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








Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Clin Med ; 13(9)2024 Apr 26.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38731067

RESUMO

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), a common sleep disorder, poses significant challenges in perioperative management due to its complexity and multifactorial nature. With a global prevalence of approximately 22.6%, OSA often remains undiagnosed, and increases the risk of cardiac and respiratory postoperative complications. Preoperative screening has become essential in many institutions to identify patients at increased risk, and experts recommend proceeding with surgery in the absence of severe symptoms, albeit with heightened postoperative monitoring. Anesthetic and sedative agents exacerbate upper airway collapsibility and depress central respiratory activity, complicating intraoperative management, especially with neuromuscular blockade use. Additionally, OSA patients are particularly prone to opioid-induced respiratory depression, given their increased sensitivity to opioids and heightened pain perception. Thus, regional anesthesia and multimodal analgesia are strongly advocated to reduce perioperative complication risks. Postoperative care for OSA patients necessitates vigilant monitoring and tailored management strategies, such as supplemental oxygen and Positive Airway Pressure therapy, to minimize cardiorespiratory complications. Health care institutions are increasingly focusing on enhanced monitoring and resource allocation for patient safety. However, the rising prevalence of OSA, heterogeneity in disease severity, and lack of evidence for the efficacy of costly perioperative measures pose challenges. The development of effective screening and monitoring algorithms, alongside reliable risk predictors, is crucial for identifying OSA patients needing extended postoperative care. This review emphasizes a multidimensional approach in managing OSA patients throughout the perioperative period, aiming to optimize patient outcomes and minimize adverse outcomes.

2.
J Trauma Acute Care Surg ; 90(6): 1040-1047, 2021 06 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34016927

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: There is substantial investment in layperson and first responder training involving tourniquet use for hemorrhage control. Little is known however about prehospital tourniquet application, field conversion, or outcomes in the civilian setting. We describe the experience of a metropolitan region with prehospital tourniquet application. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study characterizing prehospital tourniquet use treated by emergency medical services (EMS) in King County, Washington, from January 2018 to June 2019. Emergency medical services and hospital records were abstracted for demographics, injury mechanism, tourniquet details, clinical care, and outcomes. We evaluated the incidence of tourniquet application, who applied the device (EMS, law enforcement, or layperson), and subsequent course. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients received tourniquet application, an incidence of 5.1 per 100,000 person-years and 3.48 per 1,000 EMS responses for trauma. Tourniquets were applied for penetrating trauma (64%), blunt trauma (30%), and bleeding ateriovenous fistulas (7%). A subset was critically ill: 13% had systolic blood pressures of <90 mm Hg, 8% had Glasgow Coma Scale score of <13, and 3% had cardiac arrest. Among initial applications, 48% were placed by law enforcement, 33% by laypersons, and 18% by EMS. Among tourniquets applied by layperson or law enforcement (n = 137), EMS relied solely on the original tourniquet in 45% (n = 61), placed a second tourniquet in 20% (n = 28), and removed the tourniquet without replacement in 35% (n = 48). Overall, 24% required massive transfusion, 59% underwent urgent surgery, and 21% required vascular surgery. Mortality was 3% (n = 4). At hospital discharge, the tourniquet limb was fully functional in 81%, partially functional in 10%, and nonfunctional in 9%; decreased function was not attributed to tourniquet application. CONCLUSION: The high rate of application, need for urgent hospital intervention in a subset, and low incidence of apparent complication suggest that efforts to increase access and early tourniquet use can provide public health benefit. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level IV.


Assuntos
Serviços Médicos de Emergência/estatística & dados numéricos , Primeiros Socorros/instrumentação , Hemorragia/terapia , Técnicas Hemostáticas/instrumentação , Torniquetes/estatística & dados numéricos , Adulto , Idoso , Extremidades/irrigação sanguínea , Extremidades/lesões , Feminino , Primeiros Socorros/efeitos adversos , Primeiros Socorros/estatística & dados numéricos , Hemorragia/etiologia , Técnicas Hemostáticas/efeitos adversos , Técnicas Hemostáticas/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Retrospectivos , Torniquetes/efeitos adversos , Centros de Traumatologia/estatística & dados numéricos , Adulto Jovem
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA