Varicela complicada con rabdomiólisis / Varicella Complicated by Rhabdomyolysis

No disponible

Comorbilidad, pluripatología, consumo de recursos y pronóstico de pacientes ingresados en una unidad de Medicina Interna / Comorbidity, pluripathology, resource use and prognosis of patients hospitalized in Internal Medicine Areas

Objetivo: Comparar la definición de paciente con pluripatología (PP) del Servicio de Salud de Andalucía con el índice de comorbilidad de Charlson (IC) respecto al consumo de recursos y pronóstico de enfermos hospitalizados. Pacientes y métodos: Estudio prospectivo observacional de 207 pacientes ingresados de forma consecutiva en una unidad de medicina interna en los que se determinó la presencia de PP, una variante de PP obtenida de aplicar al menos tres categorías clínicas en lugar de dos (PP3), el IC y su valor ajustado con la edad (ICE), y la relación de estas variables con el consumo de recursos (atenciones urgentes, consultas programadas de especialidades y episodios de hospitalización en los doce meses previos, duración de la estancia, procedimientos propios, procedimientos deotras especialidades e interconsultas) y pronóstico (mortalidad intrahospitalaria, deterioro funcional significativo y reingreso precoz). Resultados: La frecuencia de PP fue de 40,6% y la de PP3 de 16,9%. La mediana de la puntuación del IC fue de 2 (0-7) y la del ICE de 4 (0-11). Se detectaron las siguientes relaciones independientes: IC de 3 o mayor con reingreso precoz y duración de la estancia; ICE de 5 o mayor con la mortalidad; PP3 con la mortalidad, reingreso precoz y con urgencias, ingresos y consultas en el último año; categorías B y F de PP con las hospitalizaciones en el último año; categoría D de PP con las consultas en el último año; y la asociación de categorías A, B y C con la mortalidad y hospitalizaciones en el último año. PP no se relacionó de forma independiente con ninguna variable. Conclusión: El IC y la definición de PP no identifican la misma población de pacientes hospitalizados. Modificaciones de la definición de PP, como PP3, o el análisis de las distintas categorías clínicas de PP y sus asociaciones, podrían mejorar la utilidad de este concepto

Objective: To compare the concept of patient with pluripathology (PP) with the index of comorbidity of Charlson (IC) respect to there sources use and prognosis of hospitalized patients. Patients and methods: An observational prospective study of 207 consecutively hospitalized patients in an internal medicine unit was conducted. The PP, a variant of PP with three or more criteria (PP3), ICand IC fit to the age (ICE) were determined, and their relation with the consumption of resources (emergency attentions, programmed consultations of specialties and episodes of hospitalization in the last year, length of stay, own procedures, other specialty procedures and consulting) and prognosis (hospital mortality, significant functional deterioration and rehospitalization) were stayed. Results: The frequency of PP and PP3 was 40.6 and 16.9%, respectively.The median of the IC and ICE score were 2 (0-7) and 4 (0-11), respectively. We found the following independent relations: IC of 3 or greater with the rehospitalization and the length of stay; ICE of 5 or greater with mortality; PP3 with mortality, rehospitalization and emergency visits, hospitalizations and consultations in the last year; the categories B and F of PP with hospitalizations in the last year; the category D of PP with consultations in the last year; and the association of categories A, B and C with mortality and hospitalizations in the last year. PP was not related in an independent form with any variable. Conclusion: The IC and the concept of PP do not identify the same hospitalized patient population. Modifications of the PP definition, like PP3, or the analysis of the different clinical categories of PP and their associations, could improve the utility of this concept

[Comorbidity, pluripathology, resource use and prognosis of patients hospitalized in internal medicine areas]. / Comorbilidad, pluripatología, consumo de recursos y pronóstico de pacientes ingresados en una unidad de Medicina Interna.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the concept of patient with pluripathology (PP) with the index of comorbidity of Charlson (IC) respect to the resources use and prognosis of hospitalized patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An observational prospective study of 207 consecutively hospitalized patients in an internal medicine unit was conducted. The PP, a variant of PP with three or more criteria (PP3), IC and IC fit to the age (ICE) were determined, and their relation with the consumption of resources (emergency attentions, programmed consultations of specialties and episodes of hospitalization in the last year, length of stay, own procedures, other specialty procedures and consulting) and prognosis (hospital mortality, significant functional deterioration and rehospitalization) were stayed. RESULTS: The frequency of PP and PP3 was 40.6 and 16.9%, respectively. The median of the IC and ICE score were 2 (0-7) and 4 (0-11), respectively. We found the following independent relations: IC of 3 or greater with the rehospitalization and the length of stay; ICE of 5 or greater with mortality; PP3 with mortality, rehospitalization and emergency visits, hospitalizations and consultations in the last year; the categories B and F of PP with hospitalizations in the last year; the category D of PP with consultations in the last year; and the association of categories A, B and C with mortality and hospitalizations in the last year. PP was not related in an independent form with any variable. CONCLUSION: The IC and the concept of PP do not identify the same hospitalized patient population. Modifications of the PP definition, like PP3, or the analysis of the different clinical categories of PP and their associations, could improve the utility of this concept.

Active chest compression-decompression for cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: Active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ACDR CPR) uses a hand-held suction device, applied mid sternum, to compress the chest then actively decompress the chest after each compression. Randomised controlled trials on use of active compression decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation have results which are discordant. OBJECTIVES: To determine clinical effects and safety of active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation compared with standard manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (STR). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Last search was conducted in January 2004. We checked the reference list of retrieved articles and contacted enterprises manufacturing the active decompression devices. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised studies comparing active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation compared with standard manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adults with a cardiac arrest who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation by a trained medical or paramedical team. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted. All data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The authors of the primary studies were contacted for more information when needed. Studies were cumulated, if appropriate, and pooled relative risk (RR) estimated. Subgroup analysis according to setting (out of hospital or in hospital) and attending team composition (with physician or paramedic only) were predefined. MAIN RESULTS: Ten trials were included: eight were in out-of-hospital settings, one set in-hospital only and one had both in-hospital and out-of-hospital components. Allocation concealment was adequate in 4 trials. The two in-hospital studies were very different in quality (A and C) and size (773 and 53 patients). Both found no differences between ACDR CPR and STR in any outcome. Trials conducted in out-of-hospital settings cumulated 4162 patients. There were no differences between ACDR CPR and STR for mortality either immediately (RR 0.98 [95% CI 0.94 - 1.03]) or at hospital discharge (RR 0.99 [95% CI 0.98 - 1.01]). The pooled RR of neurological impairment, any severity, was 1.71 [95% CI 0.90 - 3.25], with a non-significant trend to more frequent severe neurological damage in survivors of ACDR CPR (RR 3.11 [95% CI 0.98 - 9.83]). However, assessment of neurological outcome was limited and there were few patients with neurological damage. There was no difference between ACDR CPR and STR with regard complications such as rib or sternal fractures, pneumothorax or hemothorax (RR 1.09 [95% CI 0.86 - 1.38]). Skin trauma and ecchymosis were more frequent with ACDR CPR. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Active chest compression-decompression in patients with cardiac arrest is not associated with clear benefit.

Active chest compression-decompression for cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: Active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ACDR CPR) uses a hand-held suction device, applied mid sternum, to compress the chest then actively decompress the chest after each compression. Randomised controlled trials on use of active compression decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation have results which are discordant. OBJECTIVES: To determine clinical effects and safety of active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation compared with standard manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (STR). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (May 2002), MEDLINE and EMBASE. We checked the reference list of retrieved articles and contacted enterprises manufacturing the active decompression devices. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised studies comparing active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation compared with standard manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adults with a cardiac arrest who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation by a trained medical or paramedical team. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted. All data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The authors of the primary studies were contacted for more information when needed. Studies were cumulated, if appropriate, and pooled relative risk (RR) estimated. Subgroup analysis according to setting (out of hospital or in hospital) and attending team composition (with physician or paramedic only) were predefined. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve trials were included: 10 were in out-of-hospital settings, one set in-hospital only and one had both in-hospital and out-of-hospital components. Allocation concealment was adequate in 4 trials. The two in-hospital studies were very different in quality (A and C) and size (773 and 53 patients). Both found no differences between ACDR CPR and STR in any outcome. Trials conducted in out-of-hospital settings cumulated 4162 patients. There were no differences between ACDR CPR and STR for mortality either immediately (RR 0.98 [95% CI 0.94 - 1.03]) or at hospital discharge (RR 0.99 [95% CI 0.98 - 1.01]). The pooled RR of neurological impairment, any severity, was 1.71 [95% CI 0.90 - 3.25], with a non-significant trend to more frequent severe neurological damage in survivors of ACDR CPR (RR 3.11 [95% CI 0.98 - 9.83]). However, assessment of neurological outcome was limited and there were few patients with neurological damage. There was no difference between ACDR CPR and STR with regard complications such as rib or sternal fractures, pneumothorax or hemothorax (RR 1.09 [95% CI 0.86 - 1.38]). Skin trauma and ecchymosis were more frequent with ACDR CPR. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Active chest compression-decompression in patients with cardiac arrest is not associated with clear benefit.

Active chest compression-decompression for cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: Active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ACD CPR) uses a hand-held suction device, applied mid sternum, to compress the chest then actively decompress the chest after each compression. Randomised controlled trials on use of active compression decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation have results which are discordant. OBJECTIVES: To determine clinical effects and safety of active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation compared with standard manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (STR). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Heart Group Specialised register (April 2001), the Cochrane library, MEDLINE and EMBASE. We checked the reference list of retrieved articles and contacted enterprises manufacturing the active decompression devices. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized or quasi-randomized studies comparing active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation compared with standard manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adults with a cardiac arrest who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation by a trained medical or paramedical team. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted. All data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The authors of the primary studies were contacted for more information when needed. Studies were cumulated, if appropriate, and pooled relative risk (RR) estimated. Subgroup analysis according to setting (out of hospital or in hospital) and attending team composition (with physician or paramedic only) were predefined. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve trials were included: 10 were in out-of-hospital settings, one set in-hospital only and one had both in-hospital and out-of-hospital components. Allocation concealment was adequate in 4 trials. The two in-hospital studies were very different in quality (A and C) and size (773 and 53 patients). Both found no differences between ACD CPR and STR in any outcome. Trials conducted in out-of-hospital settings cumulated 4162 patients. There were no differences between ACD CPR and STR for mortality either immediately (RR 0.98 [95% CI 0.94 - 1.03]) or at hospital discharge (RR 0.99 [95% CI 0.98 - 1.01]). The pooled RR of neurological impairment, any severity, was 1.71 [95% CI 0.90 - 3.25], with a non-significant trend to more frequent severe neurological damage in survivors of ACD CPR (RR 3.11 [95% CI 0.98 - 9.83]). However, assessment of neurological outcome was limited and there were few patients with neurological damage. There was no difference between ACD CPR and STR with regard complications such as rib or sternal fractures, pneumothorax or hemothorax (RR 1.09 [95% CI 0.86 - 1.38]). Skin trauma and ecchymosis were more frequent with ACD CPR. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Active chest compression-decompression in patients with cardiac arrest is not associated with clear benefit.