ABSTRACT
Introduction: Gattinoni et al. have recently introduced a new parameter: the "alactic base excess"(ABE). ABE is equivalent to the number of strong acids, other than lactate, which are present in the plasma in abnormal concentrations, negative ABE being associated with higher mortality in sepsis. Hemoperfusion (HPF) is an extracorporeal procedure that involves the passage of blood through an adsorption cartridge, where solutes are removed by direct binding to the sorbent material. Then, it was decided to explore the influence of HPF on negative ABE value in sepsis. Material(s) and Method(s): Basal values of ABE, standard base excess (SBE), and lactate (mean, standard deviation [SD]) were obtained. The difference between these parameter values before and after four sessions of HPF (HA330) (delta value) was evaluated. Student's t-test and Wilcoxon test were applied. Result(s): From 32 patients (age: 57+/-13) suffering from respiratory insufficiency secondary to COVID-19 who were treated with HPF in the critical care unit of Clinica de la Mujer, Bogota (Colombia), 6 patients presented with metabolic acidosis with negative ABE value (-2.7+/-1) with negative SBE (-4.7+/-1) and high lactate serum value (2+/-0.7 mmol/L). Delta ABE, SBE, and lactate were: 7.7 (p = 0.005), 6.1 (p = 0.003), and 1.6 (p = NS), respectively. Thus, negative ABE was significantly reversed by HPF, since SBE value turned positive without significant change in lactate. Conclusion(s): Negative alactic parameter was significantly reversed by HPF in septic patients. It is necessary to carry out evaluations in larger groups to estimate their impact on clinical outcomes. Copyright © 2022 The Authors.
ABSTRACT
Pandemics pose a major challenge for public health preparedness, requiring a coordinated inter- national response and the development of solid containment plans. Early and accurate identification of high-risk patients in the course of the current COVID-19 pandemic is vital for planning and making proper use of available resources. The purpose of this study was to identify the key variables that account for worse outcomes to create a predictive model that could be used effectively for triage. Through literature review, 44 variables that could be linked to an unfavorable course of COVID-19 disease were obtained, including clinical, laboratory, and X-ray variables. These were used for a 2-round modified Delphi processing with 14 experts to select a final list of variables with the greatest predictive power for the construction of a scoring system, leading to the creation of a new scoring system: the COVID-19 Severity Index. The analysis of the area under the curve for the COVID-19 Severity Index was 0.94 to predict the need for ICU admission in the following 24 hours against 0.80 for NEWS-2. Additionally, the digital medical record of the Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires was electronically set for an automatic calculation and constant update of the COVID-19 Severity Index. Specifically designed for the current COVID-19 pandemic, COVID-19 Severity Index could be used as a reliable tool for strategic planning, organization, and administration of resources by easily identifying hospitalized patients with a greater need of intensive care.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Healthcare personnel are often at high risk of contamination when participating in airway management and other aerosol-generating procedures. AIM: To explore the differences in self-contamination after removal of gown and coverall personal protective equipment (PPE) using an ultraviolet-fluorescent solution. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, controlled crossover trial was set in a third-level university health centre in Buenos Aires, Argentina between August and October 2020. The study included 60 anaesthesia personnel volunteers, and no participants were excluded from the study. A two-period/two-intervention design was chosen; each intervention comprised audio-guided placement of PPE, full-body spraying of fluorescent solution, audio-guided removal of PPE, and self-contamination assessment through ultraviolet light scanning. The primary outcome was the mean within-participant difference (any traces) between PPE suits. Statistical significance was tested using t-tests for paired data. The allocation ratio was 25/35 (gown followed by coverall/coverall followed by gown). FINDINGS: Self-contamination after removal of coveralls was greater than that after removal of gowns, with a mean within-participant difference of 11.45 traces (95% confidence interval 8.26-14.635; P<0.001). Significant differences were found for the number of self-contaminated body zones, small fluorescent traces and large fluorescent traces. Removal of a gown was associated with a markedly lower risk of self-contamination. CONCLUSIONS: Quick one-step removal of a gown and gloves may reduce self-contamination in the arm/hand area. Fluorescent solutions can help to identify self-contamination and compare outcomes between available PPE suits. Repeated training sessions and enhanced knowledge on self-contamination following removal of PPE are paramount. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04763304 (on ClinicalTrials.gov).