11 research outputs found
Effects of dexmedetomidine and esmolol on systemic hemodynamics and exogenous lactate clearance in early experimental septic shock
Nitrogen Partial Pressure in Man after Decompression from Simulated Scuba Dives at Rest and During Exercise.
The Use of Ventilatory Modes allowing Spontaneous Breathing during Mechanical Ventilation
Laboratory testing and phylogenetic analysis during a mumps outbreak in Ontario, Canada
Abstract Background In September 2009, a mumps outbreak originated in New York and spread to Northeastern USA and Canada. This study compares the performance of different diagnostic testing methods used in Ontario and describes molecular characteristics of the outbreak strain. Methods Between September 2009 and February 2010, specimens from suspect cases were submitted to Public Health Ontario Laboratory for mumps serology, culture and/or real-time reverse-transcriptase PCR (rRT-PCR) testing. rRT-PCR-positive specimens underwent genotyping at Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory. Whole genome sequencing was performed on four outbreak and three sporadic viral culture isolates. Results Six hundred ninety-eight patients had IgM serology testing, of which 255 (37%) had culture and rRT-PCR. Among those, 35/698 (5%) were IgM positive, 39/255 (15%) culture positive and 47/255 (18%) rRT-PCR-positive. Buccal swabs had the highest rRT-PCR positivity (21%). The outbreak isolates were identical to that in the New York outbreak occurring at the same time. Nucleotide and amino acid identity with the Jeryl Lynn vaccine strain ranged from 85.0-94.5% and 82.4-99.4%, depending on the gene and coding sequences. Homology of the HN protein, the main immunogenic mumps virus protein, was found to be 94.5 and 95.3%, when compared to Jeryl Lynn vaccine major and minor components, respectively. Conclusions Despite higher sensitivity than serology, rRT-PCR testing is underutilized. Further work is needed to better understand the suboptimal match of the HN gene between the outbreak strain and the Jeryl Lynn vaccine strain
Effects of preserved spontaneous breathing activity during mechanical ventilation in experimental intra-abdominal hypertension
Genetic characterization of measles virus genotype D6 subacute sclerosing panencephalitis case, Alberta, Canada
The Role of Erythropoietin and Bone Marrow Concentrate in the Treatment of Osteochondral Defects in Mini-Pigs
An international assessment of the adoption of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) principles across colorectal units in 2019–2020
Aim: The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guidelines aim to standardize perioperative care in colorectal surgery via 25 principles. We aimed to assess the variation in uptake of these principles across an international network of colorectal units. Method: An online survey was circulated amongst European Society of Coloproctology members in 2019–2020. For each ERAS principle, respondents were asked to score how frequently the principle was implemented in their hospital, from 1 (‘rarely’) to 4 (‘always’). Respondents were also asked to recall whether practice had changed since 2017. Subgroup analyses based on hospital characteristics were conducted. Results: Of hospitals approached, 58% responded to the survey (195/335), with 296 individual responses (multiple responses were received from some hospitals). The majority were European (163/195, 83.6%). Overall, respondents indicated they ‘most often’ or ‘always’ adhered to most individual ERAS principles (18/25, 72%). Variability in the uptake of principles was reported, with universal uptake of some principles (e.g., prophylactic antibiotics; early mobilization) and inconsistency from ‘rarely’ to ‘always’ in others (e.g., no nasogastric intubation; no preoperative fasting and carbohydrate drinks). In alignment with 2018 ERAS guideline updates, adherence to principles for prehabilitation, managing anaemia and postoperative nutrition appears to have increased since 2017. Conclusions: Uptake of ERAS principles varied across hospitals, and not all 25 principles were equally adhered to. Whilst some principles exhibited a high level of acceptance, others had a wide variability in uptake indicative of controversy or barriers to uptake. Further research into specific principles is required to improve ERAS implementation