Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 9 de 9
Filtrar
Más filtros

Bases de datos
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
J Thromb Haemost ; 20(10): 2214-2225, 2022 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35906716

RESUMEN

Antithrombotic agents reduce risk of thromboembolism in severely ill patients. Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may realize additional benefits from heparins. Optimal dosing and timing of these treatments and benefits of other antithrombotic agents remain unclear. In October 2021, ISTH assembled an international panel of content experts, patient representatives, and a methodologist to develop recommendations on anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents for patients with COVID-19 in different clinical settings. We used the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association methodology to assess level of evidence (LOE) and class of recommendation (COR). Only recommendations with LOE A or B were included. Panelists agreed on 12 recommendations: three for non-hospitalized, five for non-critically ill hospitalized, three for critically ill hospitalized, and one for post-discharge patients. Two recommendations were based on high-quality evidence, the remainder on moderate-quality evidence. Among non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the panel gave a strong recommendation (a) for use of prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin (LMWH/UFH) (COR 1); (b) for select patients in this group, use of therapeutic dose LMWH/UFH in preference to prophylactic dose (COR 1); but (c) against the addition of an antiplatelet agent (COR 3). Weak recommendations favored (a) sulodexide in non-hospitalized patients, (b) adding an antiplatelet agent to prophylactic LMWH/UFH in select critically ill, and (c) prophylactic rivaroxaban for select patients after discharge (all COR 2b). Recommendations in this guideline are based on high-/moderate-quality evidence available through March 2022. Focused updates will incorporate future evidence supporting changes to these recommendations.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Heparina de Bajo-Peso-Molecular , Cuidados Posteriores , Anticoagulantes/efectos adversos , Fibrinolíticos/efectos adversos , Heparina/efectos adversos , Humanos , Alta del Paciente , Inhibidores de Agregación Plaquetaria/efectos adversos , Rivaroxabán
2.
JAMA Netw Open ; 3(8): e2012598, 2020 08 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32766801

RESUMEN

Importance: Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs), grounded in mindfulness, focus on purposely paying attention to experiences occurring at the present moment without judgment. MBIs are increasingly used by patients with cancer for the reduction of anxiety, but it remains unclear if MBIs reduce anxiety in patients with cancer. Objective: To evaluate the association of MBIs with reductions in the severity of anxiety in patients with cancer. Data Sources: Systematic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS were conducted from database inception to May 2019 to identify relevant citations. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared MBI with usual care, waitlist controls, or no intervention for the management of anxiety in cancer patients were included. Two reviewers conducted a blinded screening. Of 101 initially identified studies, 28 met the inclusion criteria. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently extracted the data. The Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool was used to assess the quality of RCTs, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline was followed. Summary effect measures were reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) and calculated using a random-effects model. Main Outcomes and Measures: Our primary outcome was the measure of severity of short-term anxiety (up to 1-month postintervention); secondary outcomes were the severity of medium-term (1 to ≤6 months postintervention) and long-term (>6 to 12 months postintervention) anxiety, depression, and health-related quality of life of patients and caregivers. Results: This meta-analysis included 28 RCTs enrolling 3053 adults with cancer. None of the trials were conducted in children. Mindfulness was associated with significant reductions in the severity of short-term anxiety (23 trials; 2339 participants; SMD, -0.51; 95% CI, -0.70 to -0.33; I2 = 76%). The association of mindfulness with short-term anxiety did not vary by evaluated patient, intervention, or study characteristics. Mindfulness was also associated with the reduction of medium-term anxiety (9 trials; 965 participants; SMD, -0.43; 95% CI, -0.68 to -0.18; I2 = 66%). No reduction in long-term anxiety was observed (2 trials; 403 participants; SMD, -0.02; 95% CI, -0.38 to 0.34; I2 = 68%). MBIs were associated with a reduction in the severity of depression in the short term (19 trials; 1874 participants; SMD, -0.73; 95% CI; -1.00 to -0.46; I2 = 86%) and the medium term (8 trials; 891 participants; SMD, -0.85; 95% CI, -1.35 to -0.35; I2 = 91%) and improved health-related quality of life in patients in the short term (9 trials; 1108 participants; SMD, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.82; I2 = 82%) and the medium term (5 trials; 771 participants; SMD, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.52; I2 = 57%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, MBIs were associated with reductions in anxiety and depression up to 6 months postintervention in adults with cancer. Future trials should explore the long-term association of mindfulness with anxiety and depression in adults with cancer and determine its efficacy in more diverse cancer populations using active controls.


Asunto(s)
Ansiedad , Atención Plena , Neoplasias , Adulto , Ansiedad/etiología , Ansiedad/psicología , Ansiedad/terapia , Humanos , Neoplasias/complicaciones , Neoplasias/psicología , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto
3.
BMJ Open ; 8(4): e019240, 2018 04 05.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29626044

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Iron supplementation in iron-deficiency anaemia is standard practice, but the benefits of iron supplementation in iron-deficient non-anaemic (IDNA) individuals remains controversial. Our objective is to identify the effects of iron therapy on fatigue and physical capacity in IDNA adults. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (≥18 years) who were iron deficient but non-anaemic. INTERVENTIONS: Oral, intramuscular or intravenous iron supplementation; all therapy doses, frequencies and durations were included. COMPARATORS: Placebo or active therapy. RESULTS: We identified RCTs in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health, SportDiscus and CAB Abstracts from inception to 31 October 2016. We searched the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for relevant ongoing trials and performed forward searches of included trials and relevant reviews in Web of Science. We assessed internal validity of included trials using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the external validity using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. From 11 580 citations, we included 18 unique trials and 2 companion papers enrolling 1170 patients. Using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model, iron supplementation was associated with reduced self-reported fatigue (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.38; 95% CI -0.52 to -0.23; I2 0%; 4 trials; 714 participants) but was not associated with differences in objective measures of physical capacity, including maximal oxygen consumption (SMD 0.11; 95% CI -0.15 to 0.37; I2 0%; 9 trials; 235 participants) and timed methods of exercise testing. Iron supplementation significantly increased serum haemoglobin concentration (MD 4.01 g/L; 95% CI 1.22 to 6.81; I2 48%; 12 trials; 298 participants) and serum ferritin (MD 9.23 µmol/L; 95% CI 6.48 to 11.97; I2 58%; 14 trials; 616 participants). CONCLUSION: In IDNA adults, iron supplementation is associated with reduced subjective measures of fatigue but not with objective improvements in physical capacity. Given the global prevalence of both iron deficiency and fatigue, patients and practitioners could consider consumption of iron-rich foods or iron supplementation to improve symptoms of fatigue in the absence of documented anaemia. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42014007085.


Asunto(s)
Fatiga , Hierro , Adulto , Fatiga/tratamiento farmacológico , Femenino , Ferritinas , Humanos , Hierro/uso terapéutico , Deficiencias de Hierro , Masculino , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto
4.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 3: CD010347, 2017 Mar 16.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28301050

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Asthma management guidelines recommend low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as first-line therapy for adults and adolescents with persistent asthma. The addition of anti-leukotriene agents to ICS offers a therapeutic option in cases of suboptimal control with daily ICS. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of anti-leukotriene agents added to ICS compared with the same dose, an increased dose or a tapering dose of ICS (in both arms) for adults and adolescents 12 years of age and older with persistent asthma. Also, to determine whether any characteristics of participants or treatments might affect the magnitude of response. SEARCH METHODS: We identified relevant studies from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials, which is derived from systematic searches of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and the trial registries clinicaltrials.gov and ICTRP from inception to August 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults and adolescents 12 years of age and older on a maintenance dose of ICS for whom investigators added anti-leukotrienes to the ICS and compared treatment with the same dose, an increased dose or a tapering dose of ICS for at least four weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was the number of participants with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (except when both groups tapered the dose of ICS, in which case the primary outcome was the % reduction in ICS dose from baseline with maintained asthma control). Secondary outcomes included markers of exacerbation, lung function, asthma control, quality of life, withdrawals and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included in the review 37 studies representing 6128 adult and adolescent participants (most with mild to moderate asthma). Investigators in these studies used three leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs): montelukast (n = 24), zafirlukast (n = 11) and pranlukast (n = 2); studies lasted from four weeks to five years. Anti-leukotrienes and ICS versus same dose of ICSOf 16 eligible studies, 10 studies, representing 2364 adults and adolescents, contributed data. Anti-leukotriene agents given as adjunct therapy to ICS reduced by half the number of participants with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.86; 815 participants; four studies; moderate quality); this is equivalent to a number needed to treat for additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) over six to 16 weeks of 22 (95% CI 16 to 75). Only one trial including 368 participants reported mortality and serious adverse events, but events were too infrequent for researchers to draw a conclusion. Four trials reported all adverse events, and the pooled result suggested little difference between groups (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.22; 1024 participants; three studies; moderate quality). Investigators noted between-group differences favouring the addition of anti-leukotrienes for morning peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), asthma symptoms and night-time awakenings, but not for reduction in ß2-agonist use or evening PEFR. Anti-leukotrienes and ICS versus higher dose of ICSOf 15 eligible studies, eight studies, representing 2008 adults and adolescents, contributed data. Results showed no statistically significant difference in the number of participants with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.39; 1779 participants; four studies; moderate quality) nor in all adverse events between groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.03; 1899 participants; six studies; low quality). Three trials reported no deaths among 834 participants. Results showed no statistically significant differences in lung function tests including morning PEFR and FEV1 nor in asthma control measures including use of rescue ß2-agonists or asthma symptom scores. Anti-leukotrienes and ICS versus tapering dose of ICSSeven studies, representing 1150 adults and adolescents, evaluated the combination of anti-leukotrienes and tapering-dose of ICS compared with tapering-dose of ICS alone and contributed data. Investigators observed no statistically significant difference in % change from baseline ICS dose (mean difference (MD) -3.05, 95% CI -8.13 to 2.03; 930 participants; four studies; moderate quality), number of participants with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.04; 542 participants; five studies; low quality) or all adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.08; 1100 participants; six studies; moderate quality). Serious adverse events occurred more frequently among those taking anti-leukotrienes plus tapering ICS than in those taking tapering doses of ICS alone (RR 2.44, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.92; 621 participants; two studies; moderate quality), but deaths were too infrequent for researchers to draw any conclusions about mortality. Data showed no improvement in lung function nor in asthma control measures. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For adolescents and adults with persistent asthma, with suboptimal asthma control with daily use of ICS, the addition of anti-leukotrienes is beneficial for reducing moderate and severe asthma exacerbations and for improving lung function and asthma control compared with the same dose of ICS. We cannot be certain that the addition of anti-leukotrienes is superior, inferior or equivalent to a higher dose of ICS. Scarce available evidence does not support anti-leukotrienes as an ICS sparing agent, and use of LTRAs was not associated with increased risk of withdrawals or adverse effects, with the exception of an increase in serious adverse events when the ICS dose was tapered. Information was insufficient for assessment of mortality.


Asunto(s)
Corticoesteroides/administración & dosificación , Antiasmáticos/administración & dosificación , Asma/tratamiento farmacológico , Antagonistas de Leucotrieno/administración & dosificación , Administración por Inhalación , Adolescente , Corticoesteroides/efectos adversos , Adulto , Antiasmáticos/efectos adversos , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Quimioterapia Combinada , Volumen Espiratorio Forzado/efectos de los fármacos , Humanos , Antagonistas de Leucotrieno/efectos adversos , Números Necesarios a Tratar , Ápice del Flujo Espiratorio/efectos de los fármacos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto
5.
JAMA Oncol ; 1(9): 1261-9, 2015 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26378418

RESUMEN

IMPORTANCE: Androgen deprivation is the standard therapy for patients with advanced or recurrent prostate cancer. However, this treatment causes adverse effects, alters quality of life, and may lead to castration-resistant disease. Intermittent androgen deprivation has been studied as an alternative. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and tolerability of intermittent vs continuous androgen deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer. DATA SOURCES: We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Biosis, National Technical Information Service, OpenSIGLE, and Google Scholar from inception of each database through March 2014. References from published guidelines, reviews, and other relevant articles were also considered. STUDY SELECTION: We selected randomized clinical trials comparing intermittent vs continuous androgen deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers performed study selection, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment. We calculated hazard ratios (HRs) with the inverse variance method and risk ratios with the Mantel-Haenszel method, using random effect models. A noninferiority analysis was conducted for overall survival with a margin of 1.15 for the upper boundary of the HR. We assessed heterogeneity using the I2 index. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcomes were overall survival and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were cancer-specific survival, progression-free survival, time to castration resistance, skeletal-related events, and adverse effects. RESULTS: From 10 510 references, we included 22 articles from 15 trials (6856 patients) published between 2000 and 2013. All but 1 study had an unclear or high risk of bias. We observed no significant difference between intermittent and continuous therapy for overall survival (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.93-1.11; 8 trials, 5352 patients), cancer-specific survival (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87-1.19; 5 trials, 3613 patients), and progression-free survival (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.84-1.05; 4 trials, 1774 patients). There was minimal difference in patients' self-reported quality of life between the 2 interventions. Most trials observed an improvement in physical and sexual functioning with intermittent therapy. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Intermittent androgen deprivation was not inferior to continuous therapy with respect to the overall survival. Some quality-of-life criteria seemed improved with intermittent therapy. Intermittent androgen deprivation can be considered as an alternative option in patients with recurrent or metastatic prostate cancer.


