intervenção especializada de enfermagem

Em unidade de cuidados intensivos, a pessoa em situação crítica tem pouco mais de duas horas de sono diárias. O sono envolve numerosos mecanismos fisiológicos e comportamentais de grande complexidade, que têm uma ação reparadora, fundamental para a sobrevivência humana. A promoção do sono tem sido negligenciada por parte dos enfermeiros, em detrimento de intervenções de caris tecnológico. Assim, a interrupção do sono neste contexto permanece um problema substancial, pelo que é necessário aprofundar a sua compreensão nesta população vulnerável. O sono é um foco dos cuidados de enfermagem, sendo que o enfermeiro especialista em pessoa em situação crítica tem a função fundamental de cuidar a pessoa durante os processos complexos de doença, gerindo complicações, focos de instabilidade e perturbações emocionais associados à falta de qualidade do sono. Desta forma, associada ao intento de desenvolver competências especializadas, surge o interesse de compreender o sono enquanto fenómeno da pessoa em situação crítica, internada em unidade de cuidados intensivos. Apoiada na Teoria do Conforto de Kolcaba, defini como objetivo geral: desenvolver competências na área dos cuidados de enfermagem especializados à pessoa em situação crítica, com enfâse na promoção do sono. Foram igualmente definidos um conjunto de objetivos específicos que contribuíram para guiar o meu percurso de aquisição de competências. O presente trabalho é o culminar de um percurso de decorreu durante 20 semanas em contexto clínico, divididas entre uma unidade de cuidados intensivos e um serviço de urgência geral. Foi realizada pesquisa acerca da problemática em estudo, recorrendo à elaboração de uma revisão integrativa da literatura, produzida uma sessão informativa na qual apresentei uma escala de avaliação do sono, validada para a população portuguesa e contribuí para o desenvolvimento de um protocolo quiet time. Foi igualmente importante neste percurso a discussão e reflexão junto do enfermeiro orientador e pares, o acompanhamento em atividade de gestão dos cuidados, o estudo individual e a riqueza das experiências vividas. Com a aplicação das intervenções especializadas de enfermagem foi possível interferir positivamente nos resultados, com melhoria do conforto e, deste modo, com melhoria dos outcomes em saúde da pessoa em situação crítica. Simultaneamente ocorreu o desenvolvimento de competências comuns ao enfermeiro especialista e especificas do enfermeiro especialista em pessoa em situação crítica, das quais destaco as do domínio da responsabilidade profissional, ética e legal, da melhoria contínua da qualidade, do desenvolvimento das aprendizagens profissionais e da gestão dos cuidados

Revisão sistematizada da literatura e opinião de peritos

Objective: The 3E (Evidence, Expertise, Exchange) Initiative is a multinational effort of rheumatologists aimed at developing evidence-based recommendations addressing specific questions relevant to clinical practice. The objective of the Portuguese contribution for the 3E Initiative was to develop evidence-based recommendations on how to investigate, follow-up and treat undifferentiated peripheral inflammatory arthritis (UPIA) adapted to local reality and develop additional recommendations considered relevant in the national context. Methods: An international scientific committee from 17 countries selected a set of questions concerning the diagnosis and monitoring of UPIA using a Delphi procedure. Evidence-based answers to each question were sought by a systematic literature search, performed in Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library and ACR/EULAR 2007-2009 meeting abstracts. Relevant articles were reviewed for quality assessment, data extraction and synthesis. In a national meeting, a panel of 63 Portuguese rheumatologists used the evidence which was gathered to develop recommendations, and filled the gaps in the evidence with their expert opinion. Finally, national recommendations were formulated and agreement among the participants was assessed. Results: A total of 54754 references were identified, of which 267 were systematically reviewed. Thirteen national key recommendations about the investigation, follow-up and treatment of UPIA were formulated. One recommendation addressed differential diagnosis and investigations prior to the established operational diagnosis of UPIA, eight recommendations were related to the diagnostic and prognostic value of clinical and laboratory assessments in established UPIA (history and physical examination, acute phase reactants, serologies, autoantibodies, radiographs, magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound, genetic markers and synovial biopsy), one recommendation highlighted predictors of persistence (chronicity), one addressed monitoring of clinical disease activity in UPIA, one aimed to find an useful method/score to predict a definitive diagnosis and the last one was related to treatment. Conclusion: Portuguese evidence-based recommendations for the management of UPIA in everyday practice were developed. Their dissemination and implementation in daily clinical practice should help to improve practice uniformity and optimize the management of UPIA patients.publishersversionpublishe

Practical guide for the use of biological therapies in rheumatoid arthritis - Update of December 2011

The authors review the practical aspects of biologi -cal therapy use for rheumatoid arthritis patients, commenting safety issues before and after treatment initiation and the best treatment strategies to optimize efficacy.publishersversionpublishe

Portuguese guidelines for the use of biological agents in rheumatoid arthritis - March 2010 update.

