Step oximetry test: a validation study.

INTRODUCTION: Step climbing is a potentially useful modality for testing exercise capacity. However, there are significant variations between test protocols and lack of consistent validation against gold standard cycle ergometry cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET). The purpose of the study was to validate a novel technique of exercise testing using a dedicated device. METHODS: We built a step oximetry device from an adapted aerobics step and pulse oximeter connected to a computer. Subjects performed lung function tests, a standard incremental cycle CPET and also a CPET while stepping on and off the step oximetry device to maximal exertion. Data from the step oximetry device were processed and correlated with standard measurements of pulmonary function and cycle CPET. RESULTS: We recruited 89 subjects (57 years, 50 men). Oxygen uptake (VO2) was 0.9 mL/kg/min (95% CI -3.6 to 5.4) higher in the step test compared with the gold standard cycle CPET, p<0.001. VO2 in the two techniques was highly correlated (R=0.87, p<0.001). Work rate during stair climbing showed the best correlation with VO2 (R=0.69, p<0.0001). Desaturation during step climbing correlated negatively with diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (r=-0.43, p<0.005). No adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The step oximetry test was a maximal test of exertion in the subjects studied, achieving slightly higher VO2 than during the standard test. The test was safe to perform and well tolerated by the patients. Parameters derived from the step oximetry device correlated well with gold standard measurements. The step oximetry test could become a useful and standardisable exercise test for clinical settings where advanced testing is not available or appropriate.

Perioperative hypotension and discharge outcomes in non-critically injured trauma patients, a single centre retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of information on the effect of age on perioperative care and outcomes after minor trauma in the elderly. We examined the association between perioperative hypotension and discharge outcome among non-critically injured adult patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of non-critically ill patients (ISS <9 or discharged within less than 24h) who received anaesthesia care for surgery and Recovery Room care at a level-1 trauma centre between 5/1/2012 and 11/30/2013. Perioperative hypotension was defined as systolic blood pressure (SBP) <90mmHg (traditional measure) for all patients, and SBP <110mmHg (strict measure) for patients ≥65years. Poor outcome was defined as death or discharge to skilled nursing facility/hospice. RESULTS: 1744 patients with mean ISS 4.4 across age groups were included; 169 (10%) were ≥65years. Among patients≥65years, intraoperative hypotension occurred in >75% (131/169, traditional measure) and in >95% (162/169, strict measure); recovery room hypotension occurred in 2% (4/169) and 29% (49/169), respectively. Mean age-adjusted anaesthetic agent concentration (MAC) was similar across age groups. Opioid use decreased from 9.3 (SD 5.7) mg/h morphine equivalents in patients <55years to 6.2 (SD 4.0) mg/h in patients over 85 years. Adjusted for gender, ASA score, anaesthesia duration, morphine equivalent/hr, fluid balance, MAC and surgery type, and using traditional definition, older patients were more likely than patients <55 to experience perioperative hypotension: aRR 1.21, 95% CI 1.11-1.30 for 55-64 and aRR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07-1.32 for ages 65-74. Perioperative hypotension was associated with poor discharge outcome (aRR 1.55; 95% CI 1.04-2.31 and aRR 1.87; 95% CI 1.17-2.98, respectively). CONCLUSION: Despite age related reduction in doses of volatile anaesthetic and opioids administered during anaesthesia care, and regardless of hypotension definition used, non-critically injured patients undergoing surgery experience a large perioperative hypotension burden. This burden is higher for patients 55-74 years and older and is a risk factor for poor discharge outcomes, independent of age and ASA status.

Terror-related injuries: a comparison of gunshot wounds versus secondary-fragments-induced injuries from explosives.

BACKGROUND: Terror-related injuries caused by secondary fragments (SF) from explosive devices show a distinctive pattern in severity, distribution, outcomes of assault, and health-system resource use as compared with terror-related penetrating injuries caused by gunshot wounds. STUDY DESIGN: A case-comparison study conducted in a tertiary university hospital and the only Level I trauma center in the Jerusalem vicinity. During a period of 4 years, over 1,500 casualties of terror-related injuries were treated in one Level I trauma center. The study included 533 patients who were admitted for hospitalization. Excluded from the study were victims who were dead on arrival or who succumbed to their injuries within 30 minutes of arrival at the emergency department. Data were collected from trauma registry records. RESULTS: Gunshot-wound victims were mostly men, aged 19 to 30, and SF victims were more evenly distributed between the genders and across the age spectrum. Injury Severity Score (ISS) was considerably higher in SF victims, although critical mortality rates were higher in gunshot-wound victims. More than 40% of SF victims were injured in three or more body regions, as opposed to < 10% in gunshot-wound victims. Use of imaging modalities and ICUs was considerably higher for SF victims. CONCLUSIONS: Terror victims suffering from SF wounds have more complex, widespread, and severe injuries than victims suffering from gunshot wounds. They tend to involve multiple body regions and use more in-hospital resources. Attenuation of bus seats and protective vests can lead to a reduction in severity of these injuries.