5 research outputs found
Statement of Second Brazilian Congress of Mechanical Ventilarion : part I
Resumo não disponíve
Profilaxia para tromboembolismo venoso em pacientes cirúrgicos: quem sabe faz a hora, não espera acontecer!!! Prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in surgical patients: who knows does the time, not waiting to happen!!!
Prevenção do tromboembolismo na cirurgia do câncer do aparelho digestivo Thromboembolism prevention in surgery of digestive cancer
RACIONAL: Tromboembolismo venoso é complicação frequente após tratamento cirúrgico em geral e, de um modo especial, na condução terapêutica do câncer. A cirurgia do aparelho digestivo tem sido referida como potencialmente indutora desta complicação. Os pacientes com câncer digestivo, têm risco substancialmente aumentado de iniciarem ou de terem recorrência de processo tromboembólico. OBJETIVO: Oferecer aos cirurgiões que atuam na cirurgia digestiva e geral orientação segura sobre como efetuar a tromboprofilaxia dos pacientes que necessitam de operações no tratamento de doenças malignas digestivas. MÉTODOS: A Diretriz foi baseada a partir da elaboração de 15 questões clínicas relevantes e relacionadas ao risco, tratamento e prognóstico do paciente submetido ao tratamento cirúrgico do câncer do aparelho digestivo. Elas focaram tanto os eventos tromboembólicos associados às operações quanto os aspectos relacionados à sua profilaxia. As questões foram estruturadas por meio do P.I.C.O. (Paciente, Intervenção ou Indicador, Comparação e Outcome), permitindo gerar estratégias de busca da evidência nas principais bases primárias de informação científica (Medline/Pubmed, Embase, Lilacs/Scielo, Cochrane Library, Premedline via OVID). Também foi realizada busca manual da evidência e de teses (BDTD e IBICT). A evidência recuperada foi selecionada a partir da avaliação crítica utilizando instrumentos (escores) discriminatórios de acordo com a categoria da questão: risco, terapêutica e prognóstico (JADAD para Ensaios Clínicos Randomizados e New Castle Otawa Scale para estudos não randômicos). Após definir os estudos potenciais para sustento das recomendações, eles foram selecionados pela força da evidência e grau de recomendação segundo a classificação de Oxford, incluindo a evidência disponível de maior força. RESULTADOS: Foram avaliados 53.555 trabalhos pelo título e/ou resumo. Deste total foram selecionados (1ª seleção) 478 trabalhos avaliados pelo texto completo. A partir deles, para sustentar as recomendações, foram incluídos neste consenso 132 trabalhos. As 15 perguntas formuladas puderam ser respondidas com artigos com grau de evidência correspondentes à 31 A, 130 B, 1 C e 0 D. CONCLUSÃO: Esta revisão possibilitou elaborar orientação segura para a profilaxia do tromboembolismo nas operações sobre o câncer do aparelho digestivo, abordando os tópicos mais frequentes do quotidiano do trabalho dos cirurgiões gerais e do aparelho digestivo.<br>BACKGROUND: The venous thromboembolism is a common complication after surgical treatment in general and, in particular, on the therapeutic management on cancer. Surgery of the digestive tract has been reported to induce this complication. Patients with digestive cancer have substantial increased risk of initial or recurrent thromboembolism. AIM: To provide to surgeons working in digestive surgery and general surgery guidance on how to make safe thromboprophylaxis for patients requiring operations in the treatment of their gastrointestinal malignancies. METHODS: The guideline was based on 15 relevant clinical issues and related to the risk factors, treatment and prognosis of the patient undergoing surgical treatment of cancer on digestive tract. They focused thromboembolic events associated with operations and thromboprophylaxis. The questions were structured using the PICO (Patient, Intervention or Indicator, Comparison and Outcome), allowing strategies to generate evidence on the main primary bases of scientific information (Medline / Pubmed, Embase, Lilacs / Scielo, Cochrane Library, PreMedline via OVID). Evidence manual search was also conducted (BDTD and IBICT). The evidence was recovered from the selected critical evaluation using discriminatory instruments (scores) according to the category of the question: risk, prognosis and therapy (JADAD Randomized Clinical Trials and New Castle Ottawa Scale for studies not randomized). After defining potential studies to support the recommendations, they were selected by the strength of evidence and grade of recommendation according to the classification of Oxford, including the available evidence of greater strength. RESULTS: A total of 53,555 papers by title and / or abstract related to issue were found. Of this total were selected (1st selection) 478 studies that were evaluated as full-text. From them to support the recommendations were included in the consensus 132 papers. The 15 questions could be answered with evidence grade of articles with 31 A, 130 B, 1 C and 0 D. CONCLUSION: It was possible to prepare safe recommendations as guidance for thromboembolism prophylaxis in operations on the digestive tract malignancies, addressing the most frequent topics of everyday work of digestive and general surgeons
Evolution over Time of Ventilatory Management and Outcome of Patients with Neurologic Disease∗
OBJECTIVES: To describe the changes in ventilator management over time in patients with neurologic disease at ICU admission and to estimate factors associated with 28-day hospital mortality. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of three prospective, observational, multicenter studies. SETTING: Cohort studies conducted in 2004, 2010, and 2016. PATIENTS: Adult patients who received mechanical ventilation for more than 12 hours. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among the 20,929 patients enrolled, we included 4,152 (20%) mechanically ventilated patients due to different neurologic diseases. Hemorrhagic stroke and brain trauma were the most common pathologies associated with the need for mechanical ventilation. Although volume-cycled ventilation remained the preferred ventilation mode, there was a significant (p < 0.001) increment in the use of pressure support ventilation. The proportion of patients receiving a protective lung ventilation strategy was increased over time: 47% in 2004, 63% in 2010, and 65% in 2016 (p < 0.001), as well as the duration of protective ventilation strategies: 406 days per 1,000 mechanical ventilation days in 2004, 523 days per 1,000 mechanical ventilation days in 2010, and 585 days per 1,000 mechanical ventilation days in 2016 (p < 0.001). There were no differences in the length of stay in the ICU, mortality in the ICU, and mortality in hospital from 2004 to 2016. Independent risk factors for 28-day mortality were age greater than 75 years, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II greater than 50, the occurrence of organ dysfunction within first 48 hours after brain injury, and specific neurologic diseases such as hemorrhagic stroke, ischemic stroke, and brain trauma. CONCLUSIONS: More lung-protective ventilatory strategies have been implemented over years in neurologic patients with no effect on pulmonary complications or on survival. We found several prognostic factors on mortality such as advanced age, the severity of the disease, organ dysfunctions, and the etiology of neurologic disease