Explore the vast range of titles available.

In October 2010, nine months after the massive earthquake that devastated Haiti, a second disaster began to unfold-soon to become the world's largest cholera epidemic in modern times. In a country that had never before reported cholera, the epidemic mysteriously and simultaneously appeared in river communities of central Haiti, eventually triggering nearly 800,000 cases and 9,000 deaths. What had caused the first cases of cholera in Haiti in recorded history? Who or what was the deadly agent of origin? Why did it explode in the agricultural-rich delta of the Artibonite River? When answers were few, rumors spread, causing social and political consequences of their own. Wanting insight, the Haitian government and French embassy requested epidemiological assistance from France. A few weeks into the epidemic, physician and infectious disease specialist Renaud Piarroux arrived in Haiti. InDeadly River, Ralph R. Frerichs tells the story of the epidemic, of a French disease detective determined to trace its origins so that he could help contain the spread and possibly eliminate the disease, and the political intrigue that has made that effort so difficult. The story involves political maneuvering by powerful organizations such as the United Nations and its peacekeeping troops in Haiti, as well as by the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Frerichs explores a quest for scientific truth and dissects a scientific disagreement involving world-renowned cholera experts who find themselves embroiled in intellectual and political turmoil in a poverty-stricken country. Frerichs's narrative highlights how the world's wealthy nations, nongovernmental agencies, and international institutions respond when their interests clash with the needs of the world's most vulnerable people. The story poses big social questions and offers insights not only on how to eliminate cholera in Haiti but also how nations, NGOs, and international organizations such as the UN and CDC deal with catastrophic infectious disease epidemics. In October 2010, nine months after the massive earthquake that devastated Haiti, a second disaster began to unfold-soon to become the world's largest cholera epidemic in modern times. In a country that had never before reported cholera, the epidemic mysteriously and simultaneously appeared in river communities of central Haiti, eventually triggering nearly 800,000 cases and 9,000 deaths. What had caused the first cases of cholera in Haiti in recorded history? Who or what was the deadly agent of origin? Why did it explode in the agricultural-rich delta of the Artibonite River? When answers were few, rumors spread, causing social and political consequences of their own. Wanting insight, the Haitian government and French embassy requested epidemiological assistance from France. A few weeks into the epidemic, physician and infectious disease specialist Renaud Piarroux arrived in Haiti.InDeadly River, Ralph R. Frerichs tells the story of the epidemic-of a French disease detective determined to trace its origins so that he could help contain the spread and possibly eliminate the disease-and the political intrigue that has made that effort so difficult. The story involves political maneuvering by powerful organizations such as the United Nations and its peacekeeping troops in Haiti, as well as by the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Frerichs explores a quest for scientific truth and dissects a scientific disagreement involving world-renowned cholera experts who find themselves embroiled in intellectual and political turmoil in a poverty-stricken country.Frerichs's narrative highlights how the world's wealthy nations, nongovernmental agencies, and international institutions respond when their interests clash with the needs of the world's most vulnerable people. The story poses big social questions and offers insights not only on how to eliminate cholera in Haiti but also how nations, NGOs, and international organizations such as the UN and CDC deal with catastrophic infectious disease epidemics.

To determine the validity of the Manchester Triage System (MTS) in emergency care for the general population of patients attending the emergency department, for children and elderly, and for commonly used MTS flowcharts and discriminators across three different emergency care settings. This was a prospective observational study in three European emergency departments. All consecutive patients attending the emergency department during a 1-year study period (2010-2012) were included. Validity of the MTS was assessed by comparing MTS urgency as determined by triage nurses with patient urgency according to a predefined 3-category reference standard as proxy for true patient urgency. 288,663 patients were included in the analysis. Sensitivity of the MTS in the three hospitals ranged from 0.47 (95%CI 0.44-0.49) to 0.87 (95%CI 0.85-0.90), and specificity from 0.84 (95%CI 0.84-0.84) to 0.94 (95%CI 0.94-0.94) for the triage of adult patients. In children, sensitivity ranged from 0.65 (95%CI 0.61-0.70) to 0.83 (95%CI 0.79-0.87), and specificity from 0.83 (95%CI 0.82-0.83) to 0.89 (95%CI 0.88-0.90). The diagnostic odds ratio ranged from 13.5 (95%CI 12.1-15.0) to 35.3 (95%CI 28.4-43.9) in adults and from 9.8 (95%CI 6.7-14.5) to 23.8 (95%CI 17.7-32.0) in children, and was lowest in the youngest patients in 2 out of 3 settings and in the oldest patients in all settings. Performance varied considerably between the different emergency departments. Validity of the MTS in emergency care is moderate to good, with lowest performance in the young and elderly patients. Future studies on the validity of triage systems should be restricted to large, multicenter studies to define modifications and improve generalizability of the findings.

On Jan 30, 2020, WHO declared the COVID-19 outbreak a public health emergency of international concern.2 Since then, the Italian Government has implemented extraordinary measures to restrict viral spread, including interruptions of air traffic from China, organised repatriation flights and quarantines for Italian travellers in China, and strict controls at international airports' arrival terminals. Suspected cases were transferred to preselected hospital facilities where the SARS-CoV-2 test was available and infectious disease units were ready for isolation of confirmed cases. Since the first case of SARS-CoV-2 local transmission was confirmed, the EMS in the Lombardy region (reached by dialling 112, the European emergency number) represented the first response to handling suspected symptomatic patients, to adopting containment measures, and to addressing population concerns. [...]recommendations to limit viral spread were provided to the other family members, especially when isolation was indicated.4 The COVID-19 Response Team handles patient flow to local hospitals and addresses specific issues about bed resources, emergency department overcrowding, and the need for patient transfer to other specialised facilities.

In a randomized trial involving patients who were hypotensive after trauma, 30-day mortality was 33% among patients who received standard crystalloid-based resuscitation as compared with 23% among patients who received fresh frozen plasma in addition to standard measures.

Plasma is integral to haemostatic resuscitation after injury, but the timing of administration remains controversial. Anticipating approval of lyophilised plasma by the US Food and Drug Administration, the US Department of Defense funded trials of prehospital plasma resuscitation. We investigated use of prehospital plasma during rapid ground rescue of patients with haemorrhagic shock before arrival at an urban level 1 trauma centre. The Control of Major Bleeding After Trauma Trial was a pragmatic, randomised, single-centre trial done at the Denver Health Medical Center (DHMC), which houses the paramedic division for Denver city. Consecutive trauma patients in haemorrhagic shock (defined as systolic blood pressure [SBP] ≤70 mm Hg or 71–90 mm Hg plus heart rate ≥108 beats per min) were assessed for eligibility at the scene of the injury by trained paramedics. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive plasma or normal saline (control). Randomisation was achieved by preloading all ambulances with sealed coolers at the start of each shift. Coolers were randomly assigned to groups 1:1 in blocks of 20 according to a schedule generated by the research coordinators. If the coolers contained two units of frozen plasma, they were defrosted in the ambulance and the infusion started. If the coolers contained a dummy load of frozen water, this indicated allocation to the control group and saline was infused. The primary endpoint was mortality within 28 days of injury. Analyses were done in the as-treated population and by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01838863. From April 1, 2014, to March 31, 2017, paramedics randomly assigned 144 patients to study groups. The as-treated analysis included 125 eligible patients, 65 received plasma and 60 received saline. Median age was 33 years (IQR 25–47) and median New Injury Severity Score was 27 (10–38). 70 (56%) patients required blood transfusions within 6 h of injury. The groups were similar at baseline and had similar transport times (plasma group median 19 min [IQR 16–23] vs control 16 min [14–22]). The groups did not differ in mortality at 28 days (15% in the plasma group vs 10% in the control group, p=0·37). In the intention-to-treat analysis, we saw no significant differences between the groups in safety outcomes and adverse events. Due to the consistent lack of differences in the analyses, the study was stopped for futility after 144 of 150 planned enrolments. During rapid ground rescue to an urban level 1 trauma centre, use of prehospital plasma was not associated with survival benefit. Blood products might be beneficial in settings with longer transport times, but the financial burden would not be justified in an urban environment with short distances to mature trauma centres. US Department of Defense.