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.
Cureus ; 12(5): e7989, 2020 May 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32523844

RESUMEN

Background Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography (PTC) is associated with high rates of sepsis. The aim of the current study was to audit the adherence to trust guidelines on antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing PTC. Secondary aims included the management and outcome of patients with sepsis post-procedure. Methods This was a retrospective analysis of 50 consecutive patients who underwent a PTC procedure between January 2016 to January 2017. Collated data included PTC indication, drug allergies, antibiotics given pre-PTC, culture results, and antibiotic sensitivities within one-month post-PTC. Results Complete data were available for 41 patients and 61 PTC procedures. The median age was 68 years, and 51% were females. The indication for PTC was malignancy (n=32, 78%), benign conditions (n=1, 2%), and unknown diagnosis at the time of PTC (n=8, 20%). Three cases did not receive antibiotic prophylaxis. Only 27 (44%) PTC procedures received appropriate pre-PTC antibiotics as per guidelines, with no adherence to guidelines in all penicillin-allergic patients. In six patients who were not being treated for sepsis pre-PTC, a newly positive post-PTC blood/drain culture was observed within one month. Organisms grown in the post-PTC cultures were 56% gram-negative, the majority being Escherichia coli. The 30-day mortality rate was 12.2% (5/41). Conclusions Poor adherence to recommended antibiotic regimes is a significant contributing factor for sepsis post-PTC. Investigating barriers to guideline implementation, stricter adherence, and peer education are interventions that could improve post-PTC outcomes.

2.
J Perianesth Nurs ; 34(4): 680-690, 2019 Aug.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30879907

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Patients rank postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) as the most undesirable outcome of anesthesia. Mirtazapine is hypothesized to be effective in PONV prophylaxis via 5HT3 receptor antagonism. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We identified seven randomized controlled trials by systematically searching electronic databases that compare the efficacy of mirtazapine versus placebo or ondansetron in reducing PONV. FINDINGS: Mirtazapine reduced PONV overall versus placebo in three studies (risk ratio [RR] = 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32 to 0.62) both on conventional meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. One study comparing mirtazapine with ondansetron found similar rates of PONV (RR = 0.96; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.94). Mirtazapine reduced preoperative anxiety versus placebo or ondansetron (standardized mean difference -1.4; 95% CI -2.56 to -0.23) but increased sedation (RR = 22.47; 95% CI 5.61 to 89.93). The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) quality of evidence was moderate to low. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that mirtazapine reduces PONV overall versus placebo. We found evidence of reduction in preoperative anxiety, although mirtazapine increased the risk of sedation.


Asunto(s)
Mirtazapina/normas , Náusea y Vómito Posoperatorios/tratamiento farmacológico , Antieméticos/normas , Antieméticos/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Mirtazapina/uso terapéutico
3.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 12: CD012624, 2018 Dec 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30521692

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain is a common consequence of surgery and can have deleterious effects. It has been suggested that the administration of opioid analgesia before a painful stimulus may improve pain control. This can be done in two ways. We defined 'preventive opioids' as opioids administered before incision and continued postoperatively, and 'pre-emptive opioids' as opioids given before incision but not continued postoperatively. Both pre-emptive and preventive analgesia involve the initiation of an analgesic agent prior to surgical incision with the aim of reducing intraoperative nociception and therefore postoperative pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of preventive and pre-emptive opioids for reducing postoperative pain in adults undergoing all types of surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, and CINAHL (up to 18 March 2018). In addition, we searched for unpublished studies in three clinical trial databases, conference proceedings, grey literature databases, and reference lists of retrieved articles. We did not apply any restrictions on language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only. We included participants aged over 15 years old undergoing any type of surgery. We defined postincision opioids as the same intervention administered after incision whether single dose (as comparator with pre-emptive analgesia) or continued postoperatively (as comparator with preventive analgesia) (control group). We considered studies that did and did not use a double-dummy placebo (e.g. intervention group received active drug before incision and placebo after incision; control group received placebo before incision and active drug after incision). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were: early acute postoperative pain (measured within six hours and reported on a 0-to-10 scale) and respiratory depression. Our secondary outcomes included: late acute postoperative pain (24 to 48 hours and reported on a 0-to-10 scale), 24-hour morphine consumption, and adverse events (intraoperative bradycardia and hypotension). We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 RCTs, including one unpublished study with 1343 participants. Two studies were awaiting classification as the full text for these studies was not available. One study evaluated pre-emptive opioids, and 19 studies evaluated preventive opioids. We considered only one study to be at low risk of bias for most domains. The surgeries and opioids used varied, although roughly half of the included studies were conducted in abdominal hysterectomy, and around a quarter used morphine as the intervention. All studies were conducted in secondary care.Pre-emptive opioids compared to postincision opioidsFor pre-emptive opioids in dental surgery, there may be a reduction in early acute postoperative pain (mean difference (MD) -1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.75 to -0.65; 40 participants; 1 study; low-quality evidence). This study did not report on adverse events (respiratory depression, bradycardia, or hypotension). There may be a reduction in late acute postoperative pain (MD -2.10, 95% CI -2.57 to -1.63; 40 participants; 1 study; low-quality evidence). This study did not report 24-hour morphine consumption.Preventive opioids compared to postincision opioidsFor preventive opioids, there was probably no reduction in early acute postoperative pain (MD 0.11, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.53; 706 participants; 10 studies; I2 = 61%; moderate-quality evidence). There were no events of respiratory depression in four studies (433 participants). There was no important reduction in late acute postoperative pain (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.01; 668 participants; 9 studies; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). There may be a small reduction in 24-hour morphine consumption (MD -4.91 mg, 95% CI -9.39 mg to -0.44 mg; 526 participants; 11 studies; I2 = 82%; very low-quality evidence). There may be similar rates of bradycardia (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; 112 participants; 2 studies; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) and hypotension (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.25 to 4.73; 88 participants; 2 studies; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the low quality of the evidence, we are uncertain whether pre-emptive opioids reduce postoperative pain. Based on the trials conducted thus far, there was no clear evidence that preventive opioids result in reductions in pain scores. It was unclear if there was a reduction in morphine consumption due to very low-quality of evidence. Too few studies reported adverse events to be able to draw any definitive conclusions. Once assessed, the two studies awaiting classification may alter the conclusions of the review.


Asunto(s)
Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapéutico , Dolor Postoperatorio/prevención & control , Dolor Asociado a Procedimientos Médicos/prevención & control , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Operativos , Dolor Agudo/prevención & control , Adulto , Bradicardia/epidemiología , Humanos , Hipotensión/epidemiología , Histerectomía/efectos adversos , Histerectomía/métodos , Morfina/uso terapéutico , Dolor Postoperatorio/diagnóstico , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...