ABORDAGEM GERAL TRAUMA ABDOMINAL

Abdominal trauma is regularly encountered in the emergency department. The lack of historical data and the presence of distracting injuries or altered mental status, from head injury or intoxication, can make these injuries difficult to diagnose and manage. Victims of trauma often have both abdominal and extraabdominal injuries, further complicating care. This topic review will discuss a basic approach to the management of patients with blunt and penetrating abdominal trauma, including diagnostic tests and initial treatment considerations.O trauma abdominal é freqüentemente encontrado em situações de emergência. A falta de história adequada do mecanismo de trauma e a presença de lesões que podem ter dor irradiada para o abdome ou a alteração do estado mental, devido a trauma cranioencefálico ou intoxicação por drogas depressoras do sistema nervoso central, podem dificultar o diagnóstico e o tratamento do trauma abdominal. Os pacientes que são vítimas de trauma, freqüentemente, têm lesões intra e extra-abdominais associadas. Este artigo de revisão irá discutir a abordagem geral do atendimento dos pacientes com traumas abdominais contusos e penetrantes, incluindo as opções de testes diagnósticos e as considerações acerca do tratamento inicial

Plano de análise estatística para o estudo Balanced Solution versus Saline in Intensive Care Study (BaSICS)

OBJECTIVE: To report the statistical analysis plan (first version) for the Balanced Solutions versus Saline in Intensive Care Study (BaSICS). METHODS: BaSICS is a multicenter factorial randomized controlled trial that will assess the effects of Plasma-Lyte 148 versus 0.9% saline as the fluid of choice in critically ill patients, as well as the effects of a slow (333mL/h) versus rapid (999mL/h) infusion speed during fluid challenges, on important patient outcomes. The fluid type will be blinded for investigators, patients and the analyses. No blinding will be possible for the infusion speed for the investigators, but all analyses will be kept blinded during the analysis procedure. RESULTS: BaSICS will have 90-day mortality as its primary endpoint, which will be tested using mixed-effects Cox proportional hazard models, considering sites as a random variable (frailty models) adjusted for age, organ dysfunction and admission type. Important secondary endpoints include renal replacement therapy up to 90 days, acute renal failure, organ dysfunction at days 3 and 7, and mechanical ventilation-free days within 28 days. CONCLUSION: This manuscript provides details on the first version of the statistical analysis plan for the BaSICS trial and will guide the study's analysis when follow-up is finished

Effect of Slower vs Faster Intravenous Fluid Bolus Rates on Mortality in Critically Ill Patients: The BaSICS Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: Slower intravenous fluid infusion rates could reduce the formation of tissue edema and organ dysfunction in critically ill patients; however, there are no data to support different infusion rates during fluid challenges for important outcomes such as mortality. Objective: To determine the effect of a slower infusion rate vs control infusion rate on 90-day survival in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Design, Setting, and Participants: Unblinded randomized factorial clinical trial in 75 ICUs in Brazil, involving 11052 patients requiring at least 1 fluid challenge and with 1 risk factor for worse outcomes were randomized from May 29, 2017, to March 2, 2020. Follow-up was concluded on October 29, 2020. Patients were randomized to 2 different infusion rates (reported in this article) and 2 different fluid types (balanced fluids or saline, reported separately). Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive fluid challenges at 2 different infusion rates; 5538 to the slower rate (333 mL/h) and 5514 to the control group (999 mL/h). Patients were also randomized to receive balanced solution or 0.9% saline using a factorial design. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was 90-day survival. Results: Of all randomized patients, 10520 (95.2%) were analyzed (mean age, 61.1 years [SD, 17.0 years]; 44.2% were women) after excluding duplicates and consent withdrawals. Patients assigned to the slower rate received a mean of 1162 mL on the first day vs 1252 mL for the control group. By day 90, 1406 of 5276 patients (26.6%) in the slower rate group had died vs 1414 of 5244 (27.0%) in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.96-1.11; P =.46). There was no significant interaction between fluid type and infusion rate (P =.98). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients in the intensive care unit requiring fluid challenges, infusing at a slower rate compared with a faster rate did not reduce 90-day mortality. These findings do not support the use of a slower infusion rate. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02875873

Effect of flexible family visitation on delirium among patients in the Intensive Care Unit: the ICU visits randomized clinical trial

