Are there any differences in clinical and laboratory findings on admission between H1N1 positive and negative patients with flu-like symptoms?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The World Health Organization alert for the H1N1 influenza pandemic led to the implementation of certain measures regarding admission of patients with flu-like symptoms. All these instructions were adopted by the Greek National Health System. The aim of this study was to retrospectively examine the characteristics of all subjects admitted to the Unit of Infectious Diseases with symptoms indicating H1N1 infection, and to identify any differences between H1N1 positive or negative patients. Patients from the ED (emergency department) with flu-like symptoms (sore throat, cough, rhinorhea, or nasal congestion) and fever >37.5°C were admitted in the Unit of Infectious diseases and gave pharyngeal or nasopharyngeal swabs. Swabs were tested with real-time reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR).</p> <p>Findings</p> <p>Patients were divided into two groups. Group A comprised 33 H1N1 positive patients and Group B (control group) comprised of 27 H1N1 negative patients. The two groups did not differ in terms of patient age, co-morbidities, length of hospitalization, temperature elevation, hypoxemia, as well as renal and liver function. There were also no significant differences in severity on admission. C-reactive protein (CRP) (mean 12.8 vs. 5.74) and white blood count (WBC) (mean 10.528 vs. 7.114) were significantly higher in group B than in group A upon admission. Obesity was noted in 8 patients of Group A (mean 31.67) and 14 patients of Group B (mean 37.78). Body mass index (BMI) was lower in H1N1 positive than in H1N1 negative patients (mean 31.67 vs. 37.78, respectively; p = 0.009).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The majority of patients in both groups were young male adults. CRP, WBC and BMI were higher among H1N1 negative patients. Finally, clinical course of patients in both groups was mild and uneventful.</p

Functional outcomes in symptomatic versus asymptomatic patients undergoing incisional hernia repair: Replacing one problem with another? A prospective cohort study in 1312 patients

Background: Incisional hernias can be associated with pain or discomfort. Surgical repair especially mesh reinforcement, may likewise induce pain. The primary objective was to assess the incidence of pain after hernia repair in patients with and without pre-operative pain or discomfort. The secondary objectives were to determine the preferred mesh type, mesh location and surgical technique in minimizing postoperative pain or discomfort. Materials and methods: A registry-based prospective cohort study was performed, including patients undergoing incisional hernia repair between September 2011 and May 2019. Patients with a minimum follow-up of 3–6 months were included. The incidence of hernia related pain and discomfort was recorded perioperatively. Results: A total of 1312 patients were included. Pre-operatively, 1091 (83%) patients reported pain or discomfort. After hernia repair, 961 (73%) patients did not report pain or discomfort (mean follow-up = 11.1 months). Of the pre-operative asymptomatic patients (n = 221), 44 (20%, moderate or severe pain: n = 14, 32%) reported pain or discomfort after mean follow-up of 10.5 months. Of those patients initially reporting pain or discomfort (n = 1091), 307 (28%, moderate or severe pain: n = 80, 26%) still reported pain or discomfort after a mean follow-up of 11.3 months postoperatively. Conclusion: In symptomatic incisional hernia patients, hernia related complaints may be resolved in the majority of cases undergoing surgical repair. In asymptomatic incisional hernia patients, pain or discomfort may be induced in a considerable number of patients due to surgical repair and one should be aware if this postoperative complication

Should CT scan be performed when CRP is elevated after colorectal surgery? Results from the inflammatory markers after colorectal surgery study.

IF 2.250International audienceIntroduction: Serum concentration of C-reactive protein (CRP) that exceeds a pre-defined threshold between the 3rd and 5th postoperative day is a reliable marker of infectious complications after colorectal surgery. However, the optimal strategy to follow when a high CRP is found has not been defined. The aim of this study was to analyze the usefulness of computed tomography (CT) scan in this situation in a prospective cohort of patients following colorectal surgery.Methods: Between November 2011 and April 2015, patients at two surgical centers who had undergone elective colorectal resection with anastomosis and who had a CRP > 12.5 mg/dL on the 4th postoperative day (POD) were prospectively included in a database. Data were collected concerning all complications occurring during the 30 days following surgery, method of diagnosis, management and clinical course. The decision to perform a CT scan between POD 4 and POD 6 day was guided only by the elevation of CRP in the absence of any other clinical signs; results were analyzed to evaluate the diagnostic value of elevated CRP. Uni- and multivariable analyses were performed to identify risk factors for postoperative infection.Results: The study included a total of 174 patients: 56 (32.1%) had a CT between POD 4 and 6, and this helped detect a postoperative complication in 55.4% of cases. Patients who did not undergo CT had lower CRP values (16.3 vs. 18.5, P = 0.02). Among the 118 patients who did not undergo CT, 50.8% eventually developed an infectious complication. The sensitivity of CRP-guided CT was 76.7% with a negative predictive value of 78.8%

Uncontrolled Donation After Circulatory Determination of Death: A Systematic Ethical Analysis.

Uncontrolled donation after circulatory determination of death (uDCDD) refers to organ donation after a refractory cardiac arrest. We analyzed ethical issues raised by the uDCDD protocols of France, Madrid, and New York City. We recommend: (1) Termination of resuscitation (TOR) guidelines need refinement, particularly the minimal duration of resuscitation efforts before considering TOR; (2) Before enrolling in an uDCDD protocol, physicians must ascertain that additional resuscitation efforts would be ineffective; (3) Inclusion in an uDCDD protocol should not be made in the outpatient setting to avoid error and conflicts of interest; (4) The patient's condition should be reassessed at the hospital and reversible causes treated; (5) A no-touch period of at least 10 minutes should be respected to avoid the risk of autoresuscitation; (6) Once death has been determined, no procedure that may resume brain circulation should be used, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation, artificial ventilation, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; (7) Specific consent is required prior to entry into an uDCDD protocol; (8) Family members should be informed about the goals, risks, and benefits of planned uDCDD procedures; and (9) Public information on uDCDD is desirable because it promotes public trust and confidence in the organ donation system