Screening for hypoglycemia at the bedside in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) with the Abbott PCx glucose meter

BACKGROUND: Point of care (POC) glucose meters are routinely used as a screening tool for hypoglycemia in a neonatal setting. Glucose meters however, lack the same accuracy as laboratory instruments for glucose measurement. In this study we investigated potential reasons for this inaccuracy and established a cut off value for confirmatory testing. METHODS: In this prospective study, all patients in the neonatal intensive care unit who had a plasma glucose test ordered were eligible to participate. Demographic information, sample collection information (nine variables) and a recent hematocrit value were recorded for each sample. Glucose measurements were taken at the bedside on the glucose meter (RN PCx) as well as in the laboratory on both the glucose meter (LAB PCx) and the laboratory analyzer (PG). Data were analyzed by simple and mixed-effects regression analysis and by analysis of a receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curve. RESULTS: There were 475 samples analyzed from 132 patients. RN PCx values were higher than PG values (mean = 4.9%), while LAB PCx results were lower (mean = -5.2%) than PG values. Only 31% of the difference between RN PCx – PG and 46% of the difference for LAB PCx – PG could be accounted for by the variables tested. The largest proportion of variance between PCx and PG measurements was explained by hematocrit (about 30%) with a greater effect seen at glucose concentrations ≤4.0 mmol/L (≤72 mg/dL)(48% and 40% for RN PCx and LAB PCx, respectively). The ROC analysis showed that for detection of all cases of hypoglycemia (PG < 2.6 mmol/L)(PG < 47 mg/dL) the PCx screening cut off value would need to be set at 3.8 mmol/L (68 mg/dL) requiring 20% of all samples to have confirmatory analysis by the laboratory method. CONCLUSION: The large difference between glucose results obtained by PCx glucose meter compared to the laboratory analyzer can be explained in part by hematocrit and low glucose concentration. These results emphasize that the glucose meter is useful only as a screening device for neonatal hypoglycemia and that a screening cut off value must be established

Stopping Antiepileptic Drugs: When and Why?

After a patient has initiated an antiepileptic drug (AED) and achieved a sustained period of seizure freedom, the bias towards continuing therapy indefinitely can be substantial. Studies show that the rate of seizure recurrence after AED withdrawal is about two to three times the rate in patients who continue AEDs, but there are many benefits to AED withdrawal that should be evaluated on an individualized basis. AED discontinuation may be considered in patients whose seizures have been completely controlled for a prolonged period, typically 1 to 2 years for children and 2 to 5 years for adults. For children, symptomatic epilepsy, adolescent onset, and a longer time to achieve seizure control are associated with a worse prognosis. In adults, factors such as a longer duration of epilepsy, an abnormal neurologic examination, an abnormal EEG, and certain epilepsy syndromes are known to increase the risk of recurrence. Even in patients with a favorable prognosis, however, the risk of relapse can be as high as 20% to 25%. Before withdrawing AEDs, patients should be counseled about their individual risk for relapse and the potential implications of a recurrent seizure, particularly for safety and driving

Comment letters to the National Commission on Commission on Fraudulent Financial Reporting, 1987 (Treadway Commission) Vol. 1

https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aicpa_sop/1661/thumbnail.jp

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008

SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Annual Research Review: Sleep problems in childhood psychiatric disorders – a review of the latest science

Background Hippocrates flagged the value of sleep for good health. Nonetheless, historically, researchers with an interest in developmental psychopathology have largely ignored a possible role for atypical sleep. Recently, however, there has been a surge of interest in this area, perhaps reflecting increased evidence that disturbed or insufficient sleep can result in poor functioning in numerous domains. This review outlines what is known about sleep in the psychiatric diagnoses most relevant to children and for which associations with sleep are beginning to be understood. While based on a comprehensive survey of the literature, the focus of the current review is on the latest science (largely from 2010). There is a description of both concurrent and longitudinal links as well as possible mechanisms underlying associations. Preliminary treatment research is also considered which suggests that treating sleep difficulties may result in improvements in behavioural areas beyond sleep quality. Findings To maximise progress in this field, there now needs to be: (a) greater attention to the assessment of sleep in children; (b) sleep research on a wider range of psychiatric disorders; (c) a greater focus on and examination of mechanisms underlying associations; (d) a clearer consideration ofdevelopmental questions and (e) large-scale well-designed treatment studies. Conclusions While sleep problems may sometimes be missed by parents and healthcare providers; hence constituting a hidden risk for other psychopathologies – knowing about these difficulties creates unique opportunities. The current excitement in this field from experts in diverse areas including developmental psychology, clinical psychology, genetics and neuropsychology should make these opportunities a reality

Cardiovasc Diabetol

Lower-extremity arterial disease (LEAD) is a major endemic disease with an alarming increased prevalence worldwide. It is a common and severe condition with excess risk of major cardiovascular events and death. It also leads to a high rate of lower-limb adverse events and non-traumatic amputation. The American Diabetes Association recommends a widespread medical history and clinical examination to screen for LEAD. The ankle brachial index (ABI) is the first non-invasive tool recommended to diagnose LEAD although its variable performance in patients with diabetes. The performance of ABI is particularly affected by the presence of peripheral neuropathy, medial arterial calcification, and incompressible arteries. There is no strong evidence today to support an alternative test for LEAD diagnosis in these conditions. The management of LEAD requires a strict control of cardiovascular risk factors including diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidaemia. The benefit of intensive versus standard glucose control on the risk of LEAD has not been clearly established. Antihypertensive, lipid-lowering, and antiplatelet agents are obviously worthfull to reduce major cardiovascular adverse events, but few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated the benefits of these treatments in terms of LEAD and its related adverse events. Smoking cessation, physical activity, supervised walking rehabilitation and healthy diet are also crucial in LEAD management. Several advances have been achieved in endovascular and surgical revascularization procedures, with obvious improvement in LEAD management. The revascularization strategy should take into account several factors including anatomical localizations of lesions, medical history of each patients and operator experience. Further studies, especially RCTs, are needed to evaluate the interest of different therapeutic strategies on the occurrence and progression of LEAD and its related adverse events in patients with diabetes

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

What every investor should know;

Mode of access: Internet