眼不见,心不烦,对吧?不是在COVID-19休克或厌氧和穷尽性休克与感染性休克的困境中,这意味着生存或死亡。紧急关注和审判的必要性

L. Zanella
{"title":"眼不见,心不烦,对吧?不是在COVID-19休克或厌氧和穷尽性休克与感染性休克的困境中,这意味着生存或死亡。紧急关注和审判的必要性","authors":"L. Zanella","doi":"10.4236/ojem.2022.101003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: COVID-19 brought challenges that did not end after a two-year pandemic. From more straightforward changes in habits to studying to understand the enigmatic parasite-host relationship, we can better manage the patient infected with SARS-CoV-2 even with a vaccine full of doubts and antivirals that do not correctly cover the viral period. SARS-CoV-2 brought the chronic inflammation now called “The Long COVID-19 Syndrome” (LCS), something still little talked about, but we already see deaths due to non-identification of this inflammatory syndrome that can lead to shock. Theory: LCS Shock is due to a long period of metabolic stress, reflecting the shift from inflammation to oxidative stress and innate immunity, and does not respond to antimicrobials, as its main component is inflammatory, although there may be conjoined bacterial translocation. Thus, we are losing patients to a new syndrome confused with sepsis and septic shock. While septic shock (SS) responds to antimicrobials, Inflammatory Shock (ISc) does not respond to antimicrobials alone, requiring high doses of corticosteroids. Review: This study shows that we need to differentiate SS and ISC, as the treatment is different. The review shows that Lactate, LDH and the presence of new/recent cardiac changes and bradycardia in the face of a status where there should be tachycardia as the usual response can differ ISC from SS. Maybe the main responsible for high LDH is Warburg Effect. Conclusion: We have a dilemma that requires clinical studies that routinely match high doses of corticosteroids (until there is something better to be done) and bring How to cite this paper: D’Elia Zanella, L.G.F. de A.B. (2022) Out of Sight, Out of Mind, Right? Not in COVID-19 Shock or Anaerobic and Exhaustive Shock versus Septic Shock Dilemma That Means to Live or Die. Emergency Attention and a Necessity of Trials. Open Journal of Emergency Medicine, 10, 19-47. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojem.2022.101003 Received: December 12, 2021 Accepted: February 21, 2022 Published: February 24, 2022 Copyright © 2022 by author(s) and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","PeriodicalId":57857,"journal":{"name":"急诊医学(英文)","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Out of Sight, Out of Mind, Right? Not in COVID-19 Shock or Anaerobic and Exhaustive Shock versus Septic Shock Dilemma That Means to Live or Die. Emergency Attention and a Necessity of Trials\",\"authors\":\"L. Zanella\",\"doi\":\"10.4236/ojem.2022.101003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: COVID-19 brought challenges that did not end after a two-year pandemic. From more straightforward changes in habits to studying to understand the enigmatic parasite-host relationship, we can better manage the patient infected with SARS-CoV-2 even with a vaccine full of doubts and antivirals that do not correctly cover the viral period. SARS-CoV-2 brought the chronic inflammation now called “The Long COVID-19 Syndrome” (LCS), something still little talked about, but we already see deaths due to non-identification of this inflammatory syndrome that can lead to shock. Theory: LCS Shock is due to a long period of metabolic stress, reflecting the shift from inflammation to oxidative stress and innate immunity, and does not respond to antimicrobials, as its main component is inflammatory, although there may be conjoined bacterial translocation. Thus, we are losing patients to a new syndrome confused with sepsis and septic shock. While septic shock (SS) responds to antimicrobials, Inflammatory Shock (ISc) does not respond to antimicrobials alone, requiring high doses of corticosteroids. Review: This study shows that we need to differentiate SS and ISC, as the treatment is different. The review shows that Lactate, LDH and the presence of new/recent cardiac changes and bradycardia in the face of a status where there should be tachycardia as the usual response can differ ISC from SS. Maybe the main responsible for high LDH is Warburg Effect. Conclusion: We have a dilemma that requires clinical studies that routinely match high doses of corticosteroids (until there is something better to be done) and bring How to cite this paper: D’Elia Zanella, L.G.F. de A.B. (2022) Out of Sight, Out of Mind, Right? Not in COVID-19 Shock or Anaerobic and Exhaustive Shock versus Septic Shock Dilemma That Means to Live or Die. Emergency Attention and a Necessity of Trials. Open Journal of Emergency Medicine, 10, 19-47. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojem.2022.101003 Received: December 12, 2021 Accepted: February 21, 2022 Published: February 24, 2022 Copyright © 2022 by author(s) and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/\",\"PeriodicalId\":57857,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"急诊医学(英文)\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"急诊医学(英文)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4236/ojem.2022.101003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"急诊医学(英文)","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4236/ojem.2022.101003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:经过两年的大流行,COVID-19带来的挑战并未结束。从更直接的习惯改变到研究了解神秘的寄生虫-宿主关系,我们可以更好地管理感染了SARS-CoV-2的患者,即使疫苗充满疑问,抗病毒药物不能正确覆盖病毒期。SARS-CoV-2带来了慢性炎症,现在被称为“长COVID-19综合征”(LCS),这一点仍然很少被提及,但我们已经看到了由于未发现这种可能导致休克的炎症综合征而导致的死亡。理论:LCS休克是由于长时间的代谢应激,反映了从炎症到氧化应激和先天免疫的转变,并且对抗菌剂没有反应,因为其主要成分是炎症,尽管可能存在联合细菌易位。因此,我们正在失去一种与败血症和感染性休克混淆的新综合征的患者。虽然感染性休克(SS)对抗菌素有反应,但炎症性休克(ISc)对抗菌素没有反应,需要高剂量的皮质类固醇。综述:本研究表明,由于治疗方法不同,我们需要区分SS和ISC。该综述显示,乳酸、LDH和新的/最近的心脏变化和心动过缓的存在,在面对通常应该有心动过速的状态时,可以区别于ISC和SS。可能高LDH的主要原因是Warburg效应。结论:我们有一个困境,需要临床研究常规匹配高剂量的皮质类固醇(直到有更好的办法),并带来如何引用这篇论文:D 'Elia Zanella, L.G.F. de A.B.(2022)眼不见,心不念,对吧?不是在COVID-19休克或厌氧和穷尽性休克与感染性休克的困境中,这意味着生存或死亡。紧急关注和审判的必要性。中华急诊医学杂志,10,19-47。https://doi.org/10.4236/ojem.2022.101003收稿日期:2021年12月12日收稿日期:2022年2月21日出版日期:2022年2月24日版权所有©2022 by作者和Scientific Research Publishing Inc。本作品采用知识共享署名国际许可协议(CC BY 4.0)。http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Out of Sight, Out of Mind, Right? Not in COVID-19 Shock or Anaerobic and Exhaustive Shock versus Septic Shock Dilemma That Means to Live or Die. Emergency Attention and a Necessity of Trials
Background: COVID-19 brought challenges that did not end after a two-year pandemic. From more straightforward changes in habits to studying to understand the enigmatic parasite-host relationship, we can better manage the patient infected with SARS-CoV-2 even with a vaccine full of doubts and antivirals that do not correctly cover the viral period. SARS-CoV-2 brought the chronic inflammation now called “The Long COVID-19 Syndrome” (LCS), something still little talked about, but we already see deaths due to non-identification of this inflammatory syndrome that can lead to shock. Theory: LCS Shock is due to a long period of metabolic stress, reflecting the shift from inflammation to oxidative stress and innate immunity, and does not respond to antimicrobials, as its main component is inflammatory, although there may be conjoined bacterial translocation. Thus, we are losing patients to a new syndrome confused with sepsis and septic shock. While septic shock (SS) responds to antimicrobials, Inflammatory Shock (ISc) does not respond to antimicrobials alone, requiring high doses of corticosteroids. Review: This study shows that we need to differentiate SS and ISC, as the treatment is different. The review shows that Lactate, LDH and the presence of new/recent cardiac changes and bradycardia in the face of a status where there should be tachycardia as the usual response can differ ISC from SS. Maybe the main responsible for high LDH is Warburg Effect. Conclusion: We have a dilemma that requires clinical studies that routinely match high doses of corticosteroids (until there is something better to be done) and bring How to cite this paper: D’Elia Zanella, L.G.F. de A.B. (2022) Out of Sight, Out of Mind, Right? Not in COVID-19 Shock or Anaerobic and Exhaustive Shock versus Septic Shock Dilemma That Means to Live or Die. Emergency Attention and a Necessity of Trials. Open Journal of Emergency Medicine, 10, 19-47. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojem.2022.101003 Received: December 12, 2021 Accepted: February 21, 2022 Published: February 24, 2022 Copyright © 2022 by author(s) and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
期刊最新文献
Research on Effects of Comorbidities Disease on Anticoagulation and Bleeding Disorders Risk in Patients with Overdosage of Vitamin K Antagonist Anticoagulant Gossypiboma, the Never Event; a Case Report The Definition of Non-Urgent Visits to the Emergency Department and Validation of Criteria for Referrals Myocarditis after COVID-19 Vaccination Single Lung Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1