ObjectiveThe objective of our study is to assess the correlation between inferior vena cava (IVC) diameters, central venous pressure (CVP) and the IVC collapsibility index for estimating the volume status in critically ill patients.MethodsThis cross-sectional study used the convenient sampling of 100 adult medical intensive care unit (ICU) patients for a period of three months. Patients ≥ 18 years of age with an intrathoracic central venous catheter terminating in the distal superior vena cava connected to the transducer to produce a CVP waveform were included in the study. A Mindray diagnostic ultrasound system model Z6 ultrasound machine (Mindray, NJ, USA) was used for all examinations. An Ultrasonic Transducer model 3C5P (Mindray, NJ, USA) for IVC imaging was utilized. A paired sampled t-test was used to compute the p-values.ResultsA total of 32/100 (32%) females and 68/100 (68%) males were included in the study with a mean age of 50.4 ± 19.3 years. The mean central venous pressure maintained was 10.38 ± 4.14 cmH2O with an inferior vena cava collapsibility index of 30.68 ± 10.93. There was a statistically significant relation among the mean CVP pressure, the IVC collapsibility index, the mean maximum and minimum IVC between groups as determined by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (p < 0.001). There was a strong negative correlation between CVP and IVC collapsibility index (%), which was statistically significant (r = -0.827, n = 100, p < 0.0005). A strong positive correlation between CVP and maximum IVC diameter (r = 0.371, n = 100, p < 0.0005) and minimum IVC diameter (r = 0.572, n = 100, p < 0.0005) was found.ConclusionThere is a positive relationship of CVP with minimum and maximum IVC diameters but an inverse relationship with the IVC collapsibility index.

Objective: To determine the frequency of micro-organisms causing sepsis as well as to determine the antibiotic susceptibility and resistance of microorganisms isolated in a medical intensive care unit.Materials and methods: This is a cross-sectional analysis of 802 patients from a medical intensive care unit (ICU) of Shifa International Hospital, Islamabad, Pakistan over a one-year period from August 2015 to August 2016. Specimens collected were from blood, urine, endotracheal secretions, catheter tips, tissue, pus swabs, cerebrospinal fluid, ascites, bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), and pleural fluid. All bacteria were identified by standard microbiological methods, and antibiotic sensitivity/resistance was performed using the disk diffusion technique, according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines. Data was collected using a critical care unit electronic database and data analysis was done by using  the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), version 20 (IBM SPSS Statistics, Armonk, NY).Results: Gram-negative bacteria were more frequent as compared to gram-positive bacteria. Most common bacterial isolates were Acinetobacter (15.3%), Escherichia coli (15.3%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (13%), and Klebsiella pneumoniae (10.2%), whereas Enterococcus (7%) and methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (6.2%) were the two most common gram-positive bacteria. For Acinetobacter, colistin was the most effective antibiotic (3% resistance). For E.coli, colistin (0%), tigecycline (0%), amikacin (7%), and carbapenems (10%) showed low resistance. Pseudomonas aeruginosa showed low resistance to colistin (7%). For Klebsiella pneumoniae, low resistance was seen for tigecycline (0%) and minocycline (16%). Overall, ICU mortality was 31.3%, including miscellaneous cases.Conclusion: Gram-negative infections, especially by multidrug-resistant organisms, are on the rise in ICUs. Empirical antibiotics should be used according to the local unit specific data. Constant evaluation of current practice on basis of trends in multidrug resistance and antibiotic consumption patterns are essential.

Purpose Textbook outcome (TO) is a composite measure of outcome and provides superior assessment of quality of care after surgery. TO after major living donor hepatectomy (MLDH) has not been assessed. The objective of this study was to determine the rate of TO and its associated factors, after MLDH. Methods This was a single center retrospective review of living liver donors who underwent MLDH between 2012 and 2021 ( n = 1022). The rate of TO and its associated factors was determined. Results Among 1022 living donors (of whom 693 [67.8%] were males, median age 26 [range, 18–54] years), TO was achieved in 714 (69.9%) with no donor mortality. Majority of donors met the cutoffs for individual outcome measures: 908 (88.8%) for no major complications, 904 (88.5%) for ICU stay ≤ 2 days, 900 (88.1%) for hospital stay ≤ 10 days, 990 (96.9%) for no perioperative blood transfusion, 1004 (98.2%) for no 30-day re-admission, and 1014 (99.2%) for no post-hepatectomy liver failure. Early donation era (before streamlining of donor operative pathways) was associated with failure to achieve TO [OR 1.4, CI 1.1–1.9, P = 0.006]. TO was achieved in 506/755 (67%) donors in the early donation era versus 208/267 (77.9%) in the later period ( P = 0.001). Conclusion Despite zero mortality and low complication rate, TO was achieved in approximately 70% donors. TO was modifiable and improved with changes in donor operative pathway.

Background Maintaining standards of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) can be a challenge during the corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Center-specific protocols have been developed and transplant societies propose limiting elective LDLT. We have looked at outcomes of LDLT during the pandemic in an exclusively LDLT center. Methods Patients were grouped into pre-COVID (January 2019-February 2020) (n = 162) and COVID (March 2020-January 2021) (n = 53) cohorts. We looked at patient characteristics, 30-day morbidity, and mortality. Outcomes were also assessed in donors and recipients who underwent surgery after recovery from COVID-19. Results The average number of transplants reduced from 11.5/month to 4.8/month. Fewer patients with MELD > 20 underwent LDLT in the COVID cohort (41.3% versus 24.5%, P = 0.03). Out of nine patients with a positive pretransplant COVID-19 PCR, there were 2 (22.3%) deaths on the waiting list. Seven patients underwent LT after recovery from COVID-19 with one 30-day mortality due to biliary sepsis. Three donors with positive COVID-19 PCR underwent uneventful donation after testing negative for COVID-19. No significant difference in 30-day survival was observed in the pre-COVID and COVID cohorts (93.2% versus 90.6%) (P = 0.3). Out of two recipients who developed COVID-19 pneumonia within 30 days after LT, there was one mortality. The 1-year survival for the entire cohort with a MELD cutoff of 20 was 90% and 84% (P = 0.2). Conclusion Despite comparable outcomes, fewer sick patients might undergo LDLT during the pandemic. Individuals recovered from COVID-19 might be safely considered for donation or transplantation.