Fernando Augusto Bozza. Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas. Documento produzido em parceria ou por autor vinculado à Fiocruz, mas não consta a informação no documento.Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Moinhos de Vento (HMV), Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (Rosa, D. B. da Silva, Eugênio, Haack, Medeiros, Tonietto, Teixeira); Research Projects Office, HMV, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (Rosa, Falavigna, D. B. da Silva, Sganzerla, Santos, Kochhann, de Moura, Eugênio, Haack, Barbosa, Robinson, Schneider, de Oliveira, Jeffman, Medeiros, Hammes); Brazilian Research in Intensive Care Network (BRICNet), São Paulo, São Paulo (Rosa, Cavalcanti, Machado, Azevedo, Salluh, Nobre, Bozza, Teixeira); HCor Research Institute, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil (Cavalcanti); Department of Anesthesiology, Pain and Intensive Care, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil (Machado); Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Sírio-Libanês, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil (Azevedo); Department of Critical Care, Instituto D’Or de Pesquisa e Ensino, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Salluh, Mesquita, Bozza); Intensive Care Unit, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA), Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (Pellegrini, Moraes); Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (Foernges); Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Santa Rita, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (Torelly); Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Universitário do Oeste do Paraná, Cascavel, Paraná, Brazil (Ayres, Duarte); Intensive Care Unit, Hospital do Câncer de Cascavel, Cascavel, Paraná, Brazil (Duarte); Intensive Care Unit, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil (Lovato); Intensive Care Unit, Santa Casa de Misericórdia de Feira de Santana, Feira de Santana, Bahia, Brazil (Sampaio); Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Geral Clériston Andrade, Feira de Santana, Bahia, Brazil (de Oliveira Júnior); Intensive Care Unit, Santa Casa de Misericórdia de São João Del Rei, São João Del Rei, Minas Gerais, Brazil (Paranhos); Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Regional Doutor Deoclécio Marques de Lucena, Parnamirim, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil (Dantas, de Brito); Intensive Care Unit, Fundação Hospital Adriano Jorge, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil (Paulo); Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Agamenon Magalhães, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil (Gallindo); Intensive Care Unit, Hospital da Cidade, Passo Fundo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (Pilau); Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Mãe de Deus, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (Valentim); Intensive Care Unit, Hospital de Urgências de Goiânia, Goiânia, Goiânia, Brazil (Meira Teles); Intensive Care Unit, Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil (Nobre); Intensive Care Unit, Pavilhão Pereira Filho, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (Birriel); Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Regional do Baixo Amazonas, Santarém, Pará, Brazil (Corrêa e Castro); Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Nossa Senhora da Conceição, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (Specht); School of Medicine, Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre (UFCSPA), Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (N. B. da Silva); Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston (Korte); Unit of Pediatric Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Ospedale dei Bambini—ASST Spedali Civili, Brescia, Italy (Giannini); Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (FIOCRUZ), Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Bozza).Submitted by Janaína Nascimento ([email protected]) on 2019-09-11T14:37:38Z No. of bitstreams: 1 ve_Rosa_Regis_etal_INI_2019.pdf: 616825 bytes, checksum: 2aae5be305137324e272a08cc32e9270 (MD5)Approved for entry into archive by Janaína Nascimento ([email protected]) on 2019-09-11T14:52:11Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 ve_Rosa_Regis_etal_INI_2019.pdf: 616825 bytes, checksum: 2aae5be305137324e272a08cc32e9270 (MD5)Made available in DSpace on 2019-09-11T14:52:11Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ve_Rosa_Regis_etal_INI_2019.pdf: 616825 bytes, checksum: 2aae5be305137324e272a08cc32e9270 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019Múltipla - Ver em Notas.IMPORTANCE: The effects of intensive care unit (ICU) visiting hours remain uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a flexible family visitation policy in the ICU reduces the incidence of delirium. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Cluster-crossover randomized clinical trial involving patients, family members, and clinicians from 36 adult ICUs with restricted visiting hours (<4.5 hours per day) in Brazil. Participants were recruited from April 2017 to June 2018, with follow-up until July 2018. INTERVENTIONS: Flexible visitation (up to 12 hours per day) supported by family education (n = 837 patients, 652 family members, and 435 clinicians) or usual restricted visitation (median, 1.5 hours per day; n = 848 patients, 643 family members, and 391 clinicians). Nineteen ICUs started with flexible visitation, and 17 started with restricted visitation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcome was incidence of delirium during ICU stay, assessed using the CAM-ICU. Secondary outcomes included ICU-acquired infections for patients; symptoms of anxiety and depression assessed using the HADS (range, 0 [best] to 21 [worst]) for family members; and burnout for ICU staff (Maslach Burnout Inventory). RESULTS: Among 1685 patients, 1295 family members, and 826 clinicians enrolled, 1685 patients (100%) (mean age, 58.5 years; 47.2% women), 1060 family members (81.8%) (mean age, 45.2 years; 70.3% women), and 737 clinicians (89.2%) (mean age, 35.5 years; 72.9% women) completed the trial. The mean daily duration of visits was significantly higher with flexible visitation (4.8 vs 1.4 hours; adjusted difference, 3.4 hours [95% CI, 2.8 to 3.9]; P < .001). The incidence of delirium during ICU stay was not significantly different between flexible and restricted visitation (18.9% vs 20.1%; adjusted difference, −1.7% [95% CI, −6.1% to 2.7%]; P = .44). Among 9 prespecified secondary outcomes, 6 did not differ significantly between flexible and restricted visitation, including ICU-acquired infections (3.7% vs 4.5%; adjusted difference, −0.8% [95% CI, −2.1% to 1.0%]; P = .38) and staff burnout (22.0% vs 24.8%; adjusted difference, −3.8% [95% CI, −4.8% to 12.5%]; P = .36). For family members, median anxiety (6.0 vs 7.0; adjusted difference, −1.6 [95% CI, −2.3 to −0.9]; P < .001) and depression scores (4.0 vs 5.0; adjusted difference, −1.2 [95% CI, −2.0 to −0.4]; P = .003) were significantly better with flexible visitation. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients in the ICU, a flexible family visitation policy, vs standard restricted visiting hours, did not significantly reduce the incidence of delirium