The effect on colon visualization during colonoscopy of the addition of simethicone to polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution: a randomized single-blind study.

OBJECTIVES: Colonic bubbles associated with polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution (PEG-ELS) are common and obscure mucosal visualization. This study aimed to determine whether adding simethicone decreases the incidence of bubbles. METHODS: Prospective, single-blind, randomized comparison of split dose PEG-ELS vs. PEG-ELS+simethicone (PEG-S) for outpatient colonoscopy. Bubble severity for colonic segments was assessed on withdrawal as A=no/minimal bubbles, B=moderate bubbles/interfere with detecting 5 mm polyp, C=severe bubbles/interfere with detecting 10 mm polyp. Primary end point was Grade B or C bubbles in any colon segment. Secondary end points were cleansing quality, incidence and severity of side effects, and polyp detection. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty nine patients enrolled; 13 withdrew before colonoscopy. Of 123 patients evaluated, 62 took PEG-S and 61 PEG-ELS. The incidence of grade B or C bubbles was much lower with PEG-S compared with PEG-ELS (2% vs. 38%; P=0.001). Overall cleansing (excellent or good) quality was not significantly different for either the whole colon (89% PEG-ELS, 94% of PEG-S, P=0.529) or right colon (88% PEG-ELS, 94% PEG-S, P=0.365). More PEG-S patients had excellent rather than good preps (whole colon 53% vs. 28%, P=0.004; right colon 53% vs. 35%, P=0.044). Need for any flushing was less with PEG-S (38% vs. 70%, P=0.001). The groups were not significantly different with respect to total procedure and withdrawal times, incidence or severity of side effects, or number of polyps/patient or adenomas/patient. CONCLUSIONS: Adding simethicone to PEG-ELS effectively eliminates bubbles, substantially reduces the need for flushing, and results in more excellent preparations

Sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock: A review of the literature

Sepsis represents a continuum of illness due to systemic inflammation caused by an infection that requires prompt recognition and treatment. While sepsis is a significant cause of death worldwide, its mortality is believed to be disproportionately high in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Since 1992, its definition has become standardized, and beginning in 2002, an international collaboration has produced a set of consensus guidelines on the optimal management of septic patients. Based on new evidence, significant updates have been made since then. It is known that application of a bundled approach to patient care with the use of specific resuscitation endpoints to guide therapy leads to significant reductions in mortality from sepsis. However, it is also recognized that the implementation of such interventions in LMICs is extremely challenging. Consequently, a body of literature on practical guidelines for sepsis in developing countries has emerged. This article provides a review of the evidence for the best practice of sepsis management, with recommendations for resource-limited settings

Survey-based Evaluation of Resident and Attending Financial Literacy

Introduction: Physician finances are linked to wellness and burnout. However, few physicians receive financial management education. We sought to determine the financial literacy and educational need of attending and resident physician at an academic emergency medicine (EM) residency.  Methods: We performed a cross-sectional, survey study at an academic EM residency. We devised a 49-question survey with four major domains: demographics (16 questions); Likert-scale questions evaluating value placed on personal finances (3 questions); Likert-scale questions evaluating perceived financial literacy (11 questions); and a financial literacy test based on previously developed and widely used financial literacy questions (19 questions). We administered the survey to EM attendings and residents. We analyzed the data using descriptive statistics and compared attending and resident test question responses.  Results: A total of 44 residents and 24 attendings responded to the survey. Few (9.0% of residents, 12.5% of attendings) reported prior formal financial education. However, most respondents (70.5% of residents and 79.2% of attendings) participated in financial self-learning. On a five-point Likert scale (not at all important: very important), respondents felt that financial independence (4.7 ± 0.8) and their finances (4.7±0.8) were important for their well-being. Additionally, they valued being prepared for retirement (4.7±0.9). Regarding perceived financial literacy (very uncomfortable: very comfortable), respondents had the lowest comfort level with investing in the stock market (2.7±1.5), applying for a mortgage (2.8±1.6), and managing their retirement (3.0±1.4). Residents scored significantly lower than attendings on the financial literacy test (70.8% vs 79.6%, P<0.01), and residents scored lower on questions pertaining to investment (78.8% v 88.9%, P<0.01) and insurance and taxes (47.0% v 70.8%, P<0.01). Overall, respondents scored lower on questions about retirement (58.8%, P<0.01) and insurance and taxes (54.7%, P<0.01). Conclusion: Emergency physicians’ value of financial literacy exceeded confidence in financial literacy, and residents reported poorer confidence than attendings. We identified deficiencies in emergency physicians’ financial literacy for retirement, insurance, and taxes