Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 108
Filtrar
1.
Artigo em Português, Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33263702

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To report the statistical analysis plan (first version) for the Balanced Solutions versus Saline in Intensive Care Study (BaSICS). METHODS: BaSICS is a multicenter factorial randomized controlled trial that will assess the effects of Plasma-Lyte 148 versus 0.9% saline as the fluid of choice in critically ill patients, as well as the effects of a slow (333mL/h) versus rapid (999mL/h) infusion speed during fluid challenges, on important patient outcomes. The fluid type will be blinded for investigators, patients and the analyses. No blinding will be possible for the infusion speed for the investigators, but all analyses will be kept blinded during the analysis procedure. RESULTS: BaSICS will have 90-day mortality as its primary endpoint, which will be tested using mixed-effects Cox proportional hazard models, considering sites as a random variable (frailty models) adjusted for age, organ dysfunction and admission type. Important secondary endpoints include renal replacement therapy up to 90 days, acute renal failure, organ dysfunction at days 3 and 7, and mechanical ventilation-free days within 28 days. CONCLUSION: This manuscript provides details on the first version of the statistical analysis plan for the BaSICS trial and will guide the study's analysis when follow-up is finished.

2.
Ann Intensive Care ; 10(1): 169, 2020 Dec 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33315161

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To contribute to updating the recommendations for brain-dead potential organ donor management. METHOD: A group of 27 experts, including intensivists, transplant coordinators, transplant surgeons, and epidemiologists, joined a task force formed by the General Coordination Office of the National Transplant System/Brazilian Ministry of Health (CGSNT-MS), the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine (AMIB), the Brazilian Association of Organ Transplantation (ABTO), and the Brazilian Research in Intensive Care Network (BRICNet). The questions were developed within the scope of the 2011 Brazilian Guidelines for Management of Adult Potential Multiple-Organ Deceased Donors. The topics were divided into mechanical ventilation, hemodynamic support, endocrine-metabolic management, infection, body temperature, blood transfusion, and use of checklists. The outcomes considered for decision-making were cardiac arrest, number of organs recovered or transplanted per donor, and graft function/survival. Rapid systematic reviews were conducted, and the quality of evidence of the recommendations was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Two expert panels were held in November 2016 and February 2017 to classify the recommendations. A systematic review update was performed in June 2020, and the recommendations were reviewed through a Delphi process with the panelists between June and July 2020. RESULTS: A total of 19 recommendations were drawn from the expert panel. Of these, 7 were classified as strong (lung-protective ventilation strategy, vasopressors and combining arginine vasopressin to control blood pressure, antidiuretic hormones to control polyuria, serum potassium and magnesium control, and antibiotic use), 11 as weak (alveolar recruitment maneuvers, low-dose dopamine, low-dose corticosteroids, thyroid hormones, glycemic and serum sodium control, nutritional support, body temperature control or hypothermia, red blood cell transfusion, and goal-directed protocols), and 1 was considered a good clinical practice (volemic expansion). CONCLUSION: Despite the agreement among panel members on most recommendations, the grade of recommendation was mostly weak. The observed lack of robust evidence on the topic highlights the importance of the present guideline to improve the management of brain-dead potential organ donors.

3.
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva ; 32(3): 354-362, 2020.
Artigo em Português, Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33053024

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The infection caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spreads worldwide and is considered a pandemic. The most common manifestation of SARS-CoV-2 infection (coronavirus disease 2019 - COVID-19) is viral pneumonia with varying degrees of respiratory compromise and up to 40% of hospitalized patients might develop acute respiratory distress syndrome. Several clinical trials evaluated the role of corticosteroids in non-COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome with conflicting results. We designed a trial to evaluate the effectiveness of early intravenous dexamethasone administration on the number of days alive and free of mechanical ventilation within 28 days after randomization in adult patients with moderate or severe acute respiratory distress syndrome due to confirmed or probable COVID-19. METHODS: This is a pragmatic, prospective, randomized, stratified, multicenter, open-label, controlled trial including 350 patients with early-onset (less than 48 hours before randomization) moderate or severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, defined by the Berlin criteria, due to COVID-19. Eligible patients will be randomly allocated to either standard treatment plus dexamethasone (Intervention Group) or standard treatment without dexamethasone (Control Group). Patients in the intervention group will receive dexamethasone 20mg intravenous once daily for 5 days, followed by dexamethasone 10mg IV once daily for additional 5 days or until intensive care unit discharge, whichever occurs first. The primary outcome is ventilator-free days within 28 days after randomization, defined as days alive and free from invasive mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes are all-cause mortality rates at day 28, evaluation of the clinical status at day 15 assessed with a 6-level ordinal scale, mechanical ventilation duration from randomization to day 28, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score evaluation at 48 hours, 72 hours and 7 days and intensive care unit -free days within 28.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus/tratamento farmacológico , Dexametasona/administração & dosagem , Glucocorticoides/administração & dosagem , Pneumonia Viral/tratamento farmacológico , /tratamento farmacológico , Adulto , Infecções por Coronavirus/fisiopatologia , Humanos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Escores de Disfunção Orgânica , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral/fisiopatologia , Estudos Prospectivos , Respiração Artificial , Fatores de Tempo
4.
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva ; 32(3): 444-457, 2020.
Artigo em Português, Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33053036

RESUMO

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought concerns to managers, healthcare professionals, and the general population related to the potential mechanical ventilators' shortage for severely ill patients. In Brazil, there are several initiatives aimed at producing alternative ventilators to cover this gap. To assist the teams that work in these initiatives, we provide a discussion of some basic concepts on physiology and respiratory mechanics, commonly used mechanical ventilation terms, the differences between triggering and cycling, the basic ventilation modes and other relevant aspects, such as mechanisms of ventilator-induced lung injury, respiratory drive, airway heating and humidification, cross-contamination risks, and aerosol dissemination. After the prototype development phase, preclinical bench-tests and animal model trials are needed to determine the safety and performance of the ventilator, following the minimum technical requirements. Next, it is mandatory going through the regulatory procedures as required by the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária - ANVISA). The manufacturing company should be appropriately registered by ANVISA, which also must be notified about the conduction of clinical trials, following the research protocol approval by the Research Ethics Committee. The registration requisition of the ventilator with ANVISA should include a dossier containing the information described in this paper, which is not intended to cover all related matters but to provide guidance on the required procedures.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus/terapia , Pneumonia Viral/terapia , Respiração Artificial/instrumentação , Ventiladores Mecânicos , Animais , Brasil/epidemiologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Desenho de Equipamento , Humanos , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Mecânica Respiratória , Lesão Pulmonar Induzida por Ventilação Mecânica/prevenção & controle
5.
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva ; 32(3): 337-347, 2020.
Artigo em Português, Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32965395

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Pro-inflammatory markers play a significant role in the disease severity of patients with COVID-19. Thus, anti-inflammatory therapies are attractive agents for potentially combating the uncontrolled inflammatory cascade in these patients. We designed a trial testing tocilizumab versus standard of care intending to improve the outcomes by inhibiting interleukin-6, an important inflammatory mediator in COVID-19. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This open-label multicentre randomized controlled trial will compare clinical outcomes of tocilizumab plus standard of care versus standard of care alone in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. Two of the following four criteria are required for protocol enrolment: D-dimer > 1,000ng/mL; C reactive protein > 5mg/dL, ferritin > 300mg/dL, and lactate dehydrogenase > upper limit of normal. The primary objective will be to compare the clinical status on day 15, as measured by a 7-point ordinal scale applied in COVID-19 trials worldwide. The primary endpoint will be assessed by an ordinal logistic regression assuming proportional odds ratios adjusted for stratification variables (age and sex). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The TOCIBRAS protocol was approved by local and central (national) ethical committees in Brazil following current national and international guidelines/directives. Each participating center had the study protocol approved by their institutional review boards before initiating protocol enrolment. The data derived from this trial will be published regardless of the results. If proven active, this strategy could alleviate the consequences of the inflammatory response in COVID-19 patients and improve their clinical outcomes.


Assuntos
Anti-Inflamatórios/uso terapêutico , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/uso terapêutico , Infecções por Coronavirus/tratamento farmacológico , Pneumonia Viral/tratamento farmacológico , Anti-Inflamatórios/farmacologia , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/farmacologia , Brasil , Infecções por Coronavirus/fisiopatologia , Humanos , Interleucina-6/antagonistas & inibidores , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral/fisiopatologia , Índice de Gravidade de Doença
6.
Rev. bras. ter. intensiva ; 32(3): 354-362, jul.-set. 2020. tab, graf
Artigo em Português | LILACS-Express | LILACS | ID: biblio-1138502

RESUMO

RESUMO Objetivo: A infecção causada pelo coronavírus da síndrome respiratória aguda grave 2 (SARS-CoV-2) disseminou-se por todo o mundo e foi categorizada como pandemia. As manifestações mais comuns da infecção pelo SARS-CoV-2 (doença pelo coronavírus 2019 - COVID-19) se referem a uma pneumonia viral com graus variáveis de comprometimento respiratório e até 40% dos pacientes hospitalizados, que podem desenvolver uma síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo. Diferentes ensaios clínicos avaliaram o papel dos corticosteroides na síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não relacionada com COVID-19, obtendo resultados conflitantes. Delineamos o presente estudo para avaliar a eficácia da administração endovenosa precoce de dexametasona no número de dias vivo e sem ventilação mecânica nos 28 dias após a randomização, em pacientes adultos com quadro moderado ou grave de síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo causada por COVID-19 provável ou confirmada. Métodos: Este é um ensaio pragmático, prospectivo, randomizado, estratificado, multicêntrico, aberto e controlado que incluirá 350 pacientes com quadro inicial (menos de 48 horas antes da randomização) de síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo moderada ou grave, definida segundo os critérios de Berlim, causada por COVID-19. Os pacientes elegíveis serão alocados de forma aleatória para tratamento padrão mais dexametasona (Grupo Intervenção) ou tratamento padrão sem dexametasona (Grupo Controle). Os pacientes no Grupo Intervenção receberão dexametasona 20mg por via endovenosa uma vez ao dia, por 5 dias, e, a seguir, dexametasona por via endovenosa 10mg ao dia por mais 5 dias, ou até receber alta da unidade de terapia intensiva, o que ocorrer antes. O desfecho primário será o número de dias livres de ventilação mecânica nos 28 dias após a randomização, definido como o número de dias vivo e livres de ventilação mecânica invasiva. Os desfechos secundários serão a taxa de mortalidade por todas as causas no dia 28, a condição clínica no dia 15 avaliada com utilização de uma escala ordinal de seis níveis, a duração da ventilação mecânica desde a randomização até o dia 28, a avaliação com o Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score após 48 horas, 72 horas e 7 dias, e o número de dias fora da unidade de terapia intensiva nos 28 dias após a randomização.


Abstract Objective: The infection caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spreads worldwide and is considered a pandemic. The most common manifestation of SARS-CoV-2 infection (coronavirus disease 2019 - COVID-19) is viral pneumonia with varying degrees of respiratory compromise and up to 40% of hospitalized patients might develop acute respiratory distress syndrome. Several clinical trials evaluated the role of corticosteroids in non-COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome with conflicting results. We designed a trial to evaluate the effectiveness of early intravenous dexamethasone administration on the number of days alive and free of mechanical ventilation within 28 days after randomization in adult patients with moderate or severe acute respiratory distress syndrome due to confirmed or probable COVID-19. Methods: This is a pragmatic, prospective, randomized, stratified, multicenter, open-label, controlled trial including 350 patients with early-onset (less than 48 hours before randomization) moderate or severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, defined by the Berlin criteria, due to COVID-19. Eligible patients will be randomly allocated to either standard treatment plus dexamethasone (Intervention Group) or standard treatment without dexamethasone (Control Group). Patients in the intervention group will receive dexamethasone 20mg intravenous once daily for 5 days, followed by dexamethasone 10mg IV once daily for additional 5 days or until intensive care unit discharge, whichever occurs first. The primary outcome is ventilator-free days within 28 days after randomization, defined as days alive and free from invasive mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes are all-cause mortality rates at day 28, evaluation of the clinical status at day 15 assessed with a 6-level ordinal scale, mechanical ventilation duration from randomization to day 28, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score evaluation at 48 hours, 72 hours and 7 days and intensive care unit -free days within 28.

7.
Rev. bras. ter. intensiva ; 32(3): 337-347, jul.-set. 2020. tab, graf
Artigo em Português | LILACS-Express | LILACS | ID: biblio-1138506

RESUMO

RESUMO Introdução: Os marcadores pró-inflamatórios desempenham papel importante na severidade de pacientes com COVID-19. Assim, terapêuticas anti-inflamatórias são agentes interessantes para potencialmente combater a cascata inflamatória descontrolada em tais pacientes. Delineamos um ensaio para testar tocilizumabe em comparação com o tratamento padrão, tendo como objetivo melhorar os desfechos por meio da inibição da interleucina 6, um importante mediador inflamatório na COVID-19. Métodos e análises: Este será um estudo aberto multicêntrico, randomizado e controlado, que comparará os desfechos de pacientes tratados com tocilizumabe mais tratamento padrão com o tratamento padrão isoladamente em pacientes com COVID-19 moderada a grave. Como critérios de inclusão, serão exigidos dois dos quatro critérios a seguir: dosagens de dímero D acima de 1.000ng/mL, proteína C-reativa acima de 5mg/dL, ferritina acima de 300mg/dL e desidrogenase lática acima do limite superior do normal. O objetivo primário será comparar a condição clínica no dia 15, conforme avaliação por meio de escala ordinal de 7 pontos aplicada nos estudos de COVID-19 em todo o mundo. O desfecho primário será avaliado por regressão logística ordinal assumindo razões de propensão proporcionais ajustadas pelas variáveis de estratificação (idade e sexo). Ética e disseminação: O TOCIBRAS foi aprovado pelos comitês de ética locais e central (nacional) do Brasil em conformidade com as atuais diretrizes e orientações nacionais e internacionais. Cada centro participante obteve aprovação do estudo por parte de seu comitê de ética em pesquisa, antes de iniciar as inscrições no protocolo. Os dados derivados deste ensaio serão publicados independentemente de seus resultados. Se tiver sua efetividade comprovada, esta estratégia terapêutica poderá aliviar as consequências da resposta inflamatória na COVID-19 e melhorar os resultados clínicos.


ABSTRACT Introduction: Pro-inflammatory markers play a significant role in the disease severity of patients with COVID-19. Thus, anti-inflammatory therapies are attractive agents for potentially combating the uncontrolled inflammatory cascade in these patients. We designed a trial testing tocilizumab versus standard of care intending to improve the outcomes by inhibiting interleukin-6, an important inflammatory mediator in COVID-19. Methods and analysis: This open-label multicentre randomized controlled trial will compare clinical outcomes of tocilizumab plus standard of care versus standard of care alone in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. Two of the following four criteria are required for protocol enrolment: D-dimer > 1,000ng/mL; C reactive protein > 5mg/dL, ferritin > 300mg/dL, and lactate dehydrogenase > upper limit of normal. The primary objective will be to compare the clinical status on day 15, as measured by a 7-point ordinal scale applied in COVID-19 trials worldwide. The primary endpoint will be assessed by an ordinal logistic regression assuming proportional odds ratios adjusted for stratification variables (age and sex). Ethics and dissemination: The TOCIBRAS protocol was approved by local and central (national) ethical committees in Brazil following current national and international guidelines/directives. Each participating center had the study protocol approved by their institutional review boards before initiating protocol enrolment. The data derived from this trial will be published regardless of the results. If proven active, this strategy could alleviate the consequences of the inflammatory response in COVID-19 patients and improve their clinical outcomes.

8.
Rev. bras. ter. intensiva ; 32(3): 444-457, jul.-set. 2020. tab, graf
Artigo em Português | LILACS-Express | LILACS | ID: biblio-1138512

RESUMO

RESUMO A pandemia por COVID-19 tem deixado os gestores, os profissionais de saúde e a população preocupados com a potencial escassez de ventiladores pulmonares para suporte de pacientes graves. No Brasil, há diversas iniciativas com o intuito de produzir ventiladores alternativos para ajudar a suprir essa demanda. Para auxiliar as equipes que atuam nessas iniciativas, são expostos alguns conceitos básicos sobre fisiologia e mecânica respiratória, os termos comumente utilizados no contexto da ventilação mecânica, as fases do ciclo ventilatório, as diferenças entre disparo e ciclagem, os modos ventilatórios básicos e outros aspectos relevantes, como mecanismos de lesão pulmonar induzida pela ventilação mecânica, pacientes com drive respiratório, necessidade de umidificação de vias aéreas, risco de contaminação cruzada e disseminação de aerossóis. Após a fase de desenvolvimento de protótipo, são necessários testes pré-clínicos de bancada e em modelos animais, a fim de determinar a segurança e o desempenho dos equipamentos, seguindo requisitos técnicos mínimos exigidos. Então, é imprescindível passar pelo processo regulatório exigido pela Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA). A empresa responsável pela fabricação do equipamento deve estar regularizada junto à ANVISA, que também deve ser notificada da condução dos testes clínicos em humanos, seguindo protocolo de pesquisa aprovado pelo Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa. O registro do ventilador junto à ANVISA deve ser acompanhado de um dossiê, composto por documentos e informações detalhadas neste artigo, que não tem o propósito de esgotar o assunto, mas de nortear os procedimentos necessários.


ABSTRACT The COVID-19 pandemic has brought concerns to managers, healthcare professionals, and the general population related to the potential mechanical ventilators' shortage for severely ill patients. In Brazil, there are several initiatives aimed at producing alternative ventilators to cover this gap. To assist the teams that work in these initiatives, we provide a discussion of some basic concepts on physiology and respiratory mechanics, commonly used mechanical ventilation terms, the differences between triggering and cycling, the basic ventilation modes and other relevant aspects, such as mechanisms of ventilator-induced lung injury, respiratory drive, airway heating and humidification, cross-contamination risks, and aerosol dissemination. After the prototype development phase, preclinical bench-tests and animal model trials are needed to determine the safety and performance of the ventilator, following the minimum technical requirements. Next, it is mandatory going through the regulatory procedures as required by the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária - ANVISA). The manufacturing company should be appropriately registered by ANVISA, which also must be notified about the conduction of clinical trials, following the research protocol approval by the Research Ethics Committee. The registration requisition of the ventilator with ANVISA should include a dossier containing the information described in this paper, which is not intended to cover all related matters but to provide guidance on the required procedures.

9.
Aust Crit Care ; 2020 Aug 19.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32828672

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Fluid resuscitation is a ubiquitous intervention in the management of patients treated in the intensive care unit, which has implications for intensive care unit resourcing and budgets. Our objective was to calculate the relative cost of resuscitation fluids in several countries to inform future economic evaluations. METHODS: We collected site-level data regarding the availability and cost of fluids as part of an international survey. We normalised costs to net present values using purchasing power parities and published inflation figures. Costs were also adjusted for equi-effective dosing based on intravascular volume expansion effectiveness and expressed as US dollars (USD) per 100 mL crystalloid equivalent. RESULTS: A total of 187 sites had access to cost data. Between countries, there was an approximate six fold variation in the cost of crystalloids and colloids overall. The average cost for crystalloids overall was less than 1 USD per 100 mL. In contrast, colloid fluids had higher average costs (59 USD per 100 mL). After adjusting for equi-effective dosing, saline was ∼27 times less costly than albumin (saline: 0.6 USD per 100 mL crystalloid equivalent; albumin 4-5%: 16.4 USD; albumin 20-25%: 15.8 USD) and ∼4 times less costly than hydroxyethyl starch solution (saline: 0.6 USD; hydroxyethyl starch solution: 2.5 USD). Buffered salt solutions, such as compound sodium acetate solutions (e.g., Plasmalyte®), had the highest average cost of crystalloid fluids, costing between 3 and 4 USD per 100 mL. CONCLUSION: The cost of fluid varies substantially between fluid types and between countries, although normal (0.9%) saline is consistently less costly than colloid preparations and some buffered salt solutions. These data can be used to inform future economic evaluations of fluid preparations.

10.
Ann Intensive Care ; 10(1): 68, 2020 Jun 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32488524

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Survival benefit from low tidal volume (VT) ventilation (LTVV) has been demonstrated for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and patients not having ARDS could also benefit from this strategy. Organizational factors may play a role on adherence to LTVV. The present study aimed to identify organizational factors with an independent association with adherence to LTVV. METHODS: Secondary analysis of the database of a multicenter two-phase study (prospective cohort followed by a cluster-randomized trial) performed in 118 Brazilian intensive care units. Patients under mechanical ventilation at day 2 were included. LTVV was defined as a VT ≤ 8 ml/kg PBW on the second day of ventilation. Data on the type and number of beds of the hospital, teaching status, nursing, respiratory therapists and physician staffing, use of structured checklist, and presence of protocols were tested. A multivariable mixed-effect model was used to assess the association between organizational factors and adherence to LTVV. RESULTS: The study included 5719 patients; 3340 (58%) patients received LTVV. A greater number of hospital beds (absolute difference 7.43% [95% confidence interval 0.61-14.24%]; p = 0.038), use of structured checklist during multidisciplinary rounds (5.10% [0.55-9.81%]; p = 0.030), and presence of at least one nurse per 10 patients during all shifts (17.24% [0.85-33.60%]; p = 0.045) were the only three factors that had an independent association with adherence to LTVV. CONCLUSIONS: Number of hospital beds, use of a structured checklist during multidisciplinary rounds, and nurse staffing are organizational factors associated with adherence to LTVV. These findings shed light on organizational factors that may improve ventilation in critically ill patients.

11.
Trials ; 21(1): 540, 2020 Jun 17.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32552839

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The quality of clinical care of brain-dead potential organ donors may help reduce donor losses caused by irreversible or unreversed cardiac arrest and increase the number of organs donated. We sought to determine whether an evidence-based, goal-directed checklist for donor management in intensive care units (ICUs) can reduce donor losses to cardiac arrest. METHODS/DESIGN: The DONORS study is a multicentre, cluster-randomised controlled trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio designed to compare an intervention group (goal-directed checklist for brain-dead potential organ donor management) with a control group (standard ICU care). The primary outcome is loss of potential donors due to cardiac arrest. Secondary outcomes are the number of actual organ donors and the number of solid organs recovered per actual donor. Exploratory outcomes include the achievement of relevant clinical goals during the management of brain-dead potential organ donors. The present statistical analysis plan (SAP) describes all primary statistical procedures that will be used to evaluate the results and perform exploratory and sensitivity analyses of the trial. DISCUSSION: The SAP of the DONORS study aims to describe its analytic procedures, enhancing the transparency of the study. At the moment of SAP subsmission, 63 institutions have been randomised and were enrolling study participants. Thus, the analyses reported herein have been defined before the end of the study recruitment and database locking. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03179020. Registered on 7 June 2017.

12.
Braz J Cardiovasc Surg ; 35(1): 82-90, 2020 02 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32270964

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the profile and outcomes of patients who underwent valve heart surgery in Brazil, using information retrieved from the Brazilian Registry of Cardiovascular Surgeries in Adults (BYPASS Registry) database. METHODS: This is a multicenter cohort study, evaluating 920 patients submitted to heart valve surgery. Demographics and postoperative clinical outcomes were assessed and compared to estimate mortality risk using the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE). RESULTS: Isolated aortic valve replacement was the most frequently performed surgery (34%), followed by isolated mitral valve replacement (24.9%). Valve repair was performed in 21% of mitral procedures. Minimally invasive access was performed in 1.6% and the most frequent postoperative complications were arrhythmias (22.6%), infections (5.7%), and low-output syndrome (5.1%). Operations covered by the public health system accounted for 80.8% and the hospital mortality rate was 7.3%. CONCLUSION: The most frequent isolated valve surgery in Brazil is the aortic valve replacement by conventional open access and the rheumatic disease is still the main etiology for valve surgery. The BYPASS Registry has a fundamental role to provide information on the profile of patients with valve heart disease in our country in order to delineate adequate strategies for health promotion and resource allocation for cardiac surgery.


Assuntos
Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Cardíacos , Adulto , Idoso , Brasil , Estudos de Coortes , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Complicações Pós-Operatórias , Sistema de Registros , Estudos Retrospectivos , Resultado do Tratamento
13.
Crit Care ; 24(1): 52, 2020 02 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32059682

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Optimal timing for the start of vasopressors (VP) in septic shock has not been widely studied since it is assumed that fluids must be administered in advance. We sought to evaluate whether a very early start of VP, even without completing the initial fluid loading, might impact clinical outcomes in septic shock. METHODS: A total of 337 patients with sepsis requiring VP support for at least 6 h were initially selected from a prospectively collected database in a 90-bed mixed-ICU during a 24-month period. They were classified into very-early (VE-VPs) or delayed vasopressor start (D-VPs) categories according to whether norepinephrine was initiated or not within/before the next hour of the first resuscitative fluid load. Then, VE-VPs (n = 93) patients were 1:1 propensity matched to D-VPs (n = 93) based on age; source of admission (emergency room, general wards, intensive care unit); chronic and acute comorbidities; and lactate, heart rate, systolic, and diastolic pressure at vasopressor start. A risk-adjusted Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to assess the association between VE-VPs and day 28 mortality. Finally, a sensitivity analysis was performed also including those patients requiring VP support for less than 6 h. RESULTS: Patients subjected to VE-VPs received significantly less resuscitation fluids at vasopressor starting (0[0-510] vs. 1500[650-2300] mL, p < 0.001) and during the first 8 h of resuscitation (1100[500-1900] vs. 2600[1600-3800] mL, p < 0.001), with no significant increase in acute renal failure and/or renal replacement therapy requirements. VE-VPs was related with significant lower net fluid balances 8 and 24 h after VPs. VE-VPs was also associated with a significant reduction in the risk of death compared to D-VPs (HR 0.31, CI95% 0.17-0.57, p < 0.001) at day 28. Such association was maintained after including patients receiving vasopressors for < 6 h. CONCLUSION: A very early start of vasopressor support seems to be safe, might limit the amount of fluids to resuscitate septic shock, and could lead to better clinical outcomes.


Assuntos
Hidratação , Norepinefrina , Choque Séptico , Vasoconstritores , Lesão Renal Aguda/complicações , Idoso , Feminino , Humanos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Norepinefrina/administração & dosagem , Terapia de Substituição Renal , Choque Séptico/tratamento farmacológico , Fatores de Tempo , Vasoconstritores/administração & dosagem
14.
Ann Am Thorac Soc ; 17(5): 596-604, 2020 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32069068

RESUMO

Rationale: Evidence from observational studies suggests that driving pressure is strongly associated with pulmonary injury and mortality, regardless of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels, tidal volume, or plateau pressure. Therefore, it is possible that targeting driving pressure may improve the safety of ventilation strategies for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, the clinical effects of a driving pressure-limited strategy for ARDS has not been assessed in randomized controlled trials.Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility of testing a driving pressure-limited strategy in comparison with a conventional lung-protective ventilation strategy in patients with ARDS and a baseline driving pressure of ≥13 cm H2O.Methods: This was a randomized, controlled, nonblinded trial that included 31 patients with ARDS who were on invasive mechanical ventilation and had a driving pressure of ≥13 cm H2O. Patients allocated to the driving pressure-limited strategy were ventilated with volume-controlled or pressure-support ventilation modes, with tidal volume titrated to 4-8 ml/kg of predicted body weight (PBW), aiming at a driving pressure of 10 cm H2O, or the lowest possible. Patients in the control group were ventilated according to the ARDSNet (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network) protocol, using a tidal volume of 6 ml/kg PBW, which was allowed to be set down to 4 ml/kg PBW if the plateau pressure was >30 cm H2O. The primary endpoint was the driving pressure on Days 1-3.Results: Sixteen patients were randomized to the driving pressure-limited group and 15 were randomized to the conventional strategy group. All patients were considered in analyses. Most of the patients had mild ARDS with a mean arterial oxygen tension/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio of 215 (standard deviation [SD] = 95). The baseline driving pressure was 15.0 cm H2O (SD = 2.6) in both groups. In comparison with the conventional strategy, driving pressure from the first hour to the third day was 4.6 cm H2O lower in the driving pressure-limited group (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.5 to 2.8; P < 0.001). From the first hour up to the third day, tidal volume in the driving pressure-limited strategy group was kept lower than in the control group (mean difference [ml/kg of PBW], 1.3; 95% CI, 1.7 to 0.9; P < 0.001). We did not find statistically significant differences in the incidence of severe acidosis (pH < 7.10) within 7 days (absolute difference -12.1; 95% CI, -41.5 to -17.3) or any clinical secondary endpoint.Conclusions: In patients with ARDS, a trial assessing the effects of a driving pressure-limited strategy using very low tidal volumes versus a conventional ventilation strategy on clinical outcomes is feasible.Clinical trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02365038).

15.
Rev. bras. cir. cardiovasc ; 35(1): 82-90, Jan.-Feb. 2020. tab, graf
Artigo em Inglês | LILACS-Express | LILACS | ID: biblio-1092463

RESUMO

Abstract Objective: To analyze the profile and outcomes of patients who underwent valve heart surgery in Brazil, using information retrieved from the Brazilian Registry of Cardiovascular Surgeries in Adults (BYPASS Registry) database. Methods: This is a multicenter cohort study, evaluating 920 patients submitted to heart valve surgery. Demographics and postoperative clinical outcomes were assessed and compared to estimate mortality risk using the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE). Results: Isolated aortic valve replacement was the most frequently performed surgery (34%), followed by isolated mitral valve replacement (24.9%). Valve repair was performed in 21% of mitral procedures. Minimally invasive access was performed in 1.6% and the most frequent postoperative complications were arrhythmias (22.6%), infections (5.7%), and low-output syndrome (5.1%). Operations covered by the public health system accounted for 80.8% and the hospital mortality rate was 7.3%. Conclusion: The most frequent isolated valve surgery in Brazil is the aortic valve replacement by conventional open access and the rheumatic disease is still the main etiology for valve surgery. The BYPASS Registry has a fundamental role to provide information on the profile of patients with valve heart disease in our country in order to delineate adequate strategies for health promotion and resource allocation for cardiac surgery.

16.
Neurocrit Care ; 32(2): 564-574, 2020 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31317319

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Acute brain lesions constitute an alarming public health concern. Neuroprotective therapies have been implemented to stabilize, prevent, or reduce brain lesions, thus improving neurological outcomes and survival rates. Hypothermia is the most effective approach, mainly attributed to the reduction in cellular metabolic activity. Whole-body cooling is currently implemented by healthcare professionals; however, adverse events are frequent, limiting the potential benefits of therapeutic hypothermia. Therefore, selective methods have been developed to reduce adverse events while delivering neuroprotection. Nasopharyngeal approaches are the safest and most effective methods currently considered. Our primary objective was to determine the effects of a novel nasopharyngeal catheter on the brain temperature of pigs. METHODS: In this prospective, non-randomized, interventional experimental trial, 10 crossbred pigs underwent nasopharyngeal cooling for 60 min followed by 15 min of rewarming. Nasopharyngeal catheters were inserted into the left nostril and properly positioned at the nasopharyngeal cavity. RESULTS: Nasopharyngeal cooling was associated with a decrease in brain temperature, which was more significant in the left cerebral hemisphere (p = 0.01). There was a reduction of 1.47 ± 0.86 °C in the first 5 min (p < 0.001), 2.45 ± 1.03 °C within 10 min (p < 0.001), and 4.45 ± 1.36 °C after 1 h (p < 0.001). The brain-core gradient was 4.57 ± 0.87 °C (p < 0.001). Rectal, esophageal, and pulmonary artery temperatures and brain and systemic hemodynamic parameters, remained stable during the procedure. Following brain cooling, values of oxygen partial pressure in brain tissue significantly decreased. No mucosal lesions were detected during nasal, pharyngeal, or oral inspection after nasopharyngeal catheter removal. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, a novel nasopharyngeal cooling catheter effectively induced and maintained exclusive brain cooling when combined with effective counter-warming methods. Exclusive brain cooling was safe with no device-related local or systemic complications and may be desired in selected patient populations.

17.
J Crit Care ; 55: 73-78, 2020 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31715534

RESUMO

PURPOSE: To develop and compare the predictive performance of machine-learning algorithms to estimate the risk of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) lower than or equal to 30 days (30-day QALY). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six machine-learning algorithms were applied to predict 30-day QALY for 777 patients admitted in a prospective cohort study conducted in Intensive Care Units (ICUs) of two public Brazilian hospitals specialized in cancer care. The predictors were 37 characteristics collected at ICU admission. Discrimination was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve. Sensitivity, 1-specificity, true/false positive and negative cases were measured for different estimated probability cutoff points (30%, 20% and 10%). Calibration was evaluated with GiViTI calibration belt and test. RESULTS: Except for basic decision trees, the adjusted predictive models were nearly equivalent, presenting good results for discrimination (AUROC curves over 0.80). Artificial neural networks and gradient boosted trees achieved the overall best calibration, implying an accurately predicted probability for 30-day QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Except for basic decision trees, predictive models derived from different machine-learning algorithms discriminated the QALY risk at 30 days well. Regarding calibration, artificial neural network model presented the best ability to estimate 30-day QALY in critically ill oncologic patients admitted to ICUs.

18.
Rev. bras. cir. cardiovasc ; 34(4): 504-506, July-Aug. 2019.
Artigo em Inglês | LILACS-Express | LILACS | ID: biblio-1020507
19.
JAMA ; 322(3): 216-228, 2019 07 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31310297

RESUMO

Importance: The effects of intensive care unit (ICU) visiting hours remain uncertain. Objective: To determine whether a flexible family visitation policy in the ICU reduces the incidence of delirium. Design, Setting and Participants: Cluster-crossover randomized clinical trial involving patients, family members, and clinicians from 36 adult ICUs with restricted visiting hours (<4.5 hours per day) in Brazil. Participants were recruited from April 2017 to June 2018, with follow-up until July 2018. Interventions: Flexible visitation (up to 12 hours per day) supported by family education (n = 837 patients, 652 family members, and 435 clinicians) or usual restricted visitation (median, 1.5 hours per day; n = 848 patients, 643 family members, and 391 clinicians). Nineteen ICUs started with flexible visitation, and 17 started with restricted visitation. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was incidence of delirium during ICU stay, assessed using the CAM-ICU. Secondary outcomes included ICU-acquired infections for patients; symptoms of anxiety and depression assessed using the HADS (range, 0 [best] to 21 [worst]) for family members; and burnout for ICU staff (Maslach Burnout Inventory). Results: Among 1685 patients, 1295 family members, and 826 clinicians enrolled, 1685 patients (100%) (mean age, 58.5 years; 47.2% women), 1060 family members (81.8%) (mean age, 45.2 years; 70.3% women), and 737 clinicians (89.2%) (mean age, 35.5 years; 72.9% women) completed the trial. The mean daily duration of visits was significantly higher with flexible visitation (4.8 vs 1.4 hours; adjusted difference, 3.4 hours [95% CI, 2.8 to 3.9]; P < .001). The incidence of delirium during ICU stay was not significantly different between flexible and restricted visitation (18.9% vs 20.1%; adjusted difference, -1.7% [95% CI, -6.1% to 2.7%]; P = .44). Among 9 prespecified secondary outcomes, 6 did not differ significantly between flexible and restricted visitation, including ICU-acquired infections (3.7% vs 4.5%; adjusted difference, -0.8% [95% CI, -2.1% to 1.0%]; P = .38) and staff burnout (22.0% vs 24.8%; adjusted difference, -3.8% [95% CI, -4.8% to 12.5%]; P = .36). For family members, median anxiety (6.0 vs 7.0; adjusted difference, -1.6 [95% CI, -2.3 to -0.9]; P < .001) and depression scores (4.0 vs 5.0; adjusted difference, -1.2 [95% CI, -2.0 to -0.4]; P = .003) were significantly better with flexible visitation. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients in the ICU, a flexible family visitation policy, vs standard restricted visiting hours, did not significantly reduce the incidence of delirium. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02932358.


Assuntos
Delírio/prevenção & controle , Família/psicologia , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva/organização & administração , Visitas a Pacientes , Ansiedade , Brasil , Esgotamento Profissional , Cuidados Críticos/psicologia , Estudos Cross-Over , Depressão , Feminino , Educação em Saúde , Hospitalização , Humanos , Incidência , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Fatores de Tempo
20.
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva ; 31(2): 193-201, 2019 May 30.
Artigo em Português, Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31166559

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To characterize resource availability from a nationally representative random sample of intensive care units in Brazil. METHODS: A structured online survey of participating units in the Sepsis PREvalence Assessment Database (SPREAD) study, a nationwide 1-day point prevalence survey to assess the burden of sepsis in Brazil, was sent to the medical director of each unit. RESULTS: A representative sample of 277 of the 317 invited units responded to the resources survey. Most of the hospitals had fewer than 500 beds (94.6%) with a median of 14 beds in the intensive care unit. Providing care for public-insured patients was the main source of income in two-thirds of the surveyed units. Own microbiology laboratory was not available for 26.8% of the surveyed intensive care units, and 10.5% did not always have access to blood cultures. Broad spectrum antibiotics were not always available in 10.5% of surveyed units, and 21.3% could not always measure lactate within three hours. Those institutions with a high resource availability (158 units, 57%) were usually larger and preferentially served patients from the private health system compared to institutions without high resource availability. Otherwise, those without high resource availability did not always have broad-spectrum antibiotics (24.4%), vasopressors (4.2%) or crystalloids (7.6%). CONCLUSION: Our study indicates that a relevant number of units cannot perform basic monitoring and therapeutic interventions in septic patients. Our results highlight major opportunities for improvement to adhere to simple but effective interventions in Brazil.


Assuntos
Cuidados Críticos/estatística & dados numéricos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva/estatística & dados numéricos , Sepse/terapia , Brasil/epidemiologia , Efeitos Psicossociais da Doença , Número de Leitos em Hospital/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Prevalência , Sepse/epidemiologia , Inquéritos e Questionários
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...