Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Intensive Care Med ; 39(7): 623-627, 2024 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38176890

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Temperature targets in patients with cardiac arrest and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) have changed. Changes to higher temperature targets have been associated with higher breakthrough fevers and mortality. A post-ROSC normothermia bundle was developed to improve compliance with temperature targets. METHODS: In August 2021, "ad hoc" normothermia at the discretion of the attending intensivist was initiated. In December 2021, a post-ROSC normothermia protocol was implemented, incorporating a rigorous, stepwise approach to fever prevention (temperature ≥ 37.8). We conducted a before-after cohort study of all adult patients post-ROSC who survived to intensive care unit admission between August 1, 2021, and April 1, 2022. They were divided into "ad hoc" and "protocol" groups. Clinical outcomes compared included fevers, active cooling, and paralytic use. RESULTS: Fifty-eight post-ROSC patients were admitted; 24 in the "ad hoc" and 34 in the "protocol" groups. Patient demographics were similar between groups. The "ad hoc" group had more shockable rhythms (67% vs 24%, P = .001) and cardiac catheterizations (42% vs 15%, P = .03). The "protocol" group were significantly less likely to have a fever at 40 h (6% vs 40%, P < .001) and 72 h (14% vs 65%, P ≤ .001). Patients in the normothermia "protocol" used significantly less neuromuscular blocking agents (24% vs 50%, P = .05). The normothermia "protocol" resulted in similar mortality (56% vs 58%, P = 1.0). CONCLUSION: Use of a normothermia "protocol" resulted in fewer fevers and less neuromuscular blocker administration compared to "ad hoc" management. A protocolized approach for improved quality of care should be considered in institutions adopting normothermia.


Assuntos
Febre , Pacotes de Assistência ao Paciente , Humanos , Masculino , Feminino , Pacotes de Assistência ao Paciente/normas , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Idoso , Febre/terapia , Melhoria de Qualidade , Temperatura Corporal , Reanimação Cardiopulmonar/normas , Reanimação Cardiopulmonar/métodos , Parada Cardíaca/terapia , Parada Cardíaca/mortalidade , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Cuidados Críticos/normas , Cuidados Críticos/métodos , Protocolos Clínicos/normas , Resultado do Tratamento
2.
JAMA ; 326(11): 1024-1033, 2021 09 21.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34546300

RESUMO

Importance: Growing interest in microbial dysbiosis during critical illness has raised questions about the therapeutic potential of microbiome modification with probiotics. Prior randomized trials in this population suggest that probiotics reduce infection, particularly ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), although probiotic-associated infections have also been reported. Objective: To evaluate the effect of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG on preventing VAP, additional infections, and other clinically important outcomes in the intensive care unit (ICU). Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized placebo-controlled trial in 44 ICUs in Canada, the United States, and Saudi Arabia enrolling adults predicted to require mechanical ventilation for at least 72 hours. A total of 2653 patients were enrolled from October 2013 to March 2019 (final follow-up, October 2020). Interventions: Enteral L rhamnosus GG (1 × 1010 colony-forming units) (n = 1321) or placebo (n = 1332) twice daily in the ICU. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was VAP determined by duplicate blinded central adjudication. Secondary outcomes were other ICU-acquired infections including Clostridioides difficile infection, diarrhea, antimicrobial use, ICU and hospital length of stay, and mortality. Results: Among 2653 randomized patients (mean age, 59.8 years [SD], 16.5 years), 2650 (99.9%) completed the trial (mean age, 59.8 years [SD], 16.5 years; 1063 women [40.1%.] with a mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 22.0 (SD, 7.8) and received the study product for a median of 9 days (IQR, 5-15 days). VAP developed among 289 of 1318 patients (21.9%) receiving probiotics vs 284 of 1332 controls (21.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.03 (95% CI, 0.87-1.22; P = .73, absolute difference, 0.6%, 95% CI, -2.5% to 3.7%). None of the 20 prespecified secondary outcomes, including other ICU-acquired infections, diarrhea, antimicrobial use, mortality, or length of stay showed a significant difference. Fifteen patients (1.1%) receiving probiotics vs 1 (0.1%) in the control group experienced the adverse event of L rhamnosus in a sterile site or the sole or predominant organism in a nonsterile site (odds ratio, 14.02; 95% CI, 1.79-109.58; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation, administration of the probiotic L rhamnosus GG compared with placebo, resulted in no significant difference in the development of ventilator-associated pneumonia. These findings do not support the use of L rhamnosus GG in critically ill patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02462590.


Assuntos
Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus , Pneumonia Associada à Ventilação Mecânica/prevenção & controle , Probióticos/uso terapêutico , Respiração Artificial , Idoso , Antibacterianos/efeitos adversos , Infecções Bacterianas/prevenção & controle , Diarreia/prevenção & controle , Feminino , Humanos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Respiração Artificial/efeitos adversos , Falha de Tratamento
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA