Foodborne disease outbreaks in United States schools

Background. The objective of this study was to describe the epidemiology of foodborne disease outbreaks in schools and to identify where preventive measures could be targeted. Methods. Reports by state and local health departments of foodborne disease outbreaks occurring in primary and secondary schools, colleges and universities from January 1, 1973, through December 31, 1997, were reviewed. Data from ill persons identified through foodborne outbreak investigations and subsequently reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the Foodborne Outbreak Surveillance System were examined. The number and size of foodborne disease outbreaks, as well as the etiologic agents, food vehicles of transmission, site of food preparation and contributing factors associated with outbreaks were also examined. Results. From 1973 through 1997, states and local health departments reported 604 outbreaks of foodborne disease in schools. The median number of school outbreaks annually was 25 (range, 9 to 44). In 60% of the outbreaks an etiology was not determined, and in 45% a specific food vehicle of transmission was not determined. Salmonella was the most commonly identified pathogen, accounting for 36% of outbreak reports with a known etiology. Specific food vehicles of transmission were epidemiologically identified in 333 (55%) of the 604 outbreaks. The most commonly implicated vehicles were foods containing poultry (18.6%), salads (6.0%), Mexican-style food (6.0%), beef (5.7%) and dairy products excluding ice cream (5.0%). The most commonly reported food preparation practices that contributed to these school-related outbreaks were improper food storage and holding temperatures and food contaminated by a food handler. Conclusions. Strengthening food safety measures in schools would better protect students and school staff from outbreaks of foodborne illness. Infection control policies, such as training and certification of food handlers in the proper storage and cooking of foods, meticulous hand washing and paid sick leave for food handlers with gastroenteritis, could make meals safer for American students

Epidemiology of Shock in Contemporary Cardiac Intensive Care Units.

Background Clinical investigations of shock in cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) have primarily focused on acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS). Few studies have evaluated the full spectrum of shock in contemporary CICUs. Methods and Results The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter network of advanced CICUs in North America. Anytime between September 2017 and September 2018, each center (n=16) contributed a 2-month snap-shot of all consecutive medical admissions to the CICU. Data were submitted to the central coordinating center (TIMI Study Group, Boston, MA). Shock was defined as sustained systolic blood pressurecardiogenic, distributive, hypovolemic, or mixed. Among 3049 CICU admissions, 677 (22%) met clinical criteria for shock. Shock type was varied, with 66% assessed as cardiogenic shock (CS), 7% as distributive, 3% as hypovolemic, 20% as mixed, and 4% as unknown. Among patients with CS (n=450), 30% had AMICS, 18% had ischemic cardiomyopathy without AMI, 28% had nonischemic cardiomyopathy, and 17% had a cardiac cause other than primary myocardial dysfunction. Patients with mixed shock had cardiovascular comorbidities similar to patients with CS. The median CICU stay was 4.0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2.5-8.1 days) for AMICS, 4.3 days (IQR, 2.1-8.5 days) for CS not related to AMI, and 5.8 days (IQR, 2.9-10.0 days) for mixed shock versus 1.9 days (IQR, 1.0-3.6) for patients without shock (

Clinical Practice Patterns in Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support for Shock in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) Registry.

BACKGROUND: Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices provide hemodynamic assistance for shock refractory to pharmacological treatment. Most registries have focused on single devices or specific etiologies of shock, limiting data regarding overall practice patterns with temporary MCS in cardiac intensive care units. METHODS: The CCCTN (Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network) is a multicenter network of tertiary CICUs in North America. Between September 2017 and September 2018, each center (n=16) contributed a 2-month snapshot of consecutive medical CICU admissions. RESULTS: Of the 270 admissions using temporary MCS, 33% had acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (CS), 31% had CS not related to acute myocardial infarction, 11% had mixed shock, and 22% had an indication other than shock. Among all 585 admissions with CS or mixed shock, 34% used temporary MCS during the CICU stay with substantial variation between centers (range: 17%-50%). The most common temporary MCS devices were intraaortic balloon pumps (72%), Impella (17%), and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (11%), although intraaortic balloon pump use also varied between centers (range: 40%-100%). Patients managed with intraaortic balloon pump versus other forms of MCS (advanced MCS) had lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores and less severe metabolic derangements. Illness severity was similar at high- versus low-MCS utilizing centers and at centers with more advanced MCS use. CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation in the use of temporary MCS among patients with shock in tertiary CICUs. While hospital-level variation in temporary MCS device selection is not explained by differences in illness severity, patient-level variation appears to be related, at least in part, to illness severity