BACKGROUND In 2013, New York began requiring hospitals to follow protocols for the early identification and treatment of sepsis. However, there is controversy about whether more rapid treatment of sepsis improves outcomes in patients. METHODS We studied data from patients with sepsis and septic shock that were reported to the New York State Department of Health from April 1, 2014, to June 30, 2016. Patients had a sepsis protocol initiated within 6 hours after arrival in the emergency department and had all items in a 3‐hour bundle of care for patients with sepsis (i.e., blood cultures, broad‐spectrum antibiotic agents, and lactate measurement) completed within 12 hours. Multilevel models were used to assess the associations between the time until completion of the 3‐hour bundle and risk‐adjusted mortality. We also examined the times to the administration of antibiotics and to the completion of an initial bolus of intravenous fluid. RESULTS Among 49,331 patients at 149 hospitals, 40,696 (82.5%) had the 3‐hour bundle completed within 3 hours. The median time to completion of the 3‐hour bundle was 1.30 hours (interquartile range, 0.65 to 2.35), the median time to the administration of antibiotics was 0.95 hours (interquartile range, 0.35 to 1.95), and the median time to completion of the fluid bolus was 2.56 hours (interquartile range, 1.33 to 4.20). Among patients who had the 3‐hour bundle completed within 12 hours, a longer time to the completion of the bundle was associated with higher risk‐adjusted in‐hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.04 per hour; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 1.05; P<0.001), as was a longer time to the administration of antibiotics (odds ratio, 1.04 per hour; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.06; P<0.001) but not a longer time to the completion of a bolus of intravenous fluids (odds ratio, 1.01 per hour; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.02; P=0.21). CONCLUSIONS More rapid completion of a 3‐hour bundle of sepsis care and rapid administration of antibiotics, but not rapid completion of an initial bolus of intravenous fluids, were associated with lower risk‐adjusted in‐hospital mortality. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others.)

Supplement to: Time to treatment and mortality during mandated emergency care for sepsis.

Sepsis is a life-threatening and time-critical medical emergency; therefore, the early diagnosis of sepsis is essential to timely treatment and favorable outcomes for patients susceptible to sepsis. Eosinopenia has been identified as a potential biomarker of sepsis in the past decade. However, its clinical application progress is slow and its recognition is low. Recent studies have again focused on the potential association between Eosinopenia and severe infections. This study analyzed the efficacy of Eosinopenia as a biomarker for diagnosis of sepsis and its correlation with pathophysiology of sepsis. The protocol for this meta-analysis is available in PROSPERO (CRD42020197664). We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials CENTRAL databases to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria. Two authors performed data extraction independently. The pooled outcomes were calculated by TP (true positive), FP (false positive), FN (false negative), TN (true negative) by using bivariate meta-analysis model in STATA 14.0 software. Meanwhile, possible mechanisms of sepsis induced Eosinopenia was also analyzed. Seven studies were included in the present study with a total number of 3842 subjects. The incidence of Eosinopenia based on the enrolled studies varied from 23.2 to 92.7%. For diagnosis of sepsis, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio of Eosinopenia were 0.66 (95%CI [0.53–0.77]), 0.68 (95%CI [0.56–0.79]), 2.09 (95%CI [1.44–3.02]), 0.49 (95%CI [0.34–0.71]) and 4.23 (95%CI [2.15–8.31]), respectively. The area under the summary receiver operator characteristic curve (SROC) was 0.73 (95%CI [0.68–0.76]). Meta-regression analysis revealed that no single parameter accounted for the heterogeneity of pooled outcomes. For each subgroup of different eosinopenia cutoff values (50, 40, ≤25, 100), the sensitivity was 0.61, 0.79, 0.57, 0.54, and the specificity was 0.61, 0.75, 0.83, 0.51, respectively. Our findings suggested that Eosinopenia has a high incidence in sepsis but has no superiority in comparison with conventional biomarkers for diagnosis of sepsis. However, eosinopenia can still be used in clinical diagnosis for sepsis as a simple, convenient, fast and inexpensive biomarker. Therefore, further large clinical trials are still needed to re-evaluate eosinopenia as a biomarker of sepsis.

