Le personnel soignant et l'hygiène des mains en réanimation : une analyse sociologique

Introduction/objectif du travail : Depuis quelques années, l’intérêt de l’analyse du comportement du personnel hospitalier vis-à-vis de règles d’hygiène des mains (HM) a été beaucoup étudié, ce qui a permis de mieux comprendre l’échec ou le caractère transitoire du succès de nombreux programmes d’amélioration de son observance. Cependant, peu d’études de ce type ont été réalisées en France. Notre objectif était d’étudier les aspects sociologiques des pratiques d’HM en réanimation. Matériel et Méthodes : L’étude a été réalisée par l\u27Institut de Psychologie et de Sociologie Appliquées de l\u27Université Catholique de l\u27Ouest (UCO, Angers), en collaboration avec l\u27équipe opérationnelle d\u27hygiène et deux services de réanimation du CHU d\u27Angers. Elle a comporté une phase d\u27observation participante menée par une étudiante en sociologie (Master-1), infirmière (IDE) de formation initiale, et une phase d\u27entretiens semi directifs réalisés par deux enseignants chercheurs de l\u27UCO. Résultats : Une constatation importante a été l\u27existence d\u27un conflit pour les soignants entre la règle ontextualisée telle qu\u27elle est pratiquée avec l\u27influence des antériorités du service, de la socialisation par les pairs (périodes de doublage) ou des situations d\u27urgence d\u27une part, et la règle institutionnalisée (recommandations) telle qu\u27elle est définie par les experts et transmise par les IDE hygiénistes. Les professionnels de l\u27hygiène et les soignants ont souvent une conception différente des soins : les premiers les décomposent en séquences de plusieurs tâches avec un acte d\u27HM à pratiquer entre chacune d\u27elles, alors que les seconds perçoivent un soin comme un tout, et effacent mentalement certaines interruptions pour assurer l\u27enchaînement des tâches. Il est apparu que d\u27après les entretiens, l\u27"asepsie" était la règle absolue pour les IDE, constituant un "plus" par rapport à l\u27"hygiène". Ainsi, une pratique comme l\u27HM ne serait "que" de l\u27hygiène par rapport à d\u27autres pratiques considérées comme garantes de l\u27"asepsie", ce qui pourrait constituer un facteur de mauvaise observance de l\u27HM. Enfin, il a été observé le fréquent ressenti d\u27un risque plus important de contamination du patient vers le soignant que du soignant vers un autre patient, ce qui génère des comportements auto protecteurs. Conclusion : Il paraît important que dans leurs relations avec les soignants, les professionnels de l\u27hygiène hospitalière aient conscience que le non suivi des règles d\u27hygiène ne doit pas être interprété comme un dysfonctionnement ou un acte non rationnel, mais qu\u27il correspond à l\u27application d\u27autres logiques d\u27action à caractère prioritaire pour les soignants

A General Purpose Transpiler for Fully Homomorphic Encryption

Fully homomorphic encryption (FHE) is an encryption scheme which enables computation on encrypted data without revealing the underlying data. While there have been many advances in the field of FHE, developing programs using FHE still requires expertise in cryptography. In this white paper, we present a fully homomorphic encryption transpiler that allows developers to convert high-level code (e.g., C++) that works on unencrypted data into high-level code that operates on encrypted data. Thus, our transpiler makes transformations possible on encrypted data. Our transpiler builds on Google's open-source XLS SDK (https://github.com/google/xls) and uses an off-the-shelf FHE library, TFHE (https://tfhe.github.io/tfhe/), to perform low-level FHE operations. The transpiler design is modular, which means the underlying FHE library as well as the high-level input and output languages can vary. This modularity will help accelerate FHE research by providing an easy way to compare arbitrary programs in different FHE schemes side-by-side. We hope this lays the groundwork for eventual easy adoption of FHE by software developers. As a proof-of-concept, we are releasing an experimental transpiler (https://github.com/google/fully-homomorphic-encryption/tree/main/transpiler) as open-source software

