Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters

Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Biomed Instrum Technol ; 56(1): 1-7, 2022 Jan 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35020827

ABSTRACT

This article explores ways in which technological innovation can be bolstered in organizations that operate in the health technology industry. We present seven interventions at the team level (employee empowerment, servant leadership, hiring innovators, and scheduling time for innovation) and organizational level (intrapreneurship, flat management, and allowing for failure) that organizations can use to encourage and inspire innovation among employees. Given the increasingly dynamic nature of work within the health technology fields, in terms of both manufacturing processes and clinical developments, creating a culture of innovation and creativity and emboldening employees to regularly engage in such behaviors within these workplaces are critical.


Subject(s)
Creativity , Leadership , Biomedical Technology , Industry , Organizational Innovation
2.
Perioper Med (Lond) ; 13(1): 5, 2024 Jan 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38263259

ABSTRACT

We systematically reviewed the literature to investigate the effects of peri-procedural desmopressin in patients without known inherited bleeding disorders undergoing surgery or other invasive procedures. We included 63 randomized trials (4163 participants) published up to February 1, 2023. Seven trials were published after a 2017 Cochrane systematic review on this topic. There were 38 trials in cardiac surgery, 22 in noncardiac surgery, and 3 in non-surgical procedures. Meta-analyses demonstrated that desmopressin likely does not reduce the risk of receiving a red blood cell transfusion (25 trials, risk ratio [RR] 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86 to 1.05) and may not reduce the risk of reoperation due to bleeding (22 trials, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.19) when compared to placebo or usual care. However, we demonstrated significant reductions in number of units of red blood cells transfused (25 trials, mean difference -0.55 units, 95% CI - 0.94 to - 0.15), total volume of blood loss (33 trials, standardized mean difference - 0.40 standard deviations; 95% CI - 0.56 to - 0.23), and the risk of bleeding events (2 trials, RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.84). The certainty of evidence of these findings was generally low. Desmopressin increased the risk of clinically significant hypotension that required intervention (19 trials, RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.36 to 3.41). Limited evidence suggests that tranexamic acid is more effective than desmopressin in reducing transfusion risk (3 trials, RR 2.38 favoring tranexamic acid, 95% CI 1.06 to 5.39) and total volume of blood loss (3 trials, mean difference 391.7 mL favoring tranexamic acid, 95% CI - 93.3 to 876.7 mL). No trials directly informed the safety and hemostatic efficacy of desmopressin in advanced kidney disease. In conclusion, desmopressin likely reduces periprocedural blood loss and the number of units of blood transfused in small trials with methodologic limitations. However, the risk of hypotension needs to be mitigated. Large trials should evaluate desmopressin alongside tranexamic acid and enroll patients with advanced kidney disease.

3.
J Clin Anesth ; 94: 111417, 2024 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38387241

ABSTRACT

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess how kidney disease is handled in randomized trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of perioperative tranexamic acid, and to evaluate its effects across levels of kidney function. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. SETTING: We screened studies from a previous comprehensive systematic review, and updated its search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL to July 31, 2023. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing non-obstetric surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Intravenous tranexamic acid compared to placebo or usual care without tranexamic acid. MEASUREMENT: We summarized the handling of kidney disease in eligibility criteria, dose adjustments for kidney function, and effects of tranexamic acid on thrombotic events, seizures, and bleeding by subgroups of kidney function. MAIN RESULTS: We evaluated 300 trials with 53,085 participants; 45,958 participants (86.6%) were enrolled in 228 trials (76.0%) that explicitly excluded patients with kidney disease. Definitions of kidney diseased used for exclusion varied widely. Most were non-specific and some corresponded to mild disease. Only 5 trials adjusted dosing for kidney function. Meta-analysis of two large trials found tranexamic acid unlikely to substantially increase or decrease the occurrence of thrombotic events in patients with eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73m2 (RR, 0.95; 95% CI: 0.83 to 1.07) or ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73m2 (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.11; P for subgroup difference = 0.47), but both trials excluded patients with severe kidney disease. No analysis could be performed regarding seizure risk. One large trial in noncardiac surgery reported similar reduction in bleeding across subgroups of kidney function but excluded patients with creatinine clearance <30 mL/min. CONCLUSIONS: The large evidence base supporting perioperative tranexamic acid suffers from broad and unjustified exclusion of patients with kidney disease. Typical perioperative dosing of tranexamic acid is likely safe and effective in patients with creatinine clearance >30 mL/min, but effects in more severe kidney disease are unknown.


Subject(s)
Antifibrinolytic Agents , Kidney Diseases , Tranexamic Acid , Humans , Antifibrinolytic Agents/adverse effects , Creatinine , Hemorrhage/prevention & control , Tranexamic Acid/adverse effects
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL