Acute schistosomiasis: a risk underestimated by travelers and a diagnosis frequently missed by general practitioners-a cluster analysis of 42 travelers.

BACKGROUND: In 2011, a patient was admitted to our hospital with acute schistosomiasis after having returned from Madagascar and having bathed at the Lily waterfalls. On the basis of this patient's indication, infection was suspected in 41 other subjects. This study investigated (1) the knowledge of the travelers about the risks of schistosomiasis and their related behavior to evaluate the appropriateness of prevention messages and (2) the diagnostic workup of symptomatic travelers by general practitioners to evaluate medical care of travelers with a history of freshwater exposure in tropical areas. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to the 42 travelers with potential exposure to schistosomiasis. It focused on pre-travel knowledge of the disease, bathing conditions, clinical presentation, first suspected diagnosis, and treatment. RESULTS: Of the 42 questionnaires, 40 (95%) were returned, among which 37 travelers (92%) reported an exposure to freshwater, and 18 (45%) were aware of the risk of schistosomiasis. Among these latter subjects, 16 (89%) still reported an exposure to freshwater. Serology was positive in 28 (78%) of 36 exposed subjects at least 3 months after exposure. Of the 28 infected travelers, 23 (82%) exhibited symptoms and 16 (70%) consulted their general practitioner before the information about the outbreak had spread, but none of these patients had a serology for schistosomiasis done during the first consultation. CONCLUSIONS: The usual prevention message of avoiding freshwater contact when traveling in tropical regions had no impact on the behavior of these travelers, who still went swimming at the Lily waterfalls. This prevention message should, therefore, be either modified or abandoned. The clinical presentation of acute schistosomiasis is often misleading. General practitioners should at least request an eosinophil count, when confronted with a returning traveler with fever. If eosinophilia is detected, it should prompt the search for a parasitic disease.

Bilateral deep brain stimulation: the placement of the second electrode is not necessarily less accurate than that of the first one.

BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is recognized as an effective treatment for movement disorders. We recently changed our technique, limiting the number of brain penetrations to three per side. OBJECTIVES: The first aim was to evaluate the electrode precision on both sides of surgery since we implemented this surgical technique. The second aim was to analyse whether or not the electrode placement was improved with microrecording and macrostimulation. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed operation protocols and MRIs of 30 patients who underwent bilateral DBS. For microrecording and macrostimulation, we used three parallel channels of the 'Ben Gun' centred on the MRI-planned target. Pre- and post-operative MRIs were merged. The distance between the planned target and the centre of the implanted electrode artefact was measured. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in targeting precision on both sides of surgery. There was more intra-operative adjustment of the second electrode positioning based on microrecording and macrostimulation, which allowed to significantly approach the MRI-planned target on the medial-lateral axis. CONCLUSION: There was more electrode adjustment needed on the second side, possibly in relation with brain shift. We thus suggest performing a single central track with electrophysiological and clinical assessment, with multidirectional exploration on demand for suboptimal clinical responses.

PERC rule to exclude the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in emergency low-risk patients: study protocol for the PROPER randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism (PE) in the emergency department (ED) is crucial. As emergency physicians fear missing this potential life-threatening condition, PE tends to be over-investigated, exposing patients to unnecessary risks and uncertain benefit in terms of outcome. The Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) is an eight-item block of clinical criteria that can identify patients who can safely be discharged from the ED without further investigation for PE. The endorsement of this rule could markedly reduce the number of irradiative imaging studies, ED length of stay, and rate of adverse events resulting from both diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Several retrospective and prospective studies have shown the safety and benefits of the PERC rule for PE diagnosis in low-risk patients, but the validity of this rule is still controversial. We hypothesize that in European patients with a low gestalt clinical probability and who are PERC-negative, PE can be safely ruled out and the patient discharged without further testing. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a controlled, cluster randomized trial, in 15 centers in France. Each center will be randomized for the sequence of intervention periods: a 6-month intervention period (PERC-based strategy) followed by a 6-month control period (usual care), or in reverse order, with 2 months of "wash-out" between the 2 periods. Adult patients presenting to the ED with a suspicion of PE and a low pre test probability estimated by clinical gestalt will be eligible. The primary outcome is the percentage of failure resulting from the diagnostic strategy, defined as diagnosed venous thromboembolic events at 3-month follow-up, among patients for whom PE has been initially ruled out. DISCUSSION: The PERC rule has the potential to decrease the number of irradiative imaging studies in the ED, and is reported to be safe. However, no randomized study has ever validated the safety of PERC. Furthermore, some studies have challenged the safety of a PERC-based strategy to rule-out PE, especially in Europe where the prevalence of PE diagnosed in the ED is high. The PROPER study should provide high-quality evidence to settle this issue. If it confirms the safety of the PERC rule, physicians will be able to reduce the number of investigations, associated subsequent adverse events, costs, and ED length of stay for patients with a low clinical probability of PE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02375919 .