Safety and efficacy of GABAA α5 antagonist S44819 in patients with ischaemic stroke: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Background: S44819, a selective GABAA α5 receptor antagonist, reduces tonic post-ischaemic inhibition of the peri-infarct cortex. S44819 improved stroke recovery in rodents and increased cortical excitability in a transcranial magnetic stimulation study in healthy volunteers. The Randomized Efficacy and Safety Trial of Oral GABAA α5 antagonist S44819 after Recent ischemic Event (RESTORE BRAIN) aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of S44819 for enhancing clinical recovery of patients with ischaemic stroke. Methods: RESTORE BRAIN was an international, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multicentre phase 2 trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of oral S44189 in patients with recent ischaemic stroke. The study was done in specialised stroke units in 92 actively recruiting centres in 14 countries: ten were European countries (Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and the UK) and four were non-European countries (Australia, Brazil, Canada, and South Korea). Patients aged 18–85 years with acute ischaemic stroke involving cerebral cortex (National Institute of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score 7–20) without previous disability were eligible for inclusion. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 150 mg S44819 twice a day, 300 mg S44819 twice a day, or placebo twice a day by a balanced, non-adaptive randomisation method with a 1:1:1 ratio. Treatment randomisation and allocation were centralised via the interactive web response system using computer-generated random sequences with a block size of 3. Blinding of treatment was achieved by identical appearance and taste of all sachets. Patients, investigators and individuals involved in the analysis of the trial were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score 90 days from onset of treatment, evaluated by shift analysis (predefined main analysis) or by dichotomised analyses using 0–1 versus 2–6 and 0–2 versus 3–6 cutoffs (predefined secondary analysis). Secondary endpoints were the effects of S44819 on the NIHSS and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores, time needed to complete parts A and B of the Trail Making Test, and the Barthel index. Efficacy analyses were done on all patients who received at least one dose of treatment and had at least one mRS score taken after day 5 (specifically, on or after day 30). Safety was compared across treatment groups for all patients who received at least one dose of treatment. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02877615. Findings: Between Dec 19, 2016, and Nov 16, 2018, 585 patients were enrolled in the study. Of these, 197 (34%) were randomly assigned to receive 150 mg S44819 twice a day, 195 (33%) to receive 300 mg S44819 twice a day, and 193 (33%) to receive placebo twice a day. 189 (96%) of 197 patients in the 150 mg S44819 group, 188 (96%) of 195 patients in the 300 mg S44819 group, and 191 (99%) patients in the placebo group received at least one dose of treatment and had at least one mRS score taken after day 5, and were included in efficacy analyses. 195 (99%) of 197 patients in the 150 mg S44819 group, 194 (99%) of 195 patients in the 300 mg S44819 group, and 193 (100%) patients in the placebo group received at least one dose of treatment, and were included in safety analyses. The primary endpoint of mRS at day 90 did not differ between each of the two S44819 groups and the placebo group (OR 0·91 [95% CI 0·64–1·31]; p=0·80 for 150 mg S44819 compared with placebo and OR 1·17 [95% CI 0·81–1·67]; p=0·80 for 300 mg S44819 compared with placebo). Likewise, dichotomised mRS scores at day 90 (mRS 0–2 vs 3–6 or mRS 0–1 vs 2–6) did not differ between groups. Secondary endpoints did not reveal any significant group differences. The median NIHSS score at day 90 did not differ between groups (4 [IQR 2–8] in 150 mg S44819 group, 4 [2–7] in 300 mg S44819 group, and 4 [2–6] in placebo group), nor did the number of patients at day 90 with an NIHSS score of up to 5 (95 [61%] of 156 in 150 mg S44819 group, 106 [66%] of 161 in 300 mg S44819 group, and 104 [66%] of 157 in placebo group) versus more than 5 (61 [39%] in 150 mg S44819 group, 55 [34%] in 300 mg S44819 group, and 53 [34%] in placebo group). Likewise, the median MoCA score (22·0 [IQR 17·0–26·0] in 150 mg S44819 group, 23·0 [19·0–26·5] in 300 mg S44819 group, and 22·0 [17·0–26·0] in placebo group), time needed to complete parts A (50 s [IQR 42–68] in 150 mg S44819 group, 49 s [36–63] in 300 mg S44819 group, and 50 s [38–68] in placebo group) and B (107 s [81–144] in 150 mg S44819 group, 121 s [76–159] in 300 mg S44819 group, and 130 s [86–175] in placebo group) of the Trail Making Test, and the Barthel index (90 [IQR 60–100] in 150 mg S44819 group, 90 [70–100] in 300 mg S44819 group, and 90 [70–100] in placebo group) were similar in all groups. Number and type of adverse events were similar between the three groups. There were no drug-related adverse events and no drug-related deaths. Interpretation: There was no evidence that S44819 improved clinical outcome in patients after ischaemic stroke, and thus S44819 cannot be recommended for stroke therapy. The concept of tonic inhibition after stroke should be re-evaluated in humans. Funding: Servier

