En este artículo se presenta una relectura del ensayo “Nuestra tierra” de Donald Worster, la misma se desarrolla desde la visión que maneja América Latina con respecto a la historia ambiental. En el artículo se parte de tres ideas fundamentales: estructura y distribución de los ambientes naturales en el pasado, tecnología productiva y encuentro intangible entre estas. El fin último es encarar el problema que plantea Worster con respecto a la problemática cultural y política que vive América Latina, bajo la consigna: es hora de empezar a hacer, no solo de escribir.

This article presents a re-reading the essay “ Nuestra tierra” (Our Land) by Donald Worster, it takes place from the perspective that handles Latin America with regard to environmental history. The article starts from three basic ideas: structure and distribution of natural environments in the past, productive technology and intangible encounter between them. The ultimate goal is to confront the problem proposed by Worster about the cultural and political problems that Latin America is living, under the slogan: it’s time to start doing, not just to write.

Despite advances in treatment, chronic heart failure still is associated with a poor prognosis and remains a leading cause of cardiovascular death. Cumulating evidence suggests that imbalances in redox state lead to a higher generation of reactive oxygen species. This phenomenon, along with pro-inflammatory cytokine activation and extra cellular matrix alterations with reactive fibrosis, play an important role in the pathogenesis and progression of heart failure, through the development of endothelial and myocardial dysfunction. The understanding of the underlying phenomena and the metabolic pathways involved will allow further development of therapies aiming to change the natural history of heart failure (Rev Méd Chile 2007; 135: 1056-63)

Background: In 1992, a consensus conference defined the terms systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock. Since then, numerous reports have validated the prognostic usefulness of these operative definitions. Aim: To evaluate if sepsis severity criteria, as defined by the Consensus Conference, can be applied to noninfectious SIRS. Patients and methods: Five hundred eighteen patients admitted to 5 intensive care units (ICU) from 4 hospitals were prospectively evaluated during a 3 months period. Patients that met at least one severity criteria were included. SIRS etiology, organ dysfunction and evolution were recorded in each patient. Results: One hundred two patients were included: 79 with sepsis (group I) and 23 with noninfectious SIRS (group II). ICU and hospital mortality were comparable (43 and 48% in sepsis compared to 43 and 51% in non infectious SIRS). The most common sources of sepsis were pneumonia and peritonitis. Group II patients had a wide variety of diseases. ICU stay, APACHE score and number of organs with dysfunction were not different among groups. Only the incidence of renal dysfunction was higher in the septic group. Conclusions: The Consensus sepsis severity criteria can be applied to noninfectious SIRS, defining a population subset with similar high mortality and organ dysfunction incidence, although with greatly heterogeneous etiologies.