Brian L Erstad
Work Summary
Brian Erstad’s research interests pertain to critical care medicine with an emphasis on patient safety and related outcomes research.
Brian Erstad’s research interests pertain to critical care medicine with an emphasis on patient safety and related outcomes research.
Abstract:
The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind investigation was to compare two different parenteral antibiotics (ampicillin/sulbactam and cefoxitin) in conjunction with appropriate surgical procedures for treatment of patients with diabetic foot infections on a vascular surgery service. Thirty-six patients with diabetes mellitus who required hospitalization to treat foot infections were randomized into one of two treatment groups. There were 18 patients with similar baseline characteristics randomized to each treatment group. The Chi-square test was used for clinical and bacteriological comparisons, the Wilcoxon rank sum test was used for comparing duration of hospitalization and clinical signs and symptoms, and Fisher's Exact Test (two-tailed) was used to compare treatment outcomes of the two groups. Based on intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference in treatment outcome (cure + improved) between the ampicillin/sulbactam (15/17) and cefoxitin groups (16/17). Similarly, no significant differences in bacteriologic response were noted. Both ampicillin/sulbactam and cefoxitin, when combined with appropriate surgical interventions, are safe and effective therapies for treating foot infections in patients with diabetes mellitus.
The objective of this evaluation was to compare total hospital costs and length of stay of critically ill patients who received dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU).
The objective was to determine the effect of paralytic type and dose on first-attempt rapid sequence intubation (RSI) success in the emergency department (ED).
PMID: 19420206;Abstract:
In the ICU where critically ill patients receive aggressive life-sustaining interventions, suffering is common and death can be expected in up to 20% of patients. High-quality pain management is a part of optimal therapy and requires knowledge and skill in pharmacologic, behavioral, social, and communication strategies grounded in the holistic palliative care approach. This contemporary review article focuses on pain management within comprehensive palliative and end-of-life care. These key points emerge from the transdisciplinary review: (1) all ICU patients experience opportunities for discomfort and suffering regardless of prognosis or goals, thus palliative therapy is a requisite approach for every patient, of which pain management is a principal component; (2) for those dying in the ICU, an explicit shift in management to comfort-oriented care is often warranted and may be the most beneficial treatment the health-care team can offer; (3) communication and cultural sensitivity with the patient-family unit is a principal approach for optimizing palliative and pain management as part of comprehensive ICU care; (4) ethical and legal misconceptions about the escalation of opiates and other palliative therapies should not be barriers to appropriate care, provided the intention of treatment is alleviation of pain and suffering; (5) standardized instruments, performance measurement, and care delivery aids are effective strategies for decreasing variability and improving palliative care in the complex ICU setting; and (6) comprehensive palliative care should addresses family and caregiver stress associated with caring for critically ill patients and anticipated suffering and loss. Copyright © 2009 American College of Chest Physicians.