Asunto(s)
Antagonistas de Andrógenos/administración & dosificación , Antineoplásicos Hormonales/administración & dosificación , Neoplasias de la Próstata/tratamiento farmacológico , Antagonistas de Andrógenos/efectos adversos , Antineoplásicos Hormonales/efectos adversos , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Supervivencia sin Enfermedad , Esquema de Medicación , Resistencia a Antineoplásicos , Humanos , Masculino , Neoplasias de la Próstata/mortalidad , Calidad de Vida , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Resultado del Tratamiento
6.
BMC Complement Altern Med ; 14: 312, 2014 Aug 23.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25151529

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The utility of acupuncture in managing osteoarthritis symptoms is uncertain. Trial results are conflicting and previous systematic reviews may have overestimated the benefits of acupuncture. METHODS: Two reviewers independently identified randomized controlled trials (up to May 2014) from multiple electronic sources (including PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL) and reference lists of relevant articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias (Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool). Pooled data are expressed as mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) (random-effects model). RESULTS: We included 12 trials (1763 participants) comparing acupuncture to sham acupuncture, no treatment or usual care. We adjudicated most trials to be unclear (64%) or high (9%) risk of bias. Acupuncture use was associated with significant reductions in pain intensity (MD -0.29, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.02, I2 0%, 10 trials, 1699 participants), functional mobility (standardized MD -0.34, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.14, I2 70%, 9 trials, 1543 participants), health-related quality of life (standardized MD -0.36, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.14, I2 50%, 3 trials, 958 participants). Subgroup analysis of pain intensity by intervention duration suggested greater pain intensity reduction with intervention periods greater than 4 weeks (MD -0.38, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.06, I2 0%, 6 trials, 1239 participants). CONCLUSIONS: The use of acupuncture is associated with significant reductions in pain intensity, improvement in functional mobility and quality of life. While the differences are not as great as shown by other reviews, current evidence supports the use of acupuncture as an alternative for traditional analgesics in patients with osteoarthritis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: CRD42013005405.


Asunto(s)
Terapia por Acupuntura , Osteoartritis/terapia , Terapia por Acupuntura/métodos , Humanos , Manejo del Dolor , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto
7.
BMC Cardiovasc Disord ; 14: 70, 2014 May 31.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24885361

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Individuals with peripheral arterial disease are at higher risk for cardiovascular events than the general population. While supplementation with omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) has been shown to improve vascular function, it remains unclear if supplementation decreases serious clinical outcomes. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether omega-3 PUFA supplementation reduces the incidence of cardiovascular events and complications in adults with peripheral arterial disease. METHODS: We searched five electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Scopus and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) from inception to 6 December 2013 to identify randomized trials of omega-3 PUFA supplementation (from fish or plant oils) that lasted ≥12 weeks in adults with peripheral arterial disease. No language filters were applied. Data on trial design, population characteristics, and health outcomes were extracted. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events; secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, stroke, angina, amputation, revascularization procedures, maximum and pain-free walking distance, adverse effects of the intervention, and quality of life. Trial quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. RESULTS: Of 741 citations reviewed, we included five trials enrolling 396 individuals. All included trials were of unclear or high risk of bias. There was no evidence of a protective association of omega-3 PUFA supplementation against major adverse cardiac events (pooled risk ratio 0.73, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.41, I2 75%, 2 trials, 288 individuals) or other serious clinical outcomes. Adverse events and compliance were poorly reported. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that insufficient evidence exists to suggest a beneficial effect of omega-3 PUFA supplementation in adults with peripheral arterial disease with regard to cardiovascular events and other serious clinical outcomes.


Asunto(s)
Trastornos Cerebrovasculares/prevención & control , Suplementos Dietéticos , Ácidos Grasos Omega-3/uso terapéutico , Cardiopatías/prevención & control , Enfermedad Arterial Periférica/tratamiento farmacológico , Trastornos Cerebrovasculares/etiología , Trastornos Cerebrovasculares/mortalidad , Distribución de Chi-Cuadrado , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia , Cardiopatías/etiología , Cardiopatías/mortalidad , Humanos , Incidencia , Oportunidad Relativa , Enfermedad Arterial Periférica/complicaciones , Enfermedad Arterial Periférica/mortalidad , Factores Protectores , Factores de Riesgo , Resultado del Tratamiento
8.
BMJ ; 347: f6471, 2013 Dec 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24304677

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of probiotic supplementation during pregnancy or infancy with childhood asthma and wheeze. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Central (Cochrane Library) databases from inception to August 2013, plus the World Health Organization's international clinical trials registry platform and relevant conference proceedings for the preceding five years. Included trials and relevant reviews were forward searched in Web of Science. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently identified randomised controlled trials evaluating probiotics administered to mothers during pregnancy or to infants during the first year of life. The primary outcome was doctor diagnosed asthma; secondary outcomes included wheeze and lower respiratory tract infection. RESULTS: We identified 20 eligible trials including 4866 children. Trials were heterogeneous in the type and duration of probiotic supplementation, and duration of follow-up. Only five trials conducted follow-up beyond participants' age of 6 years (median 24 months), and none were powered to detect asthma as the primary outcome. The overall rate of doctor diagnosed asthma was 10.7%; overall rates of incident wheeze and lower respiratory tract infection were 33.3% and 13.9%, respectively. Among 3257 infants enrolled in nine trials contributing asthma data, the risk ratio of doctor diagnosed asthma in participants randomised to receive probiotics was 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.81 to 1.21, I(2)=0%). The risk ratio of incident wheeze was 0.97 (0.87 to 1.09, I(2)=0%, 9 trials, 1949 infants). Among 1364 infants enrolled in six trials, the risk ratio of lower respiratory tract infection after probiotic supplementation was 1.26 (0.99 to 1.61, I(2)=0%). We adjudicated most trials to be of high (ten trials) or unclear (nine trials) risk of bias, mainly due to attrition. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to support a protective association between perinatal use of probiotics and doctor diagnosed asthma or childhood wheeze. Randomised controlled trials to date have not yielded sufficient evidence to recommend probiotics for the primary prevention of these disorders. Extended follow-up of existing trials, along with further clinical and basic research, are needed to accurately define the role of probiotics in the prevention of childhood asthma. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42013004385).


Asunto(s)
Asma/prevención & control , Suplementos Dietéticos , Probióticos/uso terapéutico , Ruidos Respiratorios/efectos de los fármacos , Asma/epidemiología , Femenino , Humanos , Lactante , Embarazo , Probióticos/efectos adversos , Resultado del Tratamiento
9.
Crit Care Clin ; 25(1): 201-20, x, 2009 Jan.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19268803

RESUMEN

Significant progress in critical care medicine has been the result of tireless observation, dedicated research, and well-timed serendipity. This article provides a historical perspective for four meaningful therapies in critical care medicine: blood transfusion, fluid resuscitation, vasopressor/inotropic support, and antibiotics. For each therapy, key discoveries and events that have shaped medical history and helped define current practice are discussed. Prominent medical and social pressures that have catalyzed research and innovation in each domain are also addressed, as well as current and future challenges.


Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos/historia , Transfusión Sanguínea/historia , Cardiotónicos/historia , Cuidados Críticos/historia , Fluidoterapia/historia , Vasoconstrictores/historia , Sistema del Grupo Sanguíneo ABO/historia , Animales , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Carbapenémicos/historia , Carbapenémicos/uso terapéutico , Cardiotónicos/uso terapéutico , Cefalosporinas/historia , Cefalosporinas/uso terapéutico , Cuidados Críticos/métodos , Europa (Continente) , Fluidoterapia/instrumentación , Fluidoterapia/métodos , Fluoroquinolonas/historia , Fluoroquinolonas/uso terapéutico , Glicopéptidos/historia , Glicopéptidos/uso terapéutico , Historia del Siglo XVI , Historia del Siglo XVII , Historia del Siglo XVIII , Historia del Siglo XIX , Historia del Siglo XX , Historia Antigua , Humanos , Infusiones Intravenosas/historia , Soluciones Isotónicas/administración & dosificación , Soluciones Isotónicas/historia , Japón , Lipopéptidos/historia , Lipopéptidos/uso terapéutico , Medicina Militar/historia , Oxazolidinonas/historia , Oxazolidinonas/uso terapéutico , Solución de Ringer , Estados Unidos , Vasoconstrictores/uso terapéutico
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA