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

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 17, 2021 01 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33407793

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Supplementation of vitamin C in septic patients remains controversial despite eight large clinical trials published only in 2020. We aimed to evaluate the evidence on potential effects of vitamin C treatment on mortality in adult septic patients. METHODS: Data search included PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. A meta-analysis of eligible peer-reviewed studies was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Only studies with valid classifications of sepsis and intravenous vitamin C treatment (alone or combined with hydrocortisone/thiamine) were included. RESULTS: A total of 17 studies including 3133 patients fulfilled the predefined criteria and were analyzed. Pooled analysis indicated no mortality reduction in patients treated with vitamin C when compared to reference (risk difference - 0.05 [95% CI - 0.11 to - 0.01]; p = 0.08; p for Cochran Q = 0.002; I2 = 56%). Notably, subgroup analyses revealed an improved survival, if vitamin C treatment was applied for 3-4 days (risk difference, - 0.10 [95% CI - 0.19 to - 0.02]; p = 0.02) when compared to patients treated for 1-2 or > 5 days. Also, timing of the pooled mortality assessment indicated a reduction concerning short-term mortality (< 30 days; risk difference, - 0.08 [95% CI - 0.15 to - 0.01]; p = 0.02; p for Cochran Q = 0.02; I2 = 63%). Presence of statistical heterogeneity was noted with no sign of significant publication bias. CONCLUSION: Although vitamin C administration did not reduce pooled mortality, patients may profit if vitamin C is administered over 3 to 4 days. Consequently, further research is needed to identify patient subgroups that might benefit from intravenous supplementation of vitamin C.


Assuntos
Ácido Ascórbico/uso terapêutico , Mortalidade/tendências , Choque Séptico/tratamento farmacológico , Administração Intravenosa/métodos , Antioxidantes/farmacologia , Antioxidantes/normas , Antioxidantes/uso terapêutico , Ácido Ascórbico/farmacologia , Ácido Ascórbico/normas , Humanos , Choque Séptico/mortalidade
2.
Minerva Anestesiol ; 87(12): 1320-1329, 2021 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34263582

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of European Resuscitation Council (ERC) COVID-19-guidelines on resuscitation quality emphasizing advanced airway management in out-of-hospital-cardiac-arrest. METHODS: In a manikin study paramedics and emergency physicians performed advanced cardiac life support in three settings: ERC guidelines 2015 (control), COVID-19-guidelines as suggested with minimum staff (COVID-19-minimal-personnel); COVID-19-guidelines with paramedics and an emergency physician (COVID-19-advanced-airway-manager). Main outcome measures were no-flow-time, quality metrics as defined by ERC and time intervals to first chest compression, oxygen supply, intubation and first rhythm analysis. Data were presented as mean±standard deviation. RESULTS: Thirty resuscitation scenarios were completed. No-flow-time was markedly prolonged in COVID-19-minimal-personnel (113±37 s) compared to control (55±9 s) and COVID-19-advanced-airway-manager (76±38s; P<0.001 each). In both COVID-19-groups chest compressions started later (COVID-19-minimal-personnel: 32±6 s; COVID-19-advanced-airway-manager: 37±7 s; each P<0.001 vs. control [21±5 s]), but oxygen supply (COVID-19-minimal-personnel: 29±5 s; COVID-19-advanced-airway-manager: 34±7 s; each P<0.001 vs. control [77±19 s]) and first intubation attempt (COVID-19-minimal-personnel: 111±14 s; COVID-19-advanced-airway-manager: 131±20 s; each P<0.001 vs. control [178±44 s]) were performed earlier. However, time interval to successful intubation was similar (control: 198±48 s; COVID-19-minimal-personnel: 181±42 s; COVID-19-advanced-airway-manager: 130±25 s) due to a longer intubation time in COVID-19-minimal-personnel (61±35 s) compared to COVID-19-advanced-airway-manager (P=0.002) and control (19±6 s; P<0.001). Time to first rhythm analysis was more than doubled in COVID-19-minimal-personnel (138±96 s) compared to control (50±12 s; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Delayed chest compressions and prolonged no-flow-time markedly reduced the quality of resuscitation. These negative effects were attenuated by increasing the number of staff and by adding an experienced airway manager. The use of endotracheal intubation for reducing aerosol release during resuscitation should be discussed critically as its priorization is associated with an increase in no-flow-time.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Reanimação Cardiopulmonar , Parada Cardíaca Extra-Hospitalar , Hospitais , Humanos , Intubação Intratraqueal , Manequins , SARS-CoV-2
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
Detalhe da pesquisa