Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
JAMA ; 324(24): 2509-2520, 2020 12 22.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33295981

RESUMO

Importance: It is uncertain whether invasive ventilation can use lower positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in critically ill patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Objective: To determine whether a lower PEEP strategy is noninferior to a higher PEEP strategy regarding duration of mechanical ventilation at 28 days. Design, Setting, and Participants: Noninferiority randomized clinical trial conducted from October 26, 2017, through December 17, 2019, in 8 intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands among 980 patients without ARDS expected not to be extubated within 24 hours after start of ventilation. Final follow-up was conducted in March 2020. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive invasive ventilation using either lower PEEP, consisting of the lowest PEEP level between 0 and 5 cm H2O (n = 476), or higher PEEP, consisting of a PEEP level of 8 cm H2O (n = 493). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days at day 28, with a noninferiority margin for the difference in ventilator-free days at day 28 of -10%. Secondary outcomes included ICU and hospital lengths of stay; ICU, hospital, and 28- and 90-day mortality; development of ARDS, pneumonia, pneumothorax, severe atelectasis, severe hypoxemia, or need for rescue therapies for hypoxemia; and days with use of vasopressors or sedation. Results: Among 980 patients who were randomized, 969 (99%) completed the trial (median age, 66 [interquartile range {IQR}, 56-74] years; 246 [36%] women). At day 28, 476 patients in the lower PEEP group had a median of 18 ventilator-free days (IQR, 0-27 days) and 493 patients in the higher PEEP group had a median of 17 ventilator-free days (IQR, 0-27 days) (mean ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.95-∞; P = .007 for noninferiority), and the lower boundary of the 95% CI was within the noninferiority margin. Occurrence of severe hypoxemia was 20.6% vs 17.6% (risk ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.90-1.51; P = .99) and need for rescue strategy was 19.7% vs 14.6% (risk ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.02-1.79; adjusted P = .54) in patients in the lower and higher PEEP groups, respectively. Mortality at 28 days was 38.4% vs 42.0% (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.73-1.09; P = .99) in patients in the lower and higher PEEP groups, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in other secondary outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients in the ICU without ARDS who were expected not to be extubated within 24 hours, a lower PEEP strategy was noninferior to a higher PEEP strategy with regard to the number of ventilator-free days at day 28. These findings support the use of lower PEEP in patients without ARDS. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03167580.


Assuntos
Respiração com Pressão Positiva/métodos , Insuficiência Respiratória/terapia , APACHE , Idoso , Estado Terminal , Feminino , Humanos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Estimativa de Kaplan-Meier , Tempo de Internação , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Oxigênio/sangue , Pneumonia Associada à Ventilação Mecânica , Pneumotórax/etiologia , Respiração com Pressão Positiva/efeitos adversos , Desmame do Respirador
2.
JAMA ; 320(18): 1872-1880, 2018 11 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30357256

RESUMO

Importance: It remains uncertain whether invasive ventilation should use low tidal volumes in critically ill patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Objective: To determine whether a low tidal volume ventilation strategy is more effective than an intermediate tidal volume strategy. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial, conducted from September 1, 2014, through August 20, 2017, including patients without ARDS expected to not be extubated within 24 hours after start of ventilation from 6 intensive care units in the Netherlands. Interventions: Invasive ventilation using low tidal volumes (n = 477) or intermediate tidal volumes (n = 484). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days and alive at day 28. Secondary outcomes included length of ICU and hospital stay; ICU, hospital, and 28- and 90-day mortality; and development of ARDS, pneumonia, severe atelectasis, or pneumothorax. Results: In total, 961 patients (65% male), with a median age of 68 years (interquartile range [IQR], 59-76), were enrolled. At day 28, 475 patients in the low tidal volume group had a median of 21 ventilator-free days (IQR, 0-26), and 480 patients in the intermediate tidal volume group had a median of 21 ventilator-free days (IQR, 0-26) (mean difference, -0.27 [95% CI, -1.74 to 1.19]; P = .71). There was no significant difference in ICU (median, 6 vs 6 days; 0.39 [-1.09 to 1.89]; P = .58) and hospital (median, 14 vs 15 days; -0.60 [-3.52 to 2.31]; P = .68) length of stay or 28-day (34.9% vs 32.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.12 [0.90 to 1.40]; P = .30) and 90-day (39.1% vs 37.8%; HR, 1.07 [0.87 to 1.31]; P = .54) mortality. There was no significant difference in the percentage of patients developing the following adverse events: ARDS (3.8% vs 5.0%; risk ratio [RR], 0.86 [0.59 to 1.24]; P = .38), pneumonia (4.2% vs 3.7%; RR, 1.07 [0.78 to 1.47]; P = .67), severe atelectasis (11.4% vs 11.2%; RR, 1.00 [0.81 to 1.23]; P = .94), and pneumothorax (1.8% vs 1.3%; RR, 1.16 [0.73 to 1.84]; P = .55). Conclusions and Relevance: In patients in the ICU without ARDS who were expected not to be extubated within 24 hours of randomization, a low tidal volume strategy did not result in a greater number of ventilator-free days than an intermediate tidal volume strategy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02153294.


