No abstract

OBJECTIVES: Current sepsis guidelines do not provide good risk stratification of subgroups in whom prompt IV antibiotics and fluid resuscitation might of benefit. We evaluated the utility of mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proADM) in identification of patient subgroups at risk of requiring PICU or high-dependency unit (HDU) admission or fluid resuscitation. DESIGN: Secondary, nonprespecified analysis of prospectively collected dataset. SETTING: Pediatric Emergency Department in a United Kingdom tertiary center. PATIENTS: Children less than 16 years old presenting with fever and clinical indication for venous blood sampling ( n = 1,183). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcome measures were PICU/HDU admission or administration of fluid resuscitation, with a secondary outcome of definite or probable bacterial infection. Biomarkers were measured on stored plasma samples and children phenotyped into bacterial and viral groups using a previously published algorithm. Of the 1,183 cases, 146 children (12.3%) required fluids, 48 (4.1%) were admitted to the PICU/HDU, and 244 (20.6%) had definite or probable bacterial infection. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) was used to assess performance. MR-proADM better predicted fluid resuscitation (AUC, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.67–0.78), than both procalcitonin (AUC, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.59–0.71) and Pediatric Early Warning Score (PEWS: AUC, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56–0.67). PEWS alone showed good accuracy for PICU/HDU admission 0.83 (0.78–0.89). Patient subgroups with high MR-proADM (≥ 0.7 nmol/L) and high procalcitonin (≥ 0.5 ng/mL) had increased association with PICU/HDU admission, fluid resuscitation, and bacterial infection compared with subgroups with low MR-proADM (< 0.7 nmol/L). For children with procalcitonin less than 0.5 ng/mL, high MR-proADM improved stratification for fluid resuscitation only. CONCLUSIONS: High MR-proADM and high procalcitonin were associated with increased likelihood of subsequent disease progression. Incorporating MR-proADM into clinical risk stratification may be useful in clinician decision-making regarding initiation of IV antibiotics, fluid resuscitation, and escalation to PICU/HDU admission.

Objective: To compare clinical outcomes of reimplantation versus remodeling in patients undergoing valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSRR) surgery. Method: Electronic database search at PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Ovid, and Google scholar was performed from inception to January 2020. Primary outcomes were aortic valve (AV) reintervention and postoperative grade of aortic insufficiency (AI) while secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, reoperation for bleeding, and operative times. Results: A total of 21 articles met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1283 patients had reimplantation while 1150 had remodeling. No difference in preoperative demographics was noted except reimplantation patients were younger (48 ± 16 vs. 56 ± 15 years; p < .00001). The cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times were shorter in the remodeling cohort (168 ± 38 vs. 150 ± 37 min; p = .0001 and 133 ± 31 vs. 112 ± 30 min; p = .0002, respectively). No difference in concomitant total arch surgery (14% in reimplantation vs. 15% in remodeling; p = .53). Postoperatively, there were similar stroke rates (3% in both cohorts; p = .54), rates of reoperation for bleeding (9% in reimplantation vs. 12% in remodeling; p = .88), and 30-day mortality (3% in reimplantation vs. 4% in remodeling; p = .96). No difference in early AV reintervention (1% in reimplantation vs. 2% in remodeling; p = .07), and late AV reintervention (4% in reimplantation vs. 7% in remodeling; p = .07). The AI of +2 grade was significantly lower in the reimplantation cohort (5% vs. 8%; p = .01). Conclusion: Our study shows comparable clinical outcomes between both techniques. The practice of each technique is largely center and surgeon dependent. Larger sample size cohorts with minimal confounding factors are required to confirm the above findings.

No abstract

No abstract