Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Kevin J. Pfeiffer





Kevin J. Pfeifer New YorkFire Department of New York2001
Lt. Kevin J. Pfeifer worked out of Engine 33 on Great Jones Street in Manhattan. He was a Paramedic for NY Hospital and St. Vincent’s Hospital in Manhattan. Kevin loved life! He was an expert sailor and had a private pilot’s license. Kevin always wanted to be like his brother Deputy Chief Joseph, and he adored his sister, Mary Ellen.
Helen Pfeifer

Monday, November 16, 2009

New York-Presbyterian
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES

Continuing

Medical

Education

NYP/Weill Cornell

Tuesday, December 1, 2009 4:00-8:00 pm

NYP/Weill Cornell Campus

Room M-107

Four Hour Call Review

4:00-5:20 pm Adult Medical Call Review with Dr.Carter

5:20-5:30 pm Break

5:30-6:45 pm Trauma Call Review with Dr.Eachempati

6:45-6:55 pm Break

6:55-8:00 pm Pediatric Call Review with Dr.Lupica

Please RSVP if you plan on attending

ANY QUESTIONS OR IDEAS

PLEASE CONTACT CME COORDINATOR

STEVE SAMUELS EMT-P 516-383-7248

SSAMUELS@OPTONLINE.NET

QOD 11 16 09

Which risk factor was found to be associated with a significant increase in mortality from

cocaine overdose by a medical examiner surveillance study?

a. Suicides

b. Age over 50

c. Ambient temperature > 31.1° C (88° F)

d. Concomitant opioid use

e. HIV status


Hyperthermia is the vital sign abnormality that correlates most with

fatality in cocaine users. There are numerous case reports of hyperthermia-related deaths with or

without rhabdomyolysis after cocaine use. Cocaine causes hyperthermia in several ways.

Cocaine increases heat production through psychomotor agitation via its CNS effects. Cocaine also controls

the dopamine-modulated heat-regulatory centers of the hypothalamus.94 Peripherally, cocaine hampers

heat dissipation by vasoconstriction of the vasculature. In addition, high ambient temperatures are

associated with an increase in mortality from cocaine overdose. In a medical examiner surveillance study

in New York City, it was found that significantly more deaths were due to cocaine overdoses on hot days

than on other days. The mean daily mortality began to increase when maximum temperature equaled or

exceeded 31.1° C (88° F). These findings are consistent with data demonstrating that the survival rate of

cocaine-poisoned dogs fell from 100% to 57% when ambient temperature was increased from –5° C to

5° C.

Answer: C

Saturday, November 14, 2009

QOD 11 13 09

Which of the following statements is true of heterotopic pregnancies?

A. They have a lower mortality rate than ectopic pregnancies.
B. They have similar risk factors to those of ectopic pregnancies.
C. They occur more commonly in natural cycles than with assisted reproductive treatment.
D. They present with acute rupture very infrequently.

Heterotopic pregnancy (HP) is the coexistence of an intrauterine and an extrauterine pregnancy. The majority of cases of HP are thought to arise from multiple ovulations. Although its incidence was once considered rare (1/30,000 pregnancies), the incidence has increased significantly since the advent of assisted reproductive technology (ART). The true incidence of HP is unknown but has been estimated to be as high as 1.5% in women treated with ART, which is 100 times higher than HP that occurs with natural cycles.

Risk factors for HP are similar to those for ectopic pregnancy and include pre-existing tubal disease, pelvic inflammatory disease, prior ectopic pregnancy, prior tubal surgery, use of intrauterine devices, and ART. Patient presentations vary, and some may even be asymptomatic. Presenting signs and symptoms include lower abdominal pain (30-80%), vaginal bleeding (approximately 30%) and adnexal mass (43%), enlarged uterus, and hemorrhagic shock. Approximately 50% of heterotopic pregnancies present with acute rupture.

Heterotopic pregnancy presents a major diagnostic challenge for the emergency physician as well as the obstetrician. It is common to think that an intrauterine pregnancy on ultrasound rules out an ectopic pregnancy. However, an HP still may exist and, if left undiagnosed or if the diagnosis is delayed, there may be dire maternal consequences. Soriano et al. found that patients with HP were more likely to have hemodynamic instability, to have more free fluid in the pelvis, and to require more blood transfusions than patients with ectopic pregnancy.

Early diagnosis of HP is essential. The majority of heterotopic pregnancies are diagnosed between 5 and 8 weeks (70%), while 20% are diagnosed between 9 and 10 weeks, and the remaining 10% after 11 weeks. The serum beta-hCG levels are not helpful because they are usually high and may in fact appropriately increase in serial examinations.

Because 95% of heterotopic pregnancies are located either in the fallopian tubes or the ovaries, transvaginal ultrasound is superior to transabdominal ultrasound in making the diagnosis of HP. It is important to keep HP in the differential diagnosis for those pregnant patients who present with shock or continue to complain of severe abdominal pain with or without vaginal bleeding. It is crucial that the adnexal structures be visualized. Consider HP if there is an IUP but the adnexa are poorly visualized or abnormal and there is free fluid in the pelvis.

Treatment of the ectopic pregnancy depends on the patient's clinical presentation. The literature states that laparoscopy for salpingectomy or salpingotomy is the standard treatment for these patients. In stable patients, the use of potassium chloride, methotrexate, RU486, or prostaglandins is useful in the treatment of the ectopic pregnancy but raises concern for possible compromise of the intrauterine gestation.

The survival rate for the intrauterine pregnancy has been documented to be approximately 66% in patients who undergo laparoscopic surgery to remove the ectopic pregnancy. Maternal hypovolemia due to hemorrhagic shock increases the likelihood of demise of the intrauterine pregnancy. The maternal mortality rate for HP has been cited as being just under 1% as compared to ectopic pregnancy, which carries a mortality rate of 0.3/1000. This larger mortality rate likely is due to delays in diagnosis.


Answer: B

FW: A Preventing Chronic Disease article referral for you

Preventing Chronic Disease article referral for you

Hello,

You may want to see this recent article from Preventing Chronic Disease, the online e-journal:
http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2009/oct/08_0246.htm?s_cid=pcd64a118_e

Friday, November 13, 2009

FW: Requested DocAlert: Chocolate Is Associated with Lower Mortality Following First Myocardial Infarction

Chocolate Is Associated with Lower Mortality Following First Myocardial Infarction



Chocolate Is Associated with Lower Mortality Following First MI

Amount of chocolate consumption was related inversely to cardiac-related mortality during an 8-year follow-up

Several studies have suggested that chocolate, perhaps in a process mediated by its antioxidant content, protects the heart (JW Gen Med Jul 10 2007 and JW Gen Med Sep 23 2003). A Swedish team identified 1169 nondiabetic patients who were hospitalized with initial nonfatal myocardial infarctions. Detailed food histories for the preceding 12 months were completed by 86% of patients; participants were followed for an additional 8 years.

Compared with patients who never ate chocolate, those who ate chocolate less than once monthly suffered 27% less cardiac-related mortality (after multivariate adjustments); risk was 44% lower for weekly chocolate eaters and 66% lower for those who ate chocolate two or more times weekly. Nonfatal adverse cardiac events, strokes, and total mortality, however, were not related clearly to chocolate consumption. Consuming other sweets (e.g., cookies, cakes, ice cream) had no relation to cardiac mortality.

Comment: The strengths of this study are its size and long-term follow-up. The main weakness is that chocolate consumption was assessed only once, during hospitalization for initial MIs, and not during follow-up. To me, the most interesting result of the study is that chocolate strongly protected against cardiac mortality but not against adverse cardiac events. The same finding has been reported for ω-3 fatty acid supplements, which suggests that the primary beneficial effect of both chocolate and ω-3 fatty acid supplements is in suppressing arrhythmias.

Anthony L. Komaroff, MD

Published in Journal Watch General Medicine September 3, 2009

Citation:
Janszky I et al. Chocolate consumption and mortality following a first acute myocardial infarction: The Stockholm Heart Epidemiology Program. J Intern Med 2009 Sep; 266:248. [Medline® Abstract]

Copyright © 2009. Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.

The above message comes from "Journal Watch", who is solely responsible for its content.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Emailing: Letter from the Commissioner to Nation’s Doctors on H1N1 Vaccine


Letter from the Commissioner to Nation's Doctors on H1N1 Vaccine

November 10, 2009

Dear Healthcare Professional,

I am writing first to thank you for your extraordinary efforts during the 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak.

As this new infectious disease sweeps through communities across the country, you must juggle your usual patient care responsibilities with a special role in influenza response. Delays in vaccine delivery and the persistence of myths about vaccination have not made your job any easier. Thank you for rising to this public health challenge.

I am also writing to provide information that can be helpful as you talk to patients about the 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccines -- the best tools we have to prevent severe illness and death caused by the virus.

As the Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), I am pleased to have this opportunity to communicate with you directly at this key moment in time.

The Department of Health and Human Services is working with influenza vaccine manufacturers and state and local public health officials to make these vaccines widely available. So far, more than 41 million doses of the 2009 H1N1 vaccine have been allocated to the states for distribution across the country, and more is becoming available every day.

Some of your patients may be asking how the FDA, the manufacturers, and the scientific community can have confidence in vaccines that were available just six months after the 2009 H1N1 virus emerged. Understanding more about the manufacturing and approval process for these vaccines should help you to answer their questions.

Every year, FDA and vaccine manufacturers follow a series of steps to make a new influenza vaccine targeted to the three main circulating strains of influenza. These steps have produced effective and very safe vaccines time and again, adding up to hundreds of millions of doses administered in the United States alone.

We followed this same path for the 2009 H1N1 vaccines.

Making the 2009 H1N1 Vaccine

First, scientists at laboratories in the United States and elsewhere modified the 2009 H1N1 virus into a version suitable to be used as the "seed" for the development of vaccines. The process that was followed is similar in every respect to that which is employed every year for the preparation of seasonal influenza vaccines, as slightly different strains appear regularly each year. For the 2009 H1N1 virus, modified strains suitable for vaccine manufacturing were created and provided to influenza vaccine manufacturers by late May.

Next, companies began manufacturing the 2009 H1N1 vaccines in the same factories where they are licensed to manufacture seasonal influenza vaccines – using the same equipment and the same testing procedures. FDA inspects these plants at least once a year to assure that quality controls are followed at every step in the production process. FDA's oversight covers both those facilities that make the inactivated vaccines (the "flu shot") and those that make live attenuated viral vaccine (the "nasal spray").

A critical part of influenza vaccine production is the growth of the vaccine strain in specially produced eggs. After inoculation of the eggs, the virus replicates, creating hundreds of thousands of copies of itself. It is the efficiency of this growth that determines how much vaccine can be produced and how quickly. The material harvested from these eggs is then further processed into the vaccines that you administer to your patients.

As recently as a few years ago, egg shortages would have prevented summertime and fall production of a vaccine against a new strain of influenza. Fortunately, this year, manufacturers could tap into a reserve supply of eggs made by additional flocks of chickens. These flocks were available under contracts put in place for just this purpose – to respond to a possible pandemic.

At the end of July, FDA sought public input. We convened a public meeting of FDA's expert vaccine advisory committee to review the agency's approach to approval of the 2009 H1N1 vaccines. This committee includes scientists, physicians, public health officials and a consumer representative. The committee supported making the vaccines according to the same approach used every year for the seasonal influenza vaccines.

The next step was to develop a tool to accurately measure the amount of vaccine antigen that was being produced. Scientists from the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, and other nations, working together as part of the World Health Organization, developed the reagents needed to assure the proper amount of antigen goes into each dose of vaccine.

On September 15, after reviewing applications from manufacturers similar to those submitted each year for licensed seasonal vaccine, FDA licensed four vaccines against the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus.

The agency found that all of the appropriate documentation had been submitted, and all of the standards had been met. In fact, had this new virus emerged a few months earlier, it could have been included as one of the three strains in the 2009 seasonal vaccine. In this key respect, although the strain of the 2009 H1N1 virus is new, the 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccines are not.

Over the summer, the National Institutes of Health and vaccine manufacturers initiated clinical trials to determine the dose and number of doses needed to induce an optimal immune response. The good news is that just as for seasonal vaccine, one dose of H1N1 vaccine will likely be protective for healthy adults, the elderly, and older children. For children ages nine and younger, two doses of the H1N1 vaccine will likely be optimal, also similar to seasonal vaccine. No serious adverse events attributable to the vaccine have emerged during the clinical trials, which have so far included over 3600 patients at NIH-supported institutions alone.

Monitoring Vaccine Safety

We are now in a position never before experienced in the history of influenza. Just as a new and serious virus is spreading widely around the country, causing hospitalizations and deaths, a vaccine is becoming available to help prevent infection and protect the public. This accomplishment is the result of the efforts of hundreds of scientists across the world in the private and public sectors. Although a gap still remains between the demand for the vaccine and the currently available supply, this is the first time in history that any vaccine has been available at the time that an influenza pandemic has struck.

We are not cutting any corners. Just as for seasonal influenza vaccine, no lot of the 2009 H1N1 vaccine can be used until it has been carefully evaluated and released as sterile and potent by both the manufacturer and by the FDA.

In addition, the FDA and other agencies are looking for any unexpected, rare, serious adverse events and are quickly investigating concerns. We are also collaborating with our global counterparts to share information and experience. Should any safety concerns arise, we will evaluate them thoroughly and bring them to the public's attention quickly.

I encourage you to report any adverse effects that you believe are linked to any vaccine, including the 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (http://vaers.hhs.gov/index). Other resources for 2009 H1N1 influenza, including a detailed description of vaccine safety efforts, are online at http://www.flu.gov/.

It is likely that most families in the United States will be touched by H1N1 influenza this year. Fortunately, many will experience mild illness. Others will endure unspeakable tragedy. The benefits of preventing serious consequences from infection with the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus far outweigh the risks associated with vaccination. All Americans, and especially pregnant women and others at high risk of severe influenza infection, should seriously consider the recommendation for vaccination to help protect themselves and their loved ones.

Thank you for your critical work during this challenging time.

Sincerely,

/s/

Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D.
Commissioner of Food and Drugs