How to monitor the brain in septic patients?

Brain injury is frequently observed after sepsis and may be primarily related to the direct effects of the septic insult on the brain (e.g., brain edema, ischemia, seizures) or to secondary/indirect injuries (e.g., hypotension, hypoxemia, hypocapnia, hyperglycemia). Management of brain injury in septic patients is first focused to exclude structural intracranial complications (e.g., ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke) and possible confounders (e.g., electrolyte alterations or metabolic disorders, such as dysglycemia). Sepsis-associated brain dysfunction is frequently a heterogeneous syndrome. Despite increasing understanding of main pathophysiologic determinants, therapy is essentially limited to protect the brain against further cerebral damage, by way of "simple" therapeutic manipulations of cerebral perfusion and oxygenation and by avoiding over-sedation. Non-invasive monitoring of cerebral perfusion and oxygenation with transcranial Doppler (TCD) and near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) is feasible in septic patients. Electroencephalography (EEG) allows detection of sepsis-related seizures and holds promise also as sedation monitoring. Brain CT-scan detects intra-cerebral structural lesions, while magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides important insights into primary mechanisms of sepsis-related direct brain injury, (e.g., cytotoxic vs. vasogenic edema) and the development of posterior reversible encephalopathy. Together with EEG and evoked potentials (EP), MRI is also important for coma prognostication. Emerging clinical evidence suggests monitoring of the brain in septic patients can be implemented in the ICU. The objective of this review was to summarize recent clinical data about the role of brain monitoring - including TCD, NIRS, EEG, EP, CT, and MRI - in patients with sepsis and to illustrate its potential utility for the diagnosis, management and prognostication.

The difference of disease perception by juvenile idiopathic arthritis patients and their parents : analysis of the JAMAR questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: The JAMAR (Juvenile Arthritis Multidimensional Assessment Report) has been developed to evaluate the perception of the patient and his parents on different items: well-being, pain, functional status, quality of life, disease activity, disease course, side effects of medication, therapeutic compliance and satisfaction with illness outcome. Our aim was to compare disease's perception by JIA patients and their parents. METHODS: We included into the study 100 consecutive patients over 7 years of age. We asked both parent and child to complete the JAMAR questionnaire. For each patient we recorded demographic and disease related data. We examined the level of disagreement between children and parents for the quantitative items of the JAMAR: VAS Pain, VAS Disease Activity, VAS Well Being, Juvenile Arthritis Functional Score, HRQoL. Then we looked for a relation between discordance-rate and demographic and clinical variables. RESULTS: Children and parents' median scores for all five items were similar. Individual dyads agreement was low, with a large amount of pairs (80) discordant for at least one item. We found higher MD VAS and JADAS in more discordant dyads, suggesting that when the disease is more active discordance between child and parent increase. CONCLUSION: The JAMAR questionnaire is an important tool that helps clinicians to detect divergent child and parent's disease perceptions. It is essential that both patients and parents fill the JAMAR questionnaire for a complete clinical and psychosocial evaluation.

Acute Hepatitis E Virus infection with coincident reactivation of Epstein-Barr virus infection in an immunosuppressed patient with rheumatoid arthritis: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis E virus (HEV) is the most recently discovered of the hepatotropic viruses, and is considered an emerging pathogen in developed countries with the possibility of fulminant hepatitis in immunocompromised patients. Especially in the latter elevated transaminases should be taken as a clue to consider HEV infection, as it can be treated by discontinuation of immunosuppression and/or ribavirin therapy. To our best knowledge, this is a unique case of autochthonous HEV infection with coincident reactivation of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection in an immunosuppressed patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). CASE PRESENTATION: A 68-year-old Swiss woman with RA developed hepatitis initially diagnosed as methotrexate-induced liver injury, but later diagnosed as autochthonous HEV infection accompanied by reactivation of her latent EBV infection. She showed confounding serological results pointing to three hepatotropic viruses (HEV, Hepatitis B virus (HBV) and EBV) that could be resolved by detection of HEV and EBV viraemia. The patient recovered by temporary discontinuation of immunosuppressive therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In immunosuppressed patients with RA and signs of liver injury, HEV infection should be considered, as infection can be treated by discontinuation of immunosuppression. Although anti-HEV-IgM antibody assays can be used as first line virological tools, nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) for detection of HEV RNA are recommended--as in our case--if confounding serological results from other hepatotropic viruses are obtained. After discontinuation of immunosuppressive therapy, our patient recovered from both HEV infection and reactivation of latent EBV infection without sequelae.