Enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli and Shigella dysenteriae type 1-induced haemolytic uraemic syndrome

Haemolytic uraemic syndrome (HUS) can be classified according to the aetiology of the different disorders from which it is composed. The most prevalent form is that induced by shigatoxin producing Escherichia coli (STEC) and, in some tropical regions, by Shigella dysenteriae type 1. STEC cause a zoonosis, are widely distributed in nature, enter the food chain in different ways, and show regional differences. Not all STEC are human pathogens. Enterohaemorrhagic E. coli usually cause attachment and effacing lesions in the intestine. This is not essential, but production of a shigatoxin (Stx) is. Because Stx are encoded by a bacteriophage, this property is transferable to naïve strains. Laboratory methods have improved by identifying STEC either via the toxin or its bacteriophage. Shigella dysenteriae type 1 produces shigatoxin, identical to Stx-1, but also has entero-invasive properties that enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC) do not. Shigella patients risk bacteremia and benefit from early antibiotic treatment, unlike those with EHEC

A First Search for coincident Gravitational Waves and High Energy Neutrinos using LIGO, Virgo and ANTARES data from 2007

We present the results of the first search for gravitational wave bursts associated with high energy neutrinos. Together, these messengers could reveal new, hidden sources that are not observed by conventional photon astronomy, particularly at high energy. Our search uses neutrinos detected by the underwater neutrino telescope ANTARES in its 5 line configuration during the period January - September 2007, which coincided with the fifth and first science runs of LIGO and Virgo, respectively. The LIGO-Virgo data were analysed for candidate gravitational-wave signals coincident in time and direction with the neutrino events. No significant coincident events were observed. We place limits on the density of joint high energy neutrino - gravitational wave emission events in the local universe, and compare them with densities of merger and core-collapse events.Comment: 19 pages, 8 figures, science summary page at http://www.ligo.org/science/Publication-S5LV_ANTARES/index.php. Public access area to figures, tables at https://dcc.ligo.org/cgi-bin/DocDB/ShowDocument?docid=p120000

Search for CP Violation in the Decay Z -> b (b bar) g

About three million hadronic decays of the Z collected by ALEPH in the years 1991-1994 are used to search for anomalous CP violation beyond the Standard Model in the decay Z -> b \bar{b} g. The study is performed by analyzing angular correlations between the two quarks and the gluon in three-jet events and by measuring the differential two-jet rate. No signal of CP violation is found. For the combinations of anomalous CP violating couplings, ${\hat{h}}_b = {\hat{h}}_{Ab}g_{Vb}-{\hat{h}}_{Vb}g_{Ab}$ and $h^{\ast}_b = \sqrt{\hat{h}_{Vb}^{2}+\hat{h}_{Ab}^{2}}$, limits of \hat{h}_b < 0.59$and$h^{\ast}_{b} < 3.02$ are given at 95\% CL.Comment: 8 pages, 1 postscript figure, uses here.sty, epsfig.st

Production of excited beauty states in Z decays

A data sample of about 3.0 million hadronic Z decays collected by the ALEPH experiment at LEP in the years 1991 through 1994, is used to make an inclusive selection of B~hadron events. In this event sample 4227 \pm 140 \pm 252 B^* mesons in the decay B^* \to B \gamma and 1944 \pm 108 \pm 161 B^{**} mesons decaying into a B~meson and a charged pion are reconstructed. For the well established B^* meson the following quantities areobtained: \Delta M = M_{B^*} - M_{B} = (45.30\pm 0.35\pm 0.87)~\mathrm{MeV}/c^2 and N_{B^*}/(N_B+N_{B^*}) = (77.1 \pm 2.6 \pm 7.0)\%. The angular distribution of the photons in the B^* rest frame is used to measure the relative contribution of longitudinal B^* polarization states to be \sigma_L/(\sigma_L + \sigma_T)= (33 \pm 6 \pm 5)\%. \\ Resonance structure in the M(B\pi)-M(B) mass difference is observed at (424 \pm 4 \pm 10)~\mathrm{MeV}/c^2. Its shape and position is in agreement with the expectation for B^{**}_{u,d} states decaying into B_{u,d}^{(*)} \pi^\pm. The signal is therefore interpreted as arising from them. The relative production rate is determined to be \frac{BR(Z \to b \to B_{u,d}^{**})}{BR(Z \to b \to B_{u,d})} = [27.9 \pm 1.6(stat) \pm 5.9(syst) \phantom{a}^{+3.9}_{-5.6}(model)]\%. where the third error reflects the uncertainty due to different production and decay models for the broad B_{u,d}^{**} states

Tau hadronic branching ratios

From 64492 selected \tau-pair events, produced at the Z^0 resonance, the measurement of the tau decays into hadrons from a global analysis using 1991, 1992 and 1993 ALEPH data is presented. Special emphasis is given to the reconstruction of photons and \pi^0's, and the removal of fake photons. A detailed study of the systematics entering the \pi^0 reconstruction is also given. A complete and consistent set of tau hadronic branching ratios is presented for 18 exclusive modes. Most measurements are more precise than the present world average. The new level of precision reached allows a stringent test of \tau-\mu universality in hadronic decays, g_\tau/g_\mu \ = \ 1.0013 \ \pm \ 0.0095, and the first measurement of the vector and axial-vector contributions to the non-strange hadronic \tau decay width: R_{\tau ,V} \ = \ 1.788 \ \pm \ 0.025 and R_{\tau ,A} \ = \ 1.694 \ \pm \ 0.027. The ratio (R_{\tau ,V} - R_{\tau ,A}) / (R_{\tau ,V} + R_{\tau ,A}), equal to (2.7 \pm 1.3) \ \%, is a measure of the importance of QCD non-perturbative contributions to the hadronic \tau decay widt

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