These guidelines, written for clinicians, contains evidence-based recommendations for the prevention of hospital acquired infections Hospital acquired infections are a major cause of mortality and morbidity and provide challenge to clinicians. Measures of infection control include identifying patients at risk of nosocomial infections, observing hand hygiene, following standard precautions to reduce transmission and strategies to reduce VAP, CR-BSI, CAUTI. Environmental factors and architectural lay out also need to be emphasized upon. Infection prevention in special subsets of patients - burns patients, include identifying sources of organism, identification of organisms, isolation if required, antibiotic prophylaxis to be used selectively, early removal of necrotic tissue, prevention of tetanus, early nutrition and surveillance. Immunodeficient and Transplant recipients are at a higher risk of opportunistic infections. The post tranplant timetable is divided into three time periods for determining risk of infections. Room ventilation, cleaning and decontamination, protective clothing with care regarding food requires special consideration. Monitoring and Surveillance are prioritized depending upon the needs. Designated infection control teams should supervise the process and help in collection and compilation of data. Antibiotic Stewardship Recommendations include constituting a team, close coordination between teams, audit, formulary restriction, de-escalation, optimizing dosing, active use of information technology among other measure. The recommendations in these guidelines are intended to support, and not replace, good clinical judgment. The recommendations are rated by a letter that indicates the strength of the recommendation and a Roman numeral that indicates the quality of evidence supporting the recommendation, so that readers can ascertain how best to apply the recommendations in their practice environments.
In Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), early identification of patients with a high risk of mortality can significantly improve triage, bed allocation, timely management, and possibly, outcome. The study objective is to develop and validate individualized mortality risk scores based on the anonymized clinical and laboratory data at admission and determine the probability of Deaths at 7 and 28 days. Data of 1393 admitted patients (Expired—8.54%) was collected from six Apollo Hospital centers (from April to July 2020) using a standardized template and electronic medical records. 63 Clinical and Laboratory parameters were studied based on the patient’s initial clinical state at admission and laboratory parameters within the first 24 h. The Machine Learning (ML) modelling was performed using eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGB) Algorithm. ‘Time to event’ using Cox Proportional Hazard Model was used and combined with XGB Algorithm. The prospective validation cohort was selected of 977 patients (Expired—8.3%) from six centers from July to October 2020. The Clinical API for the Algorithm is http://20.44.39.47/covid19v2/page1.php being used prospectively. Out of the 63 clinical and laboratory parameters, Age [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 2.31; 95% CI 1.52–3.53], Male Gender (HR 1.72, 95% CI 1.06–2.85), Respiratory Distress (HR 1.79, 95% CI 1.32–2.53), Diabetes Mellitus (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.83–1.77), Chronic Kidney Disease (HR 3.04, 95% CI 1.72–5.38), Coronary Artery Disease (HR 1.56, 95% CI − 0.91 to 2.69), respiratory rate > 24/min (HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.03–2.3), oxygen saturation below 90% (HR 2.84, 95% CI 1.87–4.3), Lymphocyte% in DLC (HR 1.99, 95% CI 1.23–2.32), INR (HR 1.71, 95% CI 1.31–2.13), LDH (HR 4.02, 95% CI 2.66–6.07) and Ferritin (HR 2.48, 95% CI 1.32–4.74) were found to be significant. The performance parameters of the current model is at AUC ROC Score of 0.8685 and Accuracy Score of 96.89. The validation cohort had the AUC of 0.782 and Accuracy of 0.93. The model for Mortality Risk Prediction provides insight into the COVID Clinical and Laboratory Parameters at admission. It is one of the early studies, reflecting on ‘time to event’ at the admission, accurately predicting patient outcomes.
