Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros











Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
J Clin Med ; 11(21)2022 Oct 27.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36362564

RESUMEN

Emergency airway management (EAM) is a commonly performed procedure in the critical care setting. Despite clinical advances that help practitioners identify patients at risk for having a difficult airway, improved airway management tools, and algorithms that guide clinical decision-making, the practice of EAM is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Evidence suggests that a dedicated airway response team (ART) can help mitigate the risks associated with EAM and provide a framework for airway management in acute settings. We review the risks and challenges related to EAM and describe strategies to improve patient care and outcomes via implementation of an ART.

2.
J Hematol ; 9(4): 97-108, 2020 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33224389

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Anemia is common in cardiac surgery affecting 25-40% of patients and associated with increased blood transfusions, morbidity, mortality, and higher hospital costs. Higher rates of stroke, acute renal injury, and total number of adverse postoperative outcomes have also been reported to be associated with preoperative anemia. This systematic review assessed the current evidence for preoperative intravenous iron on major outcomes following cardiac surgery. METHODS: Outcome measures included postoperative hemoglobin, transfusion rates, major adverse events, and mortality. The review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and articles were identified using PubMed, Cochrane, CLINAHL, WOS, and EMBASE databases. Articles were included if they compared patients with and without preoperative anemia based on treatment with intravenous iron. Quality was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and strength of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Of the articles reviewed, six met inclusion criteria. These included four randomized double-blind prospective cohort studies, one randomized non-blinded prospective study, and one non-randomized non-blinded prospective study with historical control. Across studies, 1,038 patients were enrolled. Two studies showed higher hemoglobin with iron therapy, and only one study showed significant differences in multiple outcomes such as transfusion and morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Given the paucity of studies and biases within them, the current evidence for treatment with intravenous iron prior to cardiac surgery is weak. More evidence is needed to support the administration of preoperative intravenous iron in cardiac surgery patients.

3.
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth ; 34(11): 3052-3058, 2020 Nov.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32418834

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to determine whether regional anesthesia in addition to general anesthesia was associated with improved outcomes compared with general anesthesia alone in minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. DESIGN: This study examined patients across multiple hospital institutions using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program dataset. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who underwent minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy were identified and grouped according to general plus regional anesthesia versus general anesthesia alone. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Using multivariate logistic regression, outcomes, including 30-day mortality, respiratory complications, infection, blood clots, reintubation, return to the operating room, and length of hospital stay, were examined. Of the 463 patients who underwent minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, 398 met study inclusion criteria. General and regional anesthesia were administered to 108 patients in the study, with the remainder receiving only general anesthesia. Multivariate regression demonstrated no difference in the primary outcome of 30-day mortality (0.93% for regional and general anesthesia, 2.07% for general anesthesia alone [odds ratio 0.49; p = 0.534]). There was no significant difference for any secondary outcome including return to the operating room, failure to wean from the ventilator, reintubation, surgical site infection, pneumonia, renal insufficiency and failure, cardiac arrest, acute myocardial infarction, transfusion, venous thromboembolism, urinary tract infection, length of hospital stay, or total number of complications per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Despite potential benefits of regional anesthesia for minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, the present study did not show significant differences in any outcomes between regional and general anesthesia versus general anesthesia alone.


Asunto(s)
Anestesia de Conducción , Neoplasias Esofágicas , Neoplasias Esofágicas/cirugía , Esofagectomía/efectos adversos , Humanos , Tiempo de Internación , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del Tratamiento
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA