Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Filtros adicionais











Intervalo de ano
1.
Rev. colomb. anestesiol ; 47(3): 142-153, July-Sept. 2019. tab, graf
Artigo em Inglês | LILACS-Express | ID: biblio-1013883

RESUMO

Abstract Introduction: Patients undergoing cardiac surgery frequently develop low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS). Multiple interventions including levosimendan have been used in the prevention and treatment of LCOS. Preliminary studies reported lower mortality respect to placebo or other inotropes, however, recently, 3 clinical trials found no benefit against this outcome. Objective: Our objective was to evaluate the evidence of levosimendan on mortality and secondary outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, and to determine the sources of heterogeneity. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of levosimendan in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. We obtained the odds ratio (OR) of mortality and other outcomes such as kidney injury with dialysis requirement and LCOS, using fixed and random effects models. The risk of bias was assessed and the sources of heterogeneity were explored. Results: Of 47 studies identified, 14 studies were selected (n=2752). Regarding the mortality outcome and use of levosimendan, only a decrease was found in the studies of low quality (OR 0,30; CI 95%, 0,18 to 0,51). While high-quality studies, there was no protective effect (OR 0.99,95% CI 0.70-1.40) with an I2 = 0%. The quality of the studies and ejection fraction were the main sources of heterogeneity. Conclusion: In high-quality studies, the use of levosimendan in patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery has no effect on 30-day mortality. There was a protective effect on postoperative renal failure with dialysis.


Resumen Introducción: Los pacientes llevados a cirugía cardiaca tienen riesgo de desarrollar síndrome de bajo gasto cardiaco posoperatorio (SBGC). Estudios previos han encontrado una menor mortalidad con levosimendán respecto a placebo u otros inotrópicos; sin embargo, tres experimentos clínicos no encontraron beneficio frente a este desenlace. Objetivo: Evaluar la evidencia del levosimendán sobre la mortalidad y los desenlaces secundarios en pacientes sometidos a cirugía cardiaca, y determinar las fuentes de heterogeneidad. Métodos: Mediante una revisión sistemática y metaanálisis de los experimentos clínicos que evaluaron la eficacia del levosimendán en los pacientes llevados a cirugía cardiaca, se evaluó la eficacia en la mortalidad y en otros desenlaces, como lesión renal y SBGC, utilizando los modelos de efectos fijos y aleatorios. Resultados: De 47 estudios identificados, fueron seleccionados 14 (n = 2752). Respecto al desenlace de mortalidad y el uso de levosimendán solo se encontró una disminución en los estudios de baja calidad (OR 0.30; IC 95%, 0.18-0.51), mientras que para los de alta calidad no hubo efecto protector (OR 0.99; IC 95%, 0.70-1.40) con un I2=0%. La calidad de los estudios y la fracción de eyección fueron las principales fuentes de heterogeneidad. Conclusión: el uso del levosimendán en los pacientes llevados a cirugía cardiovascular no tiene efectos sobre la mortalidad a 30 días en los estudios de alta calidad. Hubo efecto protector sobre la falla renal postoperatoria con necesidad de diálisis.

