SNAPSHOT USA 2019 : a coordinated national camera trap survey of the United States

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.With the accelerating pace of global change, it is imperative that we obtain rapid inventories of the status and distribution of wildlife for ecological inferences and conservation planning. To address this challenge, we launched the SNAPSHOT USA project, a collaborative survey of terrestrial wildlife populations using camera traps across the United States. For our first annual survey, we compiled data across all 50 states during a 14-week period (17 August - 24 November of 2019). We sampled wildlife at 1509 camera trap sites from 110 camera trap arrays covering 12 different ecoregions across four development zones. This effort resulted in 166,036 unique detections of 83 species of mammals and 17 species of birds. All images were processed through the Smithsonian's eMammal camera trap data repository and included an expert review phase to ensure taxonomic accuracy of data, resulting in each picture being reviewed at least twice. The results represent a timely and standardized camera trap survey of the USA. All of the 2019 survey data are made available herein. We are currently repeating surveys in fall 2020, opening up the opportunity to other institutions and cooperators to expand coverage of all the urban-wild gradients and ecophysiographic regions of the country. Future data will be available as the database is updated at eMammal.si.edu/snapshot-usa, as well as future data paper submissions. These data will be useful for local and macroecological research including the examination of community assembly, effects of environmental and anthropogenic landscape variables, effects of fragmentation and extinction debt dynamics, as well as species-specific population dynamics and conservation action plans. There are no copyright restrictions; please cite this paper when using the data for publication.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Fluid Resuscitation in Sepsis: Reexamining the Paradigm

Sepsis results in widespread inflammatory responses altering homeostasis. Associated circulatory abnormalities (peripheral vasodilation, intravascular volume depletion, increased cellular metabolism, and myocardial depression) lead to an imbalance between oxygen delivery and demand, triggering end organ injury and failure. Fluid resuscitation is a key part of treatment, but there is little agreement on choice, amount, and end points for fluid resuscitation. Over the past few years, the safety of some fluid preparations has been questioned. Our paper highlights current concerns, reviews the science behind current practices, and aims to clarify some of the controversies surrounding fluid resuscitation in sepsis

Age related inverse dose relation of sedatives and analgesics in the intensive care unit

<div><p>Sedative and analgesic practices in intensive care units (ICUs) are frequently based on anesthesia regimes but do not take account of the important patient related factors. Pharmacologic properties of sedatives and analgesics change when used as continuous infusions in ICU compared to bolus or short-term infusions during anesthesia. In a prospective observational cohort study, we investigated the association between patient related factors and sedatives/analgesics doses in patients on mechanical ventilation (MV) and their association with cessation of sedation/analgesia. We included patients expected to receive MV for at least 24 hours and excluded those with difficulty in assessing the depth of sedation. We collected data for the first 72 hours or until extubation, whichever occurred first. Multivariate analysis of variance, multivariate regression as well as logistic regression were used. The final cohort (N = 576) was predominantly male (64%) with mean (SD) age 61.7 (15.6) years, weight 63.4 (18.2) Kg, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score 28.2 (8) and 30% hospital mortality. Increasing age was associated with reduced propofol and fentanyl doses requirements, adjusted to the weight (p<0.001). Factors associated with higher propofol and fentanyl doses were vasopressor use (Relative mean difference (RMD) propofol 1.56 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28–1.90); fentanyl 1.48 (1.25–1.76) and central venous line placement (CVL, RMD propofol 1.64 (1.15–2.33); fentanyl 1.41 (1.03–1.91). Male gender was also associated with higher propofol dose (RMD 1.27 (1.06–1.49). Sedation cessation was less likely to occur in restrained patients (Odds Ratio, OR 0.48 (CI 0.30–0.78) or those receiving higher sedative/analgesic doses (OR propofol 0.98 (CI 0.97–0.99); fentanyl 0.99 (CI 0.98–0.997), independent of depth of sedation. In conclusion, increasing age is associated with the use of lower doses of sedative/analgesic in ICU, whereas CVL and vasopressor use were associated with higher doses.</p></div

Pre- and apnoeic high-flow oxygenation for rapid sequence intubation in the emergency department (the Pre-AeRATE trial): A multicentre randomised controlled trial

10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.2021407ANNALS ACADEMY OF MEDICINE SINGAPORE513149-16

Multivariate association between total propofol and total fentanyl dose adjusted to weight and significant risk factors.

<p>Multivariate association between total propofol and total fentanyl dose adjusted to weight and significant risk factors.</p

Univariate association between total propofol and fentanyl dose adjusted to weight and individual risk factors.

<p>Univariate association between total propofol and fentanyl dose adjusted to weight and individual risk factors.</p

Adjusted mean total dose of fentanyl according to age groups.

<p>Adjusted mean total dose of fentanyl according to age groups.</p

Adjusted mean total dose of propofol according to age groups.

<p>Adjusted mean total dose of propofol according to age groups.</p