Despite nearly a century of research and accounting for the highest disease burden of any parasitic disease in the Western Hemisphere, Chagas disease (CD) is still a challenging diagnosis, primarily due to its poor recognition outside of Latin America. Although initially considered endemic to Central and South America, globalization, urbanization, and increased migration have spread the disease worldwide in the last few years, making it a significant public health threat. The international medical community’s apparent lack of interest in this disease that was previously thought to be geographically restricted has delayed research on the complex host–parasite relationship that determines myocardial involvement and its differential behavior from other forms of cardiomyopathy, particularly regarding treatment strategies. Multiple cellular and molecular mechanisms that contribute to degenerative, inflammatory, and fibrotic myocardial responses have been identified and warrant further research to expand the therapeutic arsenal and impact the high burden attributed to CD. Altogether, cardiac dysautonomia, microvascular disturbances, parasite-mediated myocardial damage, and chronic immune-mediated injury are responsible for the disease’s clinical manifestations, ranging from asymptomatic disease to severe cardiac and gastrointestinal involvement. It is crucial for healthcare workers to better understand CD transmission and disease dynamics, including its behavior on both its acute and chronic phases, to make adequate and evidence-based decisions regarding the disease. This review aims to summarize the most recent information on the epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical presentation, diagnosis, screening, and treatment of CD, emphasizing on Chagasic cardiomyopathy’s (Ch-CMP) clinical presentation and pathobiological mechanisms leading to sudden cardiac death.

No abstract

Objectives: To identify and synthesize available recommendations from scientific societies and experts on pain management at the end-of-life in the ICU. Data Sources: We conducted a systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Biblioteca Virtual en Salud from their inception until March 28, 2019. Study Selection: We included all clinical practice guidelines, consensus statements, and benchmarks for quality. Data Extraction: Study selection, methodological quality, and data extraction were performed independently by two investigators. A quality assessment was performed by four investigators using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. The recommendations were then synthesized and categorized. Data Synthesis: Ten publications were included. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II statement showed low scores in various quality domains, especially in the applicability and rigor of development. Most documents were in agreement on five topics: 1) using a quantitative tool for pain assessment; 2) administering narcotics for pain relief and benzodiazepines for anxiety relief; 3) against prescribing neuromuscular blockers during withdrawal of life support to assess pain; 4) endorsing the use of high doses of opioids and sedatives for pain control, regardless of the risk that they will hasten death; and 5) using quality indicators to improve pain management during end-of-life in the ICU. Conclusions: In spite of the lack of high-quality evidence, recommendations for pain management at the end-of-life in the ICU are homogeneous and are justified by ethical principles and agreement among experts. Considering the growing demand for the involvement of palliative care teams in the management of the dying patients in the ICU, there is a need to clearly define their early involvement and to further develop comprehensive evidence-based pain management strategies. Based on the study findings, we propose a management algorithm to improve the overall care of dying critically ill patients.

No abstract

To review and summarize the most frequent medications and dosages used during withholding and withdrawal of life-prolonging measures in critically ill patients in the intensive care unit. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Virtual Health Library from inception through March 2019. We considered any study evaluating pharmaceutical interventions for pain management during the withholding or withdrawing of life support in adult critically ill patients at the end-oflife. Two independent investigators performed the screening and data extraction. We pooled data on utilization rate of analgesic and sedative drugs and summarized the dosing between the moment prior to withholding or withdrawal of life support and the moment before death. Results: Thirteen studies met inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted in the United States (38%), Canada (31%), and the Netherlands (31%). Eleven studies were single-cohort and twelve had a Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score of less than 7. The mean age of the patients ranged from 59 to 71 years, 59-100% were mechanically ventilated, and 47-100% of the patients underwent life support withdrawal. The most commonly used opioid and sedative were morphine [utilization rate 60% (95% CI 48-71%)] and midazolam [utilization rate 28% (95% CI 23-32%)], respectively. Doses increased during the end-of-life process (pooled mean increase in the dose of morphine: 2.6 mg/h, 95% CI 1.2-4). Conclusions: Pain control is centered on opioids and adjunctive benzodiazepines, with dosages exceeding those recommended by guidelines. Despite consistency among guidelines, there is significant heterogeneity among practices in end-of-life care.