METHODS: C. elegans was aliquoted onto the center of assay plates and allowed to migrate towards sepsis (T) or control (C) urine samples spotted on the same plate. The number of worms found in either (T) or (C) was scored at 10-minute intervals over a 60-minute period.
RESULTS: The worms were able to identify the urine (<48 hours) of sepsis patients rapidly within 20 minutes (AUROC=0.67, p=0.012) and infection within 40 minutes (AUROC=0.80, p=0.016).
CONCLUSIONS: CESDA could be further explored for sepsis diagnosis.
DESIGN: Randomised trial.
SETTING: University Hospital, Malaysia: April 2016-October 2016.
POPULATION: 331 women delivered by caesarean section.
METHOD: Participants were randomised to leaving their wound entirely exposed (n = 165) or dressed (n = 166) with a low adhesive dressing (next day removal).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were superficial SSI rate (assessed by provider inspection up to hospital discharge and telephone questionnaires on days 14 and 28) and patient satisfaction with wound coverage management before hospital discharge.
RESULTS: The superficial SSI rates were 2/153 (1.3%) versus 5/157 (3.2%) (relative risk [RR] 0.4, 95% CI 0.1-2.1; P = 0.45) and patient satisfaction with wound management was 7 [5-8] versus 7 [5-8] (P = 0.81) in exposed compared with dressed study groups, respectively. In the wound-exposed patients, stated preference for wound exposure significantly increased from 35.5 to 57.5%, whereas in the wound-dressed patients, the stated preference for a dressed wound fell from 48.5 to 34.4% when assessed at recruitment (pre-randomisation) to day 28. There were no significant differences in inpatient additional dressing or gauze use for wound care, post-hospital discharge self-reported wound issues of infection, antibiotics, redness and inflammation, swollen, painful, and fluid leakage to day 28 across trial groups.
CONCLUSION: The trial is underpowered as SSI rates were lower than expected. Nevertheless, leaving caesarean wounds exposed does not appear to have detrimental effects, provided patient counselling to manage expectations is undertaken.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: An exposed compared with a dressed caesarean wound has a similar superficial surgical site infection rate, patient satisfaction and appearance.
CASE REPORT: A 35-year-old woman delivered a stillborn female fetus at 33 weeks of gestation. No fetal anomaly was detected. Examination of the umbilical cord showed multiple strictures, located 4.5 cm and 20 cm from the placental insertion site. Microscopically, the stricture site showed Wharton's jelly being replaced by fibrosis with presence of vascular thrombosis.
DISCUSSION: Umbilical cord stricture is uncommon and has been described to be associated with intrauterine fetal death and a possibility of recurrent. There is a need to counsel the parents and close fetal surveillance in subsequent pregnancy is advise since the risk of recurrent remains uncertain.
METHODS: Using qualitative study method, a phone interview was conducted with 16 patients to elicit their views on the reasons for failure to attend the colonoscopy procedure following a positive stool test. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and translated before proceeded with the data analysis. Content analysis was made on the translated interview, followed by systematic classification of data by major themes.
RESULTS: Reasons for nonattendance were categorized under five main themes; unnecessary test, fear of the procedure, logistic obstacles (subthemes; time constraint, transportation problem), social influences, and having other health priority. Lacking in information about the procedure during the referral process was identified to cause misperception and unnecessary worry towards colonoscopy. Fear of the procedure was commonly cited by female respondents while logistic issues pertaining to time constraint were raised by working respondents.
CONCLUSIONS: More effective communication between patients and health care providers are warranted to avoid misconception regarding colonoscopy procedure. Support from primary care doctors, customer-friendly appointment system, use of educational aids and better involvement from family members were among the strategies to increase colonoscopy compliance.