Inventory of current EU paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes

Background: We examined the diversity in paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes in Europe. Methods: Themes relevant for comparison of screening programmes were derived from literature and used to compile three questionnaires on vision, hearing and public-health screening. Tests used, professions involved, age and frequency of testing seem to influence sensitivity, specificity and costs most. Questionnaires were sent to ophthalmologists, orthoptists, otolaryngologists and audiologists involved in paediatric screening in all EU fullmember, candidate and associate states. Answers were cross-checked. Results: Thirty-nine countries participated; 35 have a vision screening programme, 33 a nation-wide neonatal hearing screening programme. Visual acuity (VA) is measured in 35 countries, in 71% more than once. First measurement of VA varies from three to seven years of age, but is usually before the age of five. At age three and four picture charts, including Lea Hyvarinen are used most, in children over four Tumbling-E and Snellen. As first hearing screening test otoacoustic emission (OAE) is used most in healthy neonates, and auditory brainstem response (ABR) in premature newborns. The majority of hearing testing programmes are staged; children are referred after one to four abnormal tests. Vision screening is performed mostly by paediatricians, ophthalmologists or nurses. Funding is mostly by health insurance or state. Coverage was reported as >95% in half of countries, but reporting was often not first-hand. Conclusion: Largest differences were found in VA charts used (12), professions involved in vision screening (10), number of hearing screening tests before referral (1-4) and funding sources (8)

Prone positioning improves survival in severe ARDS : a pathophysiologic review and individual patient meta-analysis

Prone positioning has been used for over 30 years in the management of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). This maneuver has consistently proven capable of improving oxygenation in patients with acute respiratory failure. Several mechanisms can explain this observation, including possible intervening net recruitment and more homogeneously distributed alveolar inflation. It is also progressively becoming clear that prone positioning may reduce the nonphysiological stress and strain associated with mechanical ventilation, thus decreasing the risk of ventilator-induced lung injury, which is known to adversely impact patient survival. The available randomized clinical trials, however, have failed to demonstrate that prone positioning improves the outcomes of patients with ARDS overall. In contrast, the individual patient meta-analysis of the four major clinical trials available clearly shows that with prone positioning, the absolute mortality of severely hypoxemic ARDS patients may be reduced by approximately 10%. On the other hand, all data suggest that long-term prone positioning may expose patients with less severe ARDS to unnecessary complications

Cyano-bridged coordination polymer nanoparticles with high nuclear relaxivity : toward new contrast agents for MRI

New water-soluble paramagnetic Gd-containing cyano-bridged metallic coordination polymer nanoparticles with a chitosan shell show high nuclear relaxivity in acidic water which is up to six times higher than that of the actually used Gd-chelates

Cyano-Bridged Coordination Polymer Nanoparticles with High Nuclear Relaxivity: Toward New Contrast Agents For MRI

International audienc

Prone positioning in patients with moderate and severe acute respiratory distress syndrome : a randomized controlled trial

CONTEXT: Post hoc analysis of a previous trial has suggested that prone positioning may improve survival in patients with severe hypoxemia and with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). OBJECTIVE: To assess possible outcome benefits of prone positioning in patients with moderate and severe hypoxemia who are affected by ARDS. Design, Setting, and PATIENTS: The Prone-Supine II Study, a multicenter, unblinded, randomized controlled trial conducted in 23 centers in Italy and 2 in Spain. Patients were 342 adults with ARDS receiving mechanical ventilation, enrolled from February 2004 through June 2008 and prospectively stratified into subgroups with moderate (n = 192) and severe (n = 150) hypoxemia. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to undergo supine (n = 174) or prone (20 hours per day; n = 168) positioning during ventilation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were 6-month mortality and mortality at intensive care unit discharge, organ dysfunctions, and the complication rate related to prone positioning. RESULTS: Prone and supine patients from the entire study population had similar 28-day (31.0% vs 32.8%; relative risk [RR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84-1.13; P = .72) and 6-month (47.0% vs 52.3%; RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.73-1.11; P = .33) mortality rates, despite significantly higher complication rates in the prone group. Outcomes were also similar for patients with moderate hypoxemia in the prone and supine groups at 28 days (25.5% vs 22.5%; RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.89-1.22; P = .62) and at 6 months (42.6% vs 43.9%; RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.76-1.25; P = .85). The 28-day mortality of patients with severe hypoxemia was 37.8% in the prone and 46.1% in the supine group (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.66-1.14; P = .31), while their 6-month mortality was 52.7% and 63.2%, respectively (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-1.14; P = .19). CONCLUSION: Data from this study indicate that prone positioning does not provide significant survival benefit in patients with ARDS or in subgroups of patients with moderate and severe hypoxemia. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00159939

Prone ventilation reduces mortality in patients with acute respiratory failure and severe hypoxemia : systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Prone position ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) improves oxygenation but not survival, except possibly when AHRF is severe. OBJECTIVE: To determine effects of prone versus supine ventilation in AHRF and severe hypoxemia [partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO(2))/inspired fraction of oxygen (FiO(2)) or =100 mmHg (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.93-1.22; p = 0.36; seven trials, N = 1,169). Risk ratios differed significantly between subgroups (interaction p = 0.012). Post hoc analysis demonstrated statistically significant improved mortality in the more hypoxemic subgroup and significant differences between subgroups using a range of PaO(2)/FiO(2) thresholds up to approximately 140 mmHg. Prone ventilation improved oxygenation by 27-39% over the first 3 days of therapy but increased the risks of pressure ulcers (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.16-1.44), endotracheal tube obstruction (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.24-2.01), and chest tube dislodgement (RR 3.14, 95% CI 1.02-9.69). There was no statistical between-trial heterogeneity for most clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Prone ventilation reduces mortality in patients with severe hypoxemia. Given associated risks, this approach should not be routine in all patients with AHRF, but may be considered for severely hypoxemic patients