RESUMO
Objective: The performance of automated control of inspired oxygen (A-FiO2) has been confirmed in dozens of studies but reports of routine use are limited. Broadly adopted in Poland, our aim is to share that experience. Methods: We used a prospectively planned observational study of the performance, general use patterns, unit practices, and problems with A-FiO2, based on a web registry of case reports, complemented by surveys of subjective impressions. Results: In 2019, a total of 92 A-FiO2 systems were in routine use in 38 centers. Of the 38 centers, 20 had agreed in 2013 to participate in the project. In these centers, A-FiO2 was applied in infants of all weights, but some centers restricted its use to weaning from oxygen and unstable infants. A cohort had reported their experience with each use (5/20 centers, 593 cases). A quarter of those infants were managed with a lower target range and three-quarters with alarms looser than European guidelines for manual SpO2 control. The perceived primary advantages of A-FiO2 were as follows: keeping the readings in the target range, reducing exposure to SpO2 extremes, reducing risk from nurse distraction, reducing workload, and reducing alarm fatigue. Practices did evolve with experience, including implementing changes in the alarm strategy, indications for use, and target range. The potential for over-reliance on automation was cited as a risk. There were a few reports of limited effectiveness (moderate 12/593 and poor 2/593). Conclusions: Automated oxygen control is broadly perceived by users as an improvement in controlling SpO2 with infrequent problems.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Safe and effective oral therapies for chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) would provide an important alternative to mechanical compression treatment. Several narrative reviews and one systematic review have summarized the efficacy of horse chestnut seed extract (HCSE), but to our knowledge no systematic review has included data from both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and large-scale observational studies regarding outcomes as well as adverse events. METHODS: Using a systematic literature search, we identified 13 RCTs of CVI (1,051 patients) and 3 observational studies (10,725 patients) that met our inclusion criteria. Examined outcomes were leg volume, ankle and calf circumference, edema, pain, sensation of tension, swelling, leg fatigue/heaviness, calf cramps, and itching. Random and fixed effect models were used to pool outcomes and adverse events separately for RCTs and observational studies. RESULTS: Overall, the RCTs indicated that HCSE improved symptoms in patients with CVI. Compared to placebo, HCSE reduced leg volume by 46.4 ml (95% CI, 11.3-81.4 ml) and increased the likelihood of improvement in leg pain 4.1-fold (95% CI, 0.98-16.8). Similarly, improvement probabilities were increased 1.5-fold (95% CI, 1.2-1.9) for edema and 1.7-fold (95% CI, 0.01-3.0) for itching. There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate HCSE's effect on leg fatigue/heaviness or calf cramps. Observational studies showed significant effectiveness regarding pain, edema, and leg fatigue/heaviness. No severe adverse events were reported, and HCSE did not significantly increase mild adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Based on meta-analyses of RCTs and observational studies, HCSE appears to be an effective and safe treatment for CVI. Further RCTs and carefully conducted large-scale observational studies are required to evaluate the long-term effectiveness and safety of HCSE in routine settings.