Prevention and management of pain after endodontic treatment

Aim. Medical therapy optimization for the prevention and management of pain after endodontic treatment.Materials and methods. A clinical study, in which 68 patients with sequelae of dental caries were examined. The following methods were used:clinical method, roentgenological method, pharmacoepidemiological method, expert judgements, mathematical statistics.Results. A spectrum of analgesics for self-medication of dental pain included 8 medications; 92.6% of which are nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Pathology of gastritis in the past medical history was identified in 39.7 ± 5.9% of the patients. Pain was recorded in 79.4 ± 5.4% of the patients. After having finished the treatment analgesic was prescribed in 42.6 ± 4.2% of the cases. Analgesics were taken by 73.5 ± 5.4% of the patients with postendodontic pain. The connection between the analgesic's “strength” and the subjective assessment of its efficacy was identified: r = +0.31 p = 0.035.Conclusions. In most cases pain severity before and after endodontic treatment can be evaluated as moderate. Ketorolac (51,9%) is used as a preferred medication for self-help by the patients with dental pain. Ibuprofen (56,4%) and ketorolac (33,3%) are prescribed by doctors as an analgesic after endodontic treatment in most cases.However, patients often do not follow doctors' orders and choose other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as a selfmedicating for preventing the pain. A prescription pattern of analgesic drugs for the prevention and management of pain after endodontic treatment is introduced: for moderate pain - ibuprofen or paracetamol, for severe pain - ketoprofen for the patients with somatic system disorder or ketorolac for the patients without somatic symptom disorder

Management of dyslipidaemia in patients with coronary heart disease: Results from the ESC-EORP EUROASPIRE V survey in 27 countries

Background and aims: One of the objectives of the ESC-EORP EUROASPIRE V survey is to determine how well European guidelines on the management of dyslipidaemias are implemented in coronary patients. Methods: Standardized methods were used by trained technicians to collect information on 7824 patients from 130 centers in 27 countries, from the medical records and at a visit at least 6 months after hospitalization for a coronary event. All lipid measurements were performed in one central laboratory. Patients were divided into three groups: on high-intensity LDL-C-lowering-drug therapy (LLT), on low or moderate-intensity LLT and on no LLT. Results: At the time of the visit, almost half of the patients were on a high-intensity LLT. Between hospital discharge and the visit, LLT had been reduced in intensity or interrupted in 20.8% of the patients and had been started or increased in intensity in 11.7%. In those who had interrupted LLT or had reduced the intensity, intolerance to LLT and the advice of their physician were reported as the reason why in 15.8 and 36.8% of the cases, respectively. LDL-C control was better in those on a high-intensity LLT compared to those on low or moderate intensity LLT. LDL-C control was better in men than women and in patients with self-reported diabetes. Conclusions: The results of the EUROASPIRE V survey show that most coronary patients have a less than optimal management of LDL-C. More professional strategies are needed, aiming at lifestyle changes and LLT adapted to the need of the individual patient

Management of dyslipidaemia in patients with coronary heart disease: Results from the ESC-EORP EUROASPIRE V survey in 27 countries

WOS: 000468732700018PubMed ID: 31054483Background and aims: One of the objectives of the ESC-EORP EUROASPIRE V survey is to determine how well European guidelines on the management of dyslipidaemias are implemented in coronary patients. Methods: Standardized methods were used by trained technicians to collect information on 7824 patients from 130 centers in 27 countries, from the medical records and at a visit at least 6 months after hospitalization for a coronary event. All lipid measurements were performed in one central laboratory. Patients were divided into three groups: on high-intensity LDL-C-lowering-drug therapy (LLT), on low or moderate-intensity LLT and on no LLT. Results: At the time of the visit, almost half of the patients were on a high-intensity LLT. Between hospital discharge and the visit, LLT had been reduced in intensity or interrupted in 20.8% of the patients and had been started or increased in intensity in 11.7%. In those who had interrupted LLT or had reduced the intensity, intolerance to LLT and the advice of their physician were reported as the reason why in 15.8 and 36.8% of the cases, respectively. LDL-C control was better in those on a high-intensity LLT compared to those on low or moderate intensity LLT. LDL-C control was better in men than women and in patients with self-reported diabetes. Conclusions: The results of the EUROASPIRE V survey show that most coronary patients have a less than optimal management of LDL-C. More professional strategies are needed, aiming at lifestyle changes and LLT adapted to the need of the individual patient.ESC - EORP; AmgenAmgen; Eli LillyEli Lilly; PfizerPfizer; SanofiSanofi-Aventis; Ferrer; Novo NordiskNovo NordiskThe EUROASPIRE V survey was carried out under the auspices of the ESC - EORP. Since the start of EORP, the following companies have supported the programme: Amgen, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Ferrer and Novo Nordisk. The sponsors of the EUROASPIRE surveys had no role in the design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, decision to publish, or writing the manuscript

Management of dyslipidaemia in patients with coronary heart disease: Results from the ESC-EORP EUROASPIRE V survey in 27 countries

Background and aims: One of the objectives of the ESC-EORP EUROASPIRE V survey is to determine how well European guidelines on the management of dyslipidaemias are implemented in coronary patients. Methods: Standardized methods were used by trained technicians to collect information on 7824 patients from 130 centers in 27 countries, from the medical records and at a visit at least 6 months after hospitalization for a coronary event. All lipid measurements were performed in one central laboratory. Patients were divided into three groups: on high-intensity LDL-C-lowering-drug therapy (LLT), on low or moderate-intensity LLT and on no LLT. Results: At the time of the visit, almost half of the patients were on a high-intensity LLT. Between hospital discharge and the visit, LLT had been reduced in intensity or interrupted in 20.8\% of the patients and had been started or increased in intensity in 11.7\%. In those who had interrupted LLT or had reduced the intensity, intolerance to LLT and the advice of their physician were reported as the reason why in 15.8 and 36.8\% of the cases, respectively. LDL-C control was better in those on a high-intensity LLT compared to those on low or moderate intensity LLT. LDL-C control was better in men than women and in patients with self-reported diabetes. Conclusions: The results of the EUROASPIRE V survey show that most coronary patients have a less than optimal management of LDL-C. More professional strategies are needed, aiming at lifestyle changes and LLT adapted to the need of the individual patient