2.
Acta méd. colomb ; 39(3): 250-257, jul.-sep. 2014. ilus, tab
Artigo em Espanhol | LILACS-Express | ID: lil-731676

RESUMO

Objetivos: determinar prevalencia actividades de prevención por médicos y pacientes. Identificar factores de riesgo: pie, metabólicos, alimentarios y estado nutricional. Métodos: estudio descriptivo, transversal octubre 2009-junio 2011, pacientes hospitalizados con diabetes mellitus, mayores de edad; aprobación comité ética. Encuesta médica, evaluación nutricional,medición A1c y lípidos, educación mediante cartilla autocuidado. Análisis descriptivo: variables cuantitativas y cualitativas, coeficientes correlación de Pearson; programas Excel 2007 y SPSS-versión-15.0. Resultados: pacientes encuestados 263; hombres 44.1% y mujeres 55.9%; edad promedio63.6±13.3; tiempo diagnóstico diabetes 11.4 ± 8.5 años. Escolaridad primaria 58.9%, estrato socioeconómico 1-2 (71.3%). Antecedente: úlceras 14.8%, amputación 1.9%, disestesias 49.8%, claudicación intermitente 22.7%, examen pies por médico 42.9%. Actividades prevención por médicos son precarias porque no: educan 59.5% sobre autocuidado pie, examinan pies 57.1%, preguntan sobre: disestesias 68.3%, claudicación intermitente 74.8%. Autocuidado pacientes diario inadecuado porque, no revisan: pies 27.4%, interior calzado 28.1%; no realizan: secado interdigital 8%, lubricación pies 58.8%; sin automonitoreo 63.2%; corte inadecuado uñas 68.1%; no usan: medias 21.7%, calzado terapéutico 98.5%; sin colaboración familiar 55.1%. Descontrol metabólico: A1c 9.6% ± 2.7; c-LDL 99.1 mg% ± 31.3; triglicéridos: 171.9 mg% ± 97.9. Sin consejería por nutricionista 39.4%; con preobesidad-obesidad 58.9%. Correlación: IMC y cintura punto medio (r=0.750, p=0.000); IMC y porcentaje grasa corporal (r=0.586,p=0.000). Hábitos alimentación: preferencia alimentos fritos 42.3%; bajo consumo: proteína animal (12.7%), lácteos (31.8%), frutas (64.7%) y verduras (57.9%); alto consumo almidones (43.4%). Conclusiones: las actividades de prevención por médicos y pacientes son deficientes. Se evidenciaron factores de riesgo para diabetes mellitus y pie diabético: hiperlipidemia, hiperglucemia, obesidad y hábitos alimentarios inadecuados.


Objectives: to determine prevalence and prevention activities by physicians and patients. Identify risk factors: foot, metabolic, dietary and nutritional status. Methods: a descriptive, cross-sectional study, from October 2009 to June 2011 in adult patients hospitalized with diabetes mellitus. Ethics Committee approval. Medical questionnaire, nutritional assessment, measurement A1c and lipids, education through self care booklet. Descriptive analysis: quantitative and qualitative variables, Pearson correlation coefficients; Excel 2007 and SPSS version-15.0 programs. Results: 263 patients were surveyed; 44.1% men and 55.9% women; mean age 63.6 ± 13.3; time of diabetes diagnosis 11.4 ± 8.5 years. 58.9% had primary schooling, socioeconomic status 1-2 (71.3%). Clinical antecedents: ulcers 14.8%, 1.9% amputation, dysesthesias 49.8%, 22.7% intermittent claudication, foot exam by physician 42.9%. Prevention activities by doctors are precarious because 59.5% do not educate about foot self-care, 57.1% examine feet, 68.3% ask about dysesthesias, 74.8% about intermittent claudication. Inadequate daily feet self-care by patients because they don`t inspect their feet 27.4% or the inner shoes 28.1%; 8% do not make interdigital drying; 58.8% do not lubricate their feet; 63.2% make no self-monitoring; 68.1% have inadequate nail cutting; 21.7% do not use stockings, 98.5% do not have therapeutic footwear; 55.1% have no family collaboration. Metabolic dyscontrol: A1c 9.6 ± 2.7%; LDL-C 99.1% ± 31.3 mg; triglycerides: 171.9 ± 97.9 mg%. 39.4% do not have nutritionist counseling; 58.9% present pre-obesity-obesity. Correlation: BMI and waist midpoint circumference (r = 0.750, p = 0.000); BMI and body fat percentage (r = 0.586, p = 0.000). Eating habits: fried food preference 42.3%; Low consumption: animal protein (12.7%), dairy (31.8%), fruits (64.7%) and vegetables (57.9%); high starch consumption (43.4%). Conclusions: prevention efforts by doctors and patients are deficient. Risk factors for diabetes mellitus and diabetic foot observed were: hyperlipidemia, hyperglycemia, obesity and inadequate eating habits.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA