RESUMO
Background: Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infections are difficult to treat and are a significant public health threat due to intrinsic/acquired resistance and limited treatment options. Methods: A retrospective, observational cohort study in patients receiving cefiderocol via Shionogi's early access program for Acinetobacter spp infections (1 April 2020-30 April 2021; 27 sites; Italy, Spain, Germany, France). Primary outcome was clinical success, defined as clinical resolution of infection at day 14 or day 28 survival. Results: Overall, 147 patients were included. Primary infection sites were respiratory (65.3%) and bloodstream (unknown source [15.6%]; catheter-related [10.9%]); 24.5% of patients had polymicrobial infection. Of 136 patients in intensive care (92.5%), 85.3% (116/136) received mechanical ventilation. Septic shock (55.6% [70/126]) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (81.6%) were prevalent. Prior to cefiderocol, 85.0% of patients received gram-negative treatment, 61.2% received ≥2 antimicrobials, and most received colistin (58.5%; median duration, 11.5 days). Cefiderocol monotherapy was used in 30.6% of patients. Clinical success rate was 53.1% and was higher in patients without septic shock (62.5%), without COVID-19 (77.8%), and with lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores (quartile 1 [median, 3; range, 0-5]: 82.9%). Day 28 survival was 44.9% and was higher in patients without septic shock (60.7%), without COVID-19 (59.3%), with lower SOFA score (quartile 1: 82.9%), and receiving first-line cefiderocol (68.2% [15/22]). Resolution of infection at day 14 occurred in 39.5% of patients. Conclusions: Despite use in complex patients with limited treatment options and high septic shock/COVID-19 rates, cefiderocol treatment was associated with an overall clinical success rate of 53%.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Scar management is a long-term process. A variety of modalities have been employed and, depending on scar type, treatment may be invasive and/or conservative. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a new CO2 laser resurfacing for post-traumatic and pathological scars and to compare this device with classic dermabrasion. The new fractionated ultrapulsed CO2 laser (Ultrapulse Encore, Lumenis Ltd., Santa Clara, CA) is equipped with two types of scanners: the first, ActiveFX, is non-sequential while the second, DeepFX, is sequential and produces microspot. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From September 2008 to November 2008, a study on 60 patients was performed. The patients (average age 47.3 years) enrolled in this study had severely scarred skin and were divided into two groups of 30 people. All patients were Caucasian with skin type II or III. Each scar was photographed and scored by the authors using the Manchester Scar Scale (MSS). Follow-up ranged from 12-15 months. RESULTS: Sixty patients were analyzed in two homogeneous groups. Significant improvement in skin tone, texture and appearance of skin was noted in all patients treated with CO2 laser, lower improvement resulted with dermabrasion. Both subjects and investigators noted similar aesthetic improvement. No major complications were found for both groups and minor complications included transient erythema and edema. CONCLUSION: Fractional ultrapulsed CO2 laser resurfacing has proven to be both safe and effective. The efficacy and favorable side effects profile for this technology, with low incidence of pigmentary changes, make it a viable alternative for the treatment of moderate-to-severe scars.
