Abdominal Compartment Syndrome in Critically Ill Patients

BACKGROUND: Abdominal compartment syndrome patients suffer severe obstacles such as kidney failure and shock. To evade further complications, identifying the abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) and Intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH), in critically ill individuals and hospitalised in the intensive care unit (ICU) is obligated. AIM: The current study intended to study the abdominal compartment syndrome and the concomitant risk factors among hospitalised patients in ICU, by using the Intra-abdominal pressure test. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and twenty-five hospitalised patients at ICU entered the current survey. Abdominal pressure was measured by standard intravesical technique. The SPSS 21 analysed the preoperative and intraoperative factors such as demographic records and comorbidities. RESULTS: Seventy-three (58.4%) participants were males, and 52 (41.6%) were women in the mean age of 55.1 ± 18.3 years. Eighty-nine patients (71.2%) showed normal intra-abdominal pressure since 31 patients (24.8%), and 5 patients (4%) developed IAH and ACS. The intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) applied to Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), Acute Physiology, shock, Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS), central venous oxygen saturation and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score (P < 0.05). Patients with high IAP have shown a higher mortality frequency, compared to others (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Current findings showed a correlation between IAP hospitalised patients in ICU and shock, SIRS, APACHE II, central venous oxygen saturation and GCS. Intra-abdominal pressure test, as a valuable prognosis test for the abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) and Intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH), may offer better results when added to the routine medical checkup of ICU patients

Procalcitonin and Proinflammatory Cytokines in Early Diagnosis of Bacterial Infections after Bronchoscopy

BACKGROUND: Fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB) guided bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) remains as the chief diagnostic tool in respiratory disorders. 1.2-16% of patients frequently experience fever after bronchoscopy. To exclude the need for multiple antibiotic prescribing in patients with post-bronchoscopy fever, the presence of the self-limiting inflammatory responses should be excluded. AIM: The current study was conducted to test the serum of patients undergoing bronchoscopy for some proinflammatory cytokines including Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha (TNF-ɑ), Interleukin-1beta (IL-1β), Interleukin-8 (IL-8) and Interleukin-6 (IL-6) and the value of Procalcitonin (PCT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Current case-control study was conducted at the National Research Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease in Iran. Nineteen patients (48.72%) that attended with a reasonable sign for a diagnostic bronchoscopy from January 2016 to December 2017 were included in the case group. The control group consisted of 20 patients who underwent a simple bronchoscopy and without FOB-BAL. The laboratory findings for PCT concentrations and cytokine levels in the three serum samples (before FOB-BAL (t0), after 6 hr. (t1), and at 24 hr. past (t2) FOB-BAL) were compared between two groups. RESULTS: The frequency of post-bronchoscopy fever was 5.12, and the prevalence of post-bronchoscopy infectious fever was 2.56%. PCT level was considerably higher in the patient with a confirmed bacterial infection when compared to other participants (p-value < 0. 05). Interestingly, IL-8 level in the bacterial infection proven fever patient was higher than in other patients (p < 0.001). IL-8 levels displayed a specificity of 72.7% and a sensitivity of 100%, at the threshold point of 5.820 pg/ml. PCT levels had a specificity of 84% and a sensitivity of 81%, at the threshold point of 0.5 ng/ml. CONCLUSION: The present findings show that in patients with fever after bronchoscopy, PCT levels and IL-8 levels are valuable indicators for antibiotic therapy, proving adequate proof for bacterial infection. The current findings also illustrate that to monitor the serum levels of PCT and proinflammatory cytokines in the patients undergoing FOB-BAL, the best time is the 24-hour postoperative bronchoscopy

Global, regional, and national burden of colorectal cancer and its risk factors, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Funding: F Carvalho and E Fernandes acknowledge support from Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P. (FCT), in the scope of the project UIDP/04378/2020 and UIDB/04378/2020 of the Research Unit on Applied Molecular Biosciences UCIBIO and the project LA/P/0140/2020 of the Associate Laboratory Institute for Health and Bioeconomy i4HB; FCT/MCTES through the project UIDB/50006/2020. J Conde acknowledges the European Research Council Starting Grant (ERC-StG-2019-848325). V M Costa acknowledges the grant SFRH/BHD/110001/2015, received by Portuguese national funds through Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT), IP, under the Norma Transitória DL57/2016/CP1334/CT0006.proofepub_ahead_of_prin

The global burden of cancer attributable to risk factors, 2010-19 : a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Background Understanding the magnitude of cancer burden attributable to potentially modifiable risk factors is crucial for development of effective prevention and mitigation strategies. We analysed results from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 to inform cancer control planning efforts globally. Methods The GBD 2019 comparative risk assessment framework was used to estimate cancer burden attributable to behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risk factors. A total of 82 risk-outcome pairs were included on the basis of the World Cancer Research Fund criteria. Estimated cancer deaths and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in 2019 and change in these measures between 2010 and 2019 are presented. Findings Globally, in 2019, the risk factors included in this analysis accounted for 4.45 million (95% uncertainty interval 4.01-4.94) deaths and 105 million (95.0-116) DALYs for both sexes combined, representing 44.4% (41.3-48.4) of all cancer deaths and 42.0% (39.1-45.6) of all DALYs. There were 2.88 million (2.60-3.18) risk-attributable cancer deaths in males (50.6% [47.8-54.1] of all male cancer deaths) and 1.58 million (1.36-1.84) risk-attributable cancer deaths in females (36.3% [32.5-41.3] of all female cancer deaths). The leading risk factors at the most detailed level globally for risk-attributable cancer deaths and DALYs in 2019 for both sexes combined were smoking, followed by alcohol use and high BMI. Risk-attributable cancer burden varied by world region and Socio-demographic Index (SDI), with smoking, unsafe sex, and alcohol use being the three leading risk factors for risk-attributable cancer DALYs in low SDI locations in 2019, whereas DALYs in high SDI locations mirrored the top three global risk factor rankings. From 2010 to 2019, global risk-attributable cancer deaths increased by 20.4% (12.6-28.4) and DALYs by 16.8% (8.8-25.0), with the greatest percentage increase in metabolic risks (34.7% [27.9-42.8] and 33.3% [25.8-42.0]). Interpretation The leading risk factors contributing to global cancer burden in 2019 were behavioural, whereas metabolic risk factors saw the largest increases between 2010 and 2019. Reducing exposure to these modifiable risk factors would decrease cancer mortality and DALY rates worldwide, and policies should be tailored appropriately to local cancer risk factor burden. Copyright (C) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.Peer reviewe

Effect of Intermediate-Dose vs Standard-Dose Prophylactic Anticoagulation on Thrombotic Events, Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Treatment, or Mortality among Patients with COVID-19 Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit: The INSPIRATION Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: Thrombotic events are commonly reported in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Limited data exist to guide the intensity of antithrombotic prophylaxis. Objective: To evaluate the effects of intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation among patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized trial with a 2 � 2 factorial design performed in 10 academic centers in Iran comparing intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (first hypothesis) and statin therapy vs matching placebo (second hypothesis; not reported in this article) among adult patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19. Patients were recruited between July 29, 2020, and November 19, 2020. The final follow-up date for the 30-day primary outcome was December 19, 2020. Interventions: Intermediate-dose (enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg daily) (n = 276) vs standard prophylactic anticoagulation (enoxaparin, 40 mg daily) (n = 286), with modification according to body weight and creatinine clearance. The assigned treatments were planned to be continued until completion of 30-day follow-up. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mortality within 30 days, assessed in randomized patients who met the eligibility criteria and received at least 1 dose of the assigned treatment. Prespecified safety outcomes included major bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (type 3 or 5 definition), powered for noninferiority (a noninferiority margin of 1.8 based on odds ratio), and severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count <20 �103/µL). All outcomes were blindly adjudicated. Results: Among 600 randomized patients, 562 (93.7) were included in the primary analysis (median interquartile range age, 62 50-71 years; 237 42.2% women). The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 126 patients (45.7%) in the intermediate-dose group and 126 patients (44.1%) in the standard-dose prophylaxis group (absolute risk difference, 1.5% 95% CI,-6.6% to 9.8%; odds ratio, 1.06 95% CI, 0.76-1.48; P =.70). Major bleeding occurred in 7 patients (2.5%) in the intermediate-dose group and 4 patients (1.4%) in the standard-dose prophylaxis group (risk difference, 1.1% 1-sided 97.5% CI,-� to 3.4%; odds ratio, 1.83 1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.00-5.93), not meeting the noninferiority criteria (P for noninferiority >.99). Severe thrombocytopenia occurred only in patients assigned to the intermediate-dose group (6 vs 0 patients; risk difference, 2.2% 95% CI, 0.4%-3.8%; P =.01). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19, intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, did not result in a significant difference in the primary outcome of a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mortality within 30 days. These results do not support the routine empirical use of intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation in unselected patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04486508. © 2021 American Medical Association. All rights reserved

Extended light absorption and enhanced photoelectrochemical activity of palladium-decorated hematite nanotubes prepared by photodeposition method

Extended light absorption and enhanced photoelectrochemical activity of palladium-decorated hematite nanotubes prepared by photodeposition metho

Photoelectrochemical performances of Fe2O3 nanotube films decorated with cadmium sulfide nanoparticles via photo deposition method

Photoelectrochemical performances of Fe2O3 nanotube films decorated with cadmium sulfide nanoparticles via photo deposition metho