Nurses' perceptions of aids and obstacles to the provision of optimal end of life care in ICU

Contains fulltext : 172380.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

Pericranial nerve blockade as a preventive treatment for migraine: Experience in 60 patients

Introduction: Anaesthetic blockade of pericranial nerves is frequently used to treat headache disorders. There is no evidence on indication of this treatment for migraine. We aim to evaluate its effectiveness as a preventive treatment for migraine using specific indication criteria. Methods: Between January 2009 and May 2013 we offered pericranial nerve blockade to migraine patients with a history of preventive drug intolerance or failure. We selected patients with tenderness to palpation of at least one greater occipital nerve (GON) or supraorbital nerve (SON). Responses at 3 months were categorised as complete response (no pain), partial response (reduction of at least 50% in severity or frequency of headache episodes), or no response. Results: Anaesthetic blockade was performed in 60 patients (52 females, 8 males; mean age 40.6 ± 12.4 years, range 19-76). The most common procedure was blockade of GON and SON on both sides. Complete response lasting at least 2 weeks was recorded in 23 patients (38.3%), with partial response in 24 patients (40%), and no response in 13 (21.7%). In the group presenting complete response, age and length of history of migraine were significantly lower. No severe side effects were detected. Response time ranged from 2 weeks to 3 months. Conclusions: Pericranial nerves blockade using tenderness to palpation as an inclusion criterion is safe and potentially effective as prophylactic treatment for migraine. The best responses in our series were observed in younger patients with shorter histories of migraine. Resumen: Introducción: El bloqueo anestésico de nervios pericraneales es utilizado con frecuencia en el tratamiento de diferentes cefaleas. No hay evidencia acerca de su indicación en pacientes migrañosos. Pretendemos evaluar su eficacia como tratamiento preventivo de migraña con criterios determinados. Métodos: Entre enero del 2009 y mayo del 2013 se ofreció este tratamiento a migrañosos con fracaso o intolerancia de fármacos preventivos. Seleccionamos a aquellos con sensibilidad a la palpación en al menos un nervio supraorbitario u occipital mayor. A los 3 meses, consideramos la respuesta completa (sin dolor), parcial (reducción al menos de un 50% en severidad y/o frecuencia de episodios) o ausente. Resultados: Se practicó un bloqueo anestésico en 60 pacientes (52 mujeres, 8 varones, edad media ± desviación estándar: 40,6 ± 12,4 años, rango 19-76). El procedimiento más habitual fue el bloqueo de ambos nervios occipitales y supraorbitarios. Hubo respuesta completa de al menos 2 semanas en 23 (38,3%), parcial en 24 (40%) y ausente en 13 (21,7%). En el grupo con respuesta completa, la edad y el tiempo de evolución de la migraña eran significativamente inferiores. Sin efectos adversos significativos. Tiempo de respuesta entre 2 semanas y 3 meses. Conclusiones: El bloqueo anestésico de nervios pericraneales utilizando la sensibilidad a la palpación como criterio de selección es un procedimiento seguro y potencialmente eficaz como tratamiento preventivo de migraña. Las mayores respuestas en nuestra serie se observan en pacientes jóvenes con menos tiempo de evolución de la migraña. Keywords: Anaesthetic blockade, Migraine, Chronic migraine, Great occipital nerve, Supraorbital nerve, Preventive therapy, Palabras clave: Bloqueo anestésico, Migraña, Migraña crónica, Nervio occipital mayor, Nervio supraorbitario, Tratamiento preventiv

Bloqueo anestésico de nervios pericraneales como tratamiento preventivo de migraña: experiencia en una serie de 60 pacientes

Resumen: Introducción: El bloqueo anestésico de nervios pericraneales es utilizado con frecuencia en el tratamiento de diferentes cefaleas. No hay evidencia acerca de su indicación en pacientes migrañosos. Pretendemos evaluar su eficacia como tratamiento preventivo de migraña con criterios determinados. Métodos: Entre enero del 2009 y mayo del 2013 se ofreció este tratamiento a migrañosos con fracaso o intolerancia de fármacos preventivos. Seleccionamos a aquellos con sensibilidad a la palpación en al menos un nervio supraorbitario u occipital mayor. A los 3 meses, consideramos la respuesta completa (sin dolor), parcial (reducción al menos de un 50% en severidad y/o frecuencia de episodios) o ausente. Resultados: Se practicó un bloqueo anestésico en 60 pacientes (52 mujeres, 8 varones, edad media ± desviación estándar: 40,6 ± 12,4 años, rango 19-76). El procedimiento más habitual fue el bloqueo de ambos nervios occipitales y supraorbitarios. Hubo respuesta completa de al menos 2 semanas en 23 (38,3%), parcial en 24 (40%) y ausente en 13 (21,7%). En el grupo con respuesta completa, la edad y el tiempo de evolución de la migraña eran significativamente inferiores. Sin efectos adversos significativos. Tiempo de respuesta entre 2 semanas y 3 meses. Conclusiones: El bloqueo anestésico de nervios pericraneales utilizando la sensibilidad a la palpación como criterio de selección es un procedimiento seguro y potencialmente eficaz como tratamiento preventivo de migraña. Las mayores respuestas en nuestra serie se observan en pacientes jóvenes con menos tiempo de evolución de la migraña. Abstract: Introduction: Anaesthetic blockade of pericranial nerves is frequently used to treat headache disorders. There is no evidence on indication of this treatment for migraine. We aim to evaluate its effectiveness as a preventive treatment for migraine using specific indication criteria. Methods: Between January 2009 and May 2013 we offered pericranial nerve blockade to migraine patients with a history of preventive drug intolerance or failure. We selected patients with tenderness to palpation of at least one greater occipital nerve (GON) or supraorbital nerve (SON). Responses at 3 months were categorised as complete response (no pain), partial response (reduction of at least 50% in severity or frequency of headache episodes), or no response. Results: Anaesthetic blockade was performed in 60 patients (52 females, 8 males; mean age 40.6 ± 12.4 years, range 19-76). The most common procedure was blockade of GON and SON on both sides. Complete response lasting at least 2 weeks was recorded in 23 patients (38.3%), with partial response in 24 patients (40%), and no response in 13 (21.7%). In the group presenting complete response, age and length of history of migraine were significantly lower. No severe side effects were detected. Response time ranged from 2 weeks to 3 months. Conclusions: Pericranial nerves blockade using tenderness to palpation as an inclusion criterion is safe and potentially effective as prophylactic treatment for migraine. The best responses in our series were observed in younger patients with shorter histories of migraine. Palabras clave: Bloqueo anestésico, Migraña, Migraña crónica, Nervio occipital mayor, Nervio supraorbitario, Tratamiento preventivo, Keywords: Anaesthetic blockade, Migraine, Chronic migraine, Great occipital nerve, Supraorbital nerve, Preventive therap

