Importance Definitions of sepsis and septic shock were last revised in 2001. Considerable advances have since been made into the pathobiology (changes in organ function, morphology, cell biology, biochemistry, immunology, and circulation), management, and epidemiology of sepsis, suggesting the need for reexamination. Objective To evaluate and, as needed, update definitions for sepsis and septic shock. Process A task force (n = 19) with expertise in sepsis pathobiology, clinical trials, and epidemiology was convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Definitions and clinical criteria were generated through meetings, Delphi processes, analysis of electronic health record databases, and voting, followed by circulation to international professional societies, requesting peer review and endorsement (by 31 societies listed in the Acknowledgment). Key Findings From Evidence Synthesis Limitations of previous definitions included an excessive focus on inflammation, the misleading model that sepsis follows a continuum through severe sepsis to shock, and inadequate specificity and sensitivity of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria. Multiple definitions and terminologies are currently in use for sepsis, septic shock, and organ dysfunction, leading to discrepancies in reported incidence and observed mortality. The task force concluded the term severe sepsis was redundant. Recommendations Sepsis should be defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. For clinical operationalization, organ dysfunction can be represented by an increase in the Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of 2 points or more, which is associated with an in-hospital mortality greater than 10%. Septic shock should be defined as a subset of sepsis in which particularly profound circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than with sepsis alone. Patients with septic shock can be clinically identified by a vasopressor requirement to maintain a mean arterial pressure of 65 mm Hg or greater and serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L (>18 mg/dL) in the absence of hypovolemia. This combination is associated with hospital mortality rates greater than 40%. In out-of-hospital, emergency department, or general hospital ward settings, adult patients with suspected infection can be rapidly identified as being more likely to have poor outcomes typical of sepsis if they have at least 2 of the following clinical criteria that together constitute a new bedside clinical score termed quickSOFA (qSOFA): respiratory rate of 22/min or greater, altered mentation, or systolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or less. Conclusions and Relevance These updated definitions and clinical criteria should replace previous definitions, offer greater consistency for epidemiologic studies and clinical trials, and facilitate earlier recognition and more timely management of patients with sepsis or at risk of developing sepsis.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/2492881/jsc160002.pdf

The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3)

Data Mining Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques

Secret History: Return of the Black Death Channel 4, 7-8pm In 1348 the Black Death swept through London, killing people within days of the appearance of their first symptoms. Exactly how many died, and why, has long been a mystery. This Secret History documentary follows experts as they pick through the evidence and reveal why the plague killed on such a scale. And they ask, what might be coming next?

Medscape

Offering a unifying theoretical perspective not readily available in any other text, this innovative guide to econometrics uses simple geometrical arguments to develop students' intuitive understanding of basic and advanced topics, emphasizing throughout the practical applications of modern theory and nonlinear techniques of estimation. One theme of the text is the use of artificial regressions for estimation, reference, and specification testing of nonlinear models, including diagnostic tests for parameter constancy, serial correlation, heteroscedasticity, and other types of mis-specification. Explaining how estimates can be obtained and tests can be carried out, the authors go beyond a mere algebraic description to one that can be easily translated into the commands of a standard econometric software package. Covering an unprecedented range of problems with a consistent emphasis on those that arise in applied work, this accessible and coherent guide to the most vital topics in econometrics today is indispensable for advanced students of econometrics and students of statistics interested in regression and related topics. It will also suit practising econometricians who want to update their skills. Flexibly designed to accommodate a variety of course levels, it offers both complete coverage of the basic material and separate chapters on areas of specialized interest.

Estimation and Inference in Econometrics

D iabetes mellitus is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and ongoing patient self-management education and support to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. Specifically titled sections of the standards address children with diabetes, pregnant women, and people with prediabetes. These standards are not intended to preclude clinical judgment or more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information about management of diabetes, refer to references 1–3. The recommendations included are screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A large number of these interventions have been shown to be cost-effective (4). A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) andmodeled after existingmethods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E. These standards of care are revised annually by the ADA’s multidisciplinary Professional Practice Committee, incorporating new evidence. For the current revision, committee members systematically searched Medline for human studies related to each subsection and published since 1 January 2010. Recommendations (bulleted at the beginning of each subsection and also listed in the “Executive Summary: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012”) were revised based on new evidence or, in some cases, to clarify the prior recommendation or match the strength of the wording to the strength of the evidence. A table linking the changes in recommendations to new evidence can be reviewed at http:// professional.diabetes.org/CPR_Search. aspx. Subsequently, as is the case for all Position Statements, the standards of care were reviewed and approved by the ExecutiveCommittee of ADA’s Board ofDirectors, which includes health care professionals, scientists, and lay people. Feedback from the larger clinical community was valuable for the 2012 revision of the standards. Readers who wish to comment on the “Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012” are invited to do so at http://professional.diabetes.org/ CPR_Search.aspx. Members of the Professional Practice Committee disclose all potential financial conflicts of interest with industry. These disclosures were discussed at the onset of the standards revisionmeeting. Members of the committee, their employer, and their disclosed conflicts of interest are listed in the “Professional PracticeCommitteeMembers” table (see pg. S109). The AmericanDiabetes Association funds development of the standards and all its position statements out of its general revenues and does not utilize industry support for these purposes.

https://www.science-open.com/document_file/bb04d9d0-b3df-4133-9494-e71e300f4279/PubMedCentral/bb04d9d0-b3df-4133-9494-e71e300f4279.pdf

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2012

There is no consensus on the ideal location for mesh placement in open ventral hernia repair (OVHR). We aim to identify the mesh location associated with the lowest rate of recurrence following OVHR using a systematic review and meta-analysis. A search was performed for studies comparing at least two of four locations for mesh placement during OVHR (onlay, inlay, sublay, and underlay). Outcomes assessed were hernia recurrence and surgical site infection (SSI). Pairwise meta-analysis was performed to compare all direct treatment of mesh locations. A multiple treatment meta-analysis was performed to compare all mesh locations in the Bayesian framework. Sensitivity analyses were planned for the following: studies with a low risk of bias, incisional hernias, by hernia size, and by mesh type (synthetic or biologic). Twenty-one studies were identified (n = 5,891). Sublay placement of mesh was associated with the lowest risk for recurrence [OR 0.218 (95% CI 0.06-0.47)] and was the best of the four treatment modalities assessed [Prob (best) = 94.2%]. Sublay was also associated with the lowest risk for SSI [OR 0.449 (95% CI 0.12-1.16)] and was the best of the 4 treatment modalities assessed [Prob (best) = 77.3%]. When only assessing studies at low risk of bias, of incisional hernias, and using synthetic mesh, the probability that sublay had the lowest rate of recurrence and SSI was high. Sublay mesh location has lower complication rates than other mesh locations. While additional randomized controlled trials are needed to validate these findings, this network meta-analysis suggests the probability of sublay being the best location for mesh placement is high.

Mesh Location in Open Ventral Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

The purpose of this study was to determine the association between hyperglycemia and mortality and late-onset infections (>72?h) in extremely low birth weight (ELBW) infants. Retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort study of 201 ELBW infants who survived greater than 3 days after birth. Mean morning glucose levels were categorized as normoglycemia (<120?mg/dl), mild-moderate hyperglycemia (120 to 179?mg/dl) and severe hyperglycemia (⩾180?mg/dl). Hyperglycemia was further divided into early (first 3 days of age) and persistent (first week of age). Logistic regression was performed to assess whether hyperglycemia was associated with either mortality or late-onset culture-proven infection, measured after 3 and 7 days of age. Adjusting for age, the odds ratio (OR) for either dying or developing a late infection was 5.07 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06 to 24.3) for infants with early severe hyperglycemia and 6.26 (95% CI: 0.73 to 54.0) for infants with persistent severe hyperglycemia. Adjusting for age, both severe early and persistent hyperglycemia were associated with increased mortality. Among survivors, there was no significant association between hyperglycemia and length of mechanical ventilation or length of hospital stay. Persistent severe hyperglycemia was associated with the development of Stage II/III necrotizing enterocolitis, after adjusting for age and male gender (OR: 9.49, 95% CI: 1.52 to 59.3). Severe hyperglycemia in the first few days after birth is associated with increased odds of death and sepsis in ELBW infants.

https://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/health_sciences/medicine/units/pediatrics/sections/neonatology/media/Mar19-07.pdf

Hyperglycemia and morbidity and mortality in extremely low birth weight infants

Importance More than 350 000 ventral hernias are repaired in the United States annually, of which 75% are primary ventral hernias (eg, umbilical or epigastric hernias). Despite the volume, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of sutures vs mesh for primary ventral hernia repairs. Objective To compare suture vs mesh repairs for 3 outcomes: hernia recurrence, surgical site infection (SSI), and seromas. Data Sources Randomized controlled trials, case-control, and cohort studies were identified from OVID, PubMed, and reference lists from January 1, 1980, through June 1, 2012. Study Selection English-language studies with adult patients were eligible for review if there was mention of both suture and mesh techniques used during elective repair of a primary ventral hernia. Two study authors independently reviewed the 1492 articles originally identified and selected 9 for analysis. The Downs and Black 26-item checklist was used to critically assess the risk of bias. Data Extraction Year of publication, study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, number of patients, follow-up duration, use of preoperative antibiotics, size of hernias repaired, age, body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared), American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, repair techniques, incidence of hernia recurrence, seroma, and SSI. Data Extraction and Synthesis Three separate univariate meta-analyses for each end point followed by a multivariate meta-analysis were performed. Across all 9 studies, there were 637 mesh repairs and 1145 suture repairs. The pooled mesh repairs demonstrated a 2.7% recurrence rate, 7.7% seroma rate, and 7.3% SSI rate The pooled suture repairs demonstrated an 8.2% recurrence rate, 3.8% seroma rate, and 6.6% SSI rate. On the basis of results from the multivariate meta-analysis, recurrences (log odds ratio , −1.04; 95% CI, −1.58 to −0.52) were more common with suture repair, whereas seromas (0.84; 0.27-1.41) and SSIs (0.65; 0.12-1.18) were more common with mesh repair. Conclusions and Relevance Mesh repair has a small reduction in recurrence rates compared with suture repairs for primary ventral hernias, but an increased risk of seroma and SSI was observed. Further high-quality studies are necessary to determine whether suture or mesh repair leads to improved outcomes for primary ventral hernias.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/articlepdf/1828521/soi130131.pdf

Comparison of Outcomes of Synthetic Mesh vs Suture Repair of Elective Primary Ventral Herniorrhaphy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background Ventral hernia repairs are one of the most common procedures performed by the general surgeon. They are also among the most complex procedures performed. We hypothesized that with each surgical failure, subsequent ventral hernia repair becomes more complicated and morbid. Study Design We assessed a multicenter database of patients who underwent an elective ventral hernia repair from 2000 to 2012 with at least 6 months of follow-up and elective repairs. Patients were evaluated by the number of previous ventral hernia repairs they had: primary ventral hernia repair (PVHR), first time incisional hernia repair (IHR1), second time incisional hernia repair (IHR2), or third time or greater incisional hernia repair (IHR3). The main outcomes measured were abdominal reoperation, operative duration, surgical site infection (SSI), and hernia recurrence. Complications were assessed and compared between the 4 groups. Time to recurrence was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier curve method by study cohort (PVHR, IHR1, IHR2, IHR3). Results A total of 794 patients were assessed; of these, 481 (60.6%) had PVHR, 207 (26.1%) had IHR1, 78 (9.8%) had IHR2, and 28 (3.5%) had IHR3. Patients with multiple repairs were more likely to undergo subsequent reoperation, have a longer operative duration, develop SSI, and have a recurrence. At 140 months of follow-up, 37% of primary ventral hernias and 64% of incisional hernias have recurred. The highest recurrence rates are seen in IHR3, with 73% recurring. Conclusions Previous ventral hernia repair increases the complication profile of repair, creating a vicious cycle of repair, complications, reoperation, and re-repair. Furthermore, long-term outcomes for ventral hernia repair are poor. Future studies should focus on hernia prevention and improving long-term outcomes after hernia repair.

Lillian S. Kao

Papers

Mesh Location in Open Ventral Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Hyperglycemia and morbidity and mortality in extremely low birth weight infants

Comparison of Outcomes of Synthetic Mesh vs Suture Repair of Elective Primary Ventral Herniorrhaphy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Adverse Events after Ventral Hernia Repair: The Vicious Cycle of Complications.

Implementing a surgical checklist: More than checking a box