/pdf/silent-existence-of-eosinopenia-in-sepsis-a-systematic-344lnwh9n8.pdf

Silent existence of eosinopenia in sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Incidence of adverse events among elderly vs non-elderly patients during procedural sedation and analgesia with propofol.

Purpose of review The present review provides an overview of the different fields of procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA), describing the evidence from recently published studies concerning anxiety and moderate pain, cardiac interventions, gastrointestinal interventions, and PSA use in infants. It also provides guidance for practitioners of both unscheduled and scheduled procedural sedation, and a summary of the current guideline for PSA. Recent findings Safety always has to be first priority. Recently published literature is focusing on the combination of different well established drugs such as dexmedetomidine, remifentanil, propofol, and ketamine. These traditional and well known drugs are commonly used for PSA. The combinational use of multiple drugs seems to have benefits for both the provider and patient. Furthermore, there is growing interest into specific protocols and adaption for special circumstances. The preferred medications used for PSA should be both effective and well tolerated. Summary Procedural sedation deserves to have high degree of attention for potential adverse events. New combinations of well established drugs provide a better pharmacokinetic profile, fit to different indications and offer multiple benefits for both provider and patient.

Procedural sedation outside the operating room.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic role of eosinophils count in COVID-19 patients. Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients admitted to our hospital with suspicion of COVID-19. Demographic, clinical and laboratory data were collected on admission. Eosinopenia was defined as eosinophils < 100 cells/mm3. The outcomes of this study were the association between eosinophils count on admission and positive real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) test and with suggestive chest computerized tomography (CT) of COVID-19 pneumonia. Results: A total of 174 patients was studied. Of those, 54% had positive rRT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2. A chest CT-scan was performed in 145 patients; 71% showed suggestive findings of COVID-19. Eosinophils on admission had a high predictive accuracy for positive rRT-PCR and suggestive chest CT-scan (area under the receiver operating characteristic-ROC curve, 0.84 (95% CIs 0.78-0.90) and 0.84 (95% CIs 0.77-0.91), respectively). Eosinopenia and high LDH were independent predictors of positive rRT-PCR, whereas eosinopenia, high body mass index and hypertension were predictors for suggestive CT-scan findings. Conclusions: Eosinopenia on admission could predict positive rRT-PCR test or suggestive chest CT-scan for COVID-19. This laboratory finding could help to identify patients at high-risk of COVID-19 in the setting where gold standard diagnostic methods are not available.

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/8/12/1929/pdf

Eosinopenia in COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Analysis.

Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is performed for a variety of indications in emergency departments (EDs). Although the practice of PSA in the ED is somewhat unique from other clinical areas, there is currently no guideline for this practice in Japan. Policy statements and guidelines for PSA have been published in Europe and North America. These guidelines suggest first evaluating patients carefully before performing PSA, and then deciding on target sedative level and choice of medications. Patient evaluation requires a combination of continuous visual observation by trained medical staff to assess the depth of sedation and respiration with noninvasive measurements of blood pressure, continuous electrocardiography monitoring, and pulse oximetry. Sedative selection should be based on its characteristics, peak time, effectiveness, and risks. It is important to administer sedatives and analgesics in small, incremental doses while keeping a close eye on the patient's reaction to avoid adverse events (AEs) until the planned sedation level is reached. Further, additional attention is needed for special populations such as pediatric and elderly patients. PSA is a key element for patient-centered care in emergency medicine. In this manuscript, we review the available evidence for PSA in the EDs, including guidelines for evaluation, monitoring, pharmacology, AEs, and special populations such as pediatric and elderly patients.

A mini‐review of procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department

Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is widely performed outside of the operating theater, often in emergency departments (EDs). The practice and safety of PSA in the ED in an aging society such as in Japan have not been well described. We aimed to characterize the practice pattern of PSA including indications, pharmacology and incidence of adverse events (AEs) in Japan. We formed the Japanese Procedural Sedation and Analgesia Registry, a multicenter prospective observation registry of ED patients undergoing PSA. We included all patients who received PSA in the ED. PSA was defined as any systemic pharmacological intervention intended to facilitate a painful or uncomfortable procedure. The main variables in this study were patients’ demographics, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status, indication of PSA, medication choices, and AEs. The primary outcome measure was overall AEs from PSA. We enrolled 332 patients in four EDs during the 12-month period. The median age was 67 years (IQR, 46–78). In terms of ASA physical status, 79 (23.8%), 172 (51.8%), and 81 (24.4%) patients were class 1, 2, 3 or higher, respectively. The most common indication was cardioversion (44.0%). The most common sedative used was thiopental (38.9%), followed by midazolam (34.0%) and propofol (19.6%). Among all patients, 72 (21.7%, 95% confidence interval, 17–26) patients experienced one or more AEs. The most common AE was hypoxia (9.9%), followed by apnea (7.2%) and hypotension (3.5%). All of the AEs were transient and no patient had a serious AE. In a multicenter prospective registry in Japan, PSA in the ED appears safe particularly since the patients who underwent PSA were older and had a higher risk profile compared to patients in previous studies in different countries.

Procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department in Japan: interim analysis of multicenter prospective observational study

A 24-year-old woman without significant medical history presented with a 5-day history of lower abdominal discomfort and purulent secretion from her umbilicus. She was well until 5 days prior when she noticed periumbilical abdominal pain. She denied fever, nausea, diarrhoea and melaena.

Abdominal

https://casereports.bmj.com/content/bmjcr/12/8/e231139.full.pdf

Secretion from umbilicus.

A 35-years-old Japanese man was evaluated for fever and right heel pain. One year prior, he had an episode of fever, stomatitis, oligoarthralgia, lumbago and blurred vision. Despite the extensive investigations, he only had a diagnosis of uveitis with unknown aetiology and all the symptoms remitted

https://casereports.bmj.com/content/bmjcr/12/11/e232056.full.pdf

Erythema nodosum-like lesion on heel in a patient assumed Behçet's disease.

Little is known about the potential use of the eosinophil count as a predictive marker of bloodstream infection. In this study, we aimed to assess the reliability of eosinopenia as a predictive marker of bloodstream infection. This retrospective cohort study was performed in the outpatient department and general internal medicine department of a tertiary university hospital in Japan. A total of 189 adult patients with at least 2 sets of blood cultures obtained during the period January 1–December 31, 2018, were included; those with the use of antibiotic therapy within 2 weeks prior to blood culture, steroid therapy, or a history of haematological cancer were excluded. The diagnostic accuracies of each univariate variable and the multivariable logistic regression models were assessed by calculating the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs). The primary outcome was a positive blood culture indicating bloodstream infection. Severe eosinopenia (< 24.4 cells/mm3) alone yielded small but statistically significant overall predictive ability (AUROC: 0.648, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.547–0.748, P < 0.05), and only moderate sensitivity (68, 95% CI: 46–85%) and specificity (62, 95% CI: 54–69%). The model comprising baseline variables (age, sex), the C-reactive protein level, and neutrophil count yielded an AUROC of 0.729, and further addition of eosinopenia yielded a slight improvement, with an AUROC of 0.758 (P < 0.05) and a statistically significant net reclassification improvement (NRI) (P = 0.003). However, the integrated discrimination index (IDI) (P = 0.284) remained non-significant. Severe eosinopenia can be considered an inexpensive marker of bloodstream infection, although of limited diagnostic accuracy, in a general internal medicine setting.

/pdf/eosinopenia-as-a-diagnostic-marker-of-bloodstream-infection-11r08p4u9s.pdf

Eosinopenia as a diagnostic marker of bloodstream infection in a general internal medicine setting A cohort study

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Hiroshi Takase

Author Tools

Chat about Author