Biomedical subjects

Steven M Steinberg

Publications and source records attributed to Steven M Steinberg.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

Intestinal failure.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The gastrointestinal tract plays a major role in critical illness. We will review four common problem areas pertaining to the gut and abdominal compartment that intensivists managing critically ill patients must deal with on an everyday basis. RECENT FINDINGS: In the area of enteral nutrition, there have been concerns that early feeding in hemodynamically unstable patients might cause bowel infarction by increasing the gut oxygen consumption beyond splanchnic oxygen delivery. The most recent data suggest that early enteral feeding, even when patients are receiving vasopressors, is safe and may actually protect the gut by increasing gut perfusion. Although there are no new treatments for ileus, in most critically ill patients ileus primarily affects the stomach and large intestine, and most patients who are diagnosed with ileus may still be fed enterally as long as they are fed distal to the stomach. Diarrhea is a common occurrence in the intensive care unit, particularly in patients who are being fed enterally. Of most import is the realization that Clostridium difficile infection is ubiquitous and must be considered in virtually every case of diarrhea. Abdominal compartment syndrome is usually a result of shock, and its resuscitation with increased intra-abdominal pressure results in many untoward hemodynamic and respiratory events. Early recognition and treatment seem to be associated with improved outcome. SUMMARY: Continued progress in the areas of optimal nutritional support, understanding the implications of alterations in immune function of the gut, and the avoidance of such morbid complications as abdominal compartment syndrome are expected.

Journal Article↗

PubMed2003

Bacterial translocation: what it is and what it is not.

The reasons our critically ill patients die have been a matter of great interest for many decades, with the hope that if we can identify the mechanisms responsible for death, we might be able to intervene and improve outcome. Over the last 1 to 2 decades, the concept of bacterial translocation-the movement of gut origin microbes across the intact gastrointestinal tract into normally sterile tissues where the organisms may then directly cause infection or incite an inflammatory response that causes tissue injury, organ failure, and death-has grown to the point where it is virtually impossible to make rounds in any intensive care setting without a resident or student blaming some complication or another on bacterial translocation. We will attempt to review the clinically relevant information that supports and refutes the concept of bacterial translocation as a cause of our critically ill patients to exhibit the symptoms and signs of sepsis, develop organ failure, and ultimately die.

Bacterial Translocation↗

PubMed2003

Randomized, open-label preference study of two cyclosporine capsule formulations (usp modified) in stable solid-organ transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Prior research has indicated patient dissatisfaction with the odor, size, and taste of cyclosporine capsules, as well as the halitosis and body odor the capsules can cause. OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this investigation were to (1) compare the overall cyclosporine capsule preference (Gengraf vs Neoral) in stable, solid-organ transplant recipients, (2) assess patient preference based on specific capsule attributes, and (3) determine the reliability of the Cyclosporine Capsule SatiSfaCtion Survey (original to this study). METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, preference study, patients were recruited from 144 centers in North America with established transplant programs. Solid-organ transplant recipients who had taken stable doses of cyclosporine (Neoral) for >/=2 consecutive months were randomized in a 9:1 ratio to receive another cyclosporine formulation (Gengraf) or to remain on Neoral therapy. Patients completed the Cyclosporine Capsule Satisfaction Survey prior to randomization (baseline survey) and after taking the study drug for 4 weeks (final survey). The survey consisted of multiple attribute items with high face validity in assessing patients' perceptions and preferences with regard to their overall experience, as well as specific attributes of cyclosporine capsules known to affect patient acceptance. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population included 1906 patients (1211 men, 693 women [sex unknown in 2 patients]; mean [SD] age, 50.2 [12.4] years). A total of 1708 patients were switched to Gengraf; 198 continued on Neoral. Based on their overall experience with both capsule formulations, the majority of patients switched to Gengraf (61.9%) responded that they preferred the Gengraf capsule, compared with 13.7% who preferred the Neoral capsule and 24.4% who indicated no preference (P < 0.001). A similar preference for Gengraf was observed based on capsule odor (66.3%), ease of swallowing (51.5%), taste (57.1%), and impact on breath odor (52.5%) and body odor (48.4%) (P < 0.001 for each test). The results of internal consistency and reproducibility calculations were high for the Cyclosporine Capsule Satisfaction Survey. Internal consistency ranged from alpha = 0.84 to 0.95 for the subscales and was alpha = 0.95 for the overall score. Ranges for reproducibility in the subscales were r = 0.75 to 0.79, with an overall reproducibility of r = 0.85. Guyatt's responsiveness statistics for the subscale and overall scores were moderately high to very high, indicating that the survey is capable of measuring change in response to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Of the transplant recipients receiving Gengraf in this study, most preferred Gengraf to Neoral based on overall experience, capsule odor, difficulty swallowing, taste, breath odor, and body odor. Among all study patients, fewer patients receiving Gengraf were bothered by capsule odor, difficulty in swallowing, taste, or the impact on breath or body odor compared with patients who continued to receive Neoral. Internal consistency, reproducibility, and responsiveness results show that the Cyclosporine Capsule Satisfaction Survey is a psychometrically valid instrument that is appropriate for use in clinical trials.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2002

How early is early laparoscopic treatment of acute cholecystitis?

BACKGROUND: Despite the well-accepted success of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in elective treatment of symptomatic cholelithiasis, the efficacy and timing of this technique has been subject to some debate in the setting of acute cholecystitis. This study was undertaken to evaluate our institution's experience with early cholecystectomy as a safe, effective treatment of acute cholecystitis. METHODS: Charts of all patients who had undergone laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis were reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups based on the length of time from onset of symptoms to surgical intervention: less than 48 hours in the early group (n = 14) and more than 48 hours in the late group (n = 31). RESULTS: Comparing the two groups, the conversion rate to an open procedure was significantly less (0 versus 29%, P <0.04) in the early treated patients. Furthermore, the operative time (73 versus 96 minutes, P <0.004), postoperative hospitalization (1.2 versus 3.9 days, P <0.001), and total hospital stay (2.1 versus 5.4 days, P <0.004) were significantly reduced in patients undergoing early laparoscopic cholecystectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed by experienced surgeons is a safe, effective technique for treatment of acute cholecystitis. Patients treated within 48 hours of onset of symptoms experience a lower conversion rate to an open procedure, shorter operative time and reduced hospitalization.

Acute Disease↗