Influence of 30 and 60 Minutes of Hypobaric Hypoxia in Simulated Altitude of 15,000 ft on Human Proteome Profile

The human body reacts to hypobaric hypoxia, e.g., during a stay at high altitude, with several mechanisms of adaption. Even short-time exposition to hypobaric hypoxia leads to complex adaptions. Proteomics facilitates the possibility to detect changes in metabolism due to changes in proteins. The present study aims to identify time-dependent changes in protein expression due to hypobaric hypoxia for 30 and 60 min at a simulated altitude of 15,000 ft. N = 80 male subjects were randomized and assigned into four different groups: 40 subjects to ground control for 30 (GC30) and 60 min (GC60) and 40 subjects to 15,000 ft for 30 (HH30) and 60 min (HH60). Subjects in HH30 and HH60 were exposed to hypobaric hypoxia in a pressure chamber (total pressure: 572 hPa) equivalent to 15,000 ft for 30 vs. 60 min, respectively. Drawn blood was centrifuged and plasma frozen (−80 °C) until proteomic analysis. After separation of high abundant proteins, protein expression was analyzed by 2-DIGE and MALDI-TOF. To visualize the connected signaling cascade, a bio-informatical network analysis was performed. The present study was approved by the ethical committee of the University of Cologne, Germany. The study registry number is NCT03823677. In comparing HH30 to GC30, a total of seven protein spots had a doubled expression, and 22 spots had decreased gene expression. In a comparison of HH60 to GC60, a total of 27 protein spots were significantly higher expressed. HH60, as compared to GC30, revealed that a total of 37 spots had doubled expression. Vice versa, 12 spots were detected, which were higher expressed in GC30 vs. HH60. In comparison to GC, HH60 had distinct differences in the number of differential protein spots (noticeably more proteins due to longer exposure to hypoxia). There are indicators that changes in proteins are dependent on the length of hypobaric hypoxia. Some proteins associated with hemostasis were differentially expressed in the 60 min comparison

Randomized Comparison of Two new Methods for Chest Compressions during CPR in Microgravity – A Manikin Study

Background: Although there have been no reported cardiac arrests in space to date, the risk of severe medical events occurring during long-duration spaceflights is a major concern. These critical events can endanger both the crew as well as the mission and include cardiac arrest, which would require cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Thus far, five methods to perform CPR in microgravity have been proposed. However, each method seems insufficient to some extent and not applicable at all locations in a spacecraft. The aim of the present study is to describe and gather data for two new CPR methods in microgravity. Materials and Methods: A randomized, controlled trial (RCT) compared two new methods for CPR in a free-floating underwater setting. Paramedics performed chest compressions on a manikin (Ambu Man, Ambu, Germany) using two new methods for a free-floating position in a parallel-group design. The first method (Schmitz–Hinkelbein method) is similar to conventional CPR on earth, with the patient in a supine position lying on the operator’s knees for stabilization. The second method (Cologne method) is similar to the first, but chest compressions are conducted with one elbow while the other hand stabilizes the head. The main outcome parameters included the total number of chest compressions (n) during 1 min of CPR (compression rate), the rate of correct chest compressions (%), and no-flow time (s). The study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04354883). Results: Fifteen volunteers (age 31.0 ± 8.8 years, height 180.3 ± 7.5 cm, and weight 84.1 ± 13.2 kg) participated in this study. Compared to the Cologne method, the Schmitz–Hinkelbein method showed superiority in compression rates (100.5 ± 14.4 compressions/min), correct compression depth (65 ± 23%), and overall high rates of correct thoracic release after compression (66% high, 20% moderate, and 13% low). The Cologne method showed correct depth rates (28 ± 27%) but was associated with a lower mean compression rate (73.9 ± 25.5/min) and with lower rates of correct thoracic release (20% high, 7% moderate, and 73% low). Conclusions: Both methods are feasible without any equipment and could enable immediate CPR during cardiac arrest in microgravity, even in a single-helper scenario. The Schmitz–Hinkelbein method appears superior and could allow the delivery of high-quality CPR immediately after cardiac arrest with sufficient quality

The accuracy of pulse oximetry in emergency department patients with severe sepsis and septic shock: a retrospective cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Pulse oximetry is routinely used to continuously and noninvasively monitor arterial oxygen saturation (SaO₂) in critically ill patients. Although pulse oximeter oxygen saturation (SpO₂) has been studied in several patient populations, including the critically ill, its accuracy has never been studied in emergency department (ED) patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Sepsis results in characteristic microcirculatory derangements that could theoretically affect pulse oximeter accuracy. The purposes of the present study were twofold: 1) to determine the accuracy of pulse oximetry relative to SaO2 obtained from ABG in ED patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, and 2) to assess the impact of specific physiologic factors on this accuracy.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This analysis consisted of a retrospective cohort of 88 consecutive ED patients with severe sepsis who had a simultaneous arterial blood gas and an SpO₂value recorded. Adult ICU patients that were admitted from any Calgary Health Region adult ED with a pre-specified, sepsis-related admission diagnosis between October 1, 2005 and September 30, 2006, were identified. Accuracy (SpO₂- SaO₂) was analyzed by the method of Bland and Altman. The effects of hypoxemia, acidosis, hyperlactatemia, anemia, and the use of vasoactive drugs on bias were determined.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The cohort consisted of 88 subjects, with a mean age of 57 years (19 - 89). The mean difference (SpO₂- SaO₂) was 2.75% and the standard deviation of the differences was 3.1%. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that hypoxemia (SaO₂< 90) significantly affected pulse oximeter accuracy. The mean difference was 4.9% in hypoxemic patients and 1.89% in non-hypoxemic patients (p < 0.004). In 50% (11/22) of cases in which SpO₂was in the 90-93% range the SaO2 was <90%. Though pulse oximeter accuracy was not affected by acidoisis, hyperlactatementa, anemia or vasoactive drugs, these factors worsened precision.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Pulse oximetry overestimates ABG-determined SaO₂by a mean of 2.75% in emergency department patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. This overestimation is exacerbated by the presence of hypoxemia. When SaO₂needs to be determined with a high degree of accuracy arterial blood gases are recommended.</p