Circulating suPAR associates with severity and in-hospital progression of COVID-19

Background: COVID-19 disease progression is characterized by hyperinflammation and risk stratification may aid in early aggressive treatment and advanced planning. The aim of this study was to assess whether suPAR and other markers measured at hospital admission can predict the severity of COVID-19. Methods: The primary outcome measure in this international, multi-centre, prospective, observational study with adult patients hospitalized primarily for COVID-19 was the association of WHO Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS) with suPAR, ferritin, CRP, albumin, LDH, eGFR, age, procalcitonin, and interleukin-6. Admission plasma suPAR levels were determined using the suPARnostic® ELISA and suPARnostic® Turbilatex assays. Results: Seven hundred and sixty-seven patients, 440 (57.4%) males and 327 (42.6%) females, were included with a median age of 64 years. Log-suPAR levels significantly correlated with WHO-CPS score, with each doubling of suPAR increasing the score by one point (p <.001). All the other markers were also correlated with WHO-CPS score. Admission suPAR levels were significantly lower in survivors (7.10 vs. 9.63, 95% CI 1.47–3.59, p <.001). A linear model (SALGA) including suPAR, serum albumin, serum lactate dehydrogenase, eGFR, and age can best estimate the WHO-CPS score and survival. Combining all five parameters in the SALGA model can improve the accuracy of discrimination with an AUC of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.759–0.836). Conclusions: suPAR levels significantly correlated with WHO-CPS score, with each doubling of suPAR increasing the score by one point. The SALGA model may serve as a quick tool for predicting disease severity and survival at admission. © 2022 Stichting European Society for Clinical Investigation Journal Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Effect of general anaesthesia on functional outcome in patients with anterior circulation ischaemic stroke having endovascular thrombectomy versus standard care: a meta-analysis of individual patient data

Background: General anaesthesia (GA) during endovascular thrombectomy has been associated with worse patient outcomes in observational studies compared with patients treated without GA. We assessed functional outcome in ischaemic stroke patients with large vessel anterior circulation occlusion undergoing endovascular thrombectomy under GA, versus thrombectomy not under GA (with or without sedation) versus standard care (ie, no thrombectomy), stratified by the use of GA versus standard care. Methods: For this meta-analysis, patient-level data were pooled from all patients included in randomised trials in PuMed published between Jan 1, 2010, and May 31, 2017, that compared endovascular thrombectomy predominantly done with stent retrievers with standard care in anterior circulation ischaemic stroke patients (HERMES Collaboration). The primary outcome was functional outcome assessed by ordinal analysis of the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at 90 days in the GA and non-GA subgroups of patients treated with endovascular therapy versus those patients treated with standard care, adjusted for baseline prognostic variables. To account for between-trial variance we used mixed-effects modelling with a random effect for trials incorporated in all models. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane method. The meta-analysis was prospectively designed, but not registered. Findings: Seven trials were identified by our search; of 1764 patients included in these trials, 871 were allocated to endovascular thrombectomy and 893 were assigned standard care. After exclusion of 74 patients (72 did not undergo the procedure and two had missing data on anaesthetic strategy), 236 (30%) of 797 patients who had endovascular procedures were treated under GA. At baseline, patients receiving GA were younger and had a shorter delay between stroke onset and randomisation but they had similar pre-treatment clinical severity compared with patients who did not have GA. Endovascular thrombectomy improved functional outcome at 3 months both in patients who had GA (adjusted common odds ratio (cOR) 1·52, 95% CI 1·09–2·11, p=0·014) and in those who did not have GA (adjusted cOR 2·33, 95% CI 1·75–3·10, p<0·0001) versus standard care. However, outcomes were significantly better for patients who did not receive GA versus those who received GA (covariate-adjusted cOR 1·53, 95% CI 1·14–2·04, p=0·0044). The risk of bias and variability between studies was assessed to be low. Interpretation: Worse outcomes after endovascular thrombectomy were associated with GA, after adjustment for baseline prognostic variables. These data support avoidance of GA whenever possible. The procedure did, however, remain effective versus standard care in patients treated under GA, indicating that treatment should not be withheld in those who require anaesthesia for medical reasons