• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Thu, 23.05.24

Search results


February 2022
Yoav Bichovsky MD, Amit Frenkel MD MHA, Evgeni Brotfain MD, Leonid Koyfman MD, Limor Besser MD, Natan Arotsker MD, Abraham Borer MD, and Moti Klein MD
October 2017
Amit Frenkel MD MHA, Abraham Borer MD, Aviel Roy-Shapira MD, Evgeni Brotfain MD, Leonid Koyfman MD, Lisa Saidel-Odes MD, Alir Adina RN and Moti Klein MD

Background: The authors describe a multifaceted cross-infection control program that was implemented to contain an epidemic of multidrug-resistant microorganisms (MRO) (carbapenem resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii; extended spectrum β-lactamase producing Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, Enterobacter Cloacae, and Proteus mirabilis; and ‎methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Candida species). 

Objectives: To assess the effect of a control program on the incidence of cross-infection with MRO.

Methods: Clinical criteria triaged patients into a high-risk wing (HRW) or a low-risk wing (LRW). Strict infection control measures were enforced; violations led to group discussions (not recorded). Frequent cultures were obtained, and use of antibiotics was limited. Each quarter, the incidence of MRO isolation was reported to all staff members. 

Results: Over a 6 year period, 1028 of 3113 patients were placed in the HRW. The incidence of MRO isolation within 48 hours of admission was 8.7% (HRW) vs. 1.91% (LRW) (P < 0.001). Acquired MRO infection density was 30.4 (HRW) vs. 15.6 (LRW) (P < 0.009). After the second year, the incidence of group discussions dropped from once or twice a month to once or twice a year.

Conclusions: These measures contained epidemics. Clinical criteria successfully triaged HRW from LRW patients and reduced cross-infection between the medical center wings. The quarterly reports of culture data were associated with improved staff compliance. MRO epidemic control with limited resources is feasible. 

 

November 2014
Evgeni Brotfain MD, Alexander Zlotnik MD PhD, Andrei Schwartz MD, Amit Frenkel MD, Leonid Koyfman MD, Shaun E. Gruenbaum MD and Moti Klein MD

Background: Optimal oxygen supply is the cornerstone of the management of critically ill patients after extubation, especially in patients at high risk for extubation failure. In recent years, high flow oxygen system devices have offered an appropriate alternative to standard oxygen therapy devices such as conventional face masks and nasal prongs.

Objectives: To assess the clinical effects of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) compared with standard oxygen face masks in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients after extubation.

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 67 consecutive ventilated critical care patients in the ICU over a period of 1 year. The patients were allocated to two treatment groups: HFNC (34 patients, group 1) and non-rebreathing oxygen face mask (NRB) (33 patients, group 2). Vital respiratory and hemodynamic parameters were assessed prior to extubation and 6 hours after extubation. The primary clinical outcomes measured were improvement in oxygenation, ventilation-free days, re-intubation, ICU length of stay, and mortality.

Results: The two groups demonstrated similar hemodynamic patterns before and after extubation. The respiratory rate was slightly elevated in both groups after extubation with no differences observed between groups. There were no statistically significant clinical differences in PaCO2. However, the use of HFNC resulted in improved PaO2/FiO2 post-extubation (P < 0.05). There were more ventilator-free days in the HFNC group (P < 0.05) and fewer patients required re-intubation (1 vs. 6). There were no differences in ICU length of stay or mortality.

Conclusion: This study demonstrated better oxygenation for patients treated with HFNC compared with NRB after extubation. HFNC may be more effective than standard oxygen supply devices for oxygenation in the post-extubation period.

October 2006
M. Klein, N. Weksler, A. Borer, L. Koyfman, J. Kesslin and G.M. Gurman
 Background: Transport of hemodynamic unstable septic patients for diagnostic or therapeutic interventions outside the intensive care unit is complex but sometimes contributes to increasing the chance of survival.

Objective: To report our experience with terlipressin treatment for facilitation of transport to distant facilities for diagnostic or therapeutic procedures in septic patients treated with norepinephrine.

Methods:  We conducted a retrospective analysis of the records of our ICU[1], identifying the patients with septic shock who required norepinephrine for hemodynamic support.

Results: Terlipressin was given to 30 septic shock patients (15 females and 15 males) who were on high dose norepinephrine (10 μg/min or more) in order to facilitate their transport outside the ICU. The dose of terlipressin ranged from 1 to 4 mg, with a mean of 2.13 ± 0.68 mg. The dose of norepinephrine needed to maintain systolic blood pressure above 100 mmHg decreased following terlipressin administration, from 21.9 ± 10.4 μg/min (range 5–52 μg/min) to 1.0 ± 1.95 (range 0–10) (P < 0.001). No patients required norepinephrine dose adjustment during transport. No serious complications or overshoot in blood pressure values were observed following terlipressin administration. Acrocyanosis occurred only in eight patients receiving more than 1 mg of the drug. The overall mortality rate was 50%.

Conclusions: Our data suggest that terlipressin is effective in septic shock. Because it is long-acting and necessitates less titration it might be indicated for patient transportation.


 





[1] ICU = intensive care unit



 
Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal or medical advice on any matter.
The IMA is not responsible for and expressly disclaims liability for damages of any kind arising from the use of or reliance on information contained within the site.
© All rights to information on this site are reserved and are the property of the Israeli Medical Association. Privacy policy

2 Twin Towers, 35 Jabotinsky, POB 4292, Ramat Gan 5251108 Israel