Risk factors for the development of acute lung injury in patients with infectious pneumonia.

INTRODUCTION: Although pneumonia has been identified as the single most common risk factor for acute lung injury (ALI), we have a limited knowledge as to why ALI develops in some patients with pneumonia and not in others. The objective of this study was to determine frequency, risk factors, and outcome of ALI in patients with infectious pneumonia. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of adult patients with microbiologically positive pneumonia, hospitalized at two Mayo Clinic Rochester hospitals between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2007. In a subsequent nested case-control analysis, we evaluated the differences in prehospital and intrahospital exposures between patients with and without ALI/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) matched by specific pathogen, isolation site, gender, and closest age in a 1:1 manner. RESULTS: The study included 596 patients; 365 (61.2%) were men. The median age was 65 (IQR, 53 to 75) years. In total, 171 patients (28.7%) were diagnosed with ALI. The occurrence of ALI was less frequent in bacterial (n = 99 of 412, 24%) compared with viral (n = 19 of 55, 35%), fungal (n = 39 of 95, 41%), and mixed isolates pneumonias (n = 14 of 34, 41%; P = 0.002). After adjusting for baseline severity of illness and comorbidities, patients in whom ALI developed had a markedly increased risk of hospital death (ORadj 9.7; 95% CI, 6.0 to 15.9). In a nested case-control study, presence of shock (OR, 8.9; 95% CI, 2.8 to 45.9), inappropriate initial antimicrobial treatment (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.3 to 8.5), and transfusions (OR, 4.8; 95% CI, 1.5 to 19.6) independently predicted ALI development. CONCLUSIONS: The development of ALI among patients hospitalized with infectious pneumonia varied among pulmonary pathogens and was associated with increased mortality. Inappropriate initial antimicrobial treatment and transfusion predict the development of ALI independent of pathogen.

Neuraxial labor analgesia for vaginal delivery and its effects on childhood learning disabilities.

BACKGROUND: In prior work, children born to mothers who received neuraxial anesthesia for cesarean delivery had a lower incidence of subsequent learning disabilities compared with vaginal delivery. The authors speculated that neuraxial anesthesia may reduce stress responses to delivery, which could affect subsequent neurodevelopmental outcomes. To further explore this possibility, we examined the association between the use of neuraxial labor analgesia and development of childhood learning disabilities in a population-based birth cohort of children delivered vaginally. METHODS: The educational and medical records of all children born to mothers residing in the area of 5 townships of Olmsted County, Minnesota from 1976 to 1982 and remaining in the community at age 5 years were reviewed to identify those with learning disabilities. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare the incidence of learning disabilities between children delivered vaginally with and without neuraxial labor analgesia, including analyses adjusted for factors of either potential clinical relevance or that differed between the 2 groups in univariate analysis. RESULTS: Of the study cohort, 4684 mothers delivered children vaginally, with 1495 receiving neuraxial labor analgesia. The presence of childhood learning disabilities in the cohort was not associated with use of labor neuraxial analgesia (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.05; 95%confidence interval, 0.85-1.31; P = 0.63). CONCLUSION: The use of neuraxial analgesia during labor and vaginal delivery was not independently associated with learning disabilities diagnosed before age 19 years. Future studies are needed to evaluate potential mechanisms of the previous finding indicating that the incidence of learning disabilities is lower in children born to mothers via cesarean delivery under neuraxial anesthesia compared with vaginal delivery.

Performance improvement system and postoperative corneal injuries: incidence and risk factors.

BACKGROUND: The authors' department conducted a performance improvement initiative aimed to reduce the rate of perioperative corneal injuries. This study reports the effects of the initiative and examines the risk factors for corneal injury. METHOD: The rate of corneal injuries during nonophthalmologic procedures under anesthesia was compared between the two time periods: preinitiative baseline (August 1, 2005-December 31, 2005) and initiative period (January 1, 2006-April 30, 2007). To examine the risk factors for corneal injury, a nested case-control study with a 2:1 matched-set design was separately performed and included cases between January 1, 2006 and July 31, 2008. RESULTS: During the baseline period, the corneal injury rate was 1.51 per 1,000, and it decreased to 0.79 per 1,000 during the performance initiative (P = 0.008). Independent risk factors were longer anesthetics (odds ratio = 1.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-1.3 per 30 min), lower American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (odds ratio 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.8 for American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 3-4 vs. 1-2), and student nurse anesthetist as a primary anesthesia provider (odds ratio 2.6, 95% CI 1.3-5.0). CONCLUSION: Corneal injury rate in our institution was significantly reduced and remains at low levels long after initiation of perioperative eye care improvement initiative. The higher rate of corneal injuries among student nurse anesthetists highlights the importance of standardizing education and supervision among all anesthesia providers. We believe that our model of performance improvement initiative can be used to improve other perioperative outcomes.