mmol/L) were only marginally elevated. However, in the survivors, heart rate had fallen to a mean [SD] of 87 [4]/ min after stabilization and lactate levels were comparable. These findings are similar to ours. The SAPS II score is a poor discriminator of outcome in septic shock; for example, mortality differed nearly 2-fold yet the median SAPS score differed by just 8 points in 2 corticosteroid studies.2,3 Thus, we contend that persistent tachycardia and high norepinephrine requirements are better prognosticators. We also recognized the point regarding timing and main cause of death; however, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from this specific and relatively small subset of patients. We cautioned that “although mortality was not a primary end point, the unexpectedly large intergroup difference does not exclude the possibility of a chance finding or a contribution from unknown confounding factors.” Drs Bouglé and Mira criticize the amount of fluid administered and the use of central venous pressure monitoring. However, the fluid input over 96 hours in our patients was comparable with that in another trial.4 The central venous pressure measurements in our patients averaged 12 to 13 mm Hg during the first 96 hours, corresponding to the SSC recommendations for the first 6 hours of resuscitation.5 Whether this is an appropriate target beyond the first 6 hours is an important question, but one not addressed by the guidelines. In addition, all of our patients had pulmonary artery catheter monitoring. Dr Lin questions aspects of antibiotic appropriateness and source control. As per institutional policy, infections requiring source control, such as peritonitis and necrotizing fasciitis, were treated when indicated by urgent surgery. Following SSC guidelines, empirical broad-spectrum antibiotics were given within the first 6 hours.3 Round-the-clock advice was forthcoming from infectious disease specialists. Empirical broad-spectrum antibiotics included piptazobactam or carbapenems for gram-negative coverage plus, as indicated, vancomycin, linezolid, or daptomycin for gram-positive coverage, and fungal coverage based on risk factors. De-escalation was applied once culture results became available. For patients with carbapenem-resistant organisms, empirical antibiotic therapy included colistin plus meropenem and possibly tigecycline.6 Andrea Morelli, MD Christian Ertmer, MD Mervyn Singer, MD, FRCP Author Affiliations: Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, University of Rome, “La Sapienza,” Rome, Italy (Morelli); Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care, and Pain Medicine, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany (Ertmer); Bloomsbury Institute of Intensive Care Medicine, University College London, London, England (Singer).

738

Corresponding Author: Andrea Morelli, MD, University of Rome, Viale del Policlinico 155, Rome 00161, Italy (andrea.morelli@uniroma1). Conflict of Interest Disclosures: The authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Dr Morelli reported receiving honoraria for speaking at Baxter symposia. Dr Singer reported serving as a consultant and receiving honoraria for speaking and chairing symposia for Baxter. No other disclosures were reported. 1. Azimi G, Vincent JL. Ultimate survival from septic shock. Resuscitation. 1986;14(4):245-253. 2. Annane D, Sébille V, Charpentier C, et al. Effect of treatment with low doses of hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone on mortality in patients with septic shock. JAMA. 2002;288(7):862-871. 3. Sprung CL, Annane D, Keh D, et al; CORTICUS Study Group. Hydrocortisone therapy for patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(2):111-124. 4. Boyd JH, Forbes J, Nakada T-A, Walley KR, Russell JA. Fluid resuscitation in septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(2):259-265. 5. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(2):580-637. 6. Tumbarello M, Viale P, Viscoli C, et al. Predictors of mortality in bloodstream infections caused by Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing K pneumoniae. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;55(7):943-950.

Treating Patients With Learning Disabilities To the Editor Ms Rossignol and Dr Paasche-Orlow1 described legislation related to educational services for individuals with disabilities and recommended accommodations for use by physicians. In addition to a number of inaccuracies (eg, the comprehensive federal Special Education law was passed in 1975, not 1990; the Individual Education Program [IEP] provides more than just accommodations2), we have concerns about the recommendations provided. First, we are concerned about using the question “Have you ever had an IEP?” as a screening method. Simply knowing that a patient has (or had) an IEP provides little information about that person’s strengths and needs. Even knowing that a patient had an IEP due to a learning disability would not be very illuminating due to the heterogeneity among those who share the diagnosis. Furthermore, this question assumes that all individuals with disabilities are identified as such and receive services through an IEP; some receive no services and some receive accommodations through another mechanism (eg, a 504 plan3). In fact, individuals with disabilities who were not identified or did not receive services through an IEP might need the most support in understanding medical information. Additionally, there continues to be stigma associated with the presence of disabilities and receipt of special education services. Asking patients whether they had an IEP, particularly at intake, might have the unfortunate effect of discouraging conversation about learning needs. Second, the accommodations Rossignol and PaascheOrlow described in their Table are, in many cases, good practices for engaging all patients, regardless of whether they have a specific learning disability. For example, even patients without dyscalculia might have trouble calculating medication dosing, and even patients without nonverbal learning disabilities would benefit from a clear and simple care plan. A preferable approach (regardless of whether a patient has a disability) is to apply the principles of Universal Design for Learning,4 which is an approach to customizing instruction for

JAMA February 19, 2014 Volume 311, Number 7

Copyright 2014 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

Downloaded From: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/ by a Nanyang Technological University User on 05/30/2015

jama.com

Short-acting β-blocker administration in patients with septic shock.

Short-acting β-blocker administration in patients with septic shock. - PDF Download Free
92KB Sizes 1 Downloads 3 Views