64 resultados para Warming device


Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

INTRODUCTION: Mild therapeutic hypothermia has been shown to improve outcome for patients after cardiac arrest and may be beneficial for ischaemic stroke and myocardial ischaemia patients. However, in the awake patient, even a small decrease of core temperature provokes vigorous autonomic reactions-vasoconstriction and shivering-which both inhibit efficient core cooling. Meperidine and skin warming each linearly lower vasoconstriction and shivering thresholds. We tested whether a combination of skin warming and a medium dose of meperidine additively would reduce the shivering threshold to below 34 degrees C without producing significant sedation or respiratory depression. METHODS: Eight healthy volunteers participated on four study days: (1) control, (2) skin warming (with forced air and warming mattress), (3) meperidine (target plasma level: 0.9 mug/ml), and (4) skin warming plus meperidine (target plasma level: 0.9 mug/ml). Volunteers were cooled with 4 degrees C cold Ringer lactate infused over a central venous catheter (rate asymptotically equal to 2.4 degrees C/hour core temperature drop). Shivering threshold was identified by an increase of oxygen consumption (+20% of baseline). Sedation was assessed with the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale. RESULTS: Control shivering threshold was 35.5 degrees C +/- 0.2 degrees C. Skin warming reduced the shivering threshold to 34.9 degrees C +/- 0.5 degrees C (p = 0.01). Meperidine reduced the shivering threshold to 34.2 degrees C +/- 0.3 degrees C (p < 0.01). The combination of meperidine and skin warming reduced the shivering threshold to 33.8 degrees C +/- 0.2 degrees C (p < 0.01). There were no synergistic or antagonistic effects of meperidine and skin warming (p = 0.59). Only very mild sedation occurred on meperidine days. CONCLUSION: A combination of meperidine and skin surface warming reduced the shivering threshold to 33.8 degrees C +/- 0.2 degrees C via an additive interaction and produced only very mild sedation and no respiratory toxicity.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to compare efficacy and potential complications of 2 commercially available devices for mechanical thromboembolectomy. METHODS: Devices were tested in an established animal model allowing the use of routine angiography catheters and thrombectomy devices. Radio-opaque thrombi were used for visualization of thrombus-device interaction during angiography. The Merci Retrieval System and the Catch Thromboembolectomy System were assessed each in 10 vessel occlusions. For every occluded vessel up to 5 retrieval attempts were performed. RESULTS: Sufficient recanalization was achieved with the Merci Retriever in 90% of occlusions, and with the Catch device recanalization was achieved in 70% of occlusions. Recanalization at the first attempt occurred significantly more often with the Merci Retriever compared to the Catch device (OR, 21; 95% CI, 1.78-248.11). Consequently, significantly more attempts (P=0.02) had to be performed with the Catch device; therefore, time to recanalization was longer. Thrombus fragmentations during retrieval were caused more often by the Catch device compared to the Merci Retriever (OR, 15.6; 95% CI, 1.73-140.84), resulting in a higher distal embolization rate. During retrieval both devices lost thrombotic material at the tip of the guide catheter, which was then aspirated in most cases. CONCLUSIONS: Both distal devices are effective for thromboembolectomy. To avoid loss of thrombotic material and distal embolization, the use of large luminal balloon guide catheters and aspiration during retrieval seems to be mandatory. The design of the Merci Retriever appears to be more efficient during thrombus mobilization and retrieval with less fragmentation compared to the Catch Thromboembolectomy System.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine both the procedural performance and safety of percutaneous implantation of the second (21-French [F])- and third (18-F)-generation CoreValve aortic valve prosthesis (CoreValve Inc., Irvine, California). BACKGROUND: Percutaneous aortic valve replacement represents an emerging alternative therapy for high-risk and inoperable patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. METHODS: Patients with: 1) symptomatic, severe aortic valve stenosis (area <1 cm2); 2) age > or =80 years with a logistic EuroSCORE > or =20% (21-F group) or age > or =75 years with a logistic EuroSCORE > or =15% (18-F group); or 3) age > or =65 years plus additional prespecified risk factors were included. Introduction of the 18-F device enabled the transition from a multidisciplinary approach involving general anesthesia, surgical cut-down, and cardiopulmonary bypass to a truly percutaneous approach under local anesthesia without hemodynamic support. RESULTS: A total of 86 patients (21-F, n = 50; 18-F, n = 36) with a mean valve area of 0.66 +/- 0.19 cm2 (21-F) and 0.54 +/- 0.15 cm2 (18-F), a mean age of 81.3 +/- 5.2 years (21-F) and 83.4 +/- 6.7 years (18-F), and a mean logistic EuroSCORE of 23.4 +/- 13.5% (21-F) and 19.1 +/- 11.1% (18-F) were recruited. Acute device success was 88%. Successful device implantation resulted in a marked reduction of aortic transvalvular gradients (mean pre 43.7 mm Hg vs. post 9.0 mm Hg, p < 0.001) with aortic regurgitation grade remaining unchanged. Acute procedural success rate was 74% (21-F: 78%; 18-F: 69%). Procedural mortality was 6%. Overall 30-day mortality rate was 12%; the combined rate of death, stroke, and myocardial infarction was 22%. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of severe aortic valve stenosis in high-risk patients with percutaneous implantation of the CoreValve prosthesis is feasible and associated with a lower mortality rate than predicted by risk algorithms.