Pilot Study of the Association of the DDAH2 −449G Polymorphism with Asymmetric Dimethylarginine and Hemodynamic Shock in Pediatric Sepsis

Genetic variability in the regulation of the nitric oxide (NO) pathway may influence hemodynamic changes in pediatric sepsis. We sought to determine whether functional polymorphisms in DDAH2, which metabolizes the NO synthase inhibitor asymmetric dimethylarginine (ADMA), are associated with susceptibility to sepsis, plasma ADMA, distinct hemodynamic states, and vasopressor requirements in pediatric septic shock.In a prospective study, blood and buccal swabs were obtained from 82 patients ≤ 18 years (29 with severe sepsis/septic shock plus 27 febrile and 26 healthy controls). Plasma ADMA was measured using tandem mass spectrometry. DDAH2 gene was partially sequenced to determine the -871 6g/7 g insertion/deletion and -449G/C single nucleotide polymorphisms. Shock type ("warm" versus "cold") was characterized by clinical assessment. The -871 7g allele was more common in septic (17%) then febrile (4%) and healthy (8%) patients, though this was not significant after controlling for sex and race (p = 0.96). ADMA did not differ between -871 6g/7 g genotypes. While genotype frequencies also did not vary between groups for the -449G/C SNP (p = 0.75), septic patients with at least one -449G allele had lower ADMA (median, IQR 0.36, 0.30-0.41 µmol/L) than patients with the -449CC genotype (0.55, 0.49-0.64 µmol/L, p = 0.008) and exhibited a higher incidence of "cold" shock (45% versus 0%, p = 0.01). However, after controlling for race, the association with shock type became non-significant (p = 0.32). Neither polymorphism was associated with inotrope score or vasoactive infusion duration.The -449G polymorphism in the DDAH2 gene was associated with both low plasma ADMA and an increased likelihood of presenting with "cold" shock in pediatric sepsis, but not with vasopressor requirement. Race, however, was an important confounder. These results support and justify the need for larger studies in racially homogenous populations to further examine whether genotypic differences in NO metabolism contribute to phenotypic variability in sepsis pathophysiology

Heparin versus 0.9% sodium chloride intermittent flushing for prevention of occlusion in central venous catheters in adults

Background Heparin intermittent flushing is a standard practice in the maintenance of patency in central venous catheters. However, we could find no systematic review examining its effectiveness and safety. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of intermittent flushing with heparin versus 0.9% sodium chloride (normal saline) solution in adults with central venous catheters in terms of prevention of occlusion and overall benefits versus harms. Search methods The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched December 2013) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 11). Searches were also carried out in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and clinical trials databases (December 2013). Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults 18 years of age and older with a central venous catheter (CVC) in which intermittent flushing with heparin (any dose with or without other drugs) was compared with 0.9% normal saline were included. No restriction on language was applied. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed trial quality and extracted data. Trial authors were contacted to retrieve additional information, when necessary. Main results Six eligible studies with a total of 1433 participants were included. The heparin concentrations used in these studies were very different (10-5000 IU/mL), and follow-up varied from 20 days to 180 days. The overall risk of bias in the studies was low. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate for the main outcomes (occlusion of CVC, duration of catheter patency, CVC-related sepsis, mortality and haemorrhage at any site). Combined findings from three trials in which the unit of analysis was the catheter suggest that heparin was associated with reduced CVC occlusion rates (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.94). However, no clear evidence of a similar effect was found when the results of two studies in which the unit of analysis was the participant were combined (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.70), nor when findings were derived from one study, which considered total line accesses (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.40). Furthermore, results for other estimated effects were found to be imprecise and compatible with benefit and harm: catheter duration in days (mean difference (MD) 0.41, 95% CI -1.29 to 2.12), CVC-related thrombosis (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.99), CVC-related sepsis (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.34 to 3.03), mortality (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.32) and haemorrhage at any site (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.85). Authors' conclusions We found no conclusive evidence of important differences when heparin intermittent flushing was compared with 0.9% normal saline flushing for central venous catheter maintenance in terms of efficacy or safety. As heparin is more expensive than normal saline, our findings challenge its continued use in CVC flushing outside the context of clinical trials

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008

SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008. DESIGN: A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Recommendations were classified into three groups: (1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; (2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and (3) pediatric considerations. RESULTS: Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 h after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 h of the recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 h of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1B); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement is based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of (a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or (b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO (2)/FiO (2) ratio of ≤100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 h) for patients with early ARDS and a PaO (2)/FI O (2) 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 h after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 h of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5-10 min (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C). CONCLUSIONS: Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients

Feminism and modern Jewish theological method

Methodology is not commonly the center of theological debate, and within Judaism this has been especially true. Nevertheless, increasing respect for the holistic question mandates an examination of broad intellectual structures or patterns of thinking.These intellectual structures can help or hinder the business of change, though they are customarily ignored in this regard. Modern Judaism frequently makes changes on an ad hoc basis, without endeavoring to ground them in a more fundamental vision that should help to ensure the development of an integrated religion, rather than one that attempts to address current problems atomistically and without conscious regard for the larger picture. Hence we tend to make changes and adopt new practices and beliefs in spite of the underlying methodology we employ, rather than in accordance with it, thus sacrificing in overall clarity and stability what we gain in fairness. But an agenda alone is inadequate.For feminist Jews, attention to method in addition to agenda is necessary so that we will be able to feel some sense of security in the places we carve out for ourselves. What is needed is a careful examination of the methodological options, that is, an assessment of the major formulas for prioritizing God, Torah, and Israel. Each must be appraised from the standpoint of this goal: the free and full participation of women in a Judaism that fully includes our experiences and contributions.Toward that end, this dissertation examines four methodological strategies. The first is that in which God is primary: this method is employed by H. Cohen and L. Baeck. The second method makes Torah primary, and is represented by A. Heschel and J. Soloveitchik. The third method attempts to hold God and Israel together as primary, and is utilized by M. Buber and E. Borowitz. The last option is that in which Israel, the Jewish community, is primary: this method finds its clearest expression in the work of M. Kaplan. Of the four, only the last can consistently and coherently support the quest of Jewish women to affirm both aspects of our dual identity as Jews and as women.Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Claremont Graduate University, 1989.School code: 0047