148 resultados para NEONATAL INTENSIVE CARE UNIT
Resumo:
Children's judgements about pain at age 8-10 years were examined comparing two groups of children who had experienced different exposure to nociceptive procedures in the neonatal period: extremely low birthweight (ELBW) <or = 1000 g (N = 47) and full birthweight (FBW) > or = 2500 g (N = 37). The 24 pictures that comprise the Pediatric Pain Inventory, depicting events in four settings: medical, recreational, daily living, and psychosocial, were used as the pain stimuli. The subjects rated pain intensity using the Color Analog Scale and pain affect using the Facial Affective Scale. Child IQ and maternal education were statistically adjusted in group comparisons. Pain intensity and pain affect related to activities of daily living and recreation were significantly higher than psychosocial and medically related pain on both scales in both groups of children. Although the two groups of children did not differ overall in their perceptions of pain intensity or affect, the ELBW children rated medical pain intensity significantly higher than psychosocial pain, unlike the FBW group. Also, duration of neonatal intensive care unit stay for the ELBW children was related to increased pain affect ratings in recreational and daily living settings. Despite altered response to pain in the early years reported by parents, on the whole at 8-10 years of age ELBW children judged pain in pictures similarly to their term peers. However, differences were evident, which suggests that studies are needed of biobehavioural reactivity to pain beyond infancy, as well as research into beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions about pain during the course of childhood in formerly ELBW children.
Resumo:
More infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) now survive to adulthood but little is known regarding persisting respiratory impairment. We report respiratory symptoms, lung function and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adult BPD survivors compared with preterm (non-BPD) and full term (FT) controls.
Respiratory symptoms (European Community Respiratory Health Survey) and HRQoL [EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D)] were measured in 72 adult BPD survivors [mean(SD) study age 24.1(4.0)y; mean(SD) gestational age (GA)=27.1(2.1)wk; mean(SD) birth weight (BW)=955(256)g] cared for in the Regional Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Belfast (between 1978 and 1993) were compared with 57 non-BPD controls [mean(SD) study age 25.3(4.0)y; mean(SD) GA 31.0(2.5)wk; mean(SD) BW 1238(222)g] and 78 FT controls [mean(SD) study age 25.7(3.8)y; mean(SD) GA=39.7(1.4)wk; mean(SD) BW=3514(456)g] cared for at the same hospital. Spirometry was performed on 56 BPD, 40 non-BPD and 55 FT participants.
BPD subjects were twice as likely to report wheeze and three times more likely to use asthma medication than controls. BPD adults had significantly lower FEV1 and FEF25–75 than both the preterm non-BPD and FT controls (all p<0.01). Mean EQ-5D was 6 points lower in BPD adults compared to FT controls (p<0.05).
BPD survivors have significant respiratory and quality of life impairment persisting into adulthood.
Resumo:
Background
Mechanical ventilation is a life-saving intervention for critically ill newborn infants with respiratory failure admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Ventilating newborn infants can be challenging due to small tidal volumes, high breathing frequencies, and the use of uncuffed endotracheal tubes. Mechanical ventilation has several short-term, as well as long-term complications. To prevent complications, weaning from the ventilator is started as soon as possible. Weaning aims to support the transfer from full mechanical ventilation support to spontaneous breathing activity.
Objectives
To assess the efficacy of protocolized versus non-protocolized ventilator weaning for newborn infants in reducing the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, the duration of weaning, and shortening the NICU and hospital length of stay. To determine efficacy in predefined subgroups including: gestational age and birth weight; type of protocol; and type of protocol delivery. To establish whether protocolized weaning is safe and clinically effective in reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation without increasing the risk of adverse events.
Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2015, Issue 7); MEDLINE In-Process and other Non-Indexed Citations and OVID MEDLINE (1950 to 31 July 2015); CINAHL (1982 to 31 July 2015); EMBASE (1988 to 31 July 2015); and Web of Science (1990 to 15 July 2015). We did not restrict language of publication. We contacted authors of studies with a subgroup of newborn infants in their study, and experts in the field regarding this subject. In addition, we searched abstracts from conference proceedings, theses, dissertations, and reference lists of all identified studies for further relevant studies.
Selection criteria
Randomized, quasi-randomized or cluster-randomized controlled trials that compared protocolized with non-protocolized ventilator weaning practices in newborn infants with a gestational age of 24 weeks or more, who were enrolled in the study before the postnatal age of 28 completed days after the expected date of birth.
Data collection and analysis
Four authors, in pairs, independently reviewed titles and abstracts identified by electronic searches. We retrieved full-text versions of potentially relevant studies.
Main results
Our search yielded 1752 records. We removed duplicates (1062) and irrelevant studies (843). We did not find any randomized, quasi-randomized or cluster-randomized controlled trials conducted on weaning from mechanical ventilation in newborn infants. Two randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria on type of study and type of intervention, but only included a proportion of newborns. The study authors could not provide data needed for subgroup analysis; we excluded both studies.
Authors' conclusions
Based on the results of this review, there is no evidence to support or refute the superiority or inferiority of weaning by protocol over non-protocol weaning on duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in newborn infants.
Resumo:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the overall performance of specially trained neonatal nurses acting autonomously, unsupervised, and without a protocol with specialist registrars when weaning neonates from mechanical ventilation.
DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial.
SETTING: A single neonatal intensive care unit.
PATIENTS: Neonates requiring conventional mechanical ventilation (n = 50).
INTERVENTIONS: Infants on conventional ventilation were randomly assigned to receive either nurse-led (n = 25) or registrar-led (n = 23) weaning. A total of 48 infants completed the study (two infants in the registrar group were excluded when their parents withdrew consent).
