Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtros adicionais

Intervalo de ano
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31540931


BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: With expansion of the pool of kidney grafts, through the use of higher-risk donors, and increased attention to donor management strategies, the 1-year graft survival rate is subject to change. It is, therefore, useful to elucidate 1-year graft survival rates by dissecting the characteristics of the low-risk and high-risk kidney transplant cases. The objective of our study was to evaluate factors purported to influence the risk of 1-year graft loss in kidney transplant recipients. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We searched bibliographic databases from 2000 to 2017 and included observational studies that measured the association between donor, recipient, the transplant operation, or early postoperative complications, and 1-year death-censored graft loss. RESULTS: We identified 35 eligible primary studies, with 20 risk factors amenable to meta-analysis. Six factors were associated with graft loss, with moderate to high degree of certainty: donor age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.11 per 10-year increase; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.04 to 1.18), extended criteria donors (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.28 to 1.42), deceased donors (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.32 to 1.82), number of HLA mismatches (HR, 1.08 per one mismatch increase; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.09), recipient age (HR, 1.17 per 10-year increase; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.25), and delayed graft function (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.46 to 2.47) as risk factors for 1-year graft loss. Pooled analyses also excluded, with a high degree of certainty, any associations of cold ischemia time, recipient race, pretransplant body mass index, diabetes, and hypertension with 1-year graft loss. CONCLUSIONS: Recipient age, donor age, standard versus extended criteria donor, living versus deceased donor, HLA mismatch, and delayed graft function all predicted 1-year graft survival. The effect of each risk factor is small.

JBJS Rev ; 7(2): e1, 2019 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30724762


BACKGROUND: Evidence with regard to antibiotic prophylaxis for patients with open fractures of the extremities is limited. We therefore conducted a systematic survey addressing current practice and recommendations. METHODS: We included publications from January 2007 to June 2017. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for clinical studies and surveys of surgeons; WorldCat for textbooks; and web sites for guidelines and institutional protocols. RESULTS: We identified 223 eligible publications that reported 100 clinical practice patterns and 276 recommendations with regard to systemic antibiotic administration, and 3 recommendations regarding local antibiotic administration alone. Most publications of clinical practice patterns used regimens with both gram-positive and gram-negative coverage and continued the administration for 2 to 3 days. Most publications recommended prophylactic systemic antibiotics. Most recommendations suggested gram-positive coverage for less severe injuries and administration duration of 3 days or less. For more severe injuries, most recommendations suggested broad antimicrobial coverage continued for 2 to 3 days. Most publications reported intravenous administration of antibiotics immediately. CONCLUSIONS: Current practice and recommendations strongly support early systemic antibiotic prophylaxis for patients with open fractures of the extremities. Differences in antibiotic regimens, doses, and durations of administration remain in both practice and recommendations. Consensus with regard to optimal practice will likely require well-designed randomized controlled trials. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The current survey of literature systematically provides surgeons' practice and the available expert recommendations from 2007 to 2017 on the use of prophylactic antibiotics in the management of open fractures of extremities.

BMJ ; 354: i5065, 2016 Sep 28.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27683072


OBJECTIVE:  To determine the frequency of survival, stroke, atrial fibrillation, structural valve deterioration, and length of hospital stay after surgical replacement of an aortic valve (SAVR) with a bioprosthetic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. DESIGN:  Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. DATA SOURCES:  Medline, Embase, PubMed (non-Medline records only), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane CENTRAL from 2002 to June 2016. STUDY SELECTION:  Eligible observational studies followed patients after SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve for at least two years. METHODS:  Reviewers, independently and in duplicate, evaluated study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias for patient important outcomes. We used the GRADE system to quantify absolute effects and quality of evidence. Published survival curves provided data for survival and freedom from structural valve deterioration, and random effect models provided the framework for estimates of pooled incidence rates of stroke, atrial fibrillation, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS:  In patients undergoing SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve, median survival was 16 years in those aged 65 or less, 12 years in those aged 65 to 75, seven years in those aged 75 to 85, and six years in those aged more than 85. The incidence rate of stroke was 0.25 per 100 patient years (95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.54) and atrial fibrillation 2.90 per 100 patient years (1.78 to 4.79). Post-SAVR, freedom from structural valve deterioration was 94.0% at 10 years, 81.7% at 15 years, and 52% at 20 years, and mean length of hospital stay was 12 days (95% confidence interval 9 to 15). CONCLUSION:  Patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis undergoing SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve can expect only slightly lower survival than those without aortic stenosis, and a low incidence of stroke and, up to 10 years, of structural valve deterioration. The rate of deterioration increases rapidly after 10 years, and particularly after 15 years.