In this task, you are given a passage which has a question and the context. You have to generate an answer to the question based on the information present in the context.

Context: Remote renal ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) following infra-renal aortic occlusion leads to acute kidney injury and systemic inflammation. Hydrogen sulfide is a mediator of IRI and can ameliorate tissue injury in many organ systems. Its role in vascular surgery has yet to be established. We assessed the role of hydrogen sulfide in a rodent model of aortic occlusion.', 'Wistar rats were divided into sham, control, and treatment groups (n = 6). Inflammation was assessed using a nonrecovery protocol. The infra-renal aorta was cross-clamped for 60 min and animals were reperfused for 120 min. Ten minutes before clamp release, treatment animals received hydrogen sulfide (10, 30, or 50 g/kg) and control animals received 0.9% saline injected into the retroperitoneum. Renal injury and histology were assessed by a recovery protocol. The procedure was identical to the nonrecovery arm but with a single dose of hydrogen sulfide (30 g/kg) and animals were recovered for 7 days.', 'There was no difference in animal weight between the groups (P = 0.337). In the nonrecovery arm, there was a reduction in serum levels of tumor necrosis factor alpha in sulfide-treated animals compared with controls (909 98 vs. 607 159 pg/mL; P = 0.0038). There was also a reduction in myeloperoxidase-positive cells in renal tissue in the sulfide-treated animals compared with controls (8 4 vs. 17 9; P = 0.03). There was no difference in histological injury score or endothelin-1 levels. In the recovery arm, there was no difference in renal function, Kidney Injury Molecule-1 levels, or histological injury scores.\Question: Does hydrogen sulfide reduce inflammation following abdominal aortic occlusion in rats?
Hydrogen sulfide has systemic and renal anti-inflammatory effects in remote IRI following aortic occlusion in rats.

Context: A malaria management protocol was developed and implemented at a tertiary care children's hospital in September 1999. We retrospectively evaluated children admitted with malaria 10-years preimplementation and 7-years postimplementation to determine the impact the protocol had on management and time delay to appropriate antimalarial therapy.", 'This before and after study compared all admissions with the discharge diagnosis of malaria in the study period. Retrospective chart review was used to determine the time from emergency department (ED) registration to administration of antimalarial treatment. Other outcomes measured included mortality, length of hospital stay, and intensive care unit admission.', 'Fifty-eight admissions were identified during the defined period, most of which were due to Plasmodium falciparum[r] malaria. Thirty-one (53.4%) cases were before implementation of the protocol. Children were more likely to receive appropriate investigations to assess for possible severe malaria before transfer from the ED to the ward after protocol implementation (18% vs. 63%, P = 0.005). Analysis of index cases of malaria, excluding patients diagnosed after the diagnosis of a sibling, showed there was a significant reduction in time to medication administration (8 vs. 5.5 hours, P = 0.036).\Question: Does protocol for management of imported pediatric malaria decrease time to medication administration?
After broad-based implementation of a malaria treatment protocol in a pediatric hospital, children received more thorough investigations, were more likely to receive therapy before leaving the ED and had a shorter delay before receiving appropriate antimalarial therapy.

Context: A patient's baseline health status may affect the ability to survive an acute illness. Emergency medicine research requires tools to adjust for confounders such as comorbid illnesses. The Charlson Comorbidity Index has been validated in many settings but not extensively in the emergency department (ED). The purpose of this study was to examine the utility of the Charlson Index as a predictor of one-year mortality in a population of ED patients with suspected infection.", 'The comorbid illness components of the Charlson Index were prospectively abstracted from the medical records of adult (age older than 18 years) ED patients at risk for infection (indicated by the clinical decision to obtain a blood culture) and weighted. Charlson scores were grouped into four previously established indices: 0 points (none), 1-2 points (low), 3-4 points (moderate), and > or =5 points (high). The primary outcome was one-year mortality assessed using the National Death Index and medical records. Cox proportional-hazards ratios were calculated, adjusting for age, gender, and markers of 28-day in-hospital mortality.', 'Between February 1, 2000, and February 1, 2001, 3,102 unique patients (96% of eligible patients) were enrolled at an urban teaching hospital. Overall one-year mortality was 22% (667/3,102). Mortality rates increased with increasing Charlson scores: none, 7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.4% to 8.5%); low, 22% (95% CI = 19% to 24%); moderate, 31% (95% CI = 27% to 35%); and high, 40% (95% CI = 36% to 44%). Controlling for age, gender, and factors associated with 28-day mortality, and using the "none" group as a reference group, the Charlson Index predicted mortality as follows: low, odds ratio of 2.0; moderate, odds ratio of 2.5; and high, odds ratio of 4.7.\Question: Is charlson Index associated with one-year mortality in emergency department patients with suspected infection?
This study suggests that the Charlson Index predicts one-year mortality among ED patients with suspected infection.