The 2016 Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines suggest guiding resuscitation to normalize lactate levels in patients with sepsis-associated hyperlactatemia as a marker of tissue hypoperfusion. This study evaluated the prognostic value of lactate levels and lactate clearance for 30-day mortality in patients with sepsis and septic shock diagnosed in the emergency department. We performed a retrospective cohort study of sepsis patients with initial lactate levels of ≥2 mmol/L. All patients met the Sepsis-3 definitions. The prognostic value of 6-hour lactate levels, 6-hour lactate clearance, 6-hour lactate metrics (≥2 mmol/L), and lactate clearance metrics (<10%, <20%, and <30%) was evaluated. We compared the sensitivity and specificity between metrics. Of the 363 sepsis and septic shock patients, 148 died (30-day mortality: 40.8%). Nonsurvivors had significantly higher 6-hour lactate levels and lower 6-hour lactate clearance than those of survivors. Six-hour lactate levels and 6-hour lactate clearance were associated with 30-day mortality after adjusting for potential confounders (odds ratio, 1.191 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.097–1.294] and 0.989 [0.983–0.995], respectively). Six-hour lactate levels had better prognostic value than 6-hour lactate clearance (area under the curve, 0.720 [95% CI, 0.670–0.765] vs 0.656 [0.605–0.705]; P = .02). Six-hour lactate levels of ≥3.5 mmol/L and 6-hour lactate clearance of <24.4% were the optimal cut-off value in predicting the 30-day mortality. The prognostic value of 6-hour lactate metrics and 6-hour lactate clearance metrics did not differ. Six-hour lactate levels (≥2 mmol/L) had the highest sensitivity (89.2%). Six-hour lactate levels proved to be more accurate in predicting 30-day mortality than 6-hour lactate clearance and initial lactate levels.

Biomarkers are valuable tools for the prediction of mortality in patients with sepsis. However, the use of a single biomarker to predict patient outcomes is challenging owing to the complexity and redundancy of the immune response to infections. We aimed to conduct a prospective observational analysis to investigate the prognostic value of pentraxin 3, interleukin 6, procalcitonin, and lactate combined in predicting the 28-day mortality rate in patients with sepsis or septic shock (n = 160; sepsis, 78; sepsis shock, 82). Two methods (the frequency sum of values above the cutoff, and the multivariate logistic regression model) were used to assess the prognostic value of the biomarker combination. In the receiver operating characteristic curve analyses, the combination of the 4 biomarkers was better than the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score in predicting the 28-day mortality rate, regardless of whether the frequency sum of values above the cutoff or the multivariate logistic model was used for the analysis. The addition of the SOFA score to the biomarker combination did not result in a better performance for the prediction of mortality. The combined biomarker approach showed good performance in predicting 28-day all-cause mortality among patients diagnosed with either sepsis or septic shock according to the Sepsis-3 definitions. Furthermore, it was superior to the SOFA score in predicting mortality.

BackgroundTuberculosis (TB) is increasing in immigrants. We aimed to investigate the current status of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) treatment for North Korean Refugees (NKR) compared to South Koreans Contacts (SKC).MethodsTB close contacts in a closed facility of SKC and NKR who underwent LTBI screening in a settlement support center for NKR were analyzed retrospectively.ResultsAmong tuberculin skin test (TST) ≥10 mm (n=298) reactors, the males accounted for 72.2% in SKC (n=126) and 19.5% in NKR (n=172) (p<0.01). The mean age was higher in South Korea (42.8±9.9 years vs. 35.4±10.0 years, p<0.01). Additionally, the mean TST size was significantly bigger in NKR (17.39±3.9 mm vs. 16.57±4.2 mm, p=0.03). The LTBI treatments were initiated for all screened NKR, and LTBI completion rate was only 68.0%. However, in NKR, LTBI treatment completion rate was significantly increased by shorter 4R regimen (odds ratio [OR], 9.296; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.159–20.774; p<0.01) and male (OR, 3.447; 95% CI, 1.191–9.974; p=0.02).ConclusionLTBI treatment compliance must be improved in NKR with a shorter regimen. In addition, a larger study regarding a focus on LTBI with easy access to related data for NKR should be conducted.

No abstract

BackgroundSingle‐port laparoscopic approaches are well established in the field of minimally invasive surgery; however, single‐port laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (SPLDP) has not been evaluated in a large number of distal pancreatic neoplasms. We aimed to compare single‐port laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy outcomes with conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) outcomes.MethodsWe retrospectively evaluated the medical records of 101 patients who underwent SPLDP (n = 26) or LDP (n = 75). We performed 1:1 propensity score matching between the two groups. Consequently, 26 patients were included in each group. We analyzed the learning curve based on the operation time in SPLDP.ResultsSingle‐port laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy could be performed with fewer trocars (P < 0.001) and assistants (P < 0.001). However, compared to the LDP group, mean operation time was longer (278.9 vs. 178.7 min, P < 0.001) and splenic vessel preservation rates were lower (0% vs. 46.2%, P < 0.001) in the SPLDP group. The mean pain visual analogue scale score was significantly lower at postoperative day 1 (P < 0.001) and day 2 (P < 0.001) in the SPLDP group. The learning curve was determined in the 12th case for SPLDP.ConclusionsSingle‐port laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is comparable in safety to conventional laparoscopic approaches for distal pancreatic neoplasms, with fewer trocars, assistants and less pain; however, operation time was longer.