Performance of the final Event Builder for the ATLAS Experiment

Event data from proton-proton collisions at the LHC will be selected by the ATLAS experiment in a three level trigger system, which reduces the initial bunch crossing rate of 40 MHz at its first two trigger levels (LVL1+LVL2) to ~3 kHz. At this rate the Event-Builder collects the data from all Read-Out system PCs (ROSs) and provides fully assembled events to the the Event-Filter (EF), which is the third level trigger, to achieve a further rate reduction to ~200 Hz for permanent storage. The Event-Builder is based on a farm of O(100) PCs, interconnected via Gigabit Ethernet to O(150) ROSs. These PCs run Linux and multi-threaded software applications implemented in C++. All the ROSs and one third of the Event-Builder PCs are already installed and commissioned. We report on performance tests on this initial system, which show promising results to reach the final data throughput required for the ATLAS experiment

ATLAS DataFlow: the read-out subsystem, results from trigger and data-acquisition system testbed studies and from modeling

In the ATLAS experiment at the LHC, the output of readout hardware specific to each subdetector will be transmitted to buffers, located on custom made PCI cards ("ROBINs"). The data consist of fragments of events accepted by the first-level trigger at a maximum rate of 100 kHz. Groups of four ROBINs will be hosted in about 150 Read-Out Subsystem (ROS) PCs. Event data are forwarded on request via Gigabit Ethernet links and switches to the second-level trigger or to the Event builder. In this paper a discussion of the functionality and real-time properties of the ROS is combined with a presentation of measurement and modelling results for a testbed with a size of about 20% of the final DAQ system. Experimental results on strategies for optimizing the system performance, such as utilization of different network architectures and network transfer protocols, are presented for the testbed, together with extrapolations to the full system. ©2005 IEEE

Drons col·laboratius

La robòtica col·laborativa és senzillament robots dissenyats per dur a terme treballs de col·laboració amb els humans. Els robots col·laboratius o cobots són cada cop més utilitzats a les indústries. La robòtica col·laborativa és un dels àmbits d'actualitat en aquests moments. Però també és un dels més interessants en més d'un sentit. Com es comuniquen dos drons autònoms que col·laboren per fer una tasca? Com són aquests missatges que s'envien? Que poden fer que no podrien fer sols? Aquestes són algunes de les preguntes que ens volem respondre en aquest projecte. En aquest treball es presenta un disseny i implementació de dos drons terrestres que es comuniquen per col·laborar entre ells per resoldre una tasca.Collaborative robotics is simply robots designed to perform collaborative work with humans. Collaborative robots or cobots are increasingly used in industries. Collaborative robotics is one of the current topics now. But it is also one of the most interesting in more ways than one. How do two autonomous drones that collaborate to perform a task communicate? How are these messages sent? What can they do that they could not do alone? These are some of the questions we want to answer in this project. This work presents a design and implementation of two ground drones that communicate to collaborate with each other to solve a task.La robótica colaborativa es sencillamente robots diseñados para llevar a cabo trabajos de colaboración con los humanos. Los robots colaborativos o cobots son cada vez más utilizados en las industrias. La robótica colaborativa es uno de los ámbitos de actualidad. Pero también es uno de los más interesantes en más de un sentido. ¿Cómo se comunican drones autónomos que colaboran para hacer una tarea? ¿Cómo son estos mensajes que es envían? ¿Qué pueden hacer que no lo podrían hacer solos? Estas son algunas de las preguntas que queremos responder con este proyecto. En este trabajo se presenta un diseño e implementación de dos drones terrestres que se comunican para colaborar entre ellos para resolver una tarea

Medical emergencies on board commercial airliner

Worldwide airline travel increased to approx. 2.5 billion passengers in 2012. In spite of the increased probability of encountering an in-flight medical emergency, detailed data on incidence, causes, and consequences still remain limited. The aim of this review was to analyze previously published data concerning incidence, causes, and consequences of in-flight medical emergencies during commercial airline travel and portray diagnostic and therapeutic options for the travelling physician. To identify relevant data on in-flight medical emergencies of different previously published studies, a MEDLINEA (R) search was performed. Two specialists for anesthesiology with expertise in aviation and emergency medicine holding valid commercial/air transport pilot licenses independently reviewed the retrieved studies. Most authors report one in-flight medical emergency incident in the range of 10,000-40,000 passengers transported. Cardiac problems as well as syncope are responsible for most in-flight emergencies, followed by gastrointestinal disorders and respiratory emergencies. Diagnostic and therapeutic equipment on board varies significantly due to various international recommendations and poor standards. The lack of an international database on in-flight medical emergencies on board commercial airlines greatly complicates the adaptive supply of emergency equipment and targeted education of first responders. Incidentally present physicians have to assess available options for diagnosis and treatment individually and have to balance their actions accordingly