Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
Más filtros












Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Int J Emerg Med ; 14(1): 61, 2021 Sep 26.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34565348

RESUMEN

At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, early intubation was recommended on the basis of worldwide observations of severe hypoxemia. However, some patients were ultimately able to benefit from high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and thus avoid intubation. During the "second wave" (September to December 2020 in France), some emergency departments implemented HFNC in patients with severe COVID-19. The question then arose regarding the transfer of these most serious patients to intensive care units (ICU) and of the respiratory modalities to be used during this transfer. To assess the feasibility of interhospital transfers of COVID-19 patients needing HFNC, we conducted a bi-centric prospective observational study of all medical transfers of patients needing HFNC with the Chambéry and Angers (France) mobile emergency and intensive care service (SMUR) during the "second wave" of the COVID-19 pandemic in France. Analysis of these 42 patients showed no significant variation in the respiratory requirements during the transfer. Overall, 52% of patients were intubated during their stay in ICU, including three patients intubated before or during transfer. Interhospital transfer with HFNC is very high-risk, and intubation remains indicated in the most unstable patients. However, 48% of patients benefited from HFNC and were thus able to avoid intubation during their transfer and ICU stay; for these patients, intubation would probably have been indicated in the absence of available HFNC techniques.

3.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 99(23): e20434, 2020 Jun 05.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32501989

RESUMEN

In France, one in eight patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is admitted direct to an emergency department (ED) in a hospital without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) facilities. Guidelines recommend transfer to a PCI center, with a door-in to door-out (DI-DO) time of ≤30 min. We report DI-DO times and identify the main factors affecting them.RESURCOR is a French Northern Alps registry of patients with STEMI of <12 h duration. We focused on patients admitted direct, without prehospital medical care, to EDs in 19 non-PCI centers from 2012 to 2014. We divided DI-DO time into diagnostic time (ED admission to call for transfer) and logistical time (call for transfer to ED discharge).Among 2007 patients, 240 were admitted direct to EDs in non-PCI centers; 57.9% were treated with primary angioplasty and 32.9% received thrombolysis. Median (interquartile range) DI-DO time was 92.5 (67-143) min, with a diagnostic time of 41 (23-74) min and a logistical time of 47.5 (32-69) min. Five patients (2.1%) had a DI-DO time ≤30 min. Five variables were independently associated with a shorter DI-DO time: local transfer (mobile intensive care unit [MICU] team available at referring ED) (P = .017) or transfer by air ambulance (P = .004); shorter distance from referring ED to PCI center (P < .001); shorter time from symptom onset to ED admission (P = .002); thrombolysis (P = .006); and extended myocardial infarction (P = .007).In view of longer-than-recommended DI-DO times, efforts are required to promote urgent local transfer and use of thrombolysis.


Asunto(s)
Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital/normas , Infarto del Miocardio con Elevación del ST/terapia , Tiempo de Tratamiento , Anciano , Distribución de Chi-Cuadrado , Estudios de Cohortes , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital/organización & administración , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital/estadística & datos numéricos , Femenino , Francia/epidemiología , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/métodos , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/estadística & datos numéricos , Sistema de Registros/estadística & datos numéricos , Infarto del Miocardio con Elevación del ST/epidemiología , Factores de Tiempo
4.
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med ; 28(1): 35, 2020 May 12.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32398058

