Context:In today’s modern world, despite the multiple advances made in the field of medicine, hemorrhagic shock is still the main cause of battlefield mortality and the second most prevalent cause of mortality in civilian trauma. Hemostatic agents can play a key role in establishing hemostasis in prehospital situations and preventing hemorrhage-associated death. In this respect, this article aims to review different aspects of known hemostatic agents.Evidence Acquisition:A comprehensive search of the academic scientific databases for relevant keywords was conducted; relevant articles were compiled and assessed.Results:Hemostatic agents can establish hemostasis by means of different mechanisms, including concentrating coagulation factors, adhesion to the tissues, in which traumatic hemorrhage occurred, and delivering procoagulant factors to the hemorrhage site. Presently, these hemostatics have been significantly improved with regard to efficacy and in adverse consequences, resulting from their use. Several hemostatic dressings have been developed to the degree that they have received FDA approval and are being used practically on the battlefield. In addition, there are currently several case reports on the use of such hemostatics in the hospital setting, in conditions where commonly known approaches fail to stop life-threatening bleeding.Conclusions:The use of hemostatic dressings and agents is one of the main advancements achieved in recent decades. However, it can be claimed that the ideal hemostatic has not been recognized yet; therefore, this topic needs to be brought into focus and further addressed.

Although the number of cardiovascular deaths associated with environmental tobacco smoke cannot be predicted with absolute certainty, the available evidence indicates that environmental tobacco smoke increases the risk of heart disease. The effects of environmental tobacco smoke on cardiovascular function, platelet function, neutrophil function, and plaque formation are the probable mechanisms leading to heart disease. The risk of death due to heart disease is increased by about 30% among those exposed to environmental tobacco smoke at home and could be much higher in those exposed at the workplace, where higher levels of environmental tobacco smoke may be present. Even though considerable uncertainty is a part of any analysis on the health affects of environmental tobacco smoke because of the difficulty of conducting long-term studies and selecting sample populations, an estimated 35,000-40,000 cardiovascular disease-related deaths and 3,000-5,000 lung cancer deaths due to environmental tobacco smoke exposure have been predicted to occur each year. The AHA's Council on Cardiopulmonary and Critical Care has concluded that environmental tobacco smoke is a major preventable cause of cardiovascular disease and death. The council strongly supports efforts to eliminate all exposure of nonsmokers to environmental tobacco smoke. This requires that environmental tobacco smoke be treated as an environmental toxin, and ways to protect workers and the public from this health hazard should be developed. According to a 1989 Gallup survey commissioned by the American Lung Association, 86% of nonsmokers think that environmental tobacco smoke is harmful and 77% believe that smokers should abstain in the presence of nonsmokers.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

No abstract

Background:Rapid ultrasound in shock (RUSH) is the most recent emergency ultrasound protocol, designed to help clinicians better recognize distinctive shock etiologies in a shorter time frame.Objectives:In this study, we evaluated the accuracy of the RUSH protocol, performed by an emergency physician or radiologist, in predicting the type of shock in critical patients.Patients and Methods:An emergency physician or radiologist performed the RUSH protocol for all patients with shock status at the emergency department. All patients were closely followed to determine their final clinical diagnosis. The agreement between the initial impression provided by RUSH and the final diagnosis was investigated by calculating the Kappa index. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of RUSH for diagnosis of each case.Results:We performed RUSH on 77 patients. Kappa index was 0.71 (P Value = 0.000), reflecting acceptable general agreement between initial impression and final diagnosis. For hypovolemic, cardiogenic and obstructive shock, the protocol had an NPV above 97% yet it had a lower PPV. For shock with distributive or mixed etiology, RUSH showed a PPV of 100% but it had low sensitivity. Subgroup analysis showed a similar Kappa index for the emergency physician and radiologist (0.70 and 0.73, respectively) in performing rush.Conclusions:This study highlights the role of the RUSH exam performed by an emergency physician, to make a rapid and reliable diagnosis of shock etiology, especially in order to rule out obstructive, cardiogenic and hypovolemic shock types in initial exam of shock patients.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract