Search

Background: Interstitial lung disease is a debilitating condition associated with significant dyspnoea, fatigue, and poor exercise tolerance. Pulmonary rehabilitation is an effective and key intervention in people with interstitial lung disease. However, despite the best efforts of patients and clinicians, many of those who participate are not achieving clinically meaningful benefits. This assessor-blinded, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial aims to compare the clinical benefits of high intensity interval exercise training versus the standard pulmonary rehabilitation method of continuous training at moderate intensity in people with fibrotic interstitial lung disease., Methods: Eligible participants will be randomised to either a standard pulmonary rehabilitation group using moderate intensity continuous exercise training or high intensity interval exercise training. Participants in both groups will undertake an 8-week pulmonary rehabilitation program of twice-weekly supervised exercise training including aerobic (cycling) and strengthening exercises. In addition, participants in both groups will be prescribed a home exercise program. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline, upon completion of the intervention and at six months following the intervention by a blinded assessor. The primary outcome is endurance time on a constant work rate test. Secondary outcomes are functional capacity (6-min walk distance), health-related quality of life (Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis specific version (SGRQ-I), breathlessness (Dyspnoea 12, Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale), fatigue (fatigue severity scale), anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), physical activity level (GeneActiv), skeletal muscle changes (ultrasonography) and completion and adherence to pulmonary rehabilitation., Discussion: The standard exercise training strategies used in pulmonary rehabilitation may not provide an optimal exercise training stimulus for people with interstitial lung disease. This study will determine whether high intensity interval training can produce equivalent or even superior changes in exercise performance and symptoms. If high intensity interval training proves effective, it will provide an exercise training strategy that can readily be implemented into clinical practice for people with interstitial lung disease. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03800914). Registered 11 January 2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03800914 Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12619000019101. Registered 9 January 2019, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=376050&isReview=true., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Despite evidence supporting the effectiveness of best practices of infection prevention and management, many surgeons worldwide fail to implement them. Evidence-based practices tend to be underused in routine practice. Surgeons with knowledge in surgical infections should provide feedback to prescribers and integrate best practices among surgeons and implement changes within their team. Identifying a local opinion leader to serve as a champion within the surgical department may be important. The "surgeon champion" can integrate best clinical practices of infection prevention and management, drive behavior change in their colleagues, and interact with both infection control teams in promoting antimicrobial stewardship., Competing Interests: Not applicable.Not applicable.The authors declare that they have no competing interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The open abdomen (OA) is defined as intentional decision to leave the fascial edges of the abdomen un-approximated after laparotomy (laparostomy). The abdominal contents are potentially exposed and therefore must be protected with a temporary coverage, which is referred to as temporal abdominal closure (TAC). OA use remains widely debated with many specific details deserving detailed assessment and clarification. To date, in patients with intra-abdominal emergencies, the OA has not been formally endorsed for routine utilization; although, utilization is seemingly increasing. Therefore, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), Abdominal Compartment Society (WSACS) and the Donegal Research Academy united a worldwide group of experts in an international consensus conference to review and thereafter propose the basis for evidence-directed utilization of OA management in non-trauma emergency surgery and critically ill patients. In addition to utilization recommendations, questions with insufficient evidence urgently requiring future study were identified.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s13017-016-0089-y.].

Background: Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs (ASPs) have been promoted to optimize antimicrobial usage and patient outcomes, and to reduce the emergence of antimicrobial-resistant organisms. However, the best strategies for an ASP are not definitively established and are likely to vary based on local culture, policy, and routine clinical practice, and probably limited resources in middle-income countries. The aim of this study is to evaluate structures and resources of antimicrobial stewardship teams (ASTs) in surgical departments from different regions of the world., Methods: A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted in 2016 on 173 physicians who participated in the AGORA (Antimicrobials: A Global Alliance for Optimizing their Rational Use in Intra-Abdominal Infections) project and on 658 international experts in the fields of ASPs, infection control, and infections in surgery., Results: The response rate was 19.4%. One hundred fifty-six (98.7%) participants stated their hospital had a multidisciplinary AST. The median number of physicians working inside the team was five [interquartile range 4-6]. An infectious disease specialist, a microbiologist and an infection control specialist were, respectively, present in 80.1, 76.3, and 67.9% of the ASTs. A surgeon was a component in 59.0% of cases and was significantly more likely to be present in university hospitals (89.5%, p  < 0.05) compared to community teaching (83.3%) and community hospitals (66.7%). Protocols for pre-operative prophylaxis and for antimicrobial treatment of surgical infections were respectively implemented in 96.2 and 82.3% of the hospitals. The majority of the surgical departments implemented both persuasive and restrictive interventions (72.8%). The most common types of interventions in surgical departments were dissemination of educational materials (62.5%), expert approval (61.0%), audit and feedback (55.1%), educational outreach (53.7%), and compulsory order forms (51.5%)., Conclusion: The survey showed a heterogeneous organization of ASPs worldwide, demonstrating the necessity of a multidisciplinary and collaborative approach in the battle against antimicrobial resistance in surgical infections, and the importance of educational efforts towards this goal.

This paper reports on the consensus conference on the management of intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) which was held on July 23, 2016, in Dublin, Ireland, as a part of the annual World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) meeting. This document covers all aspects of the management of IAIs. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation recommendation is used, and this document represents the executive summary of the consensus conference findings.

Background: Saline, the intravenous fluid most commonly administered to critically ill adults, contains a high chloride content, which may be associated with acute kidney injury and death. Whether using balanced crystalloids rather than saline decreases the risk of acute kidney injury and death among critically ill adults remains unknown., Methods: The Isotonic Solutions and Major Adverse Renal Events Trial (SMART) is a pragmatic, cluster-level allocation, cluster-level crossover trial being conducted between 1 June 2015 and 30 April 2017 in five intensive care units at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, TN, USA. SMART compares saline (0.9% sodium chloride) with balanced crystalloids (clinician's choice of lactated Ringer's solution or Plasma-Lyte A®). Each intensive care unit is assigned to provide either saline or balanced crystalloids each month, with the assigned crystalloid alternating monthly over the course of the trial. All adults admitted to participating intensive care units during the study period are enrolled and followed until hospital discharge or 30 days after enrollment. The anticipated enrollment is approximately 14,000 patients. The primary outcome is Major Adverse Kidney Events within 30 days-the composite of in-hospital death, receipt of new renal replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction (discharge creatinine ≥200% of baseline creatinine). Secondary clinical outcomes include in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit-free days, ventilator-free days, vasopressor-free days, and renal replacement therapy-free days. Secondary renal outcomes include new renal replacement therapy receipt, persistent renal dysfunction, and incidence of stage 2 or higher acute kidney injury., Discussion: This ongoing pragmatic trial will provide the largest and most comprehensive comparison to date of clinical outcomes with saline versus balanced crystalloids among critically ill adults., Trial Registration: For logistical reasons, SMART was prospectively registered separately for the medical ICU (SMART-MED; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02444988 ; registered on 11 May 2015; date of first patient enrollment: 1 June 2015) and the nonmedical ICUs (SMART-SURG; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02547779 ; registered on 9 September 2015; date of first patient enrollment: 1 October 2015).

Background: Hyperoxia is common early in the course of resuscitation of critically ill patients. It has been associated with mortality in some, but not all, studies of cardiac arrest patients and other critically ill cohorts. Reasons for the inconsistency are unclear and may depend on unmeasured patient confounders, the timing and duration of hyperoxia, population characteristics, or the way that hyperoxia is defined and measured. We sought to determine whether, in a prospectively collected cohort of mechanically ventilated patients with traumatic injuries with and without head trauma, higher maximum partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2) within 24 hours of admission would be associated with increased risk of in-hospital mortality., Methods: Critically ill patients with traumatic injuries undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation enrolled in the Validating Acute Lung Injury biomarkers for Diagnosis (VALID) study were included in this study. All arterial blood gases (ABGs) from the first 24 hours of admission were recorded. Primary analysis was comparison of the highest PaO2 between hospital survivors and non-survivors., Results: A total of 653 patients were evaluated for inclusion. Of these, 182 were not mechanically ventilated or did not have an ABG measured in the first 24 hours, leaving 471 patients in the primary analysis. In survivors, the maximum PaO2 was 141 mmHg (median, interquartile range 103 - 212) compared to 148 mmHg (IQR 105 - 209) in non-survivors (p = 0.82). In the subgroup with head trauma (n = 266), the maximum PaO2 was 133 mmHg (IQR 97 - 187) among survivors and 152 mmHg (108 - 229) among nonsurvivors (p = 0.19). After controlling for age, injury severity score, number of arterial blood gases, and fraction of inspired oxygen, maximum PaO2 was not associated with increased mortality (OR 1.27 for every fold increase of PaO2 (95% CI 0.72 - 2.25)., Conclusions: In mechanically ventilated patients with severe traumatic injuries, hyperoxia in the first 24 hours of admission was not associated with increased risk of death or worsened neurological outcomes in a setting without brain tissue oxygenation monitoring.

Intra-abdominal infections (IAI) are an important cause of morbidity and are frequently associated with poor prognosis, particularly in high-risk patients. The cornerstones in the management of complicated IAIs are timely effective source control with appropriate antimicrobial therapy. Empiric antimicrobial therapy is important in the management of intra-abdominal infections and must be broad enough to cover all likely organisms because inappropriate initial antimicrobial therapy is associated with poor patient outcomes and the development of bacterial resistance. The overuse of antimicrobials is widely accepted as a major driver of some emerging infections (such as C. difficile), the selection of resistant pathogens in individual patients, and for the continued development of antimicrobial resistance globally. The growing emergence of multi-drug resistant organisms and the limited development of new agents available to counteract them have caused an impending crisis with alarming implications, especially with regards to Gram-negative bacteria. An international task force from 79 different countries has joined this project by sharing a document on the rational use of antimicrobials for patients with IAIs. The project has been termed AGORA (Antimicrobials: A Global Alliance for Optimizing their Rational Use in Intra-Abdominal Infections). The authors hope that AGORA, involving many of the world's leading experts, can actively raise awareness in health workers and can improve prescribing behavior in treating IAIs.

Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) encompass a variety of pathological conditions ranging from simple superficial infections to severe necrotizing soft tissue infections. Necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) are potentially life-threatening infections of any layer of the soft tissue compartment associated with widespread necrosis and systemic toxicity. Successful management of NSTIs involves prompt recognition, timely surgical debridement or drainage, resuscitation and appropriate antibiotic therapy. A worldwide international panel of experts developed evidence-based guidelines for management of soft tissue infections. The multifaceted nature of these infections has led to a collaboration among surgeons, intensive care and infectious diseases specialists, who have shared these guidelines, implementing clinical practice recommendations.