Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Tromboembolia , Humanos , Tromboembolia/epidemiología , Tromboembolia/etiología , Sobrevivientes , Hospitales , Escocia/epidemiologíaAsunto(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/prevención & control , Hospitales , Humanos , Servicios de Información , Web Semántica , VacunaciónAsunto(s)
Anemia/epidemiología , Anemia/terapia , Cuidados Críticos/métodos , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Estudios de Cohortes , Femenino , Humanos , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Hierro/uso terapéutico , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Prevalencia , Estudios Retrospectivos , Sobrevivientes , Resultado del Tratamiento , Reino Unido/epidemiología , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
Ageing populations have greater incidences of dementia. People with dementia present for emergency and, increasingly, elective surgery, but are poorly served by the lack of available guidance on their peri-operative management, particularly relating to pharmacological, medico-legal, environmental and attitudinal considerations. These guidelines seek to deliver such guidance, by providing information for peri-operative care providers about dementia pathophysiology, specific difficulties anaesthetising patients with dementia, medication interactions, organisational and medico-legal factors, pre-, intra- and postoperative care considerations, training, sources of further information and care quality improvement tools.
Asunto(s)
Anestesistas , Demencia/terapia , Atención Perioperativa , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Anestesia/efectos adversos , Anestesia/métodos , Demencia/diagnóstico , Demencia/etiología , Electroencefalografía , Humanos , Sociedades MédicasRESUMEN
The National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia (NIAA) was founded in 2008 to lead a UK strategy for developing academic anaesthesia. We aimed to assess the distribution of applications and quantify the academic returns of NIAA-supported research grants, as this has hitherto not been analysed. We sought data on the baseline characteristics of all grant applicants and recipients. Every grant recipient from 2008 to 2015 was contacted to ascertain the status of their supported research projects. We also examined Google Scholar, Scopus® database and InCites Journal Citation Reports for citation, author and journal metrics, respectively. In total, 495 research project applications were made, with 150 grants being awarded. Data on 121 out of 150 (80.7%) grant awards, accounting for £3.5 million, were collected, of which 91 completed studies resulted in 140 publications and 2759 citations. The median (IQR [range]) time to first or only publication was 3 (2-4 [0-9]) years. The overall cost per publication was £14,970 (£7457-£24,998 [£2212-£73,755]) and the cost per citation was £1515 (£323-£3785 [£70-£36,182]), with 1 (0-2 [0-8]) publication and 4 (0-25 [0-265]) citations resulting per grant. The impact factor of journals in which publications arose was 4.7 (2.5-6.2 [0-47.8]), with the highest impact arising from clinical and basic science studies, particularly in the fields of pain and peri-operative medicine. Grants were most frequently awarded to clinical and basic science categories of study, but in terms of specialty, critical care medicine and peri-operative medicine received the greatest number of grants. Superficially, there seemed a geographical disparity, with 123 (82%) grants being awarded to researchers in England, London receiving 48 (32%) of these. However, this was in proportion to the number of grant applications received by country or city of application, such that there was no significant difference in overall success rates. There was no significant difference in productivity in terms of publications and citations from grants awarded to each city. The 150 grants were awarded to 107 recipients (identified as the most senior applicant for each grant), 27 of whom received ≥ two grants. Recipients had a median career total of 21 (8-76 [0-254]) publications and 302 (44-1320 [0-8167]) citations, with an h-index of 8 (3-22 [0-54]). We conclude that a key determinant of grant success is simply applying. This is the first study to report the distribution and scholarly output of individual anaesthesia research grants, particularly from a collaborative body such as the NIAA, and can be used as a benchmark to further develop academic anaesthesia in the UK and beyond.
Asunto(s)
Academias e Institutos , Anestesiología/tendencias , Apoyo a la Investigación como Asunto , Anestesiología/economía , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto , Inglaterra , Factor de Impacto de la Revista , Edición , Investigadores , Reino UnidoRESUMEN
Anaemia is common in critical illness, and standard treatment is red blood cell (RBC) transfusion, typically using a restrictive transfusion threshold of 70 g L-1 . However, there are subgroups of patients in whom it is biologically plausible that a higher transfusion threshold may be beneficial, namely, acute sepsis, traumatic brain injury and coexisting cardiovascular disease. In this review article, we will discuss the pathophysiology of anaemia, as well as its prevalence and time course. We will explore the limitations of using haemoglobin concentration as a surrogate for oxygen delivery and the concept of the critical haemoglobin concentration. We will then discuss transfusion thresholds for the general intensive care unit (ICU) population and specific subgroups.