Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Randeep S. Jawa is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Randeep S. Jawa.


Critical Care Medicine | 2014

Effectiveness and safety of the awakening and breathing coordination, delirium monitoring/management, and early exercise/mobility bundle.

Michele C. Balas; Eduard E. Vasilevskis; Keith M. Olsen; Kendra K. Schmid; Valerie Shostrom; Marlene Z. Cohen; Gregory Peitz; David Gannon; Joseph H. Sisson; James Sullivan; Joseph C. Stothert; Julie Lazure; Suzanne L. Nuss; Randeep S. Jawa; Frank Freihaut; E. Wesley Ely; William J. Burke

Objective:The debilitating and persistent effects of ICU-acquired delirium and weakness warrant testing of prevention strategies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of implementing the Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management, and Early exercise/mobility bundle into everyday practice. Design:Eighteen-month, prospective, cohort, before-after study conducted between November 2010 and May 2012. Setting:Five adult ICUs, one step-down unit, and one oncology/hematology special care unit located in a 624-bed tertiary medical center. Patients:Two hundred ninety-six patients (146 prebundle and 150 postbundle implementation), who are 19 years old or older, managed by the institutions’ medical or surgical critical care service. Interventions:Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management, and Early exercise/mobility bundle. Measurements and Main Results:For mechanically ventilated patients (n = 187), we examined the association between bundle implementation and ventilator-free days. For all patients, we used regression models to quantify the relationship between Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management, and Early exercise/mobility bundle implementation and the prevalence/duration of delirium and coma, early mobilization, mortality, time to discharge, and change in residence. Safety outcomes and bundle adherence were monitored. Patients in the postimplementation period spent three more days breathing without mechanical assistance than did those in the preimplementation period (median [interquartile range], 24 [7–26] vs 21 [0–25]; p = 0.04). After adjusting for age, sex, severity of illness, comorbidity, and mechanical ventilation status, patients managed with the Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management, and Early exercise/mobility bundle experienced a near halving of the odds of delirium (odds ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.33–0.93; p = 0.03) and increased odds of mobilizing out of bed at least once during an ICU stay (odds ratio, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.29–3.45; p = 0.003). No significant differences were noted in self-extubation or reintubation rates. Conclusions:Critically ill patients managed with the Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management, and Early exercise/mobility bundle spent three more days breathing without assistance, experienced less delirium, and were more likely to be mobilized during their ICU stay than patients treated with usual care.


Journal of Trauma-injury Infection and Critical Care | 2012

Selective Nonoperative Management of Blunt Splenic Injury: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma Practice Management Guideline

Nicole A. Stassen; Indermeet S. Bhullar; Julius D. Cheng; Marie Crandall; Randall S. Friese; Oscar D. Guillamondegui; Randeep S. Jawa; Adrian A. Maung; Thomas Rohs; Ayodele T. Sangosanya; Kevin M. Schuster; Mark Seamon; Kathryn M. Tchorz; Ben L. Zarzuar; Andrew J. Kerwin

BACKGROUND During the last century, the management of blunt force trauma to the spleen has changed from observation and expectant management in the early part of the 1900s to mainly operative intervention, to the current practice of selective operative and nonoperative management. These issues were first addressed by the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) in the Practice Management Guidelines for Non-operative Management of Blunt Injury to the Liver and Spleen published online in 2003. Since that time, a large volume of literature on these topics has been published requiring a reevaluation of the current EAST guideline. METHODS The National Library of Medicine and the National Institute of Health MEDLINE database was searched using Pub Med (www.pubmed.gov). The search was designed to identify English-language citations published after 1996 (the last year included in the previous guideline) using the keywords splenic injury and blunt abdominal trauma. RESULTS One hundred seventy-six articles were reviewed, of which 125 were used to create the current practice management guideline for the selective nonoperative management of blunt splenic injury. CONCLUSION There has been a plethora of literature regarding nonoperative management of blunt splenic injuries published since the original EAST practice management guideline was written. Nonoperative management of blunt splenic injuries is now the treatment modality of choice in hemodynamically stable patients, irrespective of the grade of injury, patient age, or the presence of associated injuries. Its use is associated with a low overall morbidity and mortality when applied to an appropriate patient population. Nonoperative management of blunt splenic injuries should only be considered in an environment that provides capabilities for monitoring, serial clinical evaluations, and has an operating room available for urgent laparotomy. Patients presenting with hemodynamic instability and peritonitis still warrant emergent operative intervention. Intravenous contrast enhanced computed tomographic scan is the diagnostic modality of choice for evaluating blunt splenic injuries. Repeat imaging should be guided by a patient’s clinical status. Adjunctive therapies like angiography with embolization are increasingly important adjuncts to nonoperative management of splenic injuries. Despite the explosion of literature on this topic, many questions regarding nonoperative management of blunt splenic injuries remain without conclusive answers in the literature.