The authors present the revised version of the Portuguese Society of Rheumatology (SPR) guidelines for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with biological therapies. In these guidelines the criteria for introduction and maintenance of biological agents are discussed as well as the contraindications and procedures in the case of non-responders. Biological treatment should be considered in RA patients with a disease activity score 28 (DAS 28) superior to 3.2 despite treatment with 20mg/week of methotrexate (MTX) for at least 3 months or, if such treatment is not possible, after 6 months of other conventional disease modifying drug or combination therapy. A DAS 28 score between 2.6 and 3.2 with a significant functional or radiological deterioration under treatment with conventional regimens could also constitute an indication for biological treatment. The treatment goal should be remission or, if that is not achievable, at least a low disease activity, characterized by a DAS28 lower than 3.2, without significative functional or radiological worsening. The response criteria, at the end of the first 3 months of treatment, are a decrease of 0.6 in the DAS28 score. After 6 months of treatment response criteria is defined as a decrease of more than 1.2 in the DAS28 score. Non-responders, in accordance to the Rheumatologist's clinical opinion, should try a switch to another biological agent (tumour necrosis factor antagonist, abatacept, rituximab or tocilizumab).publishersversionpublishe

Portuguese guide lines for the use of biological agents in rheumatoid arthritis - october 2011 update

The authors present the revised version of the Portuguese Society of Rheumatology (SPR) guidelines for the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) with biological therapies. In these guidelines the criteria for introduction and maintenance of biological agents are discussed as well as the contraindications and procedures in the case of non-responders. Biological treatment (with a tumour necrosis factor antagonist, abatacept or tocilizumab) should be considered in RA patients with a disease activity score 28 (DAS 28) equal to or greater than 3.2 des pite treatment with at least 20mg-weekly-dose of methotrexate (MTX) for at least 3 months or, if such treatment is not possible, after 3 months of other conventional disease modifying drug or combination therapy. A DAS 28 score between 2.6 and 3.2 with a significant functional or radiological deterioration under treatment with conventional regi -mens could also constitute an indication for biological treatment. The treatment goal should be remission or, if that is not achievable, at least a low disease activity, defined by a DAS28 lower than 3.2,without significative functional or radiological worsening. The response criteria, at the end of the first 3 months of treatment, are a decrease of at least 0.6 in the DAS28 score. After 6 months of treatment res ponse criteria is defined as a decrease greater than 1.2 in the DAS28 score. Non-responders, in accordance to the Rheumatologist's clinical opi -nion, should try a switch to another biological agent (tumour necrosis factor antagonist, abatacept, rituxi mab or tocilizumab).publishersversionpublishe

Management of coronary disease in patients with advanced kidney disease

BACKGROUND Clinical trials that have assessed the effect of revascularization in patients with stable coronary disease have routinely excluded those with advanced chronic kidney disease. METHODS We randomly assigned 777 patients with advanced kidney disease and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing to be treated with an initial invasive strategy consisting of coronary angiography and revascularization (if appropriate) added to medical therapy or an initial conservative strategy consisting of medical therapy alone and angiography reserved for those in whom medical therapy had failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. A key secondary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 2.2 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 123 patients in the invasive-strategy group and in 129 patients in the conservative-strategy group (estimated 3-year event rate, 36.4% vs. 36.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.29; P=0.95). Results for the key secondary outcome were similar (38.5% vs. 39.7%; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.29). The invasive strategy was associated with a higher incidence of stroke than the conservative strategy (hazard ratio, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.52 to 9.32; P=0.004) and with a higher incidence of death or initiation of dialysis (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.11; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease, advanced chronic kidney disease, and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction

Health status after invasive or conservative care in coronary and advanced kidney disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, the primary analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of death or myocardial infarction with initial angiography and revascularization plus guideline-based medical therapy (invasive strategy) as compared with guideline-based medical therapy alone (conservative strategy) in participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease (an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 or receipt of dialysis). A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status. METHODS We assessed health status with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) before randomization and at 1.5, 3, and 6 months and every 6 months thereafter. The primary outcome of this analysis was the SAQ Summary score (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating less frequent angina and better function and quality of life). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate the treatment effect with the invasive strategy. RESULTS Health status was assessed in 705 of 777 participants. Nearly half the participants (49%) had had no angina during the month before randomization. At 3 months, the estimated mean difference between the invasive-strategy group and the conservative-strategy group in the SAQ Summary score was 2.1 points (95% credible interval, 120.4 to 4.6), a result that favored the invasive strategy. The mean difference in score at 3 months was largest among participants with daily or weekly angina at baseline (10.1 points; 95% credible interval, 0.0 to 19.9), smaller among those with monthly angina at baseline (2.2 points; 95% credible interval, 122.0 to 6.2), and nearly absent among those without angina at baseline (0.6 points; 95% credible interval, 121.9 to 3.3). By 6 months, the between-group difference in the overall trial population was attenuated (0.5 points; 95% credible interval, 122.2 to 3.4). CONCLUSIONS Participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease did not have substantial or sustained benefits with regard to angina-related health status with an initially invasive strategy as compared with a conservative strategy

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used