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.
Can J Anaesth ; 60(7): 652-9, 2013 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23606231

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The efficacy of systemic corticosteroids in many critical illnesses remains uncertain. Our primary objective was to survey intensivists in North America about their perceived use of corticosteroids in clinical practice. DESIGN: Self-administered paper survey. POPULATION: Intensivists in academic hospitals with clinical trial expertise in critical illness. MEASUREMENTS: We generated questionnaire items in focus groups and refined them after assessments of clinical sensibility and test-retest reliability and pilot testing. We administered the survey to experienced intensivists practicing in selected North American centres actively enrolling patients in the multicentre Oscillation for ARDS Treated Early (OSCILLATE) Trial (ISRCTN87124254). Respondents used a four-point scale to grade how frequently they would administer corticosteroids in 14 clinical settings. They also reported their opinions on 16 potential near-absolute indications or contraindications for the use of corticosteroids. MAIN RESULTS: Our response rate was 82% (103/125). Respondents were general internists (50%), respirologists (22%), anesthesiologists (21%), and surgeons (7%) who practiced in mixed medical-surgical units. A majority of respondents reported almost always prescribing corticosteroids in the setting of significant bronchospasm in a mechanically ventilated patient (94%), recent corticosteroid use and low blood pressure (93%), and vasopressor-refractory septic shock (52%). Although more than half of respondents stated they would almost never prescribe corticosteroids in severe community-acquired pneumonia (81%), acute lung injury (ALI, 76%), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS, 65%), and severe ARDS (51%), variability increased with severity of acute lung injury. Near-absolute indications selected by most respondents included known adrenal insufficiency (99%) and suspicion of cryptogenic organizing pneumonia (89%), connective tissue disease (85%), or other potentially corticosteroid-responsive illnesses (85%). CONCLUSIONS: Respondents reported rarely prescribing corticosteroids for ALI, but accepted them for bronchospasm, suspected adrenal insufficiency due to previous corticosteroid use, and vasopressor-refractory septic shock. These competing indications will complicate the design and interpretation of any future large-scale trial of corticosteroids in critical illness.


Assuntos
Corticosteroides/uso terapêutico , Atitude do Pessoal de Saúde , Cuidados Críticos , Lesão Pulmonar Aguda/tratamento farmacológico , Insuficiência Adrenal/tratamento farmacológico , Anestesiologia , Espasmo Brônquico/tratamento farmacológico , Infecções Comunitárias Adquiridas/tratamento farmacológico , Doenças do Tecido Conjuntivo/tratamento farmacológico , Contraindicações , Estado Terminal , Pneumonia em Organização Criptogênica/tratamento farmacológico , Cirurgia Geral , Humanos , Hipotensão/tratamento farmacológico , Medicina Interna , Pneumonia/tratamento farmacológico , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Pneumologia , Respiração Artificial , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório/tratamento farmacológico , Autorrelato , Choque Séptico/tratamento farmacológico , Inquéritos e Questionários
2.
Crit Care ; 14(5): 324, 2010.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21062514

RESUMO

Two recent systematic reviews evaluating intensive insulin therapy (IIT) in critically ill patients grouped randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by type of intensive care unit (ICU). The more recent review found that IIT reduced mortality in patients admitted to a surgical ICU, but not in those admitted to medical ICUs or mixed medical-surgical ICUs, or in all patients combined. Our objective was to determine whether IIT saves lives in critically ill surgical patients regardless of the type of ICU. Pooling mortality data from surgical and medical subgroups in mixed-ICU RCTs (16 trials) with RCTs conducted exclusively in surgical ICUs (five trials) and in medical ICUs (five trials), respectively, showed no effect of IIT in the subgroups of surgical patients (risk ratio = 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.69 to 1.04, P = 0.11; I2 = 51%, 95% CI = 1 to 75%) or of medical patients (risk ratio = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.95 to 1.09, P = 0.61; I2 = 0%, 95% CI = 0 to 41%). There was no differential effect between subgroups (interaction P = 0.10). There was statistical heterogeneity in the surgical subgroup, with some trials demonstrating significant benefit and others demonstrating significant harm, but no surgical subgroup consistently benefited from IIT. Such a reanalysis suggests that IIT does not reduce mortality in critically ill surgical patients or medical patients. Further insights may come from individual patient data meta-analyses or from future large multicenter RCTs in more narrowly defined subgroups of surgical patients.


Assuntos
Cuidados Críticos/normas , Insulina/administração & dosagem , Metanálise como Assunto , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Operatórios/normas , Estado Terminal , Humanos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/normas
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA