Fulminant listerial infection of the central nervous system in an otherwise healthy patient: a case report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>The mortality of listerial rhombo-encephalitis exceeds 26% and may involve otherwise healthy patients. A case is presented of a man with fatal listerial infection of the central nervous system that was monitored in an intensive care unit.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>A 42-year-old, previously healthy man was admitted with fever of 39°C, blurred vision, confusion and headache. He had right-sided central facial paresis, bilateral absent gag reflex and bilateral cerebellar ataxia. After a few hours, he became septic and developed bilateral vocal cord paralysis and airway obstruction. He was intubated and put on mechanical ventilation. Computed tomography brain scans revealed multiple frontal hypodense areas and slight hydrocephalus. Cerebrospinal fluid findings included pleocytosis of 4200 cells/μL (77% neutrophils), protein of 114 mg/dL and normal glucose levels. Listerial infection was suspected; therefore ampicillin was added to his initial therapeutic regimen, already including ceftriaxone and gentamicin. All cultures were negative, and no immunologic abnormality could be documented, but the patient's clinical condition deteriorated rapidly. Continuous neuromonitoring by means of transcranial Doppler and optic nerve sonography along with follow-up computed tomography brain scans confirmed the severity of the brain damage; hence, dexamethasone and mannitol were also administered. The patient was clinically documented as 'brain dead' 7 days after his admission to the intensive care unit; thereafter, blood- and post-mortem brain tissue cultures grew <it>Listeria monocytogenes</it>.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This case report illustrates the importance of neuromonitoring in patients with severe brain damage. We also show that, despite prompt antibiotic treatment and dexamethasone administration, listerial infection of the central nervous system can be lethal.</p

Post thoracotomy spinal cord compression in a child. A word of caution

AbstractINTRODUCTIONOxidised regenerated cellulose is a commonly used haemostatic agent in surgery which, in rare cases, has been held responsible for severe complications.PRESENTATION OF CASEA 6-year-old girl developed flaccid paraplegia following the excision of a large thoracic ganglioneuroblastoma. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed spinal cord compression at the T10–11 level and the patient underwent emergency decompression via the previous thoracotomy. At operation the causative factor was found to be a mass consisted of cellulose used at the original procedure to control local bleeding in the vicinity of the intervertebral foramen.DISCUSSIONThe accessibility of the spinal canal from the thoracic cavity through the opening of the intervertebral foramen may allow migration of material and in this case oxidized regenerated cellulose, commonly used during cardiothoracic procedures, can cause rare but severe complications such as compression of the spinal cord.CONCLUSIONThe value of hemostatic gauze is well established in cardiothoracic surgery. However, surgeon should be cautious with the application of material in the proximity of the intervertebral foramen, especially if this is to leave behind after the completion of the procedure

Safety and efficacy of analgesia-based sedation with remifentanil versus standard hypnotic-based regimens in intensive care unit patients with brain injuries: a randomised, controlled trial [ISRCTN50308308]

INTRODUCTION: This randomised, open-label, observational, multicentre, parallel group study assessed the safety and efficacy of analgesia-based sedation using remifentanil in the neuro-intensive care unit. METHODS: Patients aged 18–80 years admitted to the intensive care unit within the previous 24 hours, with acute brain injury or after neurosurgery, intubated, expected to require mechanical ventilation for 1–5 days and requiring daily downward titration of sedation for assessment of neurological function were studied. Patients received one of two treatment regimens. Regimen one consisted of analgesia-based sedation, in which remifentanil (initial rate 9 μg kg(-1 )h(-1)) was titrated before the addition of a hypnotic agent (propofol [0.5 mg kg(-1 )h(-1)] during days 1–3, midazolam [0.03 mg kg(-1 )h(-1)] during days 4 and 5) (n = 84). Regimen two consisted of hypnotic-based sedation: hypnotic agent (propofol days 1–3; midazolam days 4 and 5) and fentanyl (n = 37) or morphine (n = 40) according to routine clinical practice. For each regimen, agents were titrated to achieve optimal sedation (Sedation–Agitation Scale score 1–3) and analgesia (Pain Intensity score 1–2). RESULTS: Overall, between-patient variability around the time of neurological assessment was statistically significantly smaller when using remifentanil (remifentanil 0.44 versus fentanyl 0.86 [P = 0.024] versus morphine 0.98 [P = 0.006]. Overall, mean neurological assessment times were significantly shorter when using remifentanil (remifentanil 0.41 hour versus fentanyl 0.71 hour [P = 0.001] versus morphine 0.82 hour [P < 0.001]). Patients receiving the remifentanil-based regimen were extubated significantly faster than those treated with morphine (1.0 hour versus 1.93 hour, P = 0.001) but there was no difference between remifentanil and fentanyl. Remifentanil was effective, well tolerated and provided comparable haemodynamic stability to that of the hypnotic-based regimen. Over three times as many users rated analgesia-based sedation with remifentanil as very good or excellent in facilitating assessment of neurological function compared with the hypnotic-based regimen. CONCLUSIONS: Analgesia-based sedation with remifentanil permitted significantly faster and more predictable awakening for neurological assessment. Analgesia-based sedation with remifentanil was very effective, well tolerated and had a similar adverse event and haemodynamic profile to those of hypnotic-based regimens when used in critically ill neuro-intensive care unit patients for up to 5 days

