Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Más filtros












Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
South Med J ; 114(12): 766-771, 2021 12.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34853852

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of mortality and disability worldwide. Use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) appears to be associated with a significant decrease in frequency of exacerbation, hospital admissions, and mortality in patients with COPD. In this study, we sought to determine clinical outcomes, prevalence, patient profiles and systems characteristics associated with the use of NIV in patients with asthma, bronchiectasis, and other COPD. METHODS: In this retrospective study, the Nationwide Inpatient Sample dataset was used to evaluate patient characteristics for adult hospitalizations for asthma, bronchiectasis, and other COPD between January 2002 and December 2017. Using the adjusted survey logistic regression model, the association between NIV and in-hospital mortality for asthma, bronchiectasis, and other COPD was ascertained. RESULTS: Other COPD hospitalization prevalence was nearly two times higher among non-Hispanic Black patients compared with non-Hispanic White patients (8.32/1000 vs 4.46/1000). There was a 4.3% average annual decrease in the rates of NIV among hospitalized patients with other COPD during the study period. Furthermore, nonusage of NIV was associated with increased in-hospital mortality for asthma (odds ratio [OR] 1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.50-1.57), bronchiectasis (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.69-2.41), and other COPD (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.16-1.32), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Inpatient use of NIV has a clear mortality benefit in asthma, bronchiectasis, and COPD. These findings support a signal for potential benefit, particularly among certain populations and warrant further investigation.


Asunto(s)
Asma/terapia , Bronquiectasia/terapia , Ventilación no Invasiva/normas , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/terapia , Adulto , Anciano , Asma/complicaciones , Asma/epidemiología , Bronquiectasia/complicaciones , Bronquiectasia/epidemiología , Estudios Transversales , Femenino , Humanos , Modelos Logísticos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Ventilación no Invasiva/métodos , Ventilación no Invasiva/estadística & datos numéricos , Oportunidad Relativa , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/complicaciones , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/epidemiología , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del Tratamiento
2.
Respir Med ; 185: 106474, 2021.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34044293

RESUMEN

Hypoxemic respiratory failure is a common manifestation of COVID-19 pneumonia. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure were, at times, being intubated earlier than normal; in part because the options of heated humidified high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) were considered potentially inadequate and to increase risk of virus aerosolization. To understand the benefits and factors that predict success and failure of HFNC in this population, we evaluated data from the first 30 sequential patients admitted with COVID-19 pneumonia to our center who were managed with HFNC. We conducted Cox Proportional Hazards regression models to evaluate the factors associated with high flow nasal cannula failure (outcome variable), using time to intubation (censoring variable), while adjusting for comorbidities and immunosuppression. In the majority of our patients (76.7%), the use of HFNC failed and the patients were ultimately placed on mechanical ventilation. Those at increased risk of failure had a higher sequential organ failure assessment score, and at least one comorbidity or history of immunosuppression. Our data suggest that high flow nasal cannula may have a role in some patients with COVID-19 presenting with hypoxemic respiratory failure, but careful patient selection is the likely key to its success.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19/complicaciones , Cánula/efectos adversos , Ventilación no Invasiva/efectos adversos , Terapia por Inhalación de Oxígeno/efectos adversos , Pandemias , Insuficiencia Respiratoria/terapia , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , COVID-19/epidemiología , Falla de Equipo , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Ventilación no Invasiva/instrumentación , Terapia por Inhalación de Oxígeno/instrumentación , Insuficiencia Respiratoria/etiología , SARS-CoV-2
4.
J Clin Sleep Med ; 16(10): 1781-1784, 2020 10 15.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32844740

RESUMEN

None: The last several years have seen intense debate about the issue of transitioning between standard and daylight saving time. In the United States, the annual advance to daylight saving time in spring, and fall back to standard time in autumn, is required by law (although some exceptions are allowed under the statute). An abundance of accumulated evidence indicates that the acute transition from standard time to daylight saving time incurs significant public health and safety risks, including increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events, mood disorders, and motor vehicle crashes. Although chronic effects of remaining in daylight saving time year-round have not been well studied, daylight saving time is less aligned with human circadian biology-which, due to the impacts of the delayed natural light/dark cycle on human activity, could result in circadian misalignment, which has been associated in some studies with increased cardiovascular disease risk, metabolic syndrome and other health risks. It is, therefore, the position of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine that these seasonal time changes should be abolished in favor of a fixed, national, year-round standard time.


Asunto(s)
Ritmo Circadiano , Fotoperiodo , Accidentes de Tránsito , Humanos , Estaciones del Año , Sueño , Estados Unidos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...