Assuntos
Respiração Artificial/métodos , Insuficiência Respiratória/terapia , Volume de Ventilação Pulmonar , Idoso , Estado Terminal/mortalidade , Estado Terminal/terapia , Feminino , Mortalidade Hospitalar , Humanos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Avaliação de Processos e Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Respiração Artificial/efeitos adversos , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório , Insuficiência Respiratória/fisiopatologia , Desmame do Respirador , Lesão Pulmonar Induzida por Ventilação Mecânica
3.
Trials ; 19(1): 272, 2018 May 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29739430

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Evidence for benefit of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is largely lacking for invasively ventilated, critically ill patients with uninjured lungs. We hypothesize that ventilation with low PEEP is noninferior to ventilation with high PEEP with regard to the number of ventilator-free days and being alive at day 28 in this population.  METHODS/DESIGN: The "REstricted versus Liberal positive end-expiratory pressure in patients without ARDS" trial (RELAx) is a national, multicenter, randomized controlled, noninferiority trial in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with uninjured lungs who are expected not to be extubated within 24 h. RELAx will run in 13 ICUs in the Netherlands to enroll 980 patients under invasive ventilation. In all patients, low tidal volumes are used. Patients assigned to ventilation with low PEEP will receive the lowest possible PEEP between 0 and 5 cm H2O, while patients assigned to ventilation with high PEEP will receive PEEP of 8 cm H2O. The primary endpoint is the number of ventilator-free days and being alive at day 28, a composite endpoint for liberation from the ventilator and mortality until day 28, with a noninferiority margin for a difference between groups of 0.5 days. Secondary endpoints are length of stay (LOS), mortality, and occurrence of pulmonary complications, including severe hypoxemia, major atelectasis, need for rescue therapies, pneumonia, pneumothorax, and development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Hemodynamic support and sedation needs will be collected and compared. DISCUSSION: RELAx will be the first sufficiently sized randomized controlled trial in invasively ventilated, critically ill patients with uninjured lungs using a clinically relevant and objective endpoint to determine whether invasive, low-tidal-volume ventilation with low PEEP is noninferior to ventilation with high PEEP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , ID: NCT03167580 . Registered on 23 May 2017.


Assuntos
Respiração com Pressão Positiva/métodos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório/terapia , Interpretação Estatística de Dados , Humanos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Estudos Multicêntricos como Assunto , Respiração com Pressão Positiva/efeitos adversos , Tamanho da Amostra
4.
J Homosex ; 58(4): 497-520, 2011.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21442543

RESUMO

Research was conducted investigating university students' prejudicial attitudes toward bisexual men and women in South Africa. The combined male and female Attitudes Regarding Bisexuality Scale (ARBS) showed unacceptable internal consistency reliabilities, especially for the Black-African participants. An expert focus group was convened in order to elaborate on and clarify the low reliability coefficients. The ARBS was then adapted for the South African population and resulted in two separate instruments designed to measure attitudes regarding bisexual men and bisexual women separately. Five hundred eighty seven university students completed these scales. The results indicated that the attitudes of heterosexual, homosexual, and asexual students toward bisexual men and women are more negative than the attitudes of bisexual students.


Assuntos
Atitude , Bissexualidade/psicologia , Estudantes/psicologia , População Negra/psicologia , Coleta de Dados , Feminino , Grupos Focais , Humanos , Masculino , Preconceito , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Fatores Sexuais , África do Sul , Inquéritos e Questionários , Universidades , População Branca/psicologia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...