6 research outputs found

    All Roads Lead to Rome: Results of Non-Invasive Respiratory Therapies Applied in a Tertiary-Care Hospital Without an Intermediate Care Unit During the COVID-19 Pandemic

    Get PDF
    IntroducciĂłn. Las terapias respiratorias no invasivas (TRNI) fueron ampliamente utilizadas en la primera ola de la pandemia de COVID-19, en escenarios distintos segĂșn los medios disponibles. El objetivo fue presentar la supervivencia a 90 dĂ­as y los factores asociados a esta de los pacientes tratados con TRNI en un centro de tercer nivel sin Unidad de Cuidados Respiratorios Intermedios. Como objetivo secundario comparar los resultados obtenidos de las distintas terapias. MĂ©todos. Estudio observacional de pacientes tratados con TRNI fuera de un ambiente de Cuidados Intensivos o Unidad de Cuidados Respiratorios Intermedios, diagnosticados de COVID-19 y con sĂ­ndrome de distrĂ©s respiratorio agudo por criterios radiolĂłgicos y de ratio SpO2/FiO2. Se desarrollĂł un modelo multivariante de regresiĂłn logĂ­stica para determinar las variables independientemente asociadas, y se compararon los resultados de la terapia de alto flujo con cĂĄnula nasal y la presiĂłn positiva continua en la vĂ­a aĂ©rea. Resultados. Se trataron 107 pacientes y sobrevivieron 85 (79,4%) a los 90 dĂ­as. Antes de iniciar la TRNI el ratio medio de SpO2/FiO2 fue de 119,8±59,4. Un mayor score de SOFA se asociĂł significativamente a la mortalidad (OR 2,09; IC95% 1,34 – 3,27), mientras que la autopronaciĂłn fue un factor protector (OR 0,23; IC95% 0,06 – 0,91). La terapia de alto flujo con cĂĄnula nasal fue utilizada en 63 sujetos (58,9%), y la presiĂłn positiva continua en la vĂ­a aĂ©rea en 41 (38,3%). No se encontraron diferencias entre ellas. ConclusiĂłn. Aproximadamente cuatro de cada cinco pacientes tratados con TRNI sobrevivieron a los 90 dĂ­as, y no se encontraron diferencias significativas entre la terapia de alto flujo con cĂĄnula nasal y la presiĂłn positiva continua en la vĂ­a aĂ©rea.S

    Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

    Get PDF
    Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

    The risk of COVID-19 death is much greater and age dependent with type I IFN autoantibodies

    No full text
    International audienceSignificance There is growing evidence that preexisting autoantibodies neutralizing type I interferons (IFNs) are strong determinants of life-threatening COVID-19 pneumonia. It is important to estimate their quantitative impact on COVID-19 mortality upon SARS-CoV-2 infection, by age and sex, as both the prevalence of these autoantibodies and the risk of COVID-19 death increase with age and are higher in men. Using an unvaccinated sample of 1,261 deceased patients and 34,159 individuals from the general population, we found that autoantibodies against type I IFNs strongly increased the SARS-CoV-2 infection fatality rate at all ages, in both men and women. Autoantibodies against type I IFNs are strong and common predictors of life-threatening COVID-19. Testing for these autoantibodies should be considered in the general population

    The risk of COVID-19 death is much greater and age dependent with type I IFN autoantibodies

    No full text
    International audienceSignificance There is growing evidence that preexisting autoantibodies neutralizing type I interferons (IFNs) are strong determinants of life-threatening COVID-19 pneumonia. It is important to estimate their quantitative impact on COVID-19 mortality upon SARS-CoV-2 infection, by age and sex, as both the prevalence of these autoantibodies and the risk of COVID-19 death increase with age and are higher in men. Using an unvaccinated sample of 1,261 deceased patients and 34,159 individuals from the general population, we found that autoantibodies against type I IFNs strongly increased the SARS-CoV-2 infection fatality rate at all ages, in both men and women. Autoantibodies against type I IFNs are strong and common predictors of life-threatening COVID-19. Testing for these autoantibodies should be considered in the general population

    Evaluation of a quality improvement intervention to reduce anastomotic leak following right colectomy (EAGLE): pragmatic, batched stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial in 64 countries

    Get PDF
    Background Anastomotic leak affects 8 per cent of patients after right colectomy with a 10-fold increased risk of postoperative death. The EAGLE study aimed to develop and test whether an international, standardized quality improvement intervention could reduce anastomotic leaks. Methods The internationally intended protocol, iteratively co-developed by a multistage Delphi process, comprised an online educational module introducing risk stratification, an intraoperative checklist, and harmonized surgical techniques. Clusters (hospital teams) were randomized to one of three arms with varied sequences of intervention/data collection by a derived stepped-wedge batch design (at least 18 hospital teams per batch). Patients were blinded to the study allocation. Low- and middle-income country enrolment was encouraged. The primary outcome (assessed by intention to treat) was anastomotic leak rate, and subgroup analyses by module completion (at least 80 per cent of surgeons, high engagement; less than 50 per cent, low engagement) were preplanned. Results A total 355 hospital teams registered, with 332 from 64 countries (39.2 per cent low and middle income) included in the final analysis. The online modules were completed by half of the surgeons (2143 of 4411). The primary analysis included 3039 of the 3268 patients recruited (206 patients had no anastomosis and 23 were lost to follow-up), with anastomotic leaks arising before and after the intervention in 10.1 and 9.6 per cent respectively (adjusted OR 0.87, 95 per cent c.i. 0.59 to 1.30; P = 0.498). The proportion of surgeons completing the educational modules was an influence: the leak rate decreased from 12.2 per cent (61 of 500) before intervention to 5.1 per cent (24 of 473) after intervention in high-engagement centres (adjusted OR 0.36, 0.20 to 0.64; P < 0.001), but this was not observed in low-engagement hospitals (8.3 per cent (59 of 714) and 13.8 per cent (61 of 443) respectively; adjusted OR 2.09, 1.31 to 3.31). Conclusion Completion of globally available digital training by engaged teams can alter anastomotic leak rates. Registration number: NCT04270721 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov)
    corecore