21 research outputs found
Alquimia, Ocultismo, Maçonaria: o ouro e o simbolismo hermético dos cadinhos (Séculos XVIII e XIX)
Este artigo apresenta a arqueologia das enigmáticas marcas impressas na base de cadinhos dos séculos XVIII e XIX recuperados nas escavações da Casa da Moeda do Rio de Janeiro, na década de 1980, e a explanação do seu significado simbólico à luz da alquimia, do ocultismo e da Maçonaria. Espraiando-se extraordinariamente mundo afora através de uma bem-sucedida estratégia de comunicação visual, a Maçonaria utilizou símbolos herméticos para a difusão de seus princípios nos mais diferentes suportes. Aparentemente estamos diante de um sinal de reconhecimento maçônico, o sinal exterior de uma organização oculta, só partilhado por iniciados e incompreensível para os demais, que contribuiu para difundir veladamente a doutrina maçônica por diferentes pontos do globo
Eugenia e casamento Eugenics and marriage
Analisaremos algumas estratégias eugênicas para melhoramento da raça baseadas no controle de matrimônios. Para tanto, vamos buscar no contexto da Inglaterra vitoriana a preocupação com o casamento; tanto na obra de Thomas Malthus, quando interessado no crescimento populacional, como na de Francis Galton, quando propõe a eugenia como uma ciência do melhoramento das qualidades inatas da raça. Discutiremos também como tal medida de controle de matrimônios se deu no movimento eugênico brasileiro e sua influência na elaboração do Código Civil.<br>This analysis of some eugenic strategies for "improving the race" through the control of marriages explores Victorian England's concern with matrimony as expressed in the works of Thomas Malthus, who was interested in population growth, and of Francis Galton, who proposed that eugenics be used as a science to "improve" the innate qualities of the race. The article also discusses how this matrimonial means of control was expressed within the Brazilian eugenics movement and how it influenced the drafting of the Brazilian Civil Code
Recommended from our members
Epidemiology of Cardiogenic Shock Using the Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC) Consensus Definitions
The Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC) recently proposed pragmatic consensus definitions to standardize classification of cardiogenic shock (CS) in registries and clinical trials. We aimed to describe contemporary CS epidemiology using the SHARC definitions in a cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) population.BACKGROUNDThe Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC) recently proposed pragmatic consensus definitions to standardize classification of cardiogenic shock (CS) in registries and clinical trials. We aimed to describe contemporary CS epidemiology using the SHARC definitions in a cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) population.The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) is a multinational research network of advanced CICUs coordinated by the TIMI Study Group (Boston, MA). CS was defined as a cardiac disorder resulting in SBP<90mmHg for ≥30 minutes (or the need for vasopressors, inotropes, or mechanical circulatory support [MCS] to maintain SBP ≥90mmHg) with evidence of hypoperfusion. Primary etiologic categories included acute myocardial infarction-related CS (AMI-CS), heart failure-related CS (HF-CS), and non-myocardial (secondary) CS. Post-cardiotomy CS was not included. HF-CS was further subcategorized as de novo vs. acute-on-chronic HF-CS. Patients with both cardiogenic and non-cardiogenic components of shock were classified separately as mixed CS.METHODSThe Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) is a multinational research network of advanced CICUs coordinated by the TIMI Study Group (Boston, MA). CS was defined as a cardiac disorder resulting in SBP<90mmHg for ≥30 minutes (or the need for vasopressors, inotropes, or mechanical circulatory support [MCS] to maintain SBP ≥90mmHg) with evidence of hypoperfusion. Primary etiologic categories included acute myocardial infarction-related CS (AMI-CS), heart failure-related CS (HF-CS), and non-myocardial (secondary) CS. Post-cardiotomy CS was not included. HF-CS was further subcategorized as de novo vs. acute-on-chronic HF-CS. Patients with both cardiogenic and non-cardiogenic components of shock were classified separately as mixed CS.Of 8,974 patients meeting shock criteria (2017-2023), 65% had isolated CS and 17% had mixed shock. Among patients with CS (n=5,869), 27% had AMI-CS (65% STEMI), 59% HF-CS (72% acute-on-chronic, 28% de novo), and 14% secondary CS. Patients with AMI-CS and de novo HF-CS were most likely to have had concomitant cardiac arrest (p<0.001). Patients with AMI-CS and mixed CS were most likely to present in more severe shock stages (SCAI D or E; p<0.001). Temporary MCS use was highest in AMI-CS (59%). In-hospital mortality was highest in mixed CS (48%), followed by AMI-CS (41%), similar in de novo HF-CS (31%) and secondary CS (31%), and lowest in acute-on-chronic HF-CS (25%; p<0.001).RESULTSOf 8,974 patients meeting shock criteria (2017-2023), 65% had isolated CS and 17% had mixed shock. Among patients with CS (n=5,869), 27% had AMI-CS (65% STEMI), 59% HF-CS (72% acute-on-chronic, 28% de novo), and 14% secondary CS. Patients with AMI-CS and de novo HF-CS were most likely to have had concomitant cardiac arrest (p<0.001). Patients with AMI-CS and mixed CS were most likely to present in more severe shock stages (SCAI D or E; p<0.001). Temporary MCS use was highest in AMI-CS (59%). In-hospital mortality was highest in mixed CS (48%), followed by AMI-CS (41%), similar in de novo HF-CS (31%) and secondary CS (31%), and lowest in acute-on-chronic HF-CS (25%; p<0.001).SHARC consensus definitions for CS classification can be pragmatically applied in contemporary registries and reveal discrete subpopulations of CS with distinct phenotypes and outcomes that may be relevant to clinical practice and future research.CONCLUSIONSSHARC consensus definitions for CS classification can be pragmatically applied in contemporary registries and reveal discrete subpopulations of CS with distinct phenotypes and outcomes that may be relevant to clinical practice and future research
Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN): A Cohort Profile
AIMS: The aims of the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) are to develop a registry to investigate the epidemiology of cardiac critical illness and to establish a multicentre research network to conduct randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in patients with cardiac critical illness. METHODS AND RESULTS: The CCCTN was founded in 2017 with 16 centres and has grown to a research network of over 40 academic and clinical centres in the United States and Canada. Each centre enters data for consecutive cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) admissions for at least 2 months of each calendar year. More than 20 000 unique CICU admissions are now included in the CCCTN Registry. To date, scientific observations from the CCCTN Registry include description of variations in care, the epidemiology and outcomes of all CICU patients, as well as subsets of patients with specific disease states, such as shock, heart failure, renal dysfunction, and respiratory failure. The CCCTN has also characterised utilization patterns, including use of mechanical circulatory support in response to changes in the heart transplantation allocation system, and the use and impact of multidisciplinary shock teams. Over years of multicentre collaboration, the CCCTN has established a robust research network to facilitate multicentre registry-based randomised trials in patients with cardiac critical illness. CONCLUSION: The CCCTN is a large, prospective registry dedicated to describing processes-of-care and expanding clinical knowledge in cardiac critical illness. The CCCTN will serve as an investigational platform from which to conduct randomised controlled trials in this important patient population