Objective: Chest CT can provide a simple quantitative assessment of the extent of the parenchymal opacities in COVID-19 patients. In this study, we postulate that CT findings can be used to ascertain the overall disease burden and predict the clinical outcome. Methods: In this prospective study undertaken from March 28, 2020, until May 20, 2020, 142 patients with CT features suggestive of viral pneumonia, and positive RT-PCR for COVID-19 were enrolled. A dedicated spiral CT scanner was used for all COVID-19 suspects. CT features were reported as typical, indeterminate, or atypical for COVID-19 pneumonia. A CT involvement score (CT-IS) was given to each scan and assigned mild, moderate, or severe category depending on the score range. The patients were followed up for at least 15 days. Results: Ground glass opacity was present in 100% of the patients. There was a significant association between CT-IS and the final outcome of the patients. A statistically significant increasing trend of mortality and requirement of critical medical attention was observed with the rising value of CT-IS in COVID-19. Conclusion: The severe CT-IS score group has a high mortality. The CT-IS score could be valuable in predicting clinical outcome and could also be useful in triage of patients needing hospital admission. In situations where healthcare resources are limited, and patient load high, a more careful approach for patients with higher CT-IS scores could be indispensable. Advances in knowledge: CT-IS is a simple quantitative method for assessing the disease burden of COVID-19 cases. It can be invaluable in places with limited resources and high patient load to segregate patients requiring critical medical attention.
Complete tracheal resection is extremely rare after blunt chest trauma. A high degree of suspicion is essential to identify these cases and early intervention is associated with better outcome. We report a patient with complete tracheal resection, in whom the airway was secured whilst the patient remained awake, breathing spontaneously under fibreoptic bronchoscopic guidance. As a precautionary measure, we had kept cardiopulmonary bypass set up in readiness. Anaesthetic management needed to be modified during repair of the trachea, by using total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol and rocuronium infusion and insertion of a separate endotracheal tube into the distal portion of the trachea whilst reconstruction of the trachea took place. The usual inhalational technique could not be used. The anaesthesiologist managing such a case should be aware of the difficulties during securing the airway and during repair of the trachea. Proper planning and keeping back-up plans ready helps in successful management of these patients.
oxygen, 1% sevoflurane, and fentanyl 2-4 g/kg. No patients responded when the abdominal incision was made. However, four patients had transient increases in heart rate and six patients had transient increases in arterial blood pressure during the intraabdominal procedure. The abdominal wall was relaxed without muscular relaxants.No patients complained of postoperative pain immediately after awakening from anesthesia. Postoperative pain management consisted of a continuous IV infusion of fentanyl (20 g/h) for the first day, supplemented with flurbiprofen on the second day in three patients. The averages of visual analog scale (VAS) scores on each day were 23, 49, and 31 on the first, second, and third postoperative days, respectively.The clinical course in these patients suggests that the intercostal nerves were effectively blocked by this technique. The bilateral rectus abdominis muscles were relaxed, no patients showed signs of poor analgesia on the abdominal incision, and VAS scores on the first postoperative day suggested reasonable levels of analgesia. We suggest that this technique may merit further evaluation in clinical trials.
A 30-year-old female presented with coma and subsequent cardiac arrest caused by phenobarbital overdosage, requiring ventilatory and vasopressor support. She had also developed severe hypoxia following gastric aspiration. Initial therapy, including activated charcoal and forced alkaline diuresis, failed to significantly lower her drug levels and there was minimal neurological improvement. As she was hemodynamically unstable, and unsuitable for conventional dialysis, she was put on sustained low efficiency dialysis (SLED) to facilitate drug removal. SLED resulted in marked reduction in plasma level of phenobarbital, which eventually led to early extubation, improved cognition and aided full recovery. Thus, we concluded that SLED can be an effective alternative in cases of severe phenobarbital poisoning, where conventional hemodialysis or hemoperfusion cannot be initiated, to hasten drug elimination and facilitate early recovery.
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) frequently occurs in patients with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) and is associated with increased mortality. Several global guidelines recommended prophylactic-intensity anticoagulation rather than intermediate-intensity or therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19-related acute or critical illness without suspected or confirmed VTE. Even though standard doses of thromboprophylaxis are received, many cases of thrombotic complications are reported; hence, appropriate and adequate thromboprophylaxis is critical for the prevention of VTE in COVID-19. In spite of an increased prevalence of VTE in Indian patients, sufficient data on patient characteristics, diagnosis, and therapeutic approach for VTE in COVID is lacking. In this article, we review the available global literature (search conducted up to 31 May 2021) and provide clinical insights into our approach towards managing VTE in patients with COVID-19. Furthermore, in this review, we summarize the incidence and risk factors for VTE with emphasis on the thromboprophylaxis approach in hospitalized patients and special populations with COVID-19 and assess clinical implications in the Indian context.
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.