Background This study looks at the validity of the sequential organ failure assessment score (SOFA) in detecting mortality in patients with Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. Also, it is looking to determine the optimal SOFA score that will discriminate between mortality and survival. Methods It is a retrospective chart review of the patients admitted to Henry Ford Hospital from March 2020 to December 2020 with COVID-19 pneumonia who developed severe respiratory distress. We collected the following information; patient demographics (age, sex, body mass index), co-morbidities (history of diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, or cancer), SOFA scores (the ratio of arterial oxygen tension (PaO 2 ) to the fraction of inspired oxygen, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, mean arterial pressure, serum creatinine level, bilirubin level, and platelet count) as well as inpatient mortality. Results There were 320 patients; out of these, 111 were intubated. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for SOFA at the moment of inclusion in the study had an area under the curve of 0.883. The optimal point for discrimination between mortality and survival is SOFA of 5. A SOFA score of less than two is associated with 100% survival, while a score of more than 11 is associated with 100% mortality. Conclusions SOFA score in COVID-19 patients with severe respiratory distress strongly correlates with the initial SOFA score. It is a valuable tool for predicting mortality in COVID-19 patients.
IntroductionOne of the most challenging scenarios an anesthesia provider can face is treating a can't intubate can't ventilate (CICV) patient. The incidence of CICV is estimated to be around one in 10,000 cases. According to the American Society of Anesthesiology Closed Claims Study, adverse respiratory events are the most common type of injury, with difficult intubation and ventilation contributing to the majority of these cases. The objective of this non-interventional quality improvement project was to evaluate the prior training, exposure, and self-reported confidence in handling the CICV scenario among anesthesia providers at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, MI. MethodsAn online questionnaire was distributed via email to all residents, certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), and attending anesthesiologists in March 2021. The email contained a link to an online questionnaire via Microsoft Forms (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA). Univariate group comparisons were carried out between the respondents' role (attending, CRNA, or resident), as well as between the number of years that the respondents were in practice (< 5 years, 5-10 years, > 10 years). ResultsOut of the total 170 anesthesia providers, 119 participated in the study where 54 (45%) were attendings, 44 (37%) were residents, and 21 (18%) were CRNAs. The majority (75%) did not know the surgical airway kit location, and 87% had not performed the surgical airway procedure before. The vast majority (96.7%) recommended simulation training compared to online training or lecture series, and just over 50% recommended annual training frequency. When looking at the differences in responses based on years of experience as an anesthesia provider, the majority of those with > 10 years in practice knew how to perform the surgical airway technique while respondents with < 5 years did not know how to perform the technique, and 50% of those with five to 10 years experience knew how to perform the surgical airway procedure for a CICV scenario. ConclusionAlthough there were many significant differences observed between the various provider roles and years in practice, surprisingly, the responses revealed both a lack of experience and confidence in performing the surgical airway procedure in all provider roles. These findings highlight a need for better emergency airway teaching and training. These findings will be used to guide the design and implementation of improved surgical airway training for residents, CRNAs, and attending anesthesiologists with the goal of better preparedness for handling a CICV scenario.
Purpose:The present study was designed to investigate the efficacy of stroke volume variation (SVV) in predicting fluid responsiveness and compare it to traditional measures of volume status assessment like central venous pressure (CVP).Methods:Forty-five mechanically ventilated patients in sepsis with acute circulatory failure. Patients were not included when they had atrial fibrillation, other severe arrhythmias, permanent pacemaker, or needed mechanical cardiac support. Furthermore, excluded were patients with hypoxemia and a CVP >12. Patients received volume expansion in the form of 500 ml of 6% hydroxyethyl starch.Results:The volume expansion-induced increase in cardiac index (CI) was >15% in 29 patients (labeled responders) and <15% in 16 patients (labeled nonresponders). Before volume expansion, SVV was higher in responders than in nonresponders. Receiver operating characteristic curves analysis showed that SVV was a more accurate indicator of fluid responsiveness than CVP. Before volume expansion, an SVV value of 13% allowed discrimination between responders and nonresponders with a sensitivity of 78% and a specificity of 89%. Volume expansion-induced changes in CI weakly and positively correlated with SVV before volume expansion. Volume expansion decreased SVV from 18.86 ± 4.35 to 7.57 ± 1.80 and volume expansion-induced changes in SVV moderately correlated with volume expansion-induced changes in CI.Conclusions:When predicting fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients in septic shock, SVV is more effective than CVP. Nevertheless, the overall correlation of baseline SVV with increases in CI remains poor. Trends in SVV, as reflected by decreases with volume replacement, seem to correlate much better with increases in CI.
The authors report a case of a young healthy adult with severe rhabdomyolysis and acute fulminant liver failure with multiple organ dysfunction syndromes (MODS), possibly from an enterovirus infection. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first-ever reported case of enterovirus-induced rhabdomyolysis and acute liver failure (ALF) in an immunocompetent adult. It is vital that the treating physician be aware of the association between viral infections, viral myositis, and severe rhabdomyolysis with acute liver failure, which can facilitate the optimal management of such patients. Prompt recognition may provide an opportunity for early interventions, including intravenous immunoglobulin and liver transplantation, if warranted.
A 77-year-old male presented to the ED with a new onset of acute abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting. He had a previous surgical history of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for an appendiceal tumor. Despite the repeated reassuring abdominal examinations, CT abdomen showed high-grade bowel obstruction and perforation. He was urgently taken to the operating room and underwent resection of 70 cm segment of small ischemic bowel with primary anastomosis. His postoperative course was complicated with atrial fibrillation (AF) requiring cardioversion and medical therapy. Later, he was discharged home under stable conditions. Relying on abdominal signs, an abdominal exam in a patient with a previous history of extensive peritonectomy and post-HIPEC surgery is challenging due to the altered peritoneal anatomy. As a result, the abdominal examination findings can be benign and misleading. This can lead to delayed surgical intervention, thereby increasing morbidity and mortality significantly. Therefore, a detailed evaluation with a low threshold for abdominal imaging studies like abdominal X-rays and CT abdomen series is warranted in this subset of patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.