Surgical competence today: what have we gained? What have we lost?

The complexity of modern surgical practice and the cognitive and technical overload to which trainees are subjected places practitioners and residents alike in jeopardy of developing areas of incompetence. Inadequate exposure to essential operations during residency forces trainees to seek further expertise in fellowships. At the same time, practice burdens increase stress levels on academic and community surgeons, resulting in a 30 to 40% burnout rate. Solutions include modification of restricted duty hours for residents and the institution of a simulation-based national surgical curriculum.     

What have we learned? Coordination

This paper outlines each aspect of coordination as it relates to the responses made by various organizations in the disaster-affected areas. It is a synthesis of the presentations and discussions pertaining to coordination during the Conference, Health Aspects of the Tsunami Disaster in Asia, convened by the World Health Organization (WHO), in Phuket, Thailand, 04-06 May 2005. Coordination is defined, and two important questions are answered: (1) What coordination was done well?; and (2) What coordination could have been done better?     

What have we learned? Needs assessment

This is a synthesis of the presentations and discussions pertaining to Needs Assessments of the Conference, Health Aspects of the Tsunami Disaster in Asia, convened by the World Health Organization (WHO), in Phuket, Thailand, 04-06 May 2005. The topics discussed included: (1) Needs assessments; (2) Coordination; (3) Effectiveness of needs assessments; (4) Needs assessments change; (5) Qualifications for conducting needs assessments; (6) Dissemination; (7) Emergencies overlay background needs assessments; (8) Need for standards; and (9) Conclusions and recommendations.     

Mechanical ventilation: what have we learned?

Mechanical ventilation is the second most frequently performed therapeutic intervention after treatment for cardiac arrhythmias in intensive care units today. Countless lives have been saved with its use despite being associated with a greater than 30% in-hospital mortality rate. As life expectancies increase and people with chronic illnesses survive longer, artificial support with mechanical ventilation is also expected to rise. In one survey, over half of senior internal medicine residents reported their training on mechanical ventilation as inadequate, whereas the majority of critical care nurses reported having received no formal education on its use. Technological advances resulting in the availability of sleeker ventilators with graphic waveform displays and new modes of ventilation have challenged the bedside clinicians to incorporate this new data along with evidenced-based research into their daily practice. A review of current thoughts on mechanical ventilation and weaning is presented.     

Critical care - where have we been and where are we going?

The first ICUs were established in the late 1950s and the specialty of critical care medicine began to develop. Since those early days, huge improvements have been made in terms of technological advances and understanding of the pathophysiology and pathogenesis of the disease processes that affect critically ill patients. Progress in therapeutics has been less dramatic, but process of care has improved steadily with important changes, including less iatrogenicity, better communication with patients and families, and improved teamwork, which have helped improve outcomes for ICU patients. Critical care medicine is one of the fastest-growing hospital specialties and, looking back, it is clear just how far we have come in such a relatively short period of time. With the ICU set to occupy an increasingly important place in hospitals worldwide, we must learn from the past and wisely embrace new developments in technology, therapeutics, and process, to ensure that the goals of critical care medicine are met in the future.     

The millennium bug--do we have the right antibiotics?

This article introduces readers to the scope of the Year 2000 (Y2K) issue. In addition to describing how this problem came to be, the author examines the extent of the problem as defined by professionals in information technology. The author also explores what the cost of fixing the problem may be and what industry is doing to mitigate the effects the Y2K bug will have on patient care, supplies, and financial operations. The author expresses the need for caregivers to have a greater interest in the problem and to ask questions about what is being done at individual institutions.     

What have we learned from the current trials?

Even well-conducted randomized controlled trials can only reduce uncertainty, not eliminate it. The trials presented in this article all have gaps, and like many studies, some raise more questions than answers. A summary of the current trials, however, can be presented as follows. For patients with essential hypertension who are at high risk for cardiovascular disease, the use of diuretic therapy (excluding simultaneous use of ACE or CCB) resulted in outcomes at least equivalent to the use of either ACE or CCB without diuretics. Naturally, the dilemma for clinicians is that these drugs are most often used in combination with thiazide diuretics, as indicated by the RENAAL trial where 80% of ARB were used with diuretics in patients with type II diabetes and known nephropathy. The increased risk of heart failure observed with ACE and CCB in that trial may be relevant only to patients in whom diuretics were not also used. The study does raise important awareness, however, that ACE or CCB use without diuretic therapy is no better than diuretic therapy, and may be associated with higher risk of certain outcomes. A substantial number of patients with essential hypertension might achieve adequate blood pressure control with diuretic monotherapy. If so, that certainly has important implications for the cost of medical care in this country. For African Americans with essential hypertension, ACE may have advantages as a component of therapy in comparison with CCBs or beta-blockers, although diuretics should probably be the cornerstone of therapy for them and supported by the Seventh Joint National Committee. For patients with proteinuric renal disease, whether associated with diabetes or hypertension, it should be considered inappropriate to use DHP CCB as monotherapy in any setting, whether as part of a clinical trial or in clinical practice. These drugs should not be considered as ethical placebo arms in trials, most especially in diabetic nephropathy, nor should they be used without an ACE or ARB in patients with proteinuric renal disease in the absence of documented contraindications or intolerance to ACE, ARB, or non-DHP CCB (which are now considered second-line agents for proteinuric renal disease, and are acceptable placebo or comparison arms in clinical trials). For patients with type I diabetes, ACE remain the cornerstone of therapy. Because of recent RENAAL and IDNT trial results, the greatest benefit for slowing progression of renal disease in type II diabetic nephropathy now belongs to ARBs. In contrast, however, the HOPE trial showed that ACE, specifically ramipril, had the greatest evidence for prevention of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with renal insufficiency, regardless of diabetic status. Cardiovascular outcomes were secondary end points in the RENAAL and IDNT trials, and with the exception of heart failure for losartan, no benefits on cardiovascular outcomes were statistically significant. Progression of renal disease has only been studied in a relatively small cohort of Israeli patients comparing enalapril with nifedipine. These gaps lead to a classic dilemma in medical decision-making. Because evidence has shown that patients with elevated serum creatinine (greater than or equal to 1.4 mg/dL) are just as likely to die from cardiovascular disease as they are to reach end-stage renal disease, which outcome should be the focus for clinicians, or for researchers? Using a strictly evidence-based approach, this question can only be answered by yet another large, long, randomized, controlled trial. Given the similarity of actions between the ARB and ACE, it is likely there is considerable overlap of both benefits and side-effects between the two, although ARB may have a lower incidence of cough and hyperkalemia. The decision of which antihypertensive agents to use will have to be tailored carefully to the needs of the patient and careful consideration of both medical and economic factors. Regardless of the choice between an ACE or ARB, however, post hoc analysis of clinical trials [21,47] and observational data clearly indicate that patients with chronic kidney disease, even if considered mild (ie, serum creatinine greater than or equal to 1.4 mg/dL) are at significantly greater risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality compared with those with better kidney function. As stated in a recent review by the authors of the HOPE trial [50], "the frequent practice of withholding ACE [or ARB] in patients with mild renal insufficiency is unwarranted," because not only are these patients precisely those who might benefit most from their use, but safety and tolerability are generally excellent. Based on the results of the AASK trial, the authors add the same for the use of ACE inhibitors in African Americans.     

Out-of-hospital resuscitation: have we gone too far?

Americans are living longer and are more likely to be chronically or terminally ill at the time of death. Although surveys indicate that most people prefer to die at home, the majority of people in the United States die in acute care hospitals. Each year, approximately 400,000 persons suffer sudden cardiac arrest in the US, the majority occurring in the out-of-hospital setting. Mortality rates are high and reach almost 100% when prehospital care has failed to restore spontaneous circulation. Nonetheless, patients who receive little benefit or may wish to forgo life-sustaining treatment often are resuscitated. Risk versus harm of resuscitation efforts can be differentiated by various factors, including cardiac rhythm. Emergency medical services policy regarding resuscitation should consider its utility in various clinical scenarios. Patients, family members, emergency medical providers, and physicians all are important stakeholders to consider in decisions about out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Ideally, future policy will place greater emphasis on patient preferences and quality of life by including all of these viewpoints.