Murat Yilmaz

Bio: Murat Yilmaz is an academic researcher from Istanbul Technical University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Lung injury & Intensive care unit. The author has an hindex of 32, co-authored 80 publications receiving 6533 citations. Previous affiliations of Murat Yilmaz include Akdeniz University & Mayo Clinic.

Review of Battery Charger Topologies, Charging Power Levels, and Infrastructure for Plug-In Electric and Hybrid Vehicles

Abstract: This paper reviews the current status and implementation of battery chargers, charging power levels, and infrastructure for plug-in electric vehicles and hybrids. Charger systems are categorized into off-board and on-board types with unidirectional or bidirectional power flow. Unidirectional charging limits hardware requirements and simplifies interconnection issues. Bidirectional charging supports battery energy injection back to the grid. Typical on-board chargers restrict power because of weight, space, and cost constraints. They can be integrated with the electric drive to avoid these problems. The availability of charging infrastructure reduces on-board energy storage requirements and costs. On-board charger systems can be conductive or inductive. An off-board charger can be designed for high charging rates and is less constrained by size and weight. Level 1 (convenience), Level 2 (primary), and Level 3 (fast) power levels are discussed. Future aspects such as roadbed charging are presented. Various power level chargers and infrastructure configurations are presented, compared, and evaluated based on amount of power, charging time and location, cost, equipment, and other factors.

Review of the Impact of Vehicle-to-Grid Technologies on Distribution Systems and Utility Interfaces

Abstract: Plug-in vehicles can behave either as loads or as a distributed energy and power resource in a concept known as vehicle-to-grid (V2G) connection. This paper reviews the current status and implementation impact of V2G/grid-to-vehicle (G2V) technologies on distributed systems, requirements, benefits, challenges, and strategies for V2G interfaces of both individual vehicles and fleets. The V2G concept can improve the performance of the electricity grid in areas such as efficiency, stability, and reliability. A V2G-capable vehicle offers reactive power support, active power regulation, tracking of variable renewable energy sources, load balancing, and current harmonic filtering. These technologies can enable ancillary services, such as voltage and frequency control and spinning reserve. Costs of V2G include battery degradation, the need for intensive communication between the vehicles and the grid, effects on grid distribution equipment, infrastructure changes, and social, political, cultural, and technical obstacles. Although V2G operation can reduce the lifetime of vehicle batteries, it is projected to become economical for vehicle owners and grid operators. Components and unidirectional/bidirectional power flow technologies of V2G systems, individual and aggregated structures, and charging/recharging frequency and strategies (uncoordinated/coordinated smart) are addressed. Three elements are required for successful V2G operation: power connection to the grid, control and communication between vehicles and the grid operator, and on-board/off-board intelligent metering. Success of the V2G concept depends on standardization of requirements and infrastructure decisions, battery technology, and efficient and smart scheduling of limited fast-charge infrastructure. A charging/discharging infrastructure must be deployed. Economic benefits of V2G technologies depend on vehicle aggregation and charging/recharging frequency and strategies. The benefits will receive increased attention from grid operators and vehicle owners in the future.

Early identification of patients at risk of acute lung injury: Evaluation of lung injury prediction score in a multicenter cohort study

Abstract: Rationale: Accurate, early identification of patients at risk for developing acute lung injury (ALI) provides the opportunity to test and implement secondary prevention strategies.Objectives: To determine the frequency and outcome of ALI development in patients at risk and validate a lung injury prediction score (LIPS).Methods: In this prospective multicenter observational cohort study, predisposing conditions and risk modifiers predictive of ALI development were identified from routine clinical data available during initial evaluation. The discrimination of the model was assessed with area under receiver operating curve (AUC). The risk of death from ALI was determined after adjustment for severity of illness and predisposing conditions.Measurements and Main Results: Twenty-two hospitals enrolled 5,584 patients at risk. ALI developed a median of 2 (interquartile range 1–4) days after initial evaluation in 377 (6.8%; 148 ALI-only, 229 adult respiratory distress syndrome) patients. The frequency of ALI vari...

Transfusion-related Acute Lung Injury in the Critically Ill: Prospective Nested Case-Control Study

Abstract: Rationale: Acute lung injury (ALI) that develops 6 hours after transfusion (TRALI) is the leading cause of transfusion-related mortality. Several transfusion characteristics have been postulated as risk factors for TRALI, but the evidence is limited to retrospective studies.Objectives: To compare patient and transfusion risk factors between patients who do and do not develop ALI.Methods: In this prospective cohort study, consecutive transfused critically ill patients were closely observed for development of ALI. Donor samples were collected from the transfusion bags. Risk factors were compared between patients who developed ALI after transfusion and transfused control patients, matched by age, sex, and admission diagnosis.Measurements and Main Results: Seventy-four of 901 transfused patients developed ALI within 6 hours of transfusion (8%). Compared with transfused control subjects, patients with ALI were more likely to have sepsis (37 vs. 22%, P = 0.016) and a history of chronic alcohol abuse (37 vs. 18%...

Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012.

Abstract: Objective:To provide an update to the “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock,” last published in 2008.Design:A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at ke

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock, 2012

Abstract: To provide an update to the “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock,” last published in 2008. A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Recommendations were classified into three groups: (1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; (2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and (3) pediatric considerations. Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 h after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 h of the recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 h of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1B); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement is based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of (a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or (b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7–9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a Pao 2/Fio 2 ratio of ≤100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 h) for patients with early ARDS and a Pao 2/Fi o 2 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 h after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 h of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5–10 min (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven “absolute”’ adrenal insufficiency (2C). Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016

Abstract: To provide an update to “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012”. A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

Epidemiology, Patterns of Care, and Mortality for Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Intensive Care Units in 50 Countries

Abstract: IMPORTANCE Limited information exists about the epidemiology, recognition, management, and outcomes of patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). OBJECTIVES To evaluate intensive ...