You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 301 No. 23, June 17, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Editorial
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Bacterial Infections
 •Medical Practice
 •Medical Ethics
 •Critical Care/ Intensive Care Medicine
 •Adult Critical Care
 •World Health
 •Quality of Care
 •Evidence-Based Medicine
 •Prognosis/ Outcomes
 •Drug Therapy
 •Drug Therapy, Other
 •Infectious Diseases
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

International Differences in the Treatment of Sepsis

Are They Justified?

John A. Kellum, MD; Shigehiko Uchino, MD

JAMA. 2009;301(23):2496-2497.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Imagine a patient with acute coronary syndrome on a flight from New York to Tokyo. Given how small the world of medicine has become, it is reasonable to assume that the treatment he/she would receive would be very similar no matter if the plane returned to New York or continued to Tokyo. Now imagine that the patient had septic shock instead of heart disease—landing in New York or Tokyo would result in drastically different treatment. In New York, early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) and drotrecogin alfa are widely used while the former is less common and the latter is unavailable in Tokyo. Conversely, for more than 10 years, a patient with sepsis would likely receive therapy with an endotoxin adsorber (polymyxin B hemoperfusion) in Tokyo, a treatment unavailable in New York.

Why such radical differences? Aren't physicians treating sepsis in Japan and the United . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Author Affiliations: The Clinical Research Investigation and Systems Modeling of Acute illness (CRISMA) Laboratory, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Dr Kellum); and Intensive Care Unit, Department of Anesthesiology, Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan (Dr Uchino).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Early Use of Polymyxin B Hemoperfusion in Abdominal Septic Shock: The EUPHAS Randomized Controlled Trial
Dinna N. Cruz, Massimo Antonelli, Roberto Fumagalli, Francesca Foltran, Nicola Brienza, Abele Donati, Vincenzo Malcangi, Flavia Petrini, Giada Volta, Franco M. Bobbio Pallavicini, Federica Rottoli, Francesco Giunta, and Claudio Ronco
JAMA. 2009;301(23):2445-2452.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Get the Toxin Out?
JWatch Infect. Diseases 2009;2009:2-2.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2009 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.