RESUMEN
BACKGROUND@# People sometimes siphon fuel to fill their tanks. However, this is a potentially dangerous procedure and may cause hydrocarbon pneumonitis. We present the case of a patient with severe hydrocarbon pneumonitis after siphoning fuel. The patient underwent artificial ventilation and was admitted to hospital for 97 days.@*METHODS@# We review the relevant literature for a better understanding of clinical features and management strategies for hydrocarbon pneumonitis following fuel siphonage.@*RESULTS@# We reviewed 15 articles, which included 3 original articles and 12 case reports that reported the clinical features of fuel siphonage. In addition, we added our presented case for data analysis. A total of 40 cases were included in this review. The literature review found that hydrocarbon pneumonitis caused by fuel siphonage occurs worldwide and that most patients (80%) became symptomatic within 1 day of aspiration. Cough (70%), chest pain (62.5%), dyspnoea (55%), and fever (52.5%) presented in more than half of all patients. The right middle lobe (80%) was the predominantly involved lung field; more than one-third of patients (36.7%) showed the involvement of two lobes.@*CONCLUSION@# Patient history, computed tomographic scans of the chest, and bronchoalveolar lavage are the commonly used diagnostic tools. Supportive care remains the foundation of treatment, whereas antibiotics, steroids, and bronchoalveolar lavage are practical therapies. Patients' clinical improvement precedes the resolution of lesions on chest X-ray. Most complications arise from pulmonary lesions. The prognosis of patients suffering from hydrocarbon pneumonitis following fuel siphonage might be improved by accurate diagnosis and appropriate care.
RESUMEN
Objective: This study compared the risk of varicose veins [VV] among physicians, nonphysician health care providers [HCP], and the general population
Subjects and Methods: The Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database was used to identify 28,844 physicians and 26,099 nonphysi-cian HCP and an identical number of age- and sex-matched patients from the general population. Using logistic regression analyses, W risks between physicians and the general population, nonphysician HCP and the general population, and physicians and nonphysician HCP, and among physician specialists were compared by tracing their medical histories between 2007 and 2011
Results: Physicians and nonphysician HCP had cumulative W incidences of 0.12% [34/28,844] and 0.13% [33/26,099], respectively, during the 5-year period, compared to that of the general population within the same 5-year period. Physicians and nonphysician HCP didnot have a higher W risk than the general population after adjusting for deep vein thrombosis [DVT] history [adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.86; 95% confidence interval [Cl] 0.53-1.40, and AOR 1.43; 95% Cl 0.82-2.50, respectively]. Physicians did not a have higher VV risk than nonphysician HCP [AOR 0.80; 95% Cl 0.43-1.51] after adjusting for age, sex, and DVT history. Surgery had the highest incidence [0.22%] while pediatrics and emergency medicine had the lowest incidence [0%] of VV risk among physician specialists; however, the difference was not significant [all p values >0.05]
Conclusion: In this study, VV risk did not differ among physicians, non-physician HCP, and the general population