A review of risk factors for catheter-related bloodstream infection caused by percutaneously inserted,noncuffed central venous catheters: implications for preventive strategies

Strategies for preventing central venous catheter (CVC)-related bloodstream infection are most likely to be effective if guided by an understanding of the risk factors associated with these infections. In this critical review of published studies of risk factors for CVC-related bloodstream infection that were prospective and used multivariable techniques of data analysis or that were randomized trials of a preventive measure, a significantly increased risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection was associated with inexperience of the operator and nurse-to-patient ratio in the intensive care unit, catheter insertion with less than maximal sterile barriers, placement of a CVC in the internal jugular or femoral vein rather than subclavian vein, placement in an old site by guidewire exchange, heavy colonization of the insertion site or contamination of a catheter hub, and duration of CVC placement > 7 days. Prospective studies or randomized trials of control measures focusing on these risk factors have been shown to reduce risk significantly: formal training in CVC insertion and care, use of maximal sterile barriers at insertion, use of chlorhexidine rather than povidone-iodine for cutaneous antisepsis, applying a topical anti-infective cream or ointment or a chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing to the insertion site, and the use of novel catheters with an anti-infective surface or a contamination resistant hub. Better prospective studies of sufficient size to address all potential risk factors, including insertion site and hub colonization, insertion technique, and details of follow-up care, would enhance our understanding of the pathogenesis of CVC-related bloodstream infection and guide efforts to develop more effective strategies for prevention.     

Portopulmonary hypertension: an update

Portopulmonary hypertension (POPH) is a serious complication of cirrhosis that is associated with mortality beyond that predicted by the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. Increased pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) may be initiated by pulmonary vasoconstriction, altered levels of circulating mediators, or shear stress, and can eventually lead to the classic vascular remodeling (plexiform lesion) that characterizes POPH. Portal hypertension is a prerequisite for the diagnosis of POPH, although the severity of pulmonary hypertension is unrelated to the severity of portal hypertension or the nature or severity of liver disease. POPH precludes liver transplantation (LT) unless the mean pulmonary artery pressure (MPAP) can be reduced to a safe level. The concept of an acceptable pressure has changed: we now consider both MPAP and PVR in the diagnosis, and we include the transpulmonary pressure gradient so that we can factor in fluid overload and left ventricular failure. Pulmonary vasodilator therapy includes oral, inhaled, and parenteral agents, and one or more of these agents may significantly lower pulmonary artery pressures to the point that LT becomes possible. The United Network for Organ Sharing recommends MELD exception points for patients with medically controlled POPH, but this varies by region. Patients who undergo LT need specialized intraoperative and postoperative management, which includes the availability of intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography for assessing right ventricular function, and rapidly acting vasodilators (eg, inhaled nitric oxide and/or epoprostenol). Published case series suggest excellent outcomes after LT for patients who respond to medical therapy.     

Funding Mechanisms for Gender‐specific Research: Proceedings from a Panel Discussion at the 2014 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference

As part of the 2014 Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) consensus conference “Gender‐Specific Research in Emergency Care: Investigate, Understand, and Translate How Gender Affects Patient Outcomes,” we assembled a diverse panel of representatives from federal and nonfederal funding agencies to discuss future opportunities for sex‐ and gender‐specific research. The discussion revolved around the mission and priorities of each organization, as well as its interest in promoting sex‐ and gender‐specific research. The panelists were asked to provide specific examples of funding lines generated or planned for as pertinent to emergency care. Training opportunities for future researchers in this area were also discussed.     

Gender Differences in Acute and Chronic Pain in the Emergency Department: Results of the 2014 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference Pain Section

Pain is a leading public health problem in the United States, with an annual economic burden of more than $630 billion, and is one of the most common reasons that individuals seek emergency department (ED) care. There is a paucity of data regarding sex differences in the assessment and treatment of acute and chronic pain conditions in the ED. The Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference convened in Dallas, Texas, in May 2014 to develop a research agenda to address this issue among others related to sex differences in the ED. Prior to the conference, experts and stakeholders from emergency medicine and the pain research field reviewed the current literature and identified eight candidate priority areas. At the conference, these eight areas were reviewed and all eight were ratified using a nominal group technique to build consensus. These priority areas were: 1) gender differences in the pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for pain, including differences in opioid tolerance, side effects, or misuse; 2) gender differences in pain severity perceptions, clinically meaningful differences in acute pain, and pain treatment preferences; 3) gender differences in pain outcomes of ED patients across the life span; 4) gender differences in the relationship between acute pain and acute psychological responses; 5) the influence of physician–patient gender differences and characteristics on the assessment and treatment of pain; 6) gender differences in the influence of acute stress and chronic stress on acute pain responses; 7) gender differences in biological mechanisms and molecular pathways mediating acute pain in ED populations; and 8) gender differences in biological mechanisms and molecular pathways mediating chronic pain development after trauma, stress, or acute illness exposure. These areas represent priority areas for future scientific inquiry, and gaining understanding in these will be essential to improving our understanding of sex and gender differences in the assessment and treatment of pain conditions in emergency care settings.     

Organization,Execution and Evaluation of the 2014 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference on Gender‐Specific Research in Emergency Care – An Executive Summary

With the goal of reducing inequalities in patient care, the 2014 Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) consensus conference, “Gender‐Specific Research in Emergency Care: Investigate, Understand, and Translate How Gender Affects Patient Outcomes,” convened a diverse group of researchers, clinicians, health care providers, patients, and representatives of federal agencies and policy‐makers in Dallas, Texas, in May 2014. The executive and steering committees identified seven clinical domains as key to gender‐specific emergency care: cardiovascular, neurological, trauma/injury, substance abuse, pain, mental health, and diagnostic imaging. The main aims of the conference were to: 1) summarize and consolidate current data related to sex‐ and gender‐specific research for acute care and identify critical gender‐related gaps in knowledge to inform an EM research agenda; 2) create a consensus‐driven research agenda that advances sex‐ and gender‐specific research in the prevention, diagnosis, and management of acute diseases and identify strategies to investigate them; and 3) build a multinational interdisciplinary consortium to disseminate and study the sex and gender medicine of acute conditions. Over a 2‐year period, this collaborative network of stakeholders identified key areas where sex‐ and gender‐specific research is most likely to improve clinical care and ultimately patient outcomes. The iterative consensus process culminated in a daylong conference on May 13, 2014, with a total of 133 registrants, with the majority being between ages 31 and 50 years (57%), females (71%), and whites (79%). Content experts led the consensus‐building workshops at the conference and used the nominal group technique to consolidate consensus recommendations for priority research. In addition, panel sessions addressed funding mechanisms for gender‐specific research as well as gender‐specific regulatory challenges to product development and approval. This special issue of AEM reports the results of the 2014 consensus conference as well as related original research with the goal of bringing high‐quality equitable care to male and female emergency patients.     

Gender‐specific Regulatory Challenges to Product Approval: A Panel Discussion

On May 13, 2014, a 1‐hour panel discussion session titled “Gender‐specific Regulatory Challenges to Product Approval” was held during the Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference, “Gender‐specific Research in Emergency Medicine: Investigate, Understand, and Translate How Gender Affects Patient Outcomes.” The session sought to bring together leaders in emergency medicine (EM) research, authors, and reviewers in EM research publications, as well as faculty, fellows, residents, and students engaged in research and clinical practice. A panel was convened involving a representative from the Office of Women's Health of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, two pharmaceutical executives, and a clinical EM researcher. The moderated discussion also involved audience members who contributed significantly to the dialogue. Historical background leading up to the session along with the main themes of the discussion are reproduced in this article. These revolve around sex‐ and gender‐specific research, statistical analysis of sex and gender, clinical practice, financial costs associated with pharmaceutical development, adaptive design, and specific recommendations on the regulatory process as it affects the specialty of EM.     

Sex‐ and Gender‐specific Research Priorities in Cardiovascular Resuscitation: Proceedings from the 2014 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference Cardiovascular Resuscitation Research Workgroup

Significant sex and gender differences in both physiology and psychology are readily acknowledged between men and women; however, data are lacking regarding differences in their responses to injury and treatment and in their ultimate recovery and survival. These variations remain particularly poorly defined within the field of cardiovascular resuscitation. A better understanding of the interaction between these important factors may soon allow us to dramatically improve outcomes in disease processes that currently carry a dismal prognosis, such as sudden cardiac arrest. As part of the 2014 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference “Gender‐Specific Research in Emergency Medicine: Investigate, Understand, and Translate How Gender Affects Patient Outcomes,” our group sought to identify key research questions and knowledge gaps pertaining to both sex and gender in cardiac resuscitation that could be answered in the near future to inform our understanding of these important issues. We combined a monthly teleconference meeting of interdisciplinary stakeholders from largely academic institutions with a focused interest in cardiovascular outcomes research, an extensive review of the existing literature, and an open breakout session discussion on the recommendations at the consensus conference to establish a prioritization of the knowledge gaps and relevant research questions in this area. We identified six priority research areas: 1) out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest epidemiology and outcome, 2) customized resuscitation drugs, 3) treatment role for sex steroids, 4) targeted temperature management and hypothermia, 5) withdrawal of care after cardiac arrest, and 6) cardiopulmonary resuscitation training and implementation. We believe that exploring these key topics and identifying relevant questions may directly lead to improved understanding of sex‐ and gender‐specific issues seen in cardiac resuscitation and ultimately improved patient outcomes.