Decreased duration of mechanical ventilation when comparing analgesia-based sedation using remifentanil with standard hypnotic-based sedation for up to 10 days in intensive care unit patients: a randomised trial [ISRCTN47583497]

INTRODUCTION: This randomised, open-label, multicentre study compared the safety and efficacy of an analgesia-based sedation regime using remifentanil with a conventional hypnotic-based sedation regime in critically ill patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation for up to 10 days. METHODS: One hundred and five randomised patients received either a remifentanil-based sedation regime (initial dose 6 to 9 μg kg(-1 )h(-1 )(0.1 to 0.15 μg kg(-1 )min(-1)) titrated to response before the addition of midazolam for further sedation (n = 57), or a midazolam-based sedation regime with fentanyl or morphine added for analgesia (n = 48). Patients were sedated to an optimal Sedation–Agitation Scale (SAS) score of 3 or 4 and a pain intensity (PI) score of 1 or 2. RESULTS: The remifentanil-based sedation regime significantly reduced the duration of mechanical ventilation by more than 2 days (53.5 hours, P = 0.033), and significantly reduced the time from the start of the weaning process to extubation by more than 1 day (26.6 hours, P < 0.001). There was a trend towards shortening the stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) by 1 day. The median time of optimal SAS and PI was the same in both groups. There was a significant difference in the median time to offset of pharmacodynamic effects when discontinuing study medication in patients not extubated at 10 days (remifentanil 0.250 hour, comparator 1.167 hours; P < 0.001). Of the patients treated with remifentanil, 26% did not receive any midazolam during the study. In those patients that did receive midazolam, the use of remifentanil considerably reduced the total dose of midazolam required. Between days 3 and 10 the weighted mean infusion rate of remifentanil remained constant with no evidence of accumulation or of a development of tolerance to remifentanil. There was no difference between the groups in SAS or PI score in the 24 hours after stopping the study medication. Remifentanil was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Analgesia-based sedation with remifentanil was well tolerated; it reduces the duration of mechanical ventilation and improves the weaning process compared with standard hypnotic-based sedation regimes in ICU patients requiring long-term ventilation for up to 10 days

Real-time ultrasound-guided catheterisation of the internal jugular vein: a prospective comparison with the landmark technique in critical care patients

INTRODUCTION: Central venous cannulation is crucial in the management of the critical care patient. This study was designed to evaluate whether real-time ultrasound-guided cannulation of the internal jugular vein is superior to the standard landmark method. METHODS: In this randomised study, 450 critical care patients who underwent real-time ultrasound-guided cannulation of the internal jugular vein were prospectively compared with 450 critical care patients in whom the landmark technique was used. Randomisation was performed by means of a computer-generated random-numbers table, and patients were stratified with regard to age, gender, and body mass index. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in gender, age, body mass index, or side of cannulation (left or right) or in the presence of risk factors for difficult venous cannulation such as prior catheterisation, limited sites for access attempts, previous difficulties during catheterisation, previous mechanical complication, known vascular abnormality, untreated coagulopathy, skeletal deformity, and cannulation during cardiac arrest between the two groups of patients. Furthermore, the physicians who performed the procedures had comparable experience in the placement of central venous catheters (p = non-significant). Cannulation of the internal jugular vein was achieved in all patients by using ultrasound and in 425 of the patients (94.4%) by using the landmark technique (p < 0.001). Average access time (skin to vein) and number of attempts were significantly reduced in the ultrasound group of patients compared with the landmark group (p < 0.001). In the landmark group, puncture of the carotid artery occurred in 10.6% of patients, haematoma in 8.4%, haemothorax in 1.7%, pneumothorax in 2.4%, and central venous catheter-associated blood stream infection in 16%, which were all significantly increased compared with the ultrasound group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The present data suggest that ultrasound-guided catheterisation of the internal jugular vein in critical care patients is superior to the landmark technique and therefore should be the method of choice in these patients