Velocity–pressure loops for continuous assessment of ventricular afterload: influence of pressure measurement site

VPloop, the graphical representation of pressure versus velocity, and its characteristic angles, GALA and β, can be used to monitor cardiac afterload during anesthesia. Ideally VPloop should be measured from pressure and velocity obtained at the same arterial location but standard of care usually provide either radial or femoral pressure waveforms. The purpose of this study was to look at the influence of arterial sites and the use of a transfer function (TF) on VPloop and its related angles. Invasive pressure signals were recorded in 25 patients undergoing neuroradiology intervention under general anesthesia with transesophageal flow velocity monitoring. Pressures were recorded in the descending thoracic aorta, abdominal aorta, femoral and radial arteries. We compared GALA and β from VPloops generated from each location and in high and low risk patients. GALA was similar in the central locations (55°[49–63], 52°[47–61] and 54°[45–62] from descending thoracic to femoral artery, median[interquartile], p?=?0.10), while there was a difference in β angle (16°[4–27] to 8°[3–15], p?<?0.0001). GALA and β obtained from radial waveforms were different (39°[31–47] compared to 46°[36–54] and 6°[2–14] compared to 16°[4–27] for GALA and β angles respectively, p?<?0.001) which was corrected by the use of a TF (45°[32–55] and 17°[5–28], p?=?ns). GALA and β are underestimated when measured with a radial catheter. Using pressure waveforms from femoral locations alters VPloops, GALA and β in a smaller extend. The use of a TF on radial pressure allows to correctly plot VPloops and their characteristic angles for routine clinical use.     

Texting-Based Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions to Ensure Patient Safety: A Feasibility Study

Background

Paper-based adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting has been in practice for more than 6 decades. Health professionals remain the primary source of reports, while the value of patients’ reporting is yet unclear. With the increasing popularity of using electronic gadgets in health, it is expected that the electronic transmission of reports will become the norm within a few years.

Objective

The aims of this study are to investigate whether short messaging service or texting can provide an alternative or supplemental method for ADR reporting given the increasing role of mobile phones in health care monitoring; to determine the usefulness of texting in addition to paper-based reporting of ADRs by resident physicians; and to describe the barriers to ADR reporting and estimate the cost for setting up and maintaining a texting-computer reporting system.

Methods

This was a pre-post cross-sectional study that measured the number of ADRs texted by 51 resident physicians for 12 months from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Department of Adult Medicine of a tertiary government hospital in Manila, Philippines, with 1350-bed capacity. Reports were captured by a texting-computer reporting system. Prior to its implementation, key informant interview and focus group discussion were conducted. Baseline information and practice on the existing paper-based reporting system were culled from the records of the hospital’s Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee. A postintervention survey questionnaire was administered at the end of 12 months.

Results

Only 3 ADRs were texted by 51 resident physicians in 12 months (reporting rate 3/51 or 6%). By contrast, 240 ADRs from the paper-based reporting system from 848 resident physicians of the study hospital were collected and tabulated (reporting rate 240/848 or 28.3%). Texting ADRs was not efficient because of power interruption, competition with the existing paper-based reporting system, and unforeseen expiration of prepaid text loads/credits. The 3 ADRs texted were a report of vivid dreams and nightmares, a report of disturbing dreams and memory lapses, both of which were due to montelukast use, and a report of hepatitis from an isoniazid/rifampicin fixed-dose combination. Nineteen of 51 resident physicians (37%) registered in the reporting system responded to the postintervention survey. The most common reasons for not reporting ADRs were no adverse reaction identified 11/19 (58%) and restrictive reporting syntax 4/19 (21%). All doctors preferred a free form of reporting. The direct cost of the texting-based reporting system was calculated to be US $5581.40 and the indirect cost was US $9989.40. The total cost for texting-based ADR reporting system for 12 months was US $15,570.79.

Conclusions

Reporting of ADRs via texting could be lower compared with an existing ADR paper-based system. Problems of Internet connectivity, reporting syntax, and expiration and reliability of text loads/credits should be addressed while implementing a text-based ADR reporting system in a developing country.     

The Effect of Initial Patient Experiences and Life Stressors on Predicting Lost to Follow-Up in Patients New to an HIV Clinic

AIDS and Behavior - We conducted a prospective cohort study of 450 patients new to an HIV clinic in Houston, TX, to examine the roles of life stressors and initial care experiences in predicting...     

Complete mesocolic excision and extended (D3) lymphadenectomy for colonic cancer: is it worth that extra effort? A review of the literature

Purpose

Recent interest in complete mesocolic excision (CME) with central vascular ligation (CVL) or extended (D3) lymphadenectomy (EL) for curative resection of colon cancer has been driven by published series from experienced practitioners showing excellent survival outcomes and low recurrence rates. In this article, we attempt to clarify the role of CME or EL in modern colorectal surgery.

Methods

A narrative review of the evidence for CME and EL in the curative treatment of colon cancer.

Results

The principal of CME surgery, similar to total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer, is the removal of all lymphatic, vascular, and neural tissue in the drainage area of the tumour in a complete mesocolic envelope with intact mesentery, peritoneum and encasing fascia. Extended (D3) lymphadenectomy (EL) is based on similar principles. Sound anatomical and oncological arguments are made to support the principles of removing the tumor contained within an intact mesocolic facial envelope together with an extended lymph node harvest. Excellent oncological outcomes with minimal morbidity and mortality have been reported. This has led to calls for the standardisation of surgery for colon cancer using CME. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the prognostic benefit of greater lymph node harvests and the evidence for an oncological benefit of CME is limited by methodology flaws and several potential confounding factors.

Conclusions

Although there is a reasonable anatomical and oncological basis for these techniques, there are no randomised controlled trials from which to draw confident conclusions and there is insufficient consistent high quality evidence to recommend widespread adoption of CME.

     

Clinical features, diagnosis, and management of the antiphospholipid syndrome

Almost 30 years after it was first described as a discrete clinical entity, the antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) remains a challenge for clinicians in a wide range of specialities. There remain ongoing issues regarding nomenclature, the expanding range of clinical manifestations, and management of certain APS patient subgroups. In addition to the presence of appropriate clinical features, the diagnosis of APS also fundamentally requires the finding of positive antiphospholipid antibody test result(s), and unfortunately much still has to be done to improve the robustness, reproducibility, and standardization of these assays. This article discusses ongoing dilemmas and issues related to clinical aspects of APS including (i) the derivation of the current nomenclature and the implications of recent proposals for its revision; (ii) the problems that the protean clinical manifestations pose for many clinicians, in particular those not intimately familiar with APS; (iii) the potential pitfalls of applying the APS classification criteria as diagnostic criteria (although no doubt tempting for nonspecialist clinicians); (iv) the concept of seronegative APS and the effect that recent proposed changes in antiphospholipid antibody testing strategies may have on this diagnosis; and finally (v) an overview of key developments in the clinical management of APS patients over the past 30 years.