Planning for a disaster must anticipate how demands imposed by a disaster equate with the capacity of the available facilities. Resources must be organized before an event occurs so that they are best prepared in every way to treat as many victims as possible. The actual number of victims is less relevant than the extent receiving facility can be adjusted to meet the appropriate requirements of victims. Multiple casualty incidents (MCIs) are defined as a large number of casualties generated over a short period that are appropriately managed with existing or extended resources. Mass casualty events (MCEs), in contrast, are major medical disasters that erode organized community support mechanisms and result in casualty numbers which overwhelm resources [1].
Due to the increased frequency and impact of disasters, including natural disasters, pandemics and terrorism, the concept of disaster resilience is accepted as being of increasing importance.
The notion of resilience can be defined as the capacity to adapt to unexpected challenges and the flexibility to revert to normality. Additionally, the issues learned from the experience should be incorporated into protocols which would allow for better preparedness for future challenges [2,3]. [More]

Mankind has been and still is constantly threatened by infectious diseases. Antimicrobials, used to treat infections, are considered one of the greatest discoveries of the 20th century because they saved millions of lives from diseases that had a high mortality rate. Mankind has been and is still constantly threatened by infectious diseases. Antimicrobials, used to treat infections, are considered one of the greatest discoveries of the 20th century because they saved millions of lives from diseases that had a high mortality rate. Current infectious pathology is worryingly extending due mainly to “globalization”, which confirms the current concept of “Infections Without Borders”. In this context, both the consumption of antimicrobial substances and, inherently, the resistance of the main pathogens involved have increased. Unfortunately, antimicrobials have become victims of their success because their abusive use in humans and animals has led to the emergence of resistance among clinically important pathogens. Each dose of antibiotic creates selective evolutionary pressures, resulting in pandemic spread of highly resistant bacterial clones. Resistance to antibiotics is one of the greatest threats to human health. A return to the pre-antibiotic era would not only make possible the development of epidemics caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria, a major threat to the population, but would also jeopardize some of the most valuable therapies in modern medicine, such as transplantation and immunosuppressive chemotherapy programmes –dependent on supportive antimicrobial treatments. [More]

For research scientists around the world, a primary goal is to publish results from their projects in high impact international journals.  Such an achievement can be highly rewarding because it is a formal way to release discoveries to the world and to be recognised for the discoveries, it allows findings to be shared and used by colleagues, and it can bring in personal benefits in awards and promotions.  However, achieving the goal is not a simple task, and it can sometimes be frustrating.  Therefore, this editorial was written to provide some highlights on how to improve chances for high impact publications and recognitions. [More]

Syphilis is a consequence of a symbiotic relationship between Treponema pallidum and humankind.
The spirochete is nowadays well characterized in shape and in length, and its entire genome is sequenced. Despite all these, confirmation of infection is based on serologic tests. The diagnosis of nervous system disease heavily depends on examination of the cerebrospinal fluid [1-4].
Neurologic involvement is generally dichotomized into early/secondary (acute meningitis, cranial nerves involvement) or late/tertiary (all the rest of the manifestations) [1].
In the current issue of Journal of Critical Care Medicine, Bologa et al. present the utility of having meningovascular syphilis in mind as a possible diagnosis, in an apparent average case of an 84-year-old patient diagnosed with stroke [5]. [More]

The effectiveness of neuraxial blockade remains a very debatable issue. Many orthopaedic surgical procedures can be performed using either a single spinal shot, an epidural catheter neuraxial blockade, or general anesthesia.
Memtsoudis (2013) reviewed nearly 400.000 patients undergoing primary hip or knee arthroplasties compared neuraxial versus general anesthesia, and reported that the 30-day mortality, the length of stay, the hospital cost and the in-hospital complications were all was significantly lower than with other forms of anesthesia [1]. Similarly Helwan (2015) in a study comparing general with regional anesthesia for total hip arthroplasty reported a reduction in deep surgical site infection rates, the length of hospital stay, postoperative cardiovascular rates, and pulmonary complications [2]. However, a recent systematic review of more than 10.000 patients enrolled in randomized control trials and prospective comparative studies, found no statistically significant differences between spinal or epidural blockade and general anaesthesia with respect to mortality, surgical duration, surgical site of infections, nerve palsies, postoperative nausea and vomiting or thromboembolic diseases, when thrombo-prophylaxis was used. The authors concluded that there is limited evidence to support the view that neuraxial anesthesia is superior to general anesthesia with regards to postoperative outcomes [3]. [More]

Risk assessment in ICU critically-ill patients is of tremendous importance for optimizing patients’ clinical management, medical and human resource allocation and supporting medical cost distribution and containment.
The problem of predicting complications and mortality in ICU patients, although not new, is of genuine concern and much effort has been made to detect the most reliable parameters and scores. Numerous attempts have been made to use clinical and laboratory findings integrated into different algorithms or to incorporate these parameters into easy to use composite severity scores which would be applicable in various centers. In addition to clinical data, biomarkers or laboratory findings have been used for this purpose [1-3].
The SOFA, SAPS and APACHE scores and their newer versions, have been used worldwide to evaluate patients’ severity, prognosis, and survival [4-7]. However, it has been reported that there are differences in their performance and estimation probability, in different geographical areas [8]. [More]