COVID-19 in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs): A Narrative Review from Prevention to Vaccination Strategy

The management of the COVID-19 pandemic represents a challenging process, especially for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) due to the serious economic and health resource problems it generates. In this article, we assess COVID-19 situation in LMICs and outline emerging problems and possible solutions. The prevention and control of COVID-19 would be based on focused tests exploiting those systems (e.g., GeneXpert®) already used in other scenarios. This would be less stressful for the healthcare system in LMICs. Avoiding close contact with people suffering from acute respiratory infections, frequent handwashing, and avoiding unprotected contact with farm or wild animals are recommended infection control interventions. The appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is required, despite its procurement being especially difficult in LMICs. Patients’ triage should be based on a simple and rapid logarithm to decide who requires isolation and targeted testing for SARS-CoV-2. Being able to estimate which patients will develop severe disease would allow hospitals to better utilize the already limited resources more effectively. In LMICs, laboratories are often in the capital cities; therefore, early diagnosis and isolation become difficult. The number of ICU beds is often insufficient, and the equipment is often old and poorly serviced. LMICs will need access to COVID-19 treatments at minimal prices to ensure that all who need them can be treated. Year-to-date, different vaccines have been approved and are currently available. The main obstacle to accessing them is the limited ability of LMICs to purchase significant quantities of the vaccine

Cefiderocol for Carbapenem-Resistant Bacteria: Handle with Care! A Review of the Real-World Evidence

(1) Background: healthcare-associated infections are one of the most frequent adverse events in healthcare delivery worldwide. Several antibiotic resistance mechanisms have been developed, including those to carbapenemase. Cefiderocol (CFD) is a novel siderophore cephalosporin designed to treat carbapenem-resistant bacteria. (2) Methods: we performed a systematic review of all cases reported in the literature to outline the existing evidence. We evaluated real-world evidence studies of CFD in the treatment of carbapenem-resistant (CR) bacteria. (3) Results: a total of 19 publications treating cases of infection by CR bacteria were included. The three most frequent CR pathogens were Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Klebsiella pneumoniae. A regimen of 2 g every 8 h was most frequently adopted for CFD with a mean treatment duration of 25.6 days. CFD was generally well tolerated, with fewer side effects. The success rate of CFD therapy was satisfactory and almost 70% of patients showed clinical recovery; of these, nearly half showed negative blood cultures and infection-free status. (4) Conclusions: This review indicates that CFD is active against important GN organisms including Enterobacteriaceae, P. aeruginosa, and A. baumannii. CFD seems to have a safe profile

Pulsed Radiofrequency for Lumbar Facet Joint Pain: A Viable Therapeutic Option? A Retrospective Observational Study

n/

What is the role of locoregional anesthesia in breast surgery? A systematic literature review focused on pain intensity, opioid consumption, adverse events, and patient satisfaction

Breast surgery in the United States is common. Pain affects up to 50% of women undergoing breast surgery and can interfere with postoperative outcomes. General anesthesia is the conventional, most frequently used anaesthetic technique. Various locoregional anesthetic techniques are also used for breast surgeries. A systematic review of the use of locoregional anesthesia for postoperative pain in breast surgery is needed to clarify its role in pain management

Driving pressure during general anesthesia for open abdominal surgery (DESIGNATION) : study protocol of a randomized clinical trial

Background Intraoperative driving pressure (Delta P) is associated with development of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC). When tidal volume (V-T) is kept constant, Delta P may change according to positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP)-induced changes in lung aeration. Delta P may decrease if PEEP leads to a recruitment of collapsed lung tissue but will increase if PEEP mainly causes pulmonary overdistension. This study tests the hypothesis that individualized high PEEP, when compared to fixed low PEEP, protects against PPC in patients undergoing open abdominal surgery. Methods The "Driving prESsure durIng GeNeral AnesThesIa for Open abdomiNal surgery trial" (DESIGNATION) is an international, multicenter, two-group, double-blind randomized clinical superiority trial. A total of 1468 patients will be randomly assigned to one of the two intraoperative ventilation strategies. Investigators screen patients aged >= 18 years and with a body mass index <= 40 kg/m(2), scheduled for open abdominal surgery and at risk for PPC. Patients either receive an intraoperative ventilation strategy with individualized high PEEP with recruitment maneuvers (RM) ("individualized high PEEP") or one in which PEEP of 5 cm H2O without RM is used ("low PEEP"). In the "individualized high PEEP" group, PEEP is set at the level at which Delta P is lowest. In both groups of the trial, V-T is kept at 8 mL/kg predicted body weight. The primary endpoint is the occurrence of PPC, recorded as a collapsed composite of adverse pulmonary events. Discussion DESIGNATION will be the first randomized clinical trial that is adequately powered to compare the effects of individualized high PEEP with RM versus fixed low PEEP without RM on the occurrence of PPC after open abdominal surgery. The results of DESIGNATION will support anesthesiologists in their decisions regarding PEEP settings during open abdominal surgery

Protective intraoperative ventilation with higher versus lower levels of positive end-expiratory pressure in obese patients (PROBESE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) increase the morbidity and mortality of surgery in obese patients. High levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) with lung recruitment maneuvers may improve intraoperative respiratory function, but they can also compromise hemodynamics, and the effects on PPCs are uncertain. We hypothesized that intraoperative mechanical ventilation using high PEEP with periodic recruitment maneuvers, as compared with low PEEP without recruitment maneuvers, prevents PPCs in obese patients. Methods/design The PRotective Ventilation with Higher versus Lower PEEP during General Anesthesia for Surgery in OBESE Patients (PROBESE) study is a multicenter, two-arm, international randomized controlled trial. In total, 2013 obese patients with body mass index ≥35 kg/m2 scheduled for at least 2 h of surgery under general anesthesia and at intermediate to high risk for PPCs will be included. Patients are ventilated intraoperatively with a low tidal volume of 7 ml/kg (predicted body weight) and randomly assigned to PEEP of 12 cmH2O with lung recruitment maneuvers (high PEEP) or PEEP of 4 cmH2O without recruitment maneuvers (low PEEP). The occurrence of PPCs will be recorded as collapsed composite of single adverse pulmonary events and represents the primary endpoint. Discussion To our knowledge, the PROBESE trial is the first multicenter, international randomized controlled trial to compare the effects of two different levels of intraoperative PEEP during protective low tidal volume ventilation on PPCs in obese patients. The results of the PROBESE trial will support anesthesiologists in their decision to choose a certain PEEP level during general anesthesia for surgery in obese patients in an attempt to prevent PPCs. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02148692. Registered on 23 May 2014; last updated 7 June 2016. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1929-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users