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.
BMC Public Health ; 24(1): 832, 2024 Mar 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38500093

RESUMO

Understanding the burden associated with occupational asbestos exposure on a global and regional scale is necessary to implement coordinated prevention and control strategies. By the GBD Study 2019, we conducted a comprehensive assessment of the non-communicable diseases burden attributable to occupational asbestos exposure. In 2019, 239,330 deaths and 4,189,000 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) worldwide due to occupational asbestos exposure occurred. 1990-2019, deaths and DALYs attributed to occupational asbestos exposure increased by 65.65% and 43.66%, respectively. Age-standardized mortality rate (ASMR) and age-standardized DALYs rate (ASDR) decreased, with the most rapid declines in high Socio-Demographic Index (SDI) regions, with average annual percent change (AAPC) of - 1.05(95%CI: -1.2, -0.89) and -1.53(95%CI: -1.71, -1.36), respectively. Lung cancer, mesothelioma and ovarian cancer were the top three contributors to the increase in deaths and DALYs, accounting for more than 96%. AAPCs of ASMR and ASDR were positively associated with SDI. Global deaths from occupational asbestos exposure were predicted to increase and ASMR to decrease by 2035, mostly in males. Due consideration should be given to the susceptibility of the elderly, the lag of asbestos onset, and the regional differences, and constantly improve the prevention and control measures of occupational asbestos exposure and related diseases.


Assuntos
Amianto , Doenças não Transmissíveis , Exposição Ocupacional , Masculino , Humanos , Idoso , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Doenças não Transmissíveis/epidemiologia , Carga Global da Doença , Exposição Ocupacional/efeitos adversos , Amianto/toxicidade , Saúde Global
2.
Heliyon ; 10(1): e23548, 2024 Jan 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38187245

RESUMO

Background: Postoperative analgesia is an essential component of enhanced recovery after surgery following abdominal surgery. Studies comparing the effectiveness of epidural analgesia with that of other analgesic modalities after liver surgery have reported inconsistent results. Consequently, the use of epidural analgesia for open hepatectomy is controversial. Objective: The present single-center retrospective study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) in adults undergoing open hepatectomy. Methods: Patients who underwent open hepatectomy between January 2018 to December 2019 at Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching was used to adjust baseline information between the PCEA and PCIA groups. The primary outcome measure was scores of the numeric rating scales (NRSs) for resting, exercise, and nocturnal pain at postoperative 24 h (postoperative day 1 [POD1]) and 48 h (POD2). The secondary outcome indicators included postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), hypotension, pruritus, respiratory depression, functional activity score (FAS), effective analgesic pump compression ratio, analgesic relief rate, discontinuation of the analgesic pump, reasons for discontinuation of the analgesic pump, and patient satisfaction with postoperative analgesia. Results: The NRS scores of the PCEA group on POD1 were significantly lower than those of the PCIA group (P < 0.05). On POD2, the difference between the two groups was significant only for motion NRS scores (P < 0.05). The PCIA group had significantly more patients with lower FAS functional class than the PCEA group (P < 0.001). The effective analgesic pump compression ratio and the analgesic relief rate at 2 days after the surgery were lower in the PCEA group than in the PCIA group (P < 0.001). The incidence of pump discontinuation was higher in the PCEA group than in the PCIA group on POD2 (P = 0.044). Moreover, on POD1 and POD2, the PCEA group showed a higher incidence of pruritus and hypotension than the PCIA group (P < 0.001). Both groups showed no significant difference in PONV incidence. Conclusion: In patients undergoing open hepatectomy, PCEA was more effective than PCIA in relieving moderate to severe pain on POD1. However, improving the safety and effectiveness of PCEA remains a challenge.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA