Comparative oil extraction from mutt (Myliobatis goodei) liver by enzymatic hydrolysis: free versus immobilized biocatalyst.

BACKGROUND: The development and fine-tuning of biotechnological processes for fish oil extraction constitute a very important focus to contribute to the development of a food industry based on fish consumption. This work lies in a comparative analysis of the oil extraction yield of Myliobatis goodei livers using free and immobilized enzymes. RESULTS: An immobilized biocatalyst was designed from the cell-free extract of a Bacillus sp. Mcn4. A complete factorial design was used to study the components of the bacterial culture medium and select the condition with the highest titers of extracellular enzymatic activities. Wheat bran had a significant effect on the culture medium composition for enzymatic production. The immobilized biocatalyst was designed by covalent binding of the proteins present in the cocktail retaining a percentage of different types of enzymatic activities (Mult.Enz@MgFe2 O4 ). Among the biocatalyst used, Alcalase® 2.4 L and Purazyme® AS 60 L (free commercial proteases) showed extraction yields of 87.39% and 84.25%, respectively, while Mult.Enz@MgFe2 O4 achieved a better one of 89.97%. The oils obtained did not show significant differences in their physical-chemical properties while regarding the fatty acid content, the oil extracted with Purazyme® AS 60 L showed a comparatively lower proportion of polyunsaturated fatty acids. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the use of by-products of M. goodei is a valid alternative and encourages the use of immobilized multienzyme biocatalysts for the treatment of complex substrates in the fishing industry. © 2023 Society of Chemical Industry.

A Retrospective Observational Study Exploring 30- and 90-Day Outcomes for Patients With COVID-19 After Percutaneous Tracheostomy and Gastrostomy Placement.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the 30- and 90-day outcomes of COVID-19 patients receiving tracheostomy and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Multisite, inpatient. PATIENTS: Hospitalized COVID-19 patients who received tracheostomy and PEG at four Boston hospitals. INTERVENTIONS: Tracheostomy and PEG placement. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was mortality at 30 and 90 days post-procedure. Secondary outcomes included continued device presence, place of residence, complications, and rehospitalizations. Eighty-one COVID-19 patients with tracheostomy and PEG placement were included. At 90 days post-device placement, the mortality rate was 9.9%, 2.7% still had the tracheostomy, 32.9% still had the PEG, and 58.9% were at home. CONCLUSIONS: More than nine-in-10 patients in our population of COVID-19 patients who underwent tracheostomy and PEG were alive 90 days later and most were living at home. This study provides new information regarding the outcomes of this patient population that may serve as a step in guiding clinicians, patients, and families when making decisions regarding these devices.

Models of Peer Support to Remediate Post-Intensive Care Syndrome: A Report Developed by the Society of Critical Care Medicine Thrive International Peer Support Collaborative.

OBJECTIVES: Patients and caregivers can experience a range of physical, psychologic, and cognitive problems following critical care discharge. The use of peer support has been proposed as an innovative support mechanism. DESIGN: We sought to identify technical, safety, and procedural aspects of existing operational models of peer support, among the Society of Critical Care Medicine Thrive Peer Support Collaborative. We also sought to categorize key distinctions between these models and elucidate barriers and facilitators to implementation. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: Seventeen Thrive sites from the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia were represented by a range of healthcare professionals. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Via an iterative process of in-person and email/conference calls, members of the Collaborative defined the key areas on which peer support models could be defined and compared, collected detailed self-reports from all sites, reviewed the information, and identified clusters of models. Barriers and challenges to implementation of peer support models were also documented. Within the Thrive Collaborative, six general models of peer support were identified: community based, psychologist-led outpatient, models-based within ICU follow-up clinics, online, groups based within ICU, and peer mentor models. The most common barriers to implementation were recruitment to groups, personnel input and training, sustainability and funding, risk management, and measuring success. CONCLUSIONS: A number of different models of peer support are currently being developed to help patients and families recover and grow in the postcritical care setting.

An Ethical Framework for the Care of Patients with Prolonged Hospitalization Following Lung Transplantation.

The lung allocation score system in the United States and several European countries gives more weight to risk of death without transplantation than to survival following transplantation. As a result, centers transplant sicker patients, leading to increased length of initial hospitalization. The care of patients who have accumulated functional deficits or additional organ dysfunction during their prolonged stay can be ethically complex. Disagreement occurs between the transplant team, patients and families, and non-transplant health care professionals over the burdens of ongoing intensive intervention. These cases highlight important ethical issues in organ transplantation, including the nature and requirements of transplant informed consent, the limits of physician prognostication, patient autonomy and decision-making capacity following transplant, obligations to organ donors and to other potential recipients, and the impact of program metrics on individualized recipient care. We outline general ethical principles for the care of lung transplant recipients with prolonged hospitalization and give regulatory, research, and patient-centered recommendations for these cases.

Opening the Door: The Experience of Chronic Critical Illness in a Long-Term Acute Care Hospital.

OBJECTIVE: Chronically critically ill patients have recurrent infections, organ dysfunction, and at least half die within 1 year. They are frequently cared for in long-term acute care hospitals, yet little is known about their experience in this setting. Our objective was to explore the understanding and expectations and goals of these patients and surrogates. DESIGN: We conducted semi-structured interviews with chronically critically ill long-term acute care hospital patients or surrogates. Conversations were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. SETTING: One long-term acute care hospital. SUBJECTS: Chronically critically ill patients, defined by tracheotomy for prolonged mechanical ventilation, or surrogates. INTERVENTION: Semi-structured conversation about quality of life, expectations, and planning for setbacks. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 50 subjects (30 patients and 20 surrogates) were enrolled. Thematic analyses demonstrated: 1) poor quality of life for patients; 2) surrogate stress and anxiety; 3) optimistic health expectations; 4) poor planning for medical setbacks; and 5) disruptive care transitions. Nearly 80% of patient and their surrogate decision makers identified going home as a goal; 38% were at home at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Our study describes the experience of chronically critically ill patients and surrogates in an long-term acute care hospital and the feasibility of patient-focused research in this setting. Our findings indicate overly optimistic expectations about return home and unmet palliative care needs, suggesting the need for integration of palliative care within the long-term acute care hospital. Further research is also needed to more fully understand the challenges of this growing population of ICU survivors.

Cluster analysis of COVID-19 recovery center patients at a clinic in Boston, MA 2021-2022: impact on strategies for access and personalized care.

BACKGROUND: There are known disparities in COVID-19 resource utilization that may persist during the recovery period for some patients. We sought to define subpopulations of patients seeking COVID-19 recovery care in terms of symptom reporting and care utilization to better personalize their care and to identify ways to improve access to subspecialty care. METHODS: Prospective study of adult patients with prior COVID-19 infection seen in an ambulatory COVID-19 recovery center (CRC) in Boston, Massachusetts from April 2021 to April 2022. Hierarchical clustering with complete linkage to differentiate subpopulations was done with four sociodemographic variables: sex, race, language, and insurance status. Outcomes included ICU admission, utilization of supplementary care, self-report of symptoms. RESULTS: We included 1285 COVID-19 patients referred to the CRC with a mean age of 47 years, of whom 71% were female and 78% White. We identified 3 unique clusters of patients. Cluster 1 and 3 patients were more likely to have had intensive care unit (ICU) admissions; Cluster 2 were more likely to be White with commercial insurance and a low percentage of ICU admission; Cluster 3 were more likely to be Black/African American or Latino/a and have commercial insurance. Compared to Cluster 2, Cluster 1 patients were more likely to report symptoms (ORs ranging 2.4-3.75) but less likely to use support groups, psychoeducation, or care coordination (all p < 0.05). Cluster 3 patients reported greater symptoms with similar levels of community resource utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Within a COVID-19 recovery center, there are distinct groups of patients with different clinical and socio-demographic profiles, which translates to differential resource utilization. These insights from different subpopulations of patients can inform targeted strategies which are tailored to specific patient needs.

Delayed access and survival in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a cohort study.

RATIONALE: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis is often initially misdiagnosed. Delays in accessing subspecialty care could lead to worse outcomes among those with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between delayed access to subspecialty care and survival time in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study of 129 adults who met American Thoracic Society criteria for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis evaluated at a tertiary care center. Delay was defined as the time from the onset of dyspnea to the date of initial evaluation at a tertiary care center. We used competing risk survival methods to examine survival time and time to transplantation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The mean age was 63 years and 76% were men. The median delay was 2.2 years (interquartile range 1.0­3.8 yr), and the median follow-up time was 1.1 years. Age and lung function at the time of evaluation did not vary by delay. A longer delay was associated with an increased risk of death independent of age, sex, forced vital capacity, third-party payer, and educational attainment (adjusted hazard ratio per doubling of delay was 1.3, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.6). Longer delay was not associated with a lower likelihood of undergoing lung transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Delayed access to a tertiary care center is associated with a higher mortality rate in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis independent of disease severity. Early referral to a specialty center should be considered for those with known or suspected interstitial lung disease.

Adherence and Concordance between Serious Illness Care Planning Conversations and Oncology Clinician Documentation among Patients with Advanced Cancer.

Background: Serious illness conversations are part of advance care planning (ACP) and focus on prognosis, values, and goals in patients who are seriously ill. To be maximally effective, such conversations must be documented accurately and be easily accessible. Objectives: The two coprimary objectives of the study were to assess concordance between written documentation and recorded audiotaped conversations, and to evaluate adherence to the Serious Illness Conversation Guide questions. Methods: Data were obtained as part of a trial in patients with advanced cancer. Clinicians were trained to use a guide to conduct and document serious illness conversations. Conversations were audiotaped. Two researchers independently compared audiorecordings with the corresponding documentation in an electronic health record (EHR) template and free-text progress notes, and rated the degree of concordance and adherence. Results: We reviewed a total of 25 audiorecordings. Clinicians addressed 87% of the conversation guide elements. Prognosis was discussed least frequently, only in 55% of the patients who wanted that information. Documentation was fully concordant with the conversation 43% of the time. Concordance was best when documenting family matters and goals, and least frequently concordant when documenting prognostic communication. Most conversations (64%) were documented in the template, a minority (28%) only in progress notes and two conversations (8%) were not documented. Concordance was better when the template was used (62% vs. 28%). Conclusion: Clinicians adhered well to the conversation guide. However, key information elicited was documented and fully concordant less than half the time. Greater concordance was observed when clinicians used a prespecified template. The combined use of a guide and EHR template holds promise for ACP conversations.