Our results provide potential insights about why ICU rounding checklists frequently fail to improve outcomes and offer a framework for effective checklist implementation through greater feedback and accountability.

This is the first demonstration of dual action of doxycycline, that is, regulation of MMP activity and reduction of oxidative stress in arresting gastric injury.

No abstract

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a relatively rare disease that, due to its chronic nature, has always been difficult to treat effectively. Selexipag is an oral prostacyclin (PGI ) agonist that was approved by US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) in December 2015 for the treatment of PAH. After its success in phase 1 and phase 2 clinical trials regarding the convenient oral twice-daily dosing and low side-effect profile, selexipag raised the hope of controlling the disease progression in PAH patients. In the recently completed multicentered phase 3 study (GRIPHON), selexipag has been shown to reduce death and hospitalization due to PAH significantly, an effect that was consistent across different ranges of maintenance dose. In the same study selexipag use was also associated with an increase in 6-minute walk distance (a measure of symptom severity) from baseline, but no significant improvement in all-cause mortality could be observed. The results of the ongoing phase 3 studies (TRITON and TRANSIT-1) are expected to throw some more light on the safety and efficacy of this novel molecule across various treatment scenarios. Hence, our article aims to summarize all the available information from preclinical and clinical studies published to date on the pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety (in general and in scenarios such as hepatic and renal function impairment), significant drug interactions (with warfarin and antiretroviral drugs), and clinical significance of oral selexipag in patients with PAH.

Admission of patients who have do not resuscitate (DNR) status to an intensive care unit (ICU) is potentially a misallocation of limited resources to patients who may neither need nor want intensive care. Yet, patients who have DNR status are often admitted to the ICU. This is a retrospective review of patients who had a valid DNR status at the time that they were admitted to an ICU in a single hospital over an eighteen-month period. Thirty-five patients met the criteria for inclusion in the study. The primary reasons for admission to the ICU were respiratory distress (54.2%) and sepsis (45.7%). Sixteen (45.7%) of the patients died, compared to a 5.4% mortality rate for all patients admitted to our ICU during this period (p < 0.001). APACHE II score was a significant predictor of mortality (18.5 ± 1.3 alive and 23.4 ± 1.4 dead; p = 0.038). Of the 19 patients discharged alive, 9 were discharged home, 5 to hospice, and 4 to a post-acute care facility. Conclusions. Patients who have DNR status and are admitted to the ICU have a higher mortality than other ICU patients. Those who survive have a high likelihood of being discharged to hospice or a post-acute care facility. The value of intensive intervention for these patients is not supported by these results. Only a minority of patients were seen by palliative care and chaplain teams, services which the literature supports as valuable for DNR patients. Our study supports the need for less expensive and less intensive but more appropriate resources for patients and families who have chosen DNR status.