4 resultados para B1 VS-78
Resumo:
Introdução: A correção cirúrgica do aneurisma da aorta abdominal (AAA), por Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) ou cirurgia convencional (CC), pode agravar a função renal a curto prazo. Esta complicação, mais frequente nos doentes com insuficiência renal crónica (IRC), associa-se a pior prognóstico a longo prazo. O objetivo deste trabalho foi quantificar o agravamento da função renal após reparação do AAA em doentes com IRC prévia e demonstrar o consequente aumento da morbimortalidade. Métodos: Estudo retrospetivo em doentes com IRC estádios Chronic Kidney Disease 3-4 (TFGe 15-59ml/min), submetidos a correção eletiva de AAA entre fevereiro/2011 e fevereiro/2015 numa instituição terciária. Variáveis estudadas: idade, sexo, tipo de intervenção (convencional/EVAR) e estádio CKD. Endpoints: variação da creatinina e taxa de filtração glomerular com a cirurgia, complicações renais pós-operatórias, necessidade de reintervenção cirúrgica e mortalidade. A análise estatística foi realizada em SPSS. Resultados: Foram incluídos 71doentes. Quinze doentes (21%) foram operados por CC e 56 (78%) por EVAR. À data da intervenção, os doentes encontravam-se nos seguintes estádios da DRC: CKD 3 --- 65 (91%) e CKD 4 --- 6 (9%). A variac¸ão da TFG com a cirurgia foi −1,08±18,01mg/dl. Verificou-se IRC agudizada pós-operatória em 22 (31%) doentes e necessidade de diálise em 5 (7%). A mortalidade global foi 8,5%. Os doentes operados por EVAR tinham DRC mais avançada pré-operatoriamente, mas apresentaram menor agravamento da função renal. Variação TFG: EVAR 1,14±16,26ml/min vs. CC 9,40±22,11ml/min (p=0,022); variação creatinina: EVAR 0,17±1,03mg/dl vs. CC 0,81±1,47mg/dl (p=0,02). A agudização da IRC pós-operatória foi superior no grupo CC (53,3 vs. 28,6%; p=0,072), assim como a necessidade de diálise (20 vs. 3,6%, p=0,06). Os 6 doentes que faleceram (EVAR: 3; CC: 3) apresentaram maior agravamento da função renal (variação da creatinina: 1,41±1,63mg/dl vs. 0,20±1,07mg/dl, p=0,001; variação da TFG: −19,0±16,55ml/min; 0,57±17,34ml/min, p=0,007) e necessidade de diálise (50 vs. 3,1%, p=0,003). Conclusão: Os resultados demonstraram uma tendência para uma menor probabilidade de IRA, menor necessidade de diálise pós-operatória e menor mortalidade nos doentes tratados por EVAR. Contudo, o impacto da administração de contraste a médio/longo prazo, decorrente dos programas de vigilância pós-EVAR, deve ser considerado. Julgamos ser possível considerar que a realização de EVAR para o tratamento de doentes com AAA e IRC é um procedimento pelo menos tão seguro como a CC.
Resumo:
STUDY OBJECTIVE: The main aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of adolescent pregnancy in the future contraceptive choices. A secondary aim is to verify whether these choices differ from those made after an abortion. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING:Adolescent Unit of a tertiary care center. PARTICIPANTS:212 pregnant teenagers. INTERVENTIONS: Medical records review. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Intended pregnancy rate and contraceptive methods used before and after pregnancy. For contraceptive choices after pregnancy we considered: Group 1 - teenagers who continued their pregnancy to delivery (n = 106) and Group 2 - the same number of adolescents who chose to terminate their pregnancy. RESULTS: The intended pregnancy rate was 14.2%. Prior to a pregnancy continued to delivery, the most widely used contraceptive method was the male condom (50.9%), followed by oral combined contraceptives (28.3%); 18.9% of adolescents were not using any contraceptive method. After pregnancy, contraceptive implant was chosen by 70.8% of subjects (P < .001) and the oral combined contraceptives remained the second most frequent option (17.9%, P = .058). Comparing these results with Group 2, we found that the outcome of the pregnancy was the main factor in the choices that were made. Thus, after a pregnancy continued to delivery, adolescents prefer the use of LARC [78.4% vs 40.5%, OR: 5,958 - 95% (2.914-12.181), P < .001)], especially contraceptive implants [70.8% vs 38.7%, OR: 4.371 - 95% (2.224-8.591), P < .001], to oral combined contraceptives [17.9% vs 57.5%, OR: 0.118 - 95% CI (0.054-0.258), P < .001]. CONCLUSION:Adolescent pregnancy and its outcome constitute a factor of change in future contraceptive choice.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: Patient-controlled epidural analgesia with low concentrations of anesthetics is effective in reducing labor pain. The aim of this study was to assess and compare two ultra-low dose regimens of ropivacaine and sufentanil (0.1% ropivacaine plus 0.5 μg.ml-1 sufentanil vs. 0.06% ropivacaine plus 0.5 μg.ml-1 sufentanil) on the intervals between boluses and the duration of labor. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this non-randomized prospective study, conducted between January and July 2010, two groups of parturients received patient-controlled epidural analgesia: Group I (n = 58; 1 mg.ml-1 ropivacaine + 0.5 μg.ml-1 sufentanil) and Group II (n = 57; 0.6 mg.ml-1 ropivacaine + 0.5 μg.ml-1 sufentanil). Rescue doses of ropivacaine at the concentration of the assigned group without sufentanil were administered as necessary. Pain, local anesthetic requirements, neuraxial blockade characteristics, labor and neonatal outcomes, and maternal satisfaction were recorded. RESULTS: The ropivacaine dose was greater in Group I (9.5 [7.7-12.7] mg.h-1 vs. 6.1 [5.1-9.8 mg.h-1], p < 0.001). A time increase between each bolus was observed in Group I (beta = 32.61 min, 95% CI [25.39; 39.82], p < 0.001), whereas a time decrease was observed in Group II (beta = -1.40 min, 95% CI [-2.44; -0.36], p = 0.009). The duration of the second stage of labor in Group I was significantly longer than that in Group II (78 min vs. 65 min, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Parturients receiving 0.06% ropivacaine exhibited less evidence of cumulative effects and exhibited faster second stage progression than those who received 0.1% ropivacaine.
Resumo:
INTRODUCTION: New scores have been developed and validated in the US for in-hospital mortality risk stratification in patients undergoing coronary angioplasty: the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) risk score and the Mayo Clinic Risk Score (MCRS). We sought to validate these scores in a European population with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and to compare their predictive accuracy with that of the GRACE risk score. METHODS: In a single-center ACS registry of patients undergoing coronary angioplasty, we used the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), a graphical representation of observed vs. expected mortality, and net reclassification improvement (NRI)/integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) analysis to compare the scores. RESULTS: A total of 2148 consecutive patients were included, mean age 63 years (SD 13), 74% male and 71% with ST-segment elevation ACS. In-hospital mortality was 4.5%. The GRACE score showed the best AUC (0.94, 95% CI 0.91-0.96) compared with NCDR (0.87, 95% CI 0.83-0.91, p=0.0003) and MCRS (0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.90, p=0.0003). In model calibration analysis, GRACE showed the best predictive power. With GRACE, patients were more often correctly classified than with MCRS (NRI 78.7, 95% CI 59.6-97.7; IDI 0.136, 95% CI 0.073-0.199) or NCDR (NRI 79.2, 95% CI 60.2-98.2; IDI 0.148, 95% CI 0.087-0.209). CONCLUSION: The NCDR and Mayo Clinic risk scores are useful for risk stratification of in-hospital mortality in a European population of patients with ACS undergoing coronary angioplasty. However, the GRACE score is still to be preferred.