Lichenological exploration of Algeria: historical overview and annotated bibliography, 1799-2013

yesDespite more than two centuries of almost uninterrupted surveys and studies of Algerian lichenology, the history and lichen diversity of Algeria are still poorly understood. During the preparation of a forthcoming checklist of Algerian lichens it was considered necessary to provide the present historical overview of lichenological exploration of the country from 1799 to 2013, supported by a reasonably comprehensive annotated bibliography of 171 titles

Decompressive craniectomy plus best medical treatment versus best medical treatment alone for spontaneous severe deep supratentorial intracerebral haemorrhage: a randomised controlled clinical trial

Background It is unknown whether decompressive craniectomy improves clinical outcome for people with spontaneous severe deep intracerebral haemorrhage. The SWITCH trial aimed to assess whether decompressive craniectomy plus best medical treatment in these patients improves outcome at 6 months compared to best medical treatment alone. Methods In this multicentre, randomised, open-label, assessor-blinded trial conducted in 42 stroke centres in Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland, adults (18–75 years) with a severe intracerebral haemorrhage involving the basal ganglia or thalamus were randomly assigned to receive either decompressive craniectomy plus best medical treatment or best medical treatment alone. The primary outcome was a score of 5–6 on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 180 days, analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClincalTrials.gov , NCT02258919 , and is completed. Findings SWITCH had to be stopped early due to lack of funding. Between Oct 6, 2014, and April 4, 2023, 201 individuals were randomly assigned and 197 gave delayed informed consent (96 decompressive craniectomy plus best medical treatment, 101 best medical treatment). 63 (32%) were women and 134 (68%) men, the median age was 61 years (IQR 51–68), and the median haematoma volume 57 mL (IQR 44–74). 42 (44%) of 95 participants assigned to decompressive craniectomy plus best medical treatment and 55 (58%) assigned to best medical treatment alone had an mRS of 5–6 at 180 days (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 0·77, 95% CI 0·59 to 1·01, adjusted risk difference [aRD] −13%, 95% CI −26 to 0, p=0·057). In the per-protocol analysis, 36 (47%) of 77 participants in the decompressive craniectomy plus best medical treatment group and 44 (60%) of 73 in the best medical treatment alone group had an mRS of 5–6 (aRR 0·76, 95% CI 0·58 to 1·00, aRD −15%, 95% CI −28 to 0). Severe adverse events occurred in 42 (41%) of 103 participants receiving decompressive craniectomy plus best medical treatment and 41 (44%) of 94 receiving best medical treatment. Interpretation SWITCH provides weak evidence that decompressive craniectomy plus best medical treatment might be superior to best medical treatment alone in people with severe deep intracerebral haemorrhage. The results do not apply to intracerebral haemorrhage in other locations, and survival is associated with severe disability in both groups. Funding Swiss National Science Foundation, Swiss Heart Foundation, Inselspital Stiftung, and Boehringer Ingelheim

Broken replication forks trigger heritable DNA breaks in the terminus of a circular chromosome

