Comparison of mean systemic pressure in patients with acute circulatory failure receiving passive leg raising vs. pneumatic leg compression

Background: Driving pressure of venous return (VR) is determined by a pressure gradient between mean systemic pressure (Pms) and central venous pressure (CVP). While passive leg raising (PLR) and pneumatic leg compression PC (PC) can increase VR, no study has explored the effects of these two procedures on Pms and VR-related hemodynamic variables. Methods: Forty patients with acute circulatory failure were enrolled in this analysis. All patients obtained both PLR and PC, and were measured for Pms, CVP, mean arterial pressure (MAP), cardiac output (CO), VR resistance (RVR), and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) at baseline and immediately after procedures. To minimize carry over effect, the patients were divided in 2 groups based on procedure sequence which were 1) patients receiving PLR first then PC (PLR-first), and 2) patients receiving PC first then PLR (PC-first). Both groups waited for a washout period before performing the 2 second procedure. Primary outcome was difference in Pms between PLR and PC procedures. Secondary outcome were differences in CVP, MAP, CO, RVR, and SVR between PLR and PC procedures. Results: No difference was found in baseline characteristics and no carry over effect was observed between the 2 groups of patients. Compared with baseline, both PLR and PC significantly increased Pms, CVP, MAP, and CO. PLR increased Pms (9.0±2.3 vs 4.8±1.7 mmHg, p<0.001), CVP (4.5±1.2 vs. 1.6±0.7 mmHg, p<0.001), MAP (22.5±5.6 vs. 14.4±5.0 mmHg, p<0.001), and CO (1.5±0.5 vs. 0.5±0.2 L/min, p<0.001) more than PC. However, PC, also significantly increased RVR (16 ± 27.2 dyn.s/cm5, p=0.001) and SVR (78.4 ± 7.2 dyn.s/cm5, p<0.001) but no difference in PLR group. Conclusion: Among patients with acute circulatory failure, PLR increased Pms, CVP, MAP, and CO more than PC.

Comparison of mean systemic pressure in patients with acute circulatory failure receiving passive leg raising vs. pneumatic leg compression

Background: Driving pressure of venous return (VR) is determined by a pressure gradient between mean systemic pressure (Pms) and central venous pressure (CVP). While passive leg raising (PLR) and pneumatic leg compression PC (PC) can increase VR, no study has explored the effects of these two procedures on Pms and VR-related hemodynamic variables. Methods: Forty patients with acute circulatory failure were enrolled in this analysis. All patients obtained both PLR and PC, and were measured for Pms, CVP, mean arterial pressure (MAP), cardiac output (CO), VR resistance (RVR), and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) at baseline and immediately after procedures. To minimize carry over effect, the patients were divided in 2 groups based on procedure sequence which were 1) patients receiving PLR first then PC (PLR-first), and 2) patients receiving PC first then PLR (PC-first). Both groups waited for a washout period before performing the 2 second procedure. Primary outcome was difference in Pms between PLR and PC procedures. Secondary outcome were differences in CVP, MAP, CO, RVR, and SVR between PLR and PC procedures. Results: No difference was found in baseline characteristics and no carry over effect was observed between the 2 groups of patients. Compared with baseline, both PLR and PC significantly increased Pms, CVP, MAP, and CO. PLR increased Pms (9.0±2.3 vs 4.8±1.7 mmHg, p<0.001), CVP (4.5±1.2 vs. 1.6±0.7 mmHg, p<0.001), MAP (22.5±5.6 vs. 14.4±5.0 mmHg, p<0.001), and CO (1.5±0.5 vs. 0.5±0.2 L/min, p<0.001) more than PC. However, PC, also significantly increased RVR (16 ± 27.2 dyn.s/cm5, p=0.001) and SVR (78.4 ± 7.2 dyn.s/cm5, p<0.001) but no difference in PLR group. Conclusion: Among patients with acute circulatory failure, PLR increased Pms, CVP, MAP, and CO more than PC.

Norepinephrine potentiates the efficacy of volume expansion on mean systemic pressure in septic shock

Background Through venous contraction, norepinephrine (NE) increases stressed blood volume and mean systemic pressure (Pms) and exerts a “fluid-like” effect. When both fluid and NE are administered, Pms may not only result from the sum of the effects of both drugs. Indeed, norepinephrine may enhance the effects of volume expansion: because fluid dilutes into a more constricted, smaller, venous network, fluid may increase Pms to a larger extent at a higher than at a lower dose of NE. We tested this hypothesis, by mimicking the effects of fluid by passive leg raising (PLR). Methods In 30 septic shock patients, norepinephrine was decreased to reach a predefined target of mean arterial pressure (65–70 mmHg by default, 80–85 mmHg in previously hypertensive patients). We measured the PLR-induced increase in Pms (heart–lung interactions method) under high and low doses of norepinephrine. Preload responsiveness was defined by a PLR-induced increase in cardiac index ≥ 10%. Results Norepinephrine was decreased from 0.32 [0.18–0.62] to 0.26 [0.13–0.50] µg/kg/min (p < 0.0001). This significantly decreased the mean arterial pressure by 10 [7–20]% and Pms by 9 [4–19]%. The increase in Pms (∆Pms) induced by PLR was 13 [9–19]% at the higher dose of norepinephrine and 11 [6–16]% at the lower dose (p < 0.0001). Pms reached during PLR at the high dose of NE was higher than expected by the sum of Pms at baseline at low dose, ∆Pms induced by changing the norepinephrine dose and ∆Pms induced by PLR at low dose of NE (35.6 [11.2] mmHg vs. 33.6 [10.9] mmHg, respectively, p < 0.01). The number of preload responders was 8 (27%) at the high dose of NE and 15 (50%) at the low dose. Conclusions Norepinephrine enhances the Pms increase induced by PLR. These results suggest that a bolus of fluid of the same volume has a greater haemodynamic effect at a high dose than at a low dose of norepinephrine during septic shock.

Comparison of Mean Systemic Pressure in Patients with Acute Circulatory Failure Receiving Passive Leg Raising vs. Pneumatic Leg Compression.

Background: Driving pressure of venous return (VR) is determined by mean systemic pressure (Pms) and central venous pressure (CVP). While passive leg raising (PLR) and pneumatic leg compression PC (PC) can increase VR, there is no study explore the effects of these two procedures on Pms and VR-related hemodynamic variables.Methods: Forty patients with acute circulatory failure were included in this analysis. All patients were performed both PLR and PC, and were measured for Pms, CVP, mean arterial pressure (MAP), cardiac output (CO), VR resistance (RVR), and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) at baseline and immediately after procedures. To minimized carry-on effect, the patients were divided into 2 groups based on procedure sequence which were 1) the patients who received PLR first then PC (PLR-first), and 2) the patients who received PC first then PLR (PC-first). Both groups were waited for washing period before performed 2nd procedure. Primary outcome was difference in Pms between PLR and PC procedure. Secondary outcome were differences in CVP, MAP, CO, RVR, and SVR between PLR and PC procedure.Results: There was no difference in baseline characteristics and no carry-on effect between 2 groups of patients. Compared to baseline, both PLR and PC significantly increased Pms, CVP, MAP, and CO. Compared to PC, PLR more increased Pms (9.0±2.3 vs 4.8±1.7 mmHg, p<0.001), CVP (4.5±1.2 vs. 1.6±0.7 mmHg, p<0.001), MAP (22.5±5.6 vs. 14.4±5.0 mmHg, p<0.001), and CO (1.5±0.5 vs. 0.5±0.2 L/min, p<0.001). PC, but not PLR also significantly increased RVR (16 ± 27.2 dyn.s/cm5, p=0.001) and SVR (78.4 ± 7.2 dyn.s/cm5, p<0.001) .Conclusion: In patients with acute circulatory failure, PLR more increased Pms, CVP, MAP, and CO than PC.

Politics and Finite Flexibilities: The UN Drug Control Conventions and their Future Development

Domestic policy choices concerning the non-medical use of cannabis are generating increased interest in what has been usefully called the global drug prohibition regime. Commentators are questioning whether the UN-based treaty system can accommodate national policy approaches that deviate from the regime's prohibitive ethos. As tension around cannabis “legalization” builds it becomes ever more urgent to relieve systemic pressure, a process to which inter se treaty modification may be key.

Translating the Eastside: Embodied Translation in Helena María Viramontes’s Their Dogs Came with Them

“Translating the Eastside: Embodied Translation in Helena María Viramontes’s Their Dogs Came With Them” argues that translation—specifically embodied translation—is the central mode through which Chicanx bodies confront the painful condition of inhabiting the fragmented spaces and temporalities that simultaneously construct and exclude them. In Dogs, translation is above all a process of carrying across, transferring, expressing and contesting meaning from one place to another through the physicality of the body. Embodied translation does not solely carry across meaning across texts or languages, but is itself a source of new knowledge, including insofar as it refuses to transfer meaning through the body. However, embodied translation is only transformative as much as it disrupts the direct translation imposed by the state which contains and regulates Chicanx bodies. Rather than straightforwardly carrying meaning across, embodied translation foregrounds excess and lack, seemingly producing too much or not enough translation to produce and transfer meaning. Excessive modes of embodied translation, such as repetition or recycling, and those that indicate a lack, such as silence or muteness, are practices of dissent that continually reference space and temporality while calling other kinds of translation into question. As such, embodied translation stands as an excessive, persistent site of resistance that places systemic pressure on dominant institutions, marked through the intersection between bodies, space and temporality. In the process, embodied translation calls both the present and presence of Chicanx peoples into being in the face of their erasure in spaces like East Los Angeles.

The Impact Indonesia’s Sinking of Illegal Fishing Ships on Major Southeast Asia Countries

This study examines Indonesia’s sinking of illegal fishing ships influencing its relationship with countries in Southeast Asia region. Considering that the loss of and damages to national resources due to illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing in Indonesia are so huge, President Joko Widodo has a commitment to no longer tolerate such a crime. The approach of his Minister of Maritime and Fishing Affairs has been to sink IUU Fishing ships which mostly flagged foreign flags. As a result, Indonesia’s relation with neighboring countries is affected. However, the assertive policy of Indonesia did not lead to a commotion among the states in the region. Hence, this study attempts to discover why Indonesia does not find significant obstacles to continuously carry out sinking foreign IUU fishing ships from its counterparts in Southeast Asia region namely Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, and the Philippines. Statements of the statesmen around the countries and other related documents on the matter are used to examine their response to the Indonesia’s policy. In line with the method, this study capitalizes neoclassical realism by Gideon Rose in which foreign policies are considered a reflection of systemic pressure, domestic political demands (innenpolitik), and state power.