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Prompt prehospital triage and transportation are essential in an organised trauma system. The benefits of helicopter transportation on mortality in a physician-staffed pre-hospital trauma system remains unknown. The aim of the study was to assess the impact of helicopter transportation on mortality and prehospital triage. METHODS: Data collection was based on trauma registry for all consecutive major trauma patients transported by helicopter or ground ambulance in the Northern French Alps Trauma system between 2009 and 2017. The primary endpoint was in-hospital death. We performed multivariate logistic regression to compare death between helicopter and ground ambulance. RESULTS: Overall, 9458 major trauma patients were included. 37% (n = 3524) were transported by helicopter, and 56% (n = 5253) by ground ambulance. Prehospital time from the first call to the arrival at hospital was longer in the helicopter group compared to the ground ambulance group, respectively median time 95 [72-124] minutes and 85 [63-113] minutes (P < 0.001). Median transport time was similar between groups, 20 min [13-30] for helicopter and 21 min [14-32] for ground ambulance. Using multivariate logistic regression, helicopter was associated with reduced mortality compared to ground ambulance (adjusted OR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53-0.92; P = 0.01) and with reduced undertriage (OR 0.69 95% CI, 0.60-0.80; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Helicopter was associated with reduced in-hospital death and undertriage by one third. It did not decrease prehospital and transport times in a system with the same crew using both helicopter or ground ambulance. The mortality and undertriage benefits observed suggest that the helicopter is the proper mode for long-distant transport to a regional trauma centre.


Asunto(s)
Ambulancias Aéreas/estadística & datos numéricos , Aeronaves/estadística & datos numéricos , Sistema de Registros , Centros Traumatológicos/estadística & datos numéricos , Triaje/métodos , Heridas y Lesiones/diagnóstico , Adulto , Femenino , Francia/epidemiología , Humanos , Masculino , Tasa de Supervivencia/tendencias , Heridas y Lesiones/mortalidad , Heridas y Lesiones/terapia
5.
JAMA Cardiol ; 1(5): 557-65, 2016 08 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27433815

RESUMEN

IMPORTANCE: Experimental evidence suggests that cyclosporine prevents postcardiac arrest syndrome by attenuating the systemic ischemia reperfusion response. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether early administration of cyclosporine at the time of resuscitation in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) would prevent multiple organ failure. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicenter, single-blind, randomized clinical trial was conducted from June 22, 2010, to March 13, 2013 (Cyclosporine A in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Resuscitation [CYRUS]). Sixteen intensive care units in 7 university-affiliated hospitals and 9 general hospitals in France participated. A total of 6758 patients who experienced nonshockable OHCA (ie, asystole or pulseless electrical activity) were assessed for eligibility. Analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat analysis. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received an intravenous bolus injection of cyclosporine, 2.5 mg/kg, at the onset of advanced cardiovascular life support (cyclosporine group) or no additional intervention (control group). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, assessed 24 hours after hospital admission, which ranges from 0 to 24 (with higher scores indicating more severe organ failure). Secondary end points included survival at 24 hours, hospital discharge, and favorable neurologic outcome at discharge. RESULTS: Of the 6758 patients screened, 794 were included in intention-to-treat analysis (cyclosporine, 400; control, 394). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) ages were 63.0 (54.0-71.8) years for the cyclosporine group and 66.0 (57.0-74.0) years for the control group. The cohorts included 293 men (73.3%) in the treatment group and 288 men (73.1%) in the control group. At 24 hours after hospital admission, the SOFA score was not significantly different between the cyclosporine (median, 10.0; IQR, 7.0-13.0) and the control (median, 11.0; IQR, 7.0-15.0) groups. Survival was not significantly different between the 98 (24.5%) cyclosporine vs 101 (25.6%) control patients at hospital admission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.66-1.34), at 24 hours for 67 (16.8%) vs 62 (15.7%) patients (aOR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.71-1.63), and at hospital discharge for 10 (2.5%) vs 5 (1.3%) patients (aOR, 2.00; 95% CI, 0.61-6.52). Favorable neurologic outcome at discharge was comparable between the cyclosporine and control groups: 7 (1.8%) vs 5 (1.3%) patients (aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.39-4.91). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: In patients presenting with nonshockable cardiac rhythm after OHCA, cyclosporine does not prevent early multiple organ failure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01595958; EudraCT Identifier: 2009-015725-37.


Asunto(s)
Ciclosporina/uso terapéutico , Inhibidores Enzimáticos/uso terapéutico , Insuficiencia Multiorgánica/prevención & control , Paro Cardíaco Extrahospitalario/complicaciones , Anciano , Reanimación Cardiopulmonar , Femenino , Francia , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Insuficiencia Multiorgánica/etiología , Método Simple Ciego
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...