<p><u>(A) Circular map of the <i>E</i>. <i>coli</i> chromosome</u>: <i>oriC</i>, <i>dif</i> and <i>terD</i> to <i>terB</i> sites are indicated. Numbers refer to the chromosome coordinates (in kb) of MG1655. (<u>B) Linear map of the terminus region:</u> chromosome coordinates are shown increasing from left to right, as in the marker frequency panels (see Figure 1C for example), therefore in the opposite direction to the circular map. In addition to <i>dif</i> and <i>ter</i> sites, the positions of the <i>parS</i>_pMT1 sites used for microscopy experiments are indicated. (<u>C) MFA analysis of terminus DNA loss in the <i>recB</i> mutant</u>: sequence read frequencies of exponential phase cells normalized to the total number of reads were calculated for each strain. Ratios of normalized reads in isogenic wild-type and <i>recB</i> mutant are plotted against chromosomal coordinates (in kb). The profile ratio of the terminus region is enlarged and the profile of the corresponding entire chromosomes is shown in inset. Original normalized profiles used to calculate ratios are shown in <a href="http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007256#pgen.1007256.s005" target="_blank">S1 Fig</a>. The position of <i>dif</i> is indicated by a red arrow. The <i>ter</i> sites that arrest clockwise forks (<i>terC</i>, <i>terB</i>, green arrow) and counter-clockwise forks (<i>terA</i>, <i>terD</i>, blue arrow) are shown. <u>(D) Schematic representation of focus loss in the <i>recB</i> mutant:</u> Time-lapse microscopy experiments showed that loss of a focus in the <i>recB</i> mutant occurs concomitantly with cell division in one of two daughter cells, and that the cell that keeps the focus then generates a focus-less cell at each generation. The percentage of initial events was calculated as the percentage of cell divisions that generate a focus-less cell, not counting the following generations. In this schematic representation, two initial events occurred (generations #2 and #7) out of 9 generations, and focus loss at generation #2 is heritable. Panels shown in this figure were previously published in [<a href="http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007256#pgen.1007256.ref019" target="_blank">19</a>] and are reproduced here to introduce the phenomenon.</p

Why Are Outcomes Different for Registry Patients Enrolled Prospectively and Retrospectively? Insights from the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF).

Background: Retrospective and prospective observational studies are designed to reflect real-world evidence on clinical practice, but can yield conflicting results. The GARFIELD-AF Registry includes both methods of enrolment and allows analysis of differences in patient characteristics and outcomes that may result. Methods and Results: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and ≥1 risk factor for stroke at diagnosis of AF were recruited either retrospectively (n = 5069) or prospectively (n = 5501) from 19 countries and then followed prospectively. The retrospectively enrolled cohort comprised patients with established AF (for a least 6, and up to 24 months before enrolment), who were identified retrospectively (and baseline and partial follow-up data were collected from the emedical records) and then followed prospectively between 0-18 months (such that the total time of follow-up was 24 months; data collection Dec-2009 and Oct-2010). In the prospectively enrolled cohort, patients with newly diagnosed AF (≤6 weeks after diagnosis) were recruited between Mar-2010 and Oct-2011 and were followed for 24 months after enrolment. Differences between the cohorts were observed in clinical characteristics, including type of AF, stroke prevention strategies, and event rates. More patients in the retrospectively identified cohort received vitamin K antagonists (62.1% vs. 53.2%) and fewer received non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (1.8% vs . 4.2%). All-cause mortality rates per 100 person-years during the prospective follow-up (starting the first study visit up to 1 year) were significantly lower in the retrospective than prospectively identified cohort (3.04 [95% CI 2.51 to 3.67] vs . 4.05 [95% CI 3.53 to 4.63]; p = 0.016). Conclusions: Interpretations of data from registries that aim to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients with AF must take account of differences in registry design and the impact of recall bias and survivorship bias that is incurred with retrospective enrolment. Clinical Trial Registration: - URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362)

Improved risk stratification of patients with atrial fibrillation: an integrated GARFIELD-AF tool for the prediction of mortality, stroke and bleed in patients with and without anticoagulation.

OBJECTIVES: To provide an accurate, web-based tool for stratifying patients with atrial fibrillation to facilitate decisions on the potential benefits/risks of anticoagulation, based on mortality, stroke and bleeding risks. DESIGN: The new tool was developed, using stepwise regression, for all and then applied to lower risk patients. C-statistics were compared with CHA2DS2-VASc using 30-fold cross-validation to control for overfitting. External validation was undertaken in an independent dataset, Outcome Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF). PARTICIPANTS: Data from 39 898 patients enrolled in the prospective GARFIELD-AF registry provided the basis for deriving and validating an integrated risk tool to predict stroke risk, mortality and bleeding risk. RESULTS: The discriminatory value of the GARFIELD-AF risk model was superior to CHA2DS2-VASc for patients with or without anticoagulation. C-statistics (95% CI) for all-cause mortality, ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism and haemorrhagic stroke/major bleeding (treated patients) were: 0.77 (0.76 to 0.78), 0.69 (0.67 to 0.71) and 0.66 (0.62 to 0.69), respectively, for the GARFIELD-AF risk models, and 0.66 (0.64-0.67), 0.64 (0.61-0.66) and 0.64 (0.61-0.68), respectively, for CHA2DS2-VASc (or HAS-BLED for bleeding). In very low to low risk patients (CHA2DS2-VASc 0 or 1 (men) and 1 or 2 (women)), the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED (for bleeding) scores offered weak discriminatory value for mortality, stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding. C-statistics for the GARFIELD-AF risk tool were 0.69 (0.64 to 0.75), 0.65 (0.56 to 0.73) and 0.60 (0.47 to 0.73) for each end point, respectively, versus 0.50 (0.45 to 0.55), 0.59 (0.50 to 0.67) and 0.55 (0.53 to 0.56) for CHA2DS2-VASc (or HAS-BLED for bleeding). Upon validation in the ORBIT-AF population, C-statistics showed that the GARFIELD-AF risk tool was effective for predicting 1-year all-cause mortality using the full and simplified model for all-cause mortality: C-statistics 0.75 (0.73 to 0.77) and 0.75 (0.73 to 0.77), respectively, and for predicting for any stroke or systemic embolism over 1 year, C-statistics 0.68 (0.62 to 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Performance of the GARFIELD-AF risk tool was superior to CHA2DS2-VASc in predicting stroke and mortality and superior to HAS-BLED for bleeding, overall and in lower risk patients. The GARFIELD-AF tool has the potential for incorporation in routine electronic systems, and for the first time, permits simultaneous evaluation of ischaemic stroke, mortality and bleeding risks. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362) and for ORBIT-AF (NCT01165710)

Two-year outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation: results from GARFIELD-AF.

AIMS: The relationship between outcomes and time after diagnosis for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is poorly defined, especially beyond the first year. METHODS AND RESULTS: GARFIELD-AF is an ongoing, global observational study of adults with newly diagnosed NVAF. Two-year outcomes of 17 162 patients prospectively enrolled in GARFIELD-AF were analysed in light of baseline characteristics, risk profiles for stroke/systemic embolism (SE), and antithrombotic therapy. The mean (standard deviation) age was 69.8 (11.4) years, 43.8% were women, and the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3.3 (1.6); 60.8% of patients were prescribed anticoagulant therapy with/without antiplatelet (AP) therapy, 27.4% AP monotherapy, and 11.8% no antithrombotic therapy. At 2-year follow-up, all-cause mortality, stroke/SE, and major bleeding had occurred at a rate (95% confidence interval) of 3.83 (3.62; 4.05), 1.25 (1.13; 1.38), and 0.70 (0.62; 0.81) per 100 person-years, respectively. Rates for all three major events were highest during the first 4 months. Congestive heart failure, acute coronary syndromes, sudden/unwitnessed death, malignancy, respiratory failure, and infection/sepsis accounted for 65% of all known causes of death and strokes for <10%. Anticoagulant treatment was associated with a 35% lower risk of death. CONCLUSION: The most frequent of the three major outcome measures was death, whose most common causes are not known to be significantly influenced by anticoagulation. This suggests that a more comprehensive approach to the management of NVAF may be needed to improve outcome. This could include, in addition to anticoagulation, interventions targeting modifiable, cause-specific risk factors for death. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01090362