Sandbox john2

In Progress

Temporary

Early research suggested the virus is related to one found in the Egyptian tomb bat. In September 2012 Ron Fouchier speculated that the virus might have originated in bats. Work by epidemiologist Ian Lipkin of Columbia University in New York showed that the virus isolated from a bat looked to be a match to the virus found in humans. 2c betacoronaviruses were detected in Nycteris bats in Ghana and Pipistrellus bats in Europe that are phylogenetically related to the MERS-CoV virus.

Recent work links camels to the virus. An ahead-of-print dispatch for the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases records research showing the coronavirus infection in dromedary camel calves and adults, 99.9% matching to the genomes of human clade B MERS-CoV.

At least one person who has fallen sick with MERS was known to have come into contact with camels or recently drank camel milk.

On 9 August 2013, a report in the journal The Lancet Infectious Diseases showed that 50 out of 50 (100%) blood serum from Omani camels and 15 of 105 (14%) from Spanish camels had protein-specific antibodies against the MERS-CoV spike protein. Blood serum from European sheep, goats, cattle, and other camelids had no such antibodies. Countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates produce and consume large amounts of camel meat. The possibility exists that African or Australian bats harbor the virus and transmit it to camels. Imported camels from these regions might have carried the virus to the Middle East.

In 2013 MERS-CoV was identified in three members of a dromedary camel herd held in a Qatar barn, which was linked to two confirmed human cases who have since recovered. The presence of MERS-CoV in the camels was confirmed by the National Institute of Public Health and Environment (RIVM) of the Ministry of Health and the Erasmus Medical Center (WHO Collaborating Center), the Netherlands. None of the camels showed any sign of disease when the samples were collected. The Qatar Supreme Council of Health advised in November 2013 that people with underlying health conditions, such as heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, respiratory disease, the immunosuppressed, and the elderly, avoid any close animal contacts when visiting farms and markets, and to practice good hygiene, such as washing hands.

A further study on dromedary camels from Saudi Arabia published in December 2013 revealed the presence of MERS-CoV in 90% of the evaluated dromedary camels (310), suggesting that dromedary camels not only could be the main reservoir of MERS-CoV, but also the animal source of MERS.

According to the 27 March 2014 MERS-CoV summary update, recent studies support that camels serve as the primary source of the MERS-CoV infecting humans, while bats may be the ultimate reservoir of the virus. Evidence includes the frequency with which the virus has been found in camels to which human cases have been exposed, seriological data which shows widespread transmission in camels, and the similarity of the camel CoV to the human CoV.

On 6 June 2014, the Arab News newspaper highlighted the latest research findings in the New England Journal of Medicine in which a 44-year-old Saudi man who kept a herd of nine camels died of MERS in November 2013. His friends said they witnessed him applying a topical medicine to the nose of one of his ill camels--four of them reportedly sick with nasal discharge--seven days before he himself became stricken with MERS. Researchers sequenced the virus found in one of the sick camels and the virus that killed the man, and found that their genomes were identical. In that same article, the Arab News reported that as of 6 June 2014, there have been 689 cases of MERS reported within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with 283 deaths.

In contrast to the SARS-CoV, that in its outbreak back in 2002/2003 had adapted so much to the human population that it could no longer infect bat cells, the MERS-CoV is able to infect both animal and human cells. This fact suggests the existence of a possible bat to human transmission. However, considering the low probability of every infected human having been in contact with bats, it is more likely that another animal host, common in the Arabian Peninsula such as goats or camels, was the source for the infection. This is supported by the discovery of neutralizing antibodies for MERS-CoV in all dromedary camels of Oman. This discovery is of extreme relevance since it allows for the definition of the human populations at risk, so that further protective measures might be taken.

Random notes

---

CS Ultrasound: Echocardiography is an important imaging modality in the evaluation of the patient with cardiogenic shock. In cardiogenic shock complicating acute-MI, findings such as poor wall motion may be identified. Mechanical complications such as papillary muscle rupture, pseudoaneurysm, and a ventricular septal defect may also be visualized. Valvular heart disease such as aortic stenosis, aortic insufficiency and mitral stenosis can also be assessed. Dynamic outflow obstruction such as HOCM can also be indentified and quantified. The magnitude of left ventricular dysfunction in patients with cardiomyopathy can be evaluated. It allows the clinician to distinguish cardiogenic shock from septic shock and neurogenic shock. In septic shock, a hypercontractile ventricle may be present.

• Differential diagnosis - "Cardiogenic shock may be difficult, at least initially, to distinguish from hypovolemic shock. Both forms of shock are associated with decreased cardiac output and compensatory upregulation of the sympathetic response. Both entities also respond initially to fluid resuscitation. The syndrome of cardiogenic shock is defined as the inability of the heart to deliver sufficient blood flow to meet metabolic demands. The etiology of cardiogenic shock may be intrinsic or extrinsic. In Case 1 , the development of class IV shock may be due to hemorrhage, such as an aortic injury, or may be cardiogenic, such as a myocardial contusion from blunt injury to the chest. Echocardiography would evaluate the possibility of intrinsic or extrinsic myocardial dysfunction. Intrinsic causes of cardiogenic shock include myocardial infarction, valvular disease, contusion from thoracic trauma, and arrhythmias. For patients with myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock is associated with loss of greater than 40% of left ventricular myocardium. The normal physiologic compensation for cardiogenic shock actually results in progressively greater myocardial energy demand that, without intervention, results in the death of the patient . A decrease in blood pressure activates an adrenergic response that leads to increased sympathetic tone, stimulates renin-angiotensinaldosterone feedback, and potentiates antidiuretic hormone secretion. These mechanisms serve to increase vasomotor tone and retain salt and water. The resultant increase in systemic vascular resistance and in left ventricular end-diastolic pressure leads to increased myocardial oxygen demand in the face of decreased oxygen delivery. This, in turn, results in worsening left ventricular function, a perceived reduction in circulating blood volume, and repetition of the cycle."

Cardiogenic shock and Inflammatory Mediators

The Pathophysiologic "Spiral" of Cardiogenic shock

Among patients with acute MI, there is often a downward spiral of hypoperfusion leading to further ischemia which leads to a further reduction in cardiac output and further hypoperfusion. The lactic acidosis that develops as a result of poor systemic perfusion can further reduce cardiac contractility. Reduced cardiac output leads to activation of the sympathetic nervous system, and the ensuing tachycardia that develops further exacerbates the myocardial ischemia. The increased left ventricular end diastolic pressures is associated with a rise in wall stress which results in further myocardial ischemia. Hypotension reduces epicardial perfusion pressure which in turn further increases myocardial ischemia.

Patients with cardiogenic shock in the setting of STEMI more often have multivessel disease, and myocardial ischemia may be present in multiple territories. It is for this reason that multivessel angioplasty may be of benefit in the patient with cardiogenic shock.

The multifactorial nature of cardiogenic shock can also be operative in the patient with critical aortic stenosis who has "spiraled": There is impairment of left ventricular outflow, with a drop in cardiac output there is greater subendocardial ischemia and poorer flow in the coronary arteries, this leads to further left ventricular systolic dysfunction, given the subendocardial ischemia, the left ventricle develops diastolic dysfunction and becomes harder to fill. Inadvertent administration of vasodilators and venodilators may further reduce cardiac output and accelerate or trigger such a spiral.

Pathophysiologic Mechanisms to Compensate for Cardiogenic shock

Cardiac output is the product of stroke volume and heart rate. In order to compensate for a reduction in stroke volume, there is a rise in the heart rate in patients with cardiogenic shock. As a result of the reduction in cardiac output, peripheral tissues extract more oxygen from the limited blood that does flow to them, and this leaves the blood deoxygenated when it returns to the right heart resulting in a fall in the mixed venous oxygen saturation.

Pathophysiology of Multiorgan Failure

The poor perfusion of organs results in hypoxia and metabolic acidosis. Inadequate perfusion to meet the metabolic demands of the brain, kidneys and heart leads to multiorgan failure.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Differential Diagnosis

Classification of shock based on hemodynamic parameters. (CO, cardiac output; CVP; central venous pressure; PAD, pulmonary artery diastolic pressure; PAS, pulmonary artery systolic pressure; RVD, right ventricular diastolic pressure; RVS, right ventricular systolic pressure; SVO2, systemic venous oxygen saturation; SVR, systemic vascular resistance.)

Type of Shock	Etiology	CO	SVR	PCWP	CVP	SVO2	RVS	RVD	PAS	PAD
Cardiogenic	Acute Ventricular Septal Defect	↓↓	↑	N — ↑	↑↑	↑ — ↑↑	N — ↑	↑	N — ↑	N — ↑
	Acute Mitral Regurgitation	↓↓	↑	↑↑	↑ — ↑↑	↓	↑	N — ↑	↑	↑
	Myocardial Dysfunction	↓↓	↑	↑↑	↑↑	↓	N — ↑	N — ↑	N — ↑	↑
	Right Ventricular Infarction	↓↓	↑	N — ↓	↑↑	↓	↓ — ↑	↑	↓ — ↑	↓ — ↑
Obstructive	Pulmonary Embolism	↓↓	↑	N — ↓	↑↑	↓	↓ — ↑	↑	↓ — ↑	↓ — ↑
	Cardiac Tamponade	↓ — ↓↓	↑	↑↑	↑↑	↓	N — ↑	↑	N — ↑	N — ↑
Distributive	Septic Shock	N — ↑↑	↓ — ↓↓	N — ↓	N — ↓	↑ — ↑↑	N — ↓	N — ↓	↓	↓
	Anaphylactic Shock	N — ↑↑	↓ — ↓↓	N — ↓	N — ↓	↑ — ↑↑	N — ↓	N — ↓	↓	↓
Hypovolemic	Volume Depletion	↓↓	↑	↓↓	↓↓	↓	N — ↓	N — ↓	↓	↓