Fatal septic shock due to disseminated coccidioidomycosis: a case series and review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Coccidioidomycosis is a fungal infection endemic to the southwestern United States and regions of Latin America. Disseminated disease occurs in < 1% of cases. Septic shock is even rarer, with high mortality despite therapy. We describe two cases of coccidioidal septic shock. Both patients were older men of Filipino ancestry presenting with respiratory failure and vasopressor-dependent shock. Antifungal drugs were initiated after failure to improve with empiric antibiotics; in both, Coccidioides was isolated from respiratory cultures. Despite aggressive care, both patients ultimately died of their infections. We provide a review of the published literature on this topic. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the 33 reported cases of coccidioidal septic shock occurred in men (88%) of non-white race and ethnicity (78%). The overall mortality rate was 76%. All survivors received amphotericin B as part of their treatment. Coccidioidomycosis-related septic shock is a rare disease with poor outcomes; delays in diagnosis and treatment are common. Improved diagnostic testing for coccidioidomycosis could enhance recognition of this disease in the future. Although data are limited, early treatment with amphotericin B in cases of coccidioidal septic shock may reduce mortality.

Systematic Review of Live Tissue Versus Simulation Education for Prehospital Trauma Providers.

BACKGROUND: Advanced simulation capabilities have provided medical educators novel approaches for learners. Simulation has successfully replaced many aspects of medical education that previously used animal live-tissue training (LTT) for physician education. However, prehospital trauma providers, such as combat medics, currently used LTT to prepare for patient care. This use of LTT has sparked a debate about the optimal educational modality for this unique learner population. At this time, there is no clear evidence-based recommendation available to recommend either LTT or simulation as a superior modality. METHODS: The authors performed a systematic review of observational studies and randomized control trials (RCTs) to examine the use of LTT versus simulation in the trauma education of prehospital providers. The authors judged studies for inclusion and data abstraction independently and in duplicate, while also assessing quality and risk of bias. Since the literature demonstrated a heterogeneous background, no meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: 12 studies met inclusion criteria: seven RCTs, four prospective cohorts, one cross-sectional study. Two of seven RCTs were presented as abstracts only. Ten of 12 studies were performed in a military setting, whereas two occurred in a civilian setting. Four studies used swine, two used goats, one used swine and goats, one used canines, and four did not specify the animal type. The authors used the Cochrane Collaboration tool to assess RCTs and found a considerable risk of bias. They used the Newcastle-Ottawa score to assess prospective cohorts (mean score of 5.75 ± 0.5, range 1-9), and the cross-sectional study (score 4, range 1-9). CONCLUSION: The existing literature provides limited, low-to-moderate quality outcome data. Evidence does not exist at this time to recommend either LTT or simulation as a superior educational modality for prehospital trauma care providers.