Journal of Trauma-injury Infection and Critical Care | 2012

Nonoperative management of blunt hepatic injury: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma practice management guideline

Nicole A. Stassen; Indermeet S. Bhullar; Julius D. Cheng; Marie Crandall; Randall S. Friese; Oscar D. Guillamondegui; Randeep S. Jawa; Adrian A. Maung; Thomas Rohs; Ayodele T. Sangosanya; Kevin M. Schuster; Mark Seamon; Kathryn M. Tchorz; Ben L. Zarzuar; Andrew J. Kerwin

Background During the last century, the management of blunt force trauma to the liver has changed from observation and expectant management in the early part of the 1900s to mainly operative intervention, to the current practice of selective operative and nonoperative management. These issues were first addressed by the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma in the Practice Management Guidelines for Nonoperative Management of Blunt Injury to the Liver and Spleen published online in 2003. Since that time, a large volume of literature on these topics has been published requiring a reevaluation of the previous Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma guideline. Methods The National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health MEDLINE database were searched using PubMed (www.pubmed.gov). The search was designed to identify English-language citations published after 1996 (the last year included in the previous guideline) using the keywords liver injury and blunt abdominal trauma. Results One hundred seventy-six articles were reviewed, of which 94 were used to create the current practice management guideline for the selective nonoperative management of blunt hepatic injury. Conclusion Most original hepatic guidelines remained valid and were incorporated into the greatly expanded current guidelines as appropriate. Nonoperative management of blunt hepatic injuries currently is the treatment modality of choice in hemodynamically stable patients, irrespective of the grade of injury or patient age. Nonoperative management of blunt hepatic injuries should only be considered in an environment that provides capabilities for monitoring, serial clinical evaluations, and an operating room available for urgent laparotomy. Patients presenting with hemodynamic instability and peritonitis still warrant emergent operative intervention. Intravenous contrast enhanced computed tomographic scan is the diagnostic modality of choice for evaluating blunt hepatic injuries. Repeated imaging should be guided by a patient’s clinical status. Adjunctive therapies like angiography, percutaneous drainage, endoscopy/endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and laparoscopy remain important adjuncts to nonoperative management of hepatic injuries. Despite the explosion of literature on this topic, many questions regarding nonoperative management of blunt hepatic injuries remain without conclusive answers in the literature.


Journal of Intensive Care Medicine | 2011

Interleukin-6 in Surgery, Trauma, and Critical Care Part II: Clinical Implications:

Randeep S. Jawa; Sergio Anillo; Kristin Huntoon; Heinz Baumann; Mahmoud N. Kulaylat

A variety of cytokines play a role in the inflammatory response. Interleukin-6 (IL-6)-type cytokines are released in response to tissue injury or an inflammatory stimulus, and act locally and systemically to generate a variety of physiologic responses. Interleukin-6 concentrations are elevated after surgery, trauma, and critical illness. The magnitude of IL-6 elevation correlates with the extent of tissue trauma/injury severity. Furthermore, there is an association between IL-6 elevation and adverse outcome. Interleukin-6 levels can also be used to stratify patients for therapeutic intervention.


Journal of Trauma-injury Infection and Critical Care | 2011

Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma: A Review of the Management of the Open Abdomen-Part 2 "Management of the Open Abdomen"

Jose J. Diaz; William D. Dutton; Mickey M. Ott; Daniel C. Cullinane; Reginald Alouidor; Scott B. Armen; Jaroslaw W. Bilanuik; Bryan R. Collier; Oliver L. Gunter; Randeep S. Jawa; Rebecca Jerome; Andrew J. Kerwin; Anne L. Lambert; William P. Riordan; Christopher D. Wohltmann

During the course of the last 30 years, several authors have contributed their clinical experience to the literature in an effort to describe the various management strategies for the appropriate use of the open abdomen technique. There remains a great degree of heterogeneity in the patient population, and the surgical techniques described. The open abdomen technique has been used in both military and civilian trauma and vascular and general surgery emergencies. Given the lack of consistent practice, the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) Practice Management Guidelines Committee convened a study group to establish recommendations for the use of open abdomen techniques in both trauma and nontrauma surgery. This has been a major undertaking and has been divided into two parts. The EAST practice management guidelines for the open abdomen part 1 “Damage Control” have been published.1 During the development of the open abdomen part II “Management of the Open Abdomen,” the current literature remains contentious at best, current methods of treatment continue to change rapidly, and patient populations are so heterogeneous that clear recommendations could not be provided. What follows is a thorough review of the current literature for the management of the open abdomen: part 2 “Management of the Open Abdomen” and provides clinical direction regarding the following specific topics.


Journal of Trauma-injury Infection and Critical Care | 2015

An evidence-based approach to patient selection for emergency department thoracotomy: A practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma

Mark J. Seamon; Elliott R. Haut; Kyle J. Van Arendonk; Ronald R. Barbosa; William C. Chiu; Christopher J. Dente; Nicole Fox; Randeep S. Jawa; Kosar Khwaja; J. Kayle Lee; Louis J. Magnotti; Julie Mayglothling; Amy A. McDonald; Susan E. Rowell; Kathleen B. To; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Peter Rhee

BACKGROUND Within the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework, we performed a systematic review and developed evidence-based recommendations to answer the following PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes) question: should patients who present pulseless after critical injuries (with and without signs of life after penetrating thoracic, extrathoracic, or blunt injuries) undergo emergency department thoracotomy (EDT) (vs. resuscitation without EDT) to improve survival and neurologically intact survival? METHODS All patients who underwent EDT were included while those involving either prehospital resuscitative thoracotomy or operating room thoracotomy were excluded. Quantitative synthesis via meta-analysis was not possible because no comparison or control group (i.e., survival or neurologically intact survival data for similar patients who did not undergo EDT) was available for the PICO questions of interest. RESULTS The 72 included studies provided 10,238 patients who underwent EDT. Patients presenting pulseless after penetrating thoracic injury had the most favorable EDT outcomes both with (survival, 182 [21.3%] of 853; neurologically intact survival, 53 [11.7%] of 454) and without (survival, 76 [8.3%] of 920; neurologically intact survival, 25 [3.9%] of 641) signs of life. In patients presenting pulseless after penetrating extrathoracic injury, EDT outcomes were more favorable with signs of life (survival, 25 [15.6%] of 160; neurologically intact survival, 14 [16.5%] of 85) than without (survival, 4 [2.9%] of 139; neurologically intact survival, 3 [5.0%] of 60). Outcomes after EDT in pulseless blunt injury patients were limited with signs of life (survival, 21 [4.6%] of 454; neurologically intact survival, 7 [2.4%] of 298) and dismal without signs of life (survival, 7 [0.7%] of 995; neurologically intact survival, 1 [0.1%] of 825). CONCLUSION We strongly recommend that patients who present pulseless with signs of life after penetrating thoracic injury undergo EDT. We conditionally recommend EDT for patients who present pulseless and have absent signs of life after penetrating thoracic injury, present or absent signs of life after penetrating extrathoracic injury, or present signs of life after blunt injury. Lastly, we conditionally recommend against EDT for pulseless patients without signs of life after blunt injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Systematic review/guideline, level III.


Journal of Intensive Care Medicine | 2011

Analytic review: Interleukin-6 in surgery, trauma, and critical care: part I: basic science.

Randeep S. Jawa; Sergio Anillo; Kristin Huntoon; Heinz Baumann; Mahmoud N. Kulaylat

A variety of cytokines play a role in the response to an inflammatory stimulus. The interleukin-6 (IL-6)-type cytokines are released in response to tissue injury or an inflammatory stimulus. They act locally and systemically to generate a variety of physiologic responses, principal among them is the acute phase response. The IL-6 type cytokines demonstrate pleiotropy and redundancy of actions. This is made possible by the distinctive characteristics of the IL-6 receptor complex, which contains an ubiquitous subunit that is shared by most IL-6-type cytokines, as well as a cytokine-specific subunit.


Journal of Trauma-injury Infection and Critical Care | 2015

Cervical spine collar clearance in the obtunded adult blunt trauma patient: A systematic review and practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma

Mayur B. Patel; Stephen S. Humble; Daniel C. Cullinane; Matthew Day; Randeep S. Jawa; Clinton J. Devin; Margaret S. Delozier; Lou M. Smith; Miya A. Smith; Jeannette M. Capella; Andrea M. Long; Joseph S. Cheng; Taylor C. Leath; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Elliott R. Haut; John J. Como

BACKGROUND With the use of the framework advocated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group, our aims were to perform a systematic review and to develop evidence-based recommendations that may be used to answer the following PICO [Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes] question: In the obtunded adult blunt trauma patient, should cervical collar removal be performed after a negative high-quality cervical spine (C-spine) computed tomography (CT) result alone or after a negative high-quality C-spine CT result combined with adjunct imaging, to reduce peri-clearance events, such as new neurologic change, unstable C-spine injury, stable C-spine injury, need for post-clearance imaging, false-negative CT imaging result on re-review, pressure ulcers, and time to cervical collar clearance? METHODS Our protocol was registered with the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews on August 23, 2013 (Registration Number: CRD42013005461). Eligibility criteria consisted of adult blunt trauma patients 16 years or older, who underwent C-spine CT with axial thickness of less than 3 mm and who were obtunded using any definition. Quantitative synthesis via meta-analysis was not possible because of pre-post, partial-cohort, quasi-experimental study design limitations and the consequential incomplete diagnostic accuracy data. RESULTS Of five articles with a total follow-up of 1,017 included subjects, none reported new neurologic changes (paraplegia or quadriplegia) after cervical collar removal. There is a worst-case 9% (161 of 1,718 subjects in 11 studies) cumulative literature incidence of stable injuries and a 91% negative predictive value of no injury, after coupling a negative high-quality C-spine CT result with 1.5-T magnetic resonance imaging, upright x-rays, flexion-extension CT, and/or clinical follow-up. Similarly, there is a best-case 0% (0 of 1,718 subjects in 11 studies) cumulative literature incidence of unstable injuries after negative initial imaging result with a high-quality C-spine CT. CONCLUSION In obtunded adult blunt trauma patients, we conditionally recommend cervical collar removal after a negative high-quality C-spine CT scan result alone. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Systematic review, level III.


Journal of Trauma-injury Infection and Critical Care | 2012

Evaluation and management of mild traumatic brain injury: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma practice management guideline

Ronald R. Barbosa; Randeep S. Jawa; Jennifer M. Watters; Jennifer Knight; Andrew J. Kerwin; Eleanor S. Winston; Robert D. Barraco; Brian Tucker; James M. Bardes; Susan E. Rowell

BACKGROUND An estimated 1.1 million people sustain a mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) annually in the United States. The natural history of MTBI remains poorly characterized, and its optimal clinical management is unclear. The Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma had previously published a set of practice management guidelines for MTBI in 2001. The purpose of this review was to update these guidelines to reflect the literature published since that time. METHODS The PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched for articles related to MTBI published between 1998 and 2011. Selected older references were also examined. RESULTS A total of 112 articles were reviewed and used to construct a series of recommendations. CONCLUSION The previous recommendation that brain computed tomographic (CT) should be performed on patients that present acutely with suspected brain trauma remains unchanged. A number of additional recommendations were added. Standardized criteria that may be used to determine which patients receive a brain CT in resource-limited environments are described. Patients with an MTBI and negative brain CT result may be discharged from the emergency department if they have no other injuries or issues requiring admission. Patients taking warfarin who present with an MTBI should have their international normalized ratio (INR) level determined, and those with supratherapeutic INR values should be admitted for observation. Deficits in cognition and memory usually resolve within 1 month but may persist for longer periods in 20% to 40% of cases. Routine use of magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography, nuclear magnetic resonance, or biochemical markers for the clinical management of MTBI is not supported at the present time.


PLOS Pathogens | 2014

A Central Role for Carbon-Overflow Pathways in the Modulation of Bacterial Cell Death

Vinai Chittezham Thomas; Marat R. Sadykov; Sujata S. Chaudhari; Joselyn Jones; Jennifer L. Endres; Todd J. Widhelm; Jong Sam Ahn; Randeep S. Jawa; Matthew C. Zimmerman; Kenneth W. Bayles

Similar to developmental programs in eukaryotes, the death of a subpopulation of cells is thought to benefit bacterial biofilm development. However mechanisms that mediate a tight control over cell death are not clearly understood at the population level. Here we reveal that CidR dependent pyruvate oxidase (CidC) and α-acetolactate synthase/decarboxylase (AlsSD) overflow metabolic pathways, which are active during staphylococcal biofilm development, modulate cell death to achieve optimal biofilm biomass. Whereas acetate derived from CidC activity potentiates cell death in cells by a mechanism dependent on intracellular acidification and respiratory inhibition, AlsSD activity effectively counters CidC action by diverting carbon flux towards neutral rather than acidic byproducts and consuming intracellular protons in the process. Furthermore, the physiological features that accompany metabolic activation of cell death bears remarkable similarities to hallmarks of eukaryotic programmed cell death, including the generation of reactive oxygen species and DNA damage. Finally, we demonstrate that the metabolic modulation of cell death not only affects biofilm development but also biofilm-dependent disease outcomes. Given the ubiquity of such carbon overflow pathways in diverse bacterial species, we propose that the metabolic control of cell death may be a fundamental feature of prokaryotic development.

Collaboration


Dive into the Randeep S. Jawa's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Joseph C. Stothert

University of Texas Medical Branch

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

David H. Young

University of Nebraska Medical Center

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

David W. Mercer

University of Nebraska Medical Center

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Valerie Shostrom

University of Nebraska Medical Center

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Heinz Baumann

Roswell Park Cancer Institute

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Daniel N. Rutigliano

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

View shared research outputs
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge