RESUMEN
Land managers need reliable metrics for assessing the quality of restorations and natural areas and prioritizing management and conservation efforts. However, it can be difficult to select metrics that are robust to sampling methods and natural environmental differences among sites, while still providing relevant information regarding ecosystem changes or stressors. We collected herbaceous-layer vegetation data in wetlands and grasslands in four regions of the USA (the Midwest, subtropical Florida, arid southwest, and coastal New England) to determine if commonly used vegetation metrics (species richness, mean coefficient of conservatism [mean C], Floristic Quality Index [FQI], abundance-weighted mean C, and percent non-native species cover) were robust to environmental and methodological variables (region, site, observer, season, and year), and to determine adequate sample sizes for each metric. We constructed linear mixed effects models to determine the influence of these environmental and methodological variables on vegetation metrics and used metric accumulation curves to determine the effect of sample size on metric values. Species richness and FQI varied among regions, and year and observer effects were also highly supported in our models. Mean C was the metric most robust to sampling variables and stabilized at less sampling effort compared to other metrics. Assessment of mean C requires sampling a small number of quadrats (e.g. 20), but assessment of species richness or FQI requires more intensive sampling, particularly in species-rich sites. Based on our analysis, we recommend caution be used when comparing metric values among sites sampled in different regions, different years, or by different observers.
Asunto(s)
Conservación de los Recursos Naturales , Ecosistema , Biodiversidad , Monitoreo del Ambiente , Estaciones del Año , HumedalesRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Most patients who report a penicillin allergy can tolerate cefazolin, the preferred prophylaxis in a total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Regardless, patients with a reported penicillin allergy are less likely to receive first-line perioperative antibiotics as a result of inaccurate penicillin allergy documentation and misconceptions regarding cross-reactivity between penicillin and cephalosporins. The over-reporting of penicillin allergies and the safety of cephalosporins in patients with reported penicillin allergies have been well established throughout the evidence [13]. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The study sought to answer two questions: (1) Do antibiotic stewardship interventions improve adherence to appropriate prophylactic antibiotic usage in patients with a documented penicillin allergy undergoing primary TJA? (2) What is the risk of allergic or adverse reactions secondary to cefazolin use in patients with a documented penicillin allergy? METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective study of orthopaedic patients older than 18 years who underwent a primary elective TJA at a 261-bed community hospital. The study had two periods: the preintervention period ran from March 1, 2017 to August 30, 2017 and the postintervention period was from March 1, 2019 to August 30, 2019. A total of 396 patients with a history of a documented penicillin allergy underwent a THA or TKA during the study periods. After reviewing every fourth patient with a history of a documented penicillin allergy who met study inclusion criteria and excluding those patients who had a codocumented cephalosporin allergy, a total of 180 patients with a documented penicillin allergy were evaluated (90 patients in the preintervention group and 90 patients in the postintervention group). To answer our first study question, regarding whether antibiotic stewardship interventions improve adherence to appropriate prophylactic antibiotic usage in patients with a documented penicillin allergy undergoing primary TJA, we evaluated appropriate antibiotic usage pre- and postintervention. To answer our second study question, concerning the risk of allergic or adverse reactions secondary to cefazolin use in patients with a documented penicillin allergy, we reviewed signs of allergic reactions in patients who received cefazolin for a primary TJA and had a documented penicillin allergy. RESULTS: Postintervention antibiotic use was more appropriate (91% [82 of 90] versus 54% [49 of 90], risk ratio 1.67 [95% confidence interval 1.37 to 2.04]; p < 0.01), particularly in patients with nonsevere allergy (preintervention: 47% [36 of 76] versus postintervention: 96% [76 of 79]; p < 0.01). No patients had signs of an allergic reaction related to cefazolin, including eight patients with severe penicillin allergy. CONCLUSION: A multifaceted antibiotic stewardship intervention increased the appropriateness of antibiotic prophylaxis in elective primary TJA. Patients with nonsevere penicillin allergies, even those reporting hives or local swelling, tolerated cefazolin. Antibiotic stewardship interventions can be implemented across institutions to expand cephalosporin use in patients with a reported penicillin allergy within orthopaedic TJA patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.
Asunto(s)
Profilaxis Antibiótica/métodos , Programas de Optimización del Uso de los Antimicrobianos/métodos , Artroplastia de Reemplazo/efectos adversos , Cefazolina/administración & dosificación , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas/prevención & control , Infecciones Relacionadas con Prótesis/prevención & control , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados no Aleatorios como Asunto , Penicilinas/efectos adversos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected biliary colic often require intravenous (IV) analgesia. The choice of IV analgesia typically includes opioids and ketorolac. Although ultrasound (US) is the initial diagnostic study in these patients, nondiagnostic scans and a high clinical suspicion may require the patient to undergo hepatobiliary scintigraphy (HIDA). Opioids such as morphine interfere with the HIDA scan and thus may limit its value as an analgesic in the ED for these patients. Analgesics that do not interfere with HIDA scanning include ketorolac and butorphanol, an opioid agonist-antagonist. This study evaluates the efficacy of IV ketorolac compared to butorphanol for the treatment of biliary colic pain in the ED. METHODS: Between June 2005 and February 2007, a convenience sample of patients presenting to the ED with abdominal pain suspected to be biliary colic were randomized to receive either 30 mg of IV ketorolac or 1 mg of IV butorphanol. Pain level was assessed using a 1 to 10 "faces" visual analog pain scale initially, as well as 15 and 30 minutes after medication infusion. Side effect profiles and the need for rescue analgesia were also assessed. Patients and clinicians were blinded to the study drug given. RESULTS: Forty-six patients were enrolled in the study. Both groups had similar demographics and baseline pain scores. The mean (+/-standard deviation [SD]) pain score in the butorphanol group decreased from 7.1 (+/-1.7) to 2.1 (+/-2.2) after 30 minutes. The mean (+/-SD) pain score in the ketorolac group decreased from 7.4 (+/-2.0) to 3.1 (+/-3.3) after 30 minutes. Both groups had similar needs for rescue analgesia. Side effects included dizziness and sedation with butorphanol and nausea with ketorolac. CONCLUSIONS: Although limited by small sample size and convenience sample, this study demonstrates that both ketorolac and butorphanol provide pain relief in biliary colic. Both agents should be considered reasonable options in the ED treatment of biliary colic, especially in patients that may undergo HIDA.