Quantitative analytical tools for bee health (Apis mellifera) assessment

Background: The number of honeybee (Apis mellifera) colony losses has grown significantly in the past decade, endangering pollination of agricultural crops. Research indicates that no single factor is sufficient to explain colony losses and that a combination of stressors appears to impact hive health. Accurate evaluation of the different factors such as pathogen load, environmental conditions, nutrition and foraging is important to understanding colony loss. Commonly used colony assessment methods are subjective and imprecise making it difficult to compare bee hive parameters between studies. Finding robust, validated methods to assess bees and hive health has become a key area of focus for bee health and bee risk assessment.Results: Our study focused on developing and implementing quantitative analytical tools that allowed us to investigate different factors contribution to colony loss. These validated methods include: adult bee and brood cell imaging and automated counting (IndiCounter, WSC Regexperts), cellular transmitting scales and weather monitoring (Phytech, ILS) and pathogen detection (QuantiGene® Plex 2.0 RNA assay platform from Affymetrix). These techniques enable accurate assessment of colony state.Conclusion: A major challenge to date for bee health is to identify the events leading to colony loss. Our study describes validated molecular and computational tools to assess colony health that can prospectively describe the etiology of potential diseases and in some cases identify the cause leading to colony collapse.Keywords: colony loss, colony assessment methods, cellular transmitting scales, weather monitoring, QuantiGene® Plex 2.0

Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P < 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely

Thromboelastography and rotational thromboelastometry in bleeding patients with coagulopathy: Practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma

BACKGROUND: Assessment of the immediate need for specific blood product transfusions in acutely bleeding patients is challenging. Clinical assessment and commonly used coagulation tests are inaccurate and time-consuming. The goal of this practice management guideline was to evaluate the role of the viscoelasticity tests: thromboelastography (TEG) and rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM), in the management of acutely bleeding trauma, surgical and critically ill patients. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analyses of manuscripts comparing TEG/ROTEM to non-TEG/ROTEM-guided blood products transfusions strategies were performed. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was applied to assess the level of evidence and create recommendations for TEG/ROTEM-guided blood product transfusions in adult trauma, surgical, and critically ill patients. RESULTS: Utilizing TEG/ROTEM-guided blood transfusions in acutely bleeding trauma, surgical, and critically ill patients was associated with a tendency to fewer blood product transfusions in all populations. TEG/ROTEM-guided transfusions were associated with a reduced number of additional invasive hemostatic interventions (angioembolic, endoscopic, or surgical) in surgical patients. TEG/ROTEM -guided transfusions were associated with a reduction in mortality in trauma patients. CONCLUSION: In patients with ongoing hemorrhage and concern for coagulopathy, we conditionally recommend using TEG/ROTEM-guided transfusions, compared with traditional coagulation parameters, to guide blood component transfusions in each of the following three groups: adult trauma patients, adult surgical patients, and patients with critical illness. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II TYPE OF STUDY: Therapeutic

Thromboelastography and Rotational Thromboelastometry in Bleeding Patients with Coagulopathy: Practice Management Guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of the immediate need for specific blood product transfusions in acutely bleeding patients is challenging. Clinical assessment and commonly used coagulation tests are inaccurate and time-consuming. The goal of this practice management guideline was to evaluate the role of the viscoelasticity tests: thromboelastography (TEG) and rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM), in the management of acutely bleeding trauma, surgical and critically ill patients. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analyses of manuscripts comparing TEG/ROTEM to non-TEG/ROTEM-guided blood products transfusions strategies were performed. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was applied to assess the level of evidence and create recommendations for TEG/ROTEM-guided blood product transfusions in adult trauma, surgical, and critically ill patients. RESULTS: Utilizing TEG/ROTEM-guided blood transfusions in acutely bleeding trauma, surgical, and critically ill patients was associated with a tendency to fewer blood product transfusions in all populations. TEG/ROTEM-guided transfusions were associated with a reduced number of additional invasive hemostatic interventions (angioembolic, endoscopic, or surgical) in surgical patients. TEG/ROTEM -guided transfusions were associated with a reduction in mortality in trauma patients. CONCLUSION: In patients with ongoing hemorrhage and concern for coagulopathy, we conditionally recommend using TEG/ROTEM-guided transfusions, compared with traditional coagulation parameters, to guide blood component transfusions in each of the following three groups: adult trauma patients, adult surgical patients, and patients with critical illness. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II TYPE OF STUDY: Therapeutic