No abstract

AimIn recent years, with the concept of damage control resuscitation, hemostasis and preoperative fluid restriction have been carried out, but there is controversy regarding the effectiveness of fluid restriction.MethodsFrom April 2007 to March 2013, 101 trauma patients presented with hemorrhagic shock (systolic blood pressure ≤90 mmHg) at the prehospital or emergency department and were admitted to Hyogo Emergency Medical Center (Hyogo, Japan). They underwent emergency hemostasis by surgery and transcatheter arterial embolization. We compared two groups in a historical cohort study, the aggressive fluid resuscitation (AR) group, which included 59 cases treated in the period April 2007–March 2010, and the fluid restriction (FR) group, which included 42 cases treated in the period April 2010–March 2013.ResultsThere was no difference between both groups in patient background (heart rate, 110 b.p.m.; systolic blood pressure, 70 mmHg). The Injury Severity Score was 34 (AR) versus 38 (FR) (not significant). Preoperative infusion volume of crystalloid significantly decreased, from 2310 mL (AR) to 1025 mL (FR) (P ≤ 0.01). There was no difference in mortality (36% [AR] versus 41% [FR]). Ventilator days significantly decreased, from 8.5 days (AR) to 5.5 days (FR) (P = 0.02).ConclusionsPreoperative fluid restriction for trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock did not improve mortality, but it decreased ventilator days by reducing the perioperative plus water balance and it might contribute to perioperative intensive care.

Background The purpose of this study was to clarify the practical clinical treatment for acute carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning in Japan and to investigate the efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO2) therapy in preventing delayed neurological sequelae (DNS) in the acute phase of CO poisoning. Methods We conducted a multicenter, prospective, observational study of acute CO poisoning in Japan. Patients with acute CO poisoning were enrolled and their treatment details were recorded. The primary endpoint was the onset of DNS within 2 months of CO exposure. Factors associated with DNS were assessed with logistic regression analysis. Results A total of 311 patients from 57 institutions were registered and 255 were analyzed: 171 received HBO2 therapy (HBO2 group) and 84 did not (normobaric oxygen [NBO2] group). HBO2 therapy was performed zero, once, twice, or three times within the first 24 h in 1.8%, 55.9%, 30.9%, and 11.3% of the HBO2 group, respectively. The treatment pressure in the first HBO2 session was 2.8 ATA (47.9% of the HBO2 group), 2.0 ATA (41.8%), 2.5 ATA (7.9%), or another pressure (2.4%). The incidence of DNS was 13/171 (7.6%) in the HBO2 group and 3/84 (3.6%) in the NBO2 group (P = 0.212). The number of HBO2 sessions in the first 24 h was one of the factors associated with the incidence of DNS (odds ratio, 2.082; 95% confidence interval, 1.101–3.937; P = 0.024). Conclusions The practical clinical treatment for acute CO poisoning, including HBO2 therapy, varied among the institutions participating in Japan. HBO2 therapy with inconsistent protocols showed no advantage over NBO2 therapy in preventing DNS. Multiple HBO2 sessions was associated with the incidence of DNS.

Background Whether extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is indicated for patients with pulseless electrical activity (PEA) remains unclear. Pulmonary embolism with PEA is a good candidate for ECPR; however, PEA can sometimes include an aortic disease and intracranial haemorrhage, with extremely poor neurological outcomes, and can thus not be used as a suitable candidate. We began employing an ECPR strategy that utilised a hybrid emergency room (ER) to perform computed tomography (CT) before extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) induction from January 2020. Therefore, the present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of this ECPR strategy. Methods Medical records of patients who transferred to our hybrid ER and required ECPR for PEA between January 2020 and November 2021 were reviewed. Results Twelve consecutive patients (median age, 67 [range, 57–73] years) with PEA requiring ECPR were identified in our hybrid ER. Among these patients, nine were diagnosed using an initial CT scan (intracranial haemorrhage (3); cardiac tamponade due to aortic dissection (3); aortic rupture (2); and cardiac rupture (1)), and unnecessary ECMO was avoided. The remaining three patients underwent ECPR, and two of them survived with favourable neurological outcomes. Patients not indicated for ECPR were excluded before ECMO induction. Conclusion Our ECPR strategy that involved the utilisation of a hybrid ER may be useful for the exclusion of patients with PEA not indicated for ECPR and decision making.

A 65-year-old man was referred to our hospital with dyspnoea due to acute heart failure. He presented with swelling in the left clavicle and pustulosis on both soles. An antihypertensive drug and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation improved his condition rapidly. Since all his physical symptoms were compatible with the criteria of SAPHO (synovitis, acne, pustulosis, hyperostosis, osteomyelitis) syndrome, we suspected that the SAPHO syndrome might cause acute heart failure. The aetiology between SAPHO syndrome and heart failure is unclear. Further studies are needed to clarify their relationship.