Translational Science Research: Towards Better Health

Even though it is considered a 21st century term, translational research has been present for much longer. Idea of translating experimental discovery to its’ clinical application and use is old as research itself. However, it is the understanding of missing links between the basic science research and clinical research that emerged in the past decade and mobilized scientific and clinical communities and organizations worldwide. Hence term, translational research, which represents an “enterprise of harnessing knowledge from basic sciences to produce new drugs, devices, and treatment options for patients” (1). It has been also characterized as “effective translation of the new knowledge, mechanisms, and techniques generated by advances in basic science research into new approaches for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease, which is essential for improving health” (2). This translation is a complex process and involves more than one step for transfer of research knowledge. At least 3 such roadblocks have been identified (Figure 1) ; T1 translation: “The transfer of new understandings of disease mechanisms gained in the laboratory into the development of new methods for diagnosis, therapy, and prevention and their first testing in humans”, T2 translation: “The translation of results from clinical studies into everyday clinical practice and health decision making”, and T3 translation: “Practice-based research, which is often necessary before distilled knowledge (e.g., systematic reviews, guidelines) can be implemented in practice” (3-5). The international research community rapidly recognized importance for promotion of translational research and made it their priority(5). In the USA, National Institutes of Health, (NIH) expects to fund 60 translational research centers with a budget of $500 million per year by 2012 (6). Besides academic centers, foundations, industry, disease-related organizations, and individual hospitals and health systems have also established translational research programs and at least 2 journals (Translational Medicine and the Journal of Translational Medicine) are devoted to the topic. In Europe, translational research has become a centerpiece of the European Commission’s €6 billion budget for health related research, and the United Kingdom has invested £450 million over 5 years to establish translational research centers (7). In this issue of Bosnian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences, members of medical section of Bosnian and Herzegovinian-American Academy of Arts and Sciences (BHAAAS), contributed their own work and expertise to bridge the gap between basic and clinical research, between inventing the treatments and getting them used in practice, and laid down foundations for future collaborative development of translational research in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as in the region (8). At the first glance of this issue’s table of content, a reader will easily notice the variety and breadth of topics and themes, from medical informatics and genetics, to hematology and oncology, pulmonary and critical care medicine, orthopedics, trauma surgery and neurosurgery. However, all of the articles share common ideas of translation of knowledge, from bench to bedside and back, and individualized approach to medicine, which are the true hallmarks of the 21st century medicine. Deeper under the surface and titles, there lies our common privilege and honor to be part of a broader mission of BHAAAS: to connect with our fellow physicians and scientists, and to build bridges of cooperation with our homeland, to promote the spirit of intellectual diversity and free exchange of ideas with the strong belief that this knowledge sharing will promote betterment of health in Bosnia and Herzegovin

The initial Mayo Clinic experience using high-frequency oscillatory ventilation for adult patients: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND: High-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) was introduced in our institution in June 2003. Since then, there has been no protocol to guide the use of HFOV, and all decisions regarding ventilation strategies and settings of HFOV were made by the treating intensivist. The aim of this study is to report our first year of experience using HFOV. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we reviewed all 14 adult patients, who were consecutively ventilated with HFOV in the intensive care units of a tertiary medical center, from June 2003 to July 2004. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 56 years, 10 were males, and all were whites. The first day median APACHE II score and its predicted hospital mortality were 35 and 83%, respectively, and the median SOFA score was 11.5. Eleven patients had ARDS, two unilateral pneumonia with septic shock, and one pulmonary edema. Patients received conventional ventilation for a median of 1.8 days before HFOV. HFOV was used 16 times for a median of 3.2 days. Improvements in oxygenation parameters were observed after 24 hours of HFOV (mean PaO(2)/FIO(2 )increased from 82 to 107, P < 0.05; and the mean oxygenation index decreased from 42 to 29; P < 0.05). In two patients HFOV was discontinued, in one because of equipment failure and in another because of severe hypotension that was unresponsive to fluids. No change in mean arterial pressure, or vasopressor requirements was noted after the initiation of HFOV. Eight patients died (57 %, 95% CI: 33–79); life support was withdrawn in six and two suffered cardiac arrest. CONCLUSION: During our first year of experience, HFOV was used as a rescue therapy in very sick patients with refractory hypoxemia, and improvement in oxygenation was observed after 24 hours of this technique. HFOV is a reasonable alternative when a protective lung strategy could not be achieved on conventional ventilation