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The main outcome measure, median weaning time, was 1200 mins (95% confidence interval [CI], 621-1779 mins) in the nurse group and 3015 mins (95% CI, 2650-3380 mins) in the registrar group (p = .0458). The median time from treatment assignment to the first ventilator change was 60 mins (95% CI, 52-68 mins) in the nurse group and 120 mins (95% CI, 103-137 mins) in the registrar group (p = .35). On average, the nurses made ventilator changes every 4.5 hrs (95% CI, 2.9-6 hrs) and the registrars every 7.2 hrs (95% CI, 5.4-9 hrs; p = .003). The median number (range) of backward steps taken per infant was 0 (0-5 steps) in the nurse group and 1 (0-5 steps) in the registrar group (p = .019).
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that additional domains of neonatal critical care could be reviewed for their potential transfer to appropriately prepared nurses.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: Care of critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs) often requires potentially invasive or uncomfortable procedures, such as mechanical ventilation (MV). Sedation can alleviate pain and discomfort, provide protection from stressful or harmful events, prevent anxiety and promote sleep. Various sedative agents are available for use in ICUs. In the UK, the most commonly used sedatives are propofol (Diprivan(®), AstraZeneca), benzodiazepines [e.g. midazolam (Hypnovel(®), Roche) and lorazepam (Ativan(®), Pfizer)] and alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonists [e.g. dexmedetomidine (Dexdor(®), Orion Corporation) and clonidine (Catapres(®), Boehringer Ingelheim)]. Sedative agents vary in onset/duration of effects and in their side effects. The pattern of sedation of alpha-2 agonists is quite different from that of other sedatives in that patients can be aroused readily and their cognitive performance on psychometric tests is usually preserved. Moreover, respiratory depression is less frequent after alpha-2 agonists than after other sedative agents.
OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review to evaluate the comparative effects of alpha-2 agonists (dexmedetomidine and clonidine) and propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam and lorazepam) in mechanically ventilated adults admitted to ICUs.
DATA SOURCES: We searched major electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE without revisions, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from 1999 to 2014.
METHODS: Evidence was considered from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dexmedetomidine with clonidine or dexmedetomidine or clonidine with propofol or benzodiazepines such as midazolam, lorazepam and diazepam (Diazemuls(®), Actavis UK Limited). Primary outcomes included mortality, duration of MV, length of ICU stay and adverse events. One reviewer extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included trials. A second reviewer cross-checked all the data extracted. Random-effects meta-analyses were used for data synthesis.
RESULTS: Eighteen RCTs (2489 adult patients) were included. One trial at unclear risk of bias compared dexmedetomidine with clonidine and found that target sedation was achieved in a higher number of patients treated with dexmedetomidine with lesser need for additional sedation. The remaining 17 trials compared dexmedetomidine with propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam or lorazepam). Trials varied considerably with regard to clinical population, type of comparators, dose of sedative agents, outcome measures and length of follow-up. Overall, risk of bias was generally high or unclear. In particular, few trials blinded outcome assessors. Compared with propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam or lorazepam), dexmedetomidine had no significant effects on mortality [risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.24, I (2) = 0%; p = 0.78]. Length of ICU stay (mean difference -1.26 days, 95% CI -1.96 to -0.55 days, I (2) = 31%; p = 0.0004) and time to extubation (mean difference -1.85 days, 95% CI -2.61 to -1.09 days, I (2) = 0%; p < 0.00001) were significantly shorter among patients who received dexmedetomidine. No difference in time to target sedation range was observed between sedative interventions (I (2) = 0%; p = 0.14). Dexmedetomidine was associated with a higher risk of bradycardia (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.77, I (2) = 46%; p = 0.001).
LIMITATIONS: Trials varied considerably with regard to participants, type of comparators, dose of sedative agents, outcome measures and length of follow-up. Overall, risk of bias was generally high or unclear. In particular, few trials blinded assessors.
CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the use of clonidine in ICUs is very limited. Dexmedetomidine may be effective in reducing ICU length of stay and time to extubation in critically ill ICU patients. Risk of bradycardia but not of overall mortality is higher among patients treated with dexmedetomidine. Well-designed RCTs are needed to assess the use of clonidine in ICUs and identify subgroups of patients that are more likely to benefit from the use of dexmedetomidine.
STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014014101.
FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. The Health Services Research Unit is core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates.
Resumo:
Aims: This paper is a report of a three round Delphi study of intensive care nursing research priorities in Europe (October 2006–April 2009).
Background: Internationally, priorities for research in intensive care nursing have received some attention focusing on healthcare interventions and patient needs. Studies as early as the 1980s identified priorities in the United States, United Kingdom, Hong Kong and Australia. Research priorities of intensive care nurses across the European Union are unknown.
Methods: The participants, invited in 2006, included 110 intensive care nurses, managers, educators and researchers from 20 European Critical Care Nursing Associations. Delphi round one was an emailed questionnaire inviting participants to list important areas for research. The list was content analysed and developed into an online questionnaire for rounds two and three. In round two, participants ranked the topics on a scale of 1–6 (not important to extremely important). Mean scores of round two were added to the questionnaire of round three and participants ranked the topics again.
Results: There were 52 research topics in 12 domains. There was a dominance of priorities in five main areas: patient safety; impact of evidence based practice on outcomes; impact of workforce on outcomes; well being of patients and relatives; and impact of end-of-life care on staff and practice.
Conclusions: The results reflect worldwide healthcare concerns and objectives and highlight topics that nurses view as fundamental to the care of critically ill patients. These topics provide a platform for future research efforts to improve clinical practice and care of patients in intensive care.
Resumo:
Acute pain is a significant stressor for preterm infants in neonatal intensive care units (NICU); however, little is known about the effects of acute pain on subsequent motor responses during clusters of tactile handling.