Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
1.
Br J Anaesth ; 129(1): 104-113, 2022 07.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35644677

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial prophylaxis is widely used to prevent surgical site infection. Amid growing concern about antimicrobial resistance, we determined the effectiveness of antimicrobial prophylaxis. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and WHO-ICTRP between January 1, 1990 and January 1, 2020 for trials randomising adults undergoing surgery to liberal (more doses) or restrictive (fewer or no doses) perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis. Pairs of researchers reviewed articles and extracted data, and a senior author resolved discrepancies. The primary outcome measure was surgical site infection or bacteriuria for urological procedures. We calculated average risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals and prediction intervals (PI) using random effects models, and present risk ratios (RR). We assessed evidence certainty using GRADE methodology, and risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (PROSPERO: CRD42018116946). RESULTS: From 6593 records, we identified 294 trials including 86 146 patients. Surgical site infection occurred in 2237/44 113 (5.1%) patients receiving liberal prophylaxis vs 2889/42 033 (6.9%) receiving restrictive prophylaxis (RD -0.01 [-0.02 to -0.01]; relative risk 0.72 [0.67-0.77]; I2=52%, PI -0.05-0.02). There was a small benefit of prophylaxis in 161 trials comparing no prophylaxis with ≥1 dose (RD -0.02 [-0.03 to -0.02]; RR 0.58 [0.52-0.65]; I2=62%, PI -0.06-0.02). Treatment effect varied from a strong effect in urology to no benefit in 7/19 specialities. Tests for publication bias suggest 62 unreported trials and evidence certainty was very low. Treatment harms were reported in 43/294 trials. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials revealed that more liberal antimicrobial prophylaxis is associated with a small reduction in the risk of surgical site infection, although antimicrobial harms are poorly reported. Further evidence about the risks of antimicrobial prophylaxis to inform current widespread use is urgently needed.


Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos , Infección de la Herida Quirúrgica , Adulto , Humanos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Infección de la Herida Quirúrgica/prevención & control
2.
Br J Anaesth ; 128(2): 363-374, 2022 Feb.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34916050

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pulmonary complications, including pneumonia, are a substantial cause of morbidity. We hypothesised that routine noninvasive respiratory support was associated with a lower incidence of pneumonia after surgery. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing the routine use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), noninvasive ventilation (NIV), or high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) against standard postoperative care in the adult population. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and CENTRAL from the start of indexing to July 27, 2021. Articles were reviewed and data extracted in duplicate, with discrepancies resolved by a senior investigator. The primary outcome was pneumonia, and the secondary outcome was postoperative pulmonary complications. We calculated risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS: From 18 513 records, we included 38 trials consisting of 9782 patients. Pneumonia occurred in 214/4403 (4.9%) patients receiving noninvasive respiratory support compared with 216/3937 (5.5%) receiving standard care (RD -0.01 [95% confidence interval: -0.02 to 0.00]; I2=8%; P=0.23). Postoperative pulmonary complications occurred in 393/1379 (28%) patients receiving noninvasive respiratory support compared with 280/902 (31%) receiving standard care (RD -0.11 [-0.23 to 0.01]; I2=79%; P=0.07). Subgroup analyses did not identify a benefit of CPAP, NIV, or HFNO in preventing pneumonia. Tests for publication bias suggest six unreported trials. CONCLUSION: The results of this evidence synthesis do not support the routine use of postoperative CPAP, NIV, or HFNO to prevent pneumonia after surgery in adults. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42019156741.


Asunto(s)
Ventilación no Invasiva/métodos , Neumonía/prevención & control , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/prevención & control , Adulto , Presión de las Vías Aéreas Positiva Contínua/métodos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Electivos/efectos adversos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Electivos/métodos , Humanos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Periodo Posoperatorio , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto
3.
Crit Care ; 24(1): 577, 2020 09 25.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32977833

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Patients who survive critical illness suffer from a significant physical disability. The impact of rehabilitation strategies on health-related quality of life is inconsistent, with population heterogeneity cited as one potential confounder. This secondary analysis aimed to (1) examine trajectories of functional recovery in critically ill patients to delineate sub-phenotypes and (2) to assess differences between these cohorts in both clinical characteristics and clinimetric properties of physical function assessment tools. METHODS: Two hundred ninety-one adult sepsis survivors were followed-up for 24 months by telephone interviews. Physical function was assessed using the Physical Component Score (PCS) of the Short Form-36 Questionnaire (SF-36) and Activities of Daily Living and the Extra Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (XSFMA-F/B). Longitudinal trajectories were clustered by factor analysis. Logistical regression analyses were applied to patient characteristics potentially determining cluster allocation. Responsiveness, floor and ceiling effects and concurrent validity were assessed within clusters. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-nine patients completed 24 months of follow-up, presenting overall low PCS scores. Two distinct sub-cohorts were identified, exhibiting complete recovery or persistent impairment. A third sub-cohort could not be classified into either trajectory. Age, education level and number of co-morbidities were independent determinants of poor recovery (AUROC 0.743 ((95%CI 0.659-0.826), p < 0.001). Those with complete recovery trajectories demonstrated high levels of ceiling effects in physical function (PF) (15%), role physical (RP) (45%) and body pain (BP) (57%) domains of the SF-36. Those with persistent impairment demonstrated high levels of floor effects in the same domains: PF (21%), RP (71%) and BP (12%). The PF domain demonstrated high responsiveness between ICU discharge and at 6 months and was predictive of a persistent impairment trajectory (AUROC 0.859 (95%CI 0.804-0.914), p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Within sepsis survivors, two distinct recovery trajectories of physical recovery were demonstrated. Older patients with more co-morbidities and lower educational achievements were more likely to have a persistent physical impairment trajectory. In regard to trajectory prediction, the PF score of the SF-36 was more responsive than the PCS and could be considered for primary outcomes. Future trials should consider adaptive trial designs that can deal with non-responders or sub-cohort specific outcome measures more effectively.


Asunto(s)
Enfermedad Crítica/terapia , Fenotipo , Recuperación de la Función/fisiología , Proyectos de Investigación/normas , Sepsis/complicaciones , Adulto , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Proyectos de Investigación/tendencias , Sepsis/fisiopatología , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Sobrevivientes/psicología , Sobrevivientes/estadística & datos numéricos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA