Search

In industrial applications, filter materials are often chosen according to cost as well as their processing and thermomechanical properties, but rarely in terms of their behavior during filtration, which is largely due to there being insufficient information available on the influence of filter materials and surface quality on filtration behavior. In this study, the manufacture of functionalized Al2O3 nanofilters was investigated, along with their filtration performance in short- and long-term filtration trials. In addition, sessile drop tests were performed to measure the contact angle of the nanofunctionalized materials, and yielded an approximately 10 deg (11 pct) higher contact angle for nanocoated materials sintered at 800 °C and 1250 °C than for those sintered at 1600 °C and an approximately 23 deg (23 pct) higher contact angle compared to surfaces without a nanocoating. The filtration mechanism was assessed by means of Porous Disk Filtration Analysis (PoDFA) and Liquid Metal Cleanliness Analyzer (LiMCA) monitoring systems, as well as by analysis of the used and infiltrated filters using Scanning Electron Microscopy and Energy Dispersive X-ray analysis (SEM/EDX) technology. Both short-term and long-term filtration trials showed that the filtration behaviors of the reference and nanocoated filters were comparable. It was therefore determined that nanocoating of such filters with Al2O3 does not provide any improvement with regard to filtration performance.

A substantial number of patients are at high-risk of intra- or post-operative complications or both. Most perioperative deaths are represented by patients who present insufficient physiological reserve to meet the demands of major surgery. Recognition and management of critical high-risk surgical patients require dedicated and effective teams, capable of preventing, recognize, start treatment with adequate support in time to refer patients to the satisfactory ICU level provision. The main task for health-care planners and managers is to identify and reduce this severe risk and to encourage patient’s safety practices. Inadequate tissue perfusion and decreased cellular oxygenation due to hypovolemia, heart dysfunction, reduced cardiovascular reserve, and concomitant diseases are the most common causes of perioperative complications. Hemodynamic, respiratory and careful sequential monitoring have become essential aspects of the clinical practice both for surgeons and intensivists. New monitoring techniques have changed significantly over the past few years and are now able to rapidly identify shock states earlier, define the etiology, and monitor the response to different therapies. Many of these techniques are now minimally invasive or non-invasive. Advanced hemodynamic and respiratory monitoring combines invasive, non-invasive monitoring skills. Non-invasive ultrasound has emerged during the last years as an essential operative and perioperative evaluation tool, and its use is now rapidly growing. Perioperative management guided by appropriate sequential clinical evaluation combined with respiratory and hemodynamic monitoring is an established tool to help clinicians to identify those patients at higher risk in the attempt to reduce the complications rate and potentially improve patient outcomes. This review aims to provide an update of currently available standard concepts and evolving technologies of the various respiratory and hemodynamic monitoring systems for the high-risk surgical patients, highlighting their potential usefulness when integrated with careful clinical evaluation.

Purpose of the review Non-invasiveness and instantaneous diagnostic capability are prominent features of the use of echocardiography in critical care. Sepsis and septic shock represent complex situations where early hemodynamic assessment and support are among the keys to therapeutic success. In this review, we discuss the range of applications of echocardiography in the management of the septic patient, and propose an echocardiography-based goal-oriented hemodynamic approach to septic shock. Recent findings Echocardiography can play a key role in the critical septic patient management, by excluding cardiac causes for sepsis, and mostly by guiding hemodynamic management of those patients in whom sepsis reaches such a severity to jeopardize cardiovascular function. In recent years, there have been both increasing evidence and diffusion of the use of echocardiography as monitoring tool in the patients with hemodynamic compromise. Also thanks to echocardiography, the features of the well-known sepsis-related myocardial dysfunction have been better characterized. Furthermore, many of the recent echocardiographic indices of volume responsiveness have been validated in populations of septic shock patients. Conclusion Although not proven yet in terms of patient outcome, echocardiography can be regarded as an ideal monitoring tool in the septic patient, as it allows (a) first line differential diagnosis of shock and early recognition of sepsis-related myocardial dysfunction; (b) detection of pre-existing cardiac pathology, that yields precious information in septic shock management; (c) comprehensive hemodynamic monitoring through a systematic approach based on repeated bedside assessment; (d) integration with other monitoring devices; and (e) screening for cardiac source of sepsis.

Dear Editor, We applaud the ESICM Global Intensive Care Working Group for its pivotal contribution to the improvement of sepsis management in developing countries [1]. Dunser et al. acknowledge that health-care practices of industrialized nations are not available to the majority of humanity. On the basis of this current reality the authors offer guidelines regarding approaches to the management of sepsis in limited-resource settings. Surprisingly, we found no mention of the use of point-of-care ultrasound (POC-US) [2] beyond a generic recommendation to ‘‘use imaging techniques when available’’ [1]. Since 1985 ultrasonography has been recommended for developing countries by the World Health Organization (WHO) [3], as an inexpensive, rapidly deployable, and portable tool with minimal side effects. This is true today more than ever. Notwithstanding the lack of randomized, controlled trials on POC-US use in the specific setting of sepsis, increasing scientific evidence suggests tremendous potential for this tool in managing critical patients with infectious diseases. POC-US can be of great aid in the diagnosis of infectious diseases in rural areas [4], and generically in the detection of septic foci in febrile states [5]. It has a significant impact on mitigating diagnostic uncertainty in undifferentiated shock, narrowing differential diagnosis [6], and improving the specificity of early recognition of hypovolemia [7] and septic shock cardiovascular patterns [8]. Lung ultrasound has indeed a broad spectrum of established applications in the diagnosis and management of respiratory infectious diseases [9]—the leading cause of childhood mortality in developing countries [10]. The potential of POCUS in sepsis management is wide [11], and includes procedure-guidance applications that are increasingly acknowledged as best practice [12, 13]. With regards to education, innovative ultrasound curricula have been shaped for non-imaging specialists [14]. Short-term POC-US training programs are proven to deliver adequate knowledge and skills to novices [15]. And proof-of-concept studies have been conducted in the screening for infection sources in resource-limited settings of tropical countries [16]. Furthermore, low-cost technology can now provide minimally POC-UStrained operators (paramedics, midwives) with tele-mentoring and second-opinion facilities [17], mitigating the impracticable availability of ‘‘experienced practitioners’’ in all settings. This is of paramount importance for sustainable healthcare delivery where the patient-tophysician ratio is dramatically high. The use of POC-US represents a paradigm shift for improving health

While ultrasound (US) has been used in medicine for several decades, its use in critical care and emergency medicine is relatively new. Clinician-performed ultrasound brings an essential imaging capability to the pointof-care in a manner that represents a true paradigm shift in the art and science of physical examination and diagnosis. The performance of ultrasound by clinicians in critical settings, ‘‘Critical Ultrasound’’, has created new challenges that must be addressed by the medical community. Why we need critical US evidence-based clinical recommendations (CR) and consensus statements (CS)?