When to incorporate point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) into the initial assessment of acutely ill patients: a pilot crossover study to compare 2 POCUS-assisted simulation protocols.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the ideal timing for providers to perform point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) with the least increase in workload. METHODS: We conducted a pilot crossover study to compare 2 POCUS-assisted evaluation protocols for acutely ill patients: sequential (physical examination followed by POCUS) vs parallel (POCUS at the time of physical examination). Participants were randomly assigned to 2 groups according to which POCUS-assisted protocol (sequential vs parallel) was used during simulated scenarios. Subsequently, the groups were crossed over to complete assessment by using the other POCUS-assisted protocol in the same patient scenarios. Providers\u27 workloads, measured with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) and time to complete patient evaluation, were compared between the 2 protocols. RESULTS: Seven providers completed 14 assessments (7 sequential and 7 parallel). The median (IQR) total NASA-TLX score was 30 (30-50) in the sequential and 55 (50-65) in the parallel protocol (P = .03), which suggests a significantly lower workload in the sequential protocol. When individual components of the NASA-TLX score were evaluated, mental demand and frustration level were significantly lower in the sequential than in the parallel protocol (40 [IQR, 30-60] vs 50 [IQR, 40-70]; P = .03 and 25 [IQR, 20-35] vs 60 [IQR, 45-85]; P = .02, respectively). The time needed to complete the assessment was similar between the sequential and parallel protocols (8.7 [IQR, 6-9] minutes vs 10.1 [IQR, 7-11] minutes, respectively; P = .30). CONCLUSIONS: A sequential POCUS-assisted protocol posed less workload to POCUS operators than the parallel protocol

Year in review 2006: Critical Care – resource management

As health care resources become increasingly constrained, it is imperative that intensive care unit resources be optimized. In the years to come, a number of challenges to intensive care medicine will need to be addressed as society changes. Last year's Critical Care papers provided us with a number of interesting and highly accessed original papers dealing with health care resources. The information yielded by these studies can help us to deal with issues such as prognostication, early detection and treatment of delirium, prevention of medical errors and use of radiology resources in critically ill patients. Finally, several aspects of scientific research in critically ill patients were investigated, focusing on the possibility of obtaining informed consent and recall of having given informed consent

Failure of non-invasive ventilation in patients with acute lung injury: observational cohort study

INTRODUCTION: The role of non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in the treatment of acute lung injury (ALI) is controversial. We sought to assess the outcome of ALI that was initially treated with NIPPV and to identify specific risk factors for NIPPV failure. METHODS: In this observational cohort study at the two intensive care units of a tertiary center, we identified consecutive patients with ALI who were initially treated with NIPPV. Data on demographics, APACHE III scores, degree of hypoxemia, ALI risk factors and NIPPV respiratory parameters were recorded. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors for NIPPV failure. RESULTS: Of 79 consecutive patients who met the inclusion criteria, 23 were excluded because of a do not resuscitate order and two did not give research authorization. Of the remaining 54 patients, 38 (70.3%) failed NIPPV, among them all 19 patients with shock. In a stepwise logistic regression restricted to patients without shock, metabolic acidosis (odds ratio 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 0.07 per unit of base deficit) and severe hypoxemia (odds ratio 1.03, 95%CI 1.01 to 1.05 per unit decrease in ratio of arterial partial pressure of O(2 )and inspired O(2 )concentration – PaO(2)/FiO(2)) predicted NIPPV failure. In patients who failed NIPPV, the observed mortality was higher than APACHE predicted mortality (68% versus 39%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: NIPPV should be tried very cautiously or not at all in patients with ALI who have shock, metabolic acidosis or profound hypoxemia