BackgroundCommunity-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is considered the most important cause of death from infectious disease in developed countries. Severity assessment scores partially address the difficulties in identifying high-risk patients. A lack of specific and valid pathophysiologic severity markers affect early and effective sepsis therapy. HMGB-1, sRAGE and RAGE have been involved in sepsis and their potential as severity markers has been proposed. The aim of this study was to evaluate HMGB-1, RAGE and sRAGE levels in patients with CAP-associated sepsis and determine their possible association with clinical outcome.MethodWe evaluated 33 patients with CAP-associated sepsis admitted to the emergency room and followed in the medical wards. Severity assessment scores (CURB-65, PSI, APACHE II, SOFA) and serologic markers (HMGB-1, RAGE, sRAGE) were evaluated on admission.ResultsThirty patients with a diagnosis of CAP-associated sepsis were enrolled in the study within 24 hours after admission. Fourteen (46.6%) had pandemic (H1N1) influenza A virus, 2 (6.6%) had seasonal influenza A and 14 other diagnoses. Of the patients in the study group, 16 (53.3%) had a fatal outcome. ARDS was observed in 17 (56.6%) and a total of 22 patients had severe sepsis on admission (73%). The SOFA score showed the greatest difference between surviving and non-surviving groups (P = .003) with similar results in ARDS patients (P = .005). sRAGE levels tended to be higher in non-surviving (P = .058) and ARDS patients (P = .058). Logistic regression modeling demonstrated that SOFA (P = .013) and sRAGE (P = .05) were the only variables that modified the probability of a fatal outcome.ConclusionThe association of elevated sRAGE with a fatal outcome suggests that it may have an independent causal effect in CAP. SOFA scores were the only clinical factor with the ability to identify surviving and ARDS patients.

The aim of the Mexican Consensus on Portal Hypertension was to develop documented guidelines to facilitate clinical practice when dealing with key events of the patient presenting with portal hypertension and variceal bleeding. The panel of experts was made up of Mexican gastroenterologists, hepatologists, and endoscopists, all distinguished professionals. The document analyzes themes of interest in the following modules: preprimary and primary prophylaxis, acute variceal hemorrhage, and secondary prophylaxis. The management of variceal bleeding has improved considerably in recent years. Current information indicates that the general management of the cirrhotic patient presenting with variceal bleeding should be carried out by a multidisciplinary team, with such an approach playing a major role in the final outcome. The combination of drug and endoscopic therapies is recommended for initial management; vasoactive drugs should be started as soon as variceal bleeding is suspected and maintained for 5 days. After the patient is stabilized, urgent diagnostic endoscopy should be carried out by a qualified endoscopist, who then performs the corresponding endoscopic variceal treatment. Antibiotic prophylaxis should be regarded as an integral part of treatment, started upon hospital admittance and continued for 5 days. If there is treatment failure, rescue therapies should be carried out immediately, taking into account that interventional radiology therapies are very effective in controlling refractory variceal bleeding. These guidelines have been developed for the purpose of achieving greater clinical efficacy and are based on the best evidence of portal hypertension that is presently available.

No abstract