Rationale and design of a proof-of-concept trial investigating the effect of uninterrupted perioperative (par)enteral nutrition on amino acid profile, cardiomyocytes structure, and cardiac perfusion and metabolism of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Malnutrition is very common in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Malnutrition can change myocardial substrate utilization which can induce adverse effects on myocardial metabolism and function. We aim to investigate the hypothesis that there is a disturbed amino acids profile in the cardiac surgical patient which can be normalized by (par)enteral nutrition before, during and after surgery, subsequently improving cardiomyocyte structure, cardiac perfusion and glucose metabolism.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>This randomized controlled intervention study investigates the effect of uninterrupted perioperative (par)enteral nutrition on cardiac function in 48 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. Patients are given enteral nutrition (n = 16) or parenteral nutrition (n = 16), at least two days before, during, and two days after coronary artery bypass grafting, or are treated according to the standard guidelines (control) (n = 16). We will illustrate the effect of (par)enteral nutrition on differences in concentrations of amino acids and asymmetric dimethylarginine and in activity of dimethylarginine dimethylaminohydrolase and arginase in cardiac tissue and blood plasma. In addition, cardiomyocyte structure by histological, immuno-histochemical and ultrastructural analysis will be compared between the (par)enteral and control group. Furthermore, differences in cardiac perfusion and global left ventricular function and glucose metabolism, and their changes after coronary artery bypass grafting are evaluated by electrocardiography-gated myocardial perfusion scintigraphy and ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxy-glucose positron emission tomography respectively. Finally, fat free mass is measured before and after intervention with bioelectrical impedance spectrometry in order to evaluate nutritional status.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): <a href="http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=2183">NTR2183</a></p

International nosocomial infection control consortium (INICC) report, data summary of 36 countries, for 2004-2009

The results of a surveillance study conducted by the International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC) from January 2004 through December 2009 in 422 intensive care units (ICUs) of 36 countries in Latin America, Asia, Africa, and Europe are reported. During the 6-year study period, using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN; formerly the National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance system [NNIS]) definitions for device-associated health care-associated infections, we gathered prospective data from 313,008 patients hospitalized in the consortium's ICUs for an aggregate of 2,194,897 ICU bed-days. Despite the fact that the use of devices in the developing countries' ICUs was remarkably similar to that reported in US ICUs in the CDC's NHSN, rates of device-associated nosocomial infection were significantly higher in the ICUs of the INICC hospitals; the pooled rate of central line-associated bloodstream infection in the INICC ICUs of 6.8 per 1,000 central line-days was more than 3-fold higher than the 2.0 per 1,000 central line-days reported in comparable US ICUs. The overall rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia also was far higher (15.8 vs 3.3 per 1,000 ventilator-days), as was the rate of catheter-associated urinary tract infection (6.3 vs. 3.3 per 1,000 catheter-days). Notably, the frequencies of resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates to imipenem (47.2% vs 23.0%), Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates to ceftazidime (76.3% vs 27.1%), Escherichia coli isolates to ceftazidime (66.7% vs 8.1%), Staphylococcus aureus isolates to methicillin (84.4% vs 56.8%), were also higher in the consortium's ICUs, and the crude unadjusted excess mortalities of device-related infections ranged from 7.3% (for catheter-associated urinary tract infection) to 15.2% (for ventilator-associated pneumonia). Copyright © 2012 by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

sepsis

The systemic inflammatory response of the body to invading microorganisms, called sepsis, leads to profound activation of the complement (C3 and C4) system. The present study was conducted to compare the use of serum C3 and C4 levels with C-reactive protein (CRP) and thrombocyte and leukocyte counts in differentiating patients with systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) from those with sepsis. Over a 6-mo period, all patients with SIRS or sepsis who stayed in the intensive care unit for > 24 h were enrolled in the study. At admission, each patient's clinical status was recorded, and blood was taken for laboratory analysis (complete blood count, CRP, C3, and C4). A total of 58 patients with SIRS and 41 patients with sepsis were admitted to the study. The mean +/- SD thrombocyte count was found to be significantly lower in septic patients (179,975 +/- 95,615) than in those with SIRS (243,165 +/- 123,706) (P=.005); no difference in plasma concentrations of CRP and levels of C3 and C4 was noted between groups. The thrombocyte count was determined to be the most reliable parameter for differentiating between SIRS and sepsis (highest area under the curve=0.656).C1 Pamukkale Univ, Sch Med, Dept Anesthesiol & Reanimat, Denizli, Turkey

Public Health Rep

19315270PMCnul