Twelve Tips to Succeed as Health Profession Clinical Educator in Resource-Limited Settings.

Health professions education is one of the pillars of academic medicine; however, clinical educators often lack the appropriate resources to succeed in this field. Examples of these challenges include: lack of support for faculty development, mentorship, and high cost of resources, when available. In addition, challenges such as the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic can affect healthcare personnel who are already struggling to provide adequate patient care while attempting to succeed in the role of educator and supervisor of trainees. Clinical educators face more challenges particularly in low-middle income countries as the limitations are more prominent and become key barriers to success. Similarly, due to COVID-19, these challenges can be far more evident in disadvantaged geographical, economic, and academic environments even in the United States. Herein, in this perspective paper, we define resource-limited settings in medical education, provide an overview of the most common barriers to career development as a clinical educator, and offer practical strategies to overcome some of these shortcomings.

Hematologic and Oncologic Emergencies.

This article reviews both hematologic and oncologic emergencies that may be seen in the intensive care setting. Hematologic emergencies, including autoimmune hemolytic anemia, thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura, hemolytic uremic syndrome, and disseminated intravascular coagulation, as well as oncologic emergencies including tumor lysis syndrome, superior vena cava syndrome, and cardiac tamponade secondary to metastatic disease, are discussed in detail. This review focuses on the pathophysiology, clinical features, diagnosis, and treatment of each entity.

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and the Use of Inhaled Pulmonary Vasodilators in the COVID-19 Era: A Narrative Review.

The Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic of 2019 has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality, especially from severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). As of September 2022, more than 6.5 million patients have died globally, and up to 5% required intensive care unit treatment. COVID-19-associated ARDS (CARDS) differs from the typical ARDS due to distinct pathology involving the pulmonary vasculature endothelium, resulting in diffuse thrombi in the pulmonary circulation and impaired gas exchange. The National Institute of Health and the Society of Critical Care Medicine recommend lung-protective ventilation, prone ventilation, and neuromuscular blockade as needed. Further, a trial of pulmonary vasodilators is suggested for those who develop refractory hypoxemia. A review of the prior literature on inhaled pulmonary vasodilators in ARDS suggests only a transient improvement in oxygenation, with no mortality benefit. This narrative review aims to highlight the fundamental principles in ARDS management, delineate the fundamental differences between CARDS and ARDS, and describe the comprehensive use of inhaled pulmonary vasodilators. In addition, with the differing pathophysiology of CARDS from the typical ARDS, we sought to evaluate the current evidence regarding the use of inhaled pulmonary vasodilators in CARDS.

Novel Coronavirus Infection (COVID-19) Related Thrombotic and Bleeding Complications in Critically Ill Patients: Experience from an Academic Medical Center.

INTRODUCTION: Thrombosis and bleeding are recognized complications of the novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19), with a higher incidence described particularly in the critically ill. METHODS: A retrospective review of COVID-19 patients admitted to our intensive care units (ICU) between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2020 was performed. Primary outcomes included clinically significant thrombotic and bleeding events (according to the ISTH definition) in the ICU. Secondary outcomes included mortality vis-a-vis the type of anticoagulation. RESULTS: The cohort included 144 consecutive COVID-19 patients with a median age of 64 years (IQR 54.5-75). The majority were male (85 (59.0%)) and Caucasian (90 (62.5%)) with a median BMI of 30.5 kg/m2 (IQR 25.7-36.1). The median APACHE score at admission to the ICU was 12.5 (IQR 9.5-22). The coagulation parameters at admission were a d-dimer level of 109.2 mg/mL, a platelet count of 217.5 k/mcl, and an INR of 1.4. The anticoagulation strategy at admission included prophylactic anticoagulation for 97 (67.4%) patients and therapeutic anticoagulation for 35 (24.3%) patients, while 12 (8.3%) patients received no anticoagulation. A total of 29 patients (20.1%) suffered from thrombotic or major bleeding complications. These included 17 thrombus events (11.8%)-8 while on prophylactic anticoagulation (7 regular dose and 1 intermediate dose) and 9 while on therapeutic anticoagulation (p-value = 0.02)-and 19 major bleeding events (13.2%) (4 on no anticoagulation, 7 on prophylactic (6 regular dose and 1 intermediate dose), and 8 on therapeutic anticoagulation (p-value = 0.02)). A higher thrombosis risk among patients who received remdesivir (18.8% vs. 5.3% (p-value = 0.01)) and convalescent serum (17.3% vs. 5.8% (p-value = 0.03%)) was noted, but no association with baseline characteristics (age, sex, race, comorbidity), coagulation parameters, or treatments (steroids, mechanical ventilation) could be identified. There were 10 pulmonary embolism cases (6.9%). A total of 99 (68.8%) patients were intubated, and 66 patients (45.8%) died. Mortality was higher, but not statistically significant, in patients with thrombotic or bleeding complications-58.6% vs. 42.6% (p-value = 0.12)-and higher in the bleeding (21.2%) vs. thrombus group (12.1%), p-value = 0.06. It did not significantly differ according to the type of anticoagulation used or the coagulation parameters. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes a high incidence of thrombotic and bleeding complications among critically ill COVID-19 patients. The findings of thrombotic events in patients on anticoagulation and major bleeding events in patients on no or prophylactic anticoagulation pose a challenging clinical dilemma in the issue of anticoagulation for COVID-19 patients. The questions raised by this study and previous literature on this subject demonstrate that the role of anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients is worthy of further investigation.

Diffuse Alveolar Hemorrhage in Primary Versus Secondary Antiphospholipid Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Diffuse alveolar hemorrhage (DAH) occurs in patients with both primary and secondary antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (APS). We sought to determine the differences in clinical presentation, management, and outcomes of DAH in these patients. METHODS: We performed a medical records review study and reviewed 30 patients with DAH in the setting of primary and secondary antiphospholipid syndrome seen at our institution between January 1, 1997, and December 31, 2018. We analyzed their demographics, clinical presentation, laboratory values, imaging studies, lung pathology results, management, and outcomes. RESULTS: The patients in the secondary APS cohort were younger (median age, 48.5 vs 58 years) and comprised more females (75% vs 17%) compared with those with primary APS (p < 0.05). Two thirds of patients in the secondary APS group were anemic compared with less than one fourth in the primary APS group (p = 0.005). At the time of the first episode of DAH, the patients in the secondary APS required invasive and noninvasive ventilation, antibiotics, and combination immunosuppressive therapy (includes a combination of glucocorticoids with immunosuppressants or intravenous immunoglobulins or plasma exchange) more often compared with those with primary APS. There was only one in-hospital death (3% in-hospital mortality). One-year and 5-year mortality rates were 20% and 27%, respectively, with no significant difference between the primary and secondary APS groups. CONCLUSIONS: Diffuse alveolar hemorrhage in the setting of APS, especially secondary APS, can be severe. However, in-hospital mortality is uncommon with current management strategies.

A Systematic Review of Preexisting Sepsis and Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

We retrospectively reviewed all pertinent extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) studies (January 1995 to September 2017) of adults with sepsis as a primary indication for intervention and its association with morbidity and mortality. Collected data included study type, ECMO configuration, outcomes, effect size, and other features. Advanced age was a risk factor for death. Compared with nonsurvivors, survivors had a lower median Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment score on day 3 (15 vs. 18, p = 0.01). Biomarkers in survivors and nonsurvivors, respectively, were peak lactate (from two studies: 4.5 vs. 15.1 mmol/L, p = 0.03; 3.6 ± 3.7 vs. 3.3 ± 2.4 mmol/L, p = 0.850) and procalcitonin levels (41 vs. 164 ng/ml, p = 0.008). Bacteremia was associated with catheter colonization, and 90.5% of a group without bloodstream infections survived to discharge; ECMO weaning was possible for less than half the bloodstream infection group. Myocarditis portended favorable outcomes for patients with sepsis who received ECMO. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was used in immunosuppressed patients with refractory cardiopulmonary insufficiency from severe sepsis with successful weaning from ECMO for most patients. Overall survival varied substantially among studies (15.38-71.43%). Existing studies do not present well-defined patterns supporting use of ECMO in sepsis because of sample sizes and disparate study designs.

Clinical and hemodynamic benefit of macitentan and riociguat upfront combination in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension.

In this open-label study, we evaluated the effect of upfront macitentan and riociguat combination in newly diagnosed pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) patients. In 15 consecutive PAH patients, we collected clinical and hemodynamic data at baseline, visit 1 (median 4 months) and visit 2 (median 12 months). Survival and transplantation status were analyzed over 36 months. Statistical analysis included student t-test and 95% confidence interval (CI) ( t-statistic or Clopper-Pearson). Kaplan-Meier was used to estimate survival rate. There were 11/15 women (mean age 56 years), in World Health Organization (WHO) functional class (FC) III ( n = 14) or IV ( n = 1). The 6 min walk distance increased from 281.6 m (baseline) to 315.7 m (visit 1) and visit 2 (313.9 m), representing a 34- and 32-m change ( P < 0.05), respectively, associated with Borg score improvements. Brain natriuretic peptide decreased: 318.2 pg/mL (baseline) to 122.0 pg/mL (visit 1) and 98.6 pg/mL (visit 2) ( P < 0.05). WHO FC improved in eight patients (53%, 95% CI 27%-79%). Pulmonary vascular resistance (9.2 to 5.7 Wood Units) and mean pulmonary artery pressure (47.3 to 38.9 mmHg) decreased; cardiac index increased (2.3 to 3.0 L/min/m2) (baseline to visit 2, all P < 0.05). All patients had intermediate and high risk score (baseline); at 1-year follow-up, dual therapy led to reduction to low risk score in 7/15 (47%) patients. There were no unexpected or serious side effects. Three patients died due to unrelated causes; one patient received a lung transplant. Transplant-free survival rate (36 months) was 85%. Preliminary evidence is provided for effectiveness of initial macitentan and riociguat combination therapy in PAH.

Effect of body mass index on outcome in patients with suspected coronary artery disease referred for stress echocardiography.

In patients with hypertension, heart failure, or coronary artery disease (CAD), obese patients have been shown to have a lower cardiac event rate compared with normal weight counterparts. This phenomenon has been termed the "obesity paradox." We sought to determine whether the obesity paradox exists in a cohort of patients referred for stress echocardiography. We evaluated 4,103 patients with suspected CAD (58 ± 13 years; 42% men) undergoing stress echocardiography (52% exercise and 47% dobutamine). Patients were divided into 3 groups on the basis of body mass index (BMI): 18.5 to 24.9, 25 to 29.9, and >30 kg/m(2). During the follow-up of 8.2 ± 3.6 years, there were 683 deaths (17%). Myocardial ischemia was present in 21% of the population. Myocardial ischemia was more prevalent in patients with a BMI of 18.5 to 24.9 kg/m(2) (26%) than those with a BMI of 25 to 29.9 kg/m(2) (21%) and >30 kg/m(2) (18%). Patients with a BMI of >30 kg/m(2) had the lowest death rate (1.2%/year) compared with those with a BMI of 25 to 29.9 kg/m(2) (1.75%/year) and 18.5 to 24.9 kg/m(2) (2.9%/year; p <0.001). After adjusting for significant clinical variables including exercise capacity, patients with higher BMI (>30 kg/m(2) and 25 to 29.9 kg/m(2)) had less risk of mortality compared with those with a BMI of 18.5 to 24.9 kg/m(2) (hazard ratio 0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.47 to 0.72, p <0.0001 and hazard ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.82, p <0.0001, respectively). In conclusion, higher survival rate in patients with higher BMI as previously described in patients with hypertension, heart failure, and CAD extends to patients with suspected CAD referred for stress echocardiography, independent of exercise capacity.