Ablação por cateter versus tratamento farmacológico para pacientes com síndrome de Wolf-Parkinson-White: revisão sistemática

Pós-graduação em Bases Gerais da Cirurgia - FMB

Agonista versus antagonista do GnRH em ciclos de reprodução assistida: morfologia oocitária

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Colocação de endoprótese vascular versus cirurgia para coarctação de aorta: revisão sistemática

Pós-graduação em Bases Gerais da Cirurgia - FMB

Strategies to improve the efficiency of genomic selection in animal breeding programs

Pós-graduação em Zootecnia - FCAV

Fluticasone/formoterol dry powder versus budesonide/formoterol in adults and adolescents with uncontrolled or partly controlled asthma

This 12-week study compared the efficacy and safety of a fixed combination of fluticasone propionate plus formoterol (FL/F) 250/12 mu g b.i.d. administered via a dry powder inhaler (DPI) (Libbs Farmaceutica, Brazil) to a combination of budesonide plus formoterol (BD/F) 400/12 mu g b.i.d. After a 2-week run-in period (in which all patients were treated exclusively with budesonide plus formoterol), patients aged 12-65 years of age (N = 196) with uncontrolled asthma were randomized into an actively-controlled, open-labeled, parallel-group, multicentre, phase III study. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority, measured by morning peak expiratory flow (mPEF).The non-inferiority was demonstrated. A statistically significant improvement from baseline was observed in both groups in terms of lung function, asthma control, and the use of rescue medication. FL/F demonstrated a statistical superiority to BD/F in terms of lung function (FEV1) (p = 0.01) and for asthma control (p = 0.02). Non-significant between-group differences were observed with regards to exacerbation rates and adverse events.In uncontrolled or partly controlled asthma patients, the use of a combination of fluticasone propionate plus formoterol via DPI for 12-weeks was non-inferior and showed improvements in FEV1 and asthma control when compared to a combination of budesonide plus formoterol. (Clinical Trial number: ISRCTN60408425). (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Procedures to Evaluate the Efficiency of Protective Clothing Worn by Operators Applying Pesticide

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Intravenous versus inhalation anaesthesia for one-lung ventilation

BackgroundThis is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2008.The technique called one-lung ventilation can confine bleeding or infection to one lung, prevent rupture of a lung cyst or, more commonly, facilitate surgical exposure of the unventilated lung. During one-lung ventilation, anaesthesia is maintained either by delivering an inhalation anaesthetic to the ventilated lung or by infusing an intravenous anaesthetic. It is possible that the method chosen to maintain anaesthesia may affect patient outcomes. Inhalation anaesthetics may impair hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction (HPV) and increase intrapulmonary shunt and hypoxaemia.ObjectivesThe objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of intravenous versus inhalation anaesthesia for one-lung ventilation.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); The Cochrane Library (2012, Issue 11); MEDLINE (1966 to November 2012); EMBASE (1980 to November 2012); Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciencias da Saude (LILACS, 1982 to November 2012) and ISI web of Science (1945 to November 2012), reference lists of identified trials and bibliographies of published reviews. We also contacted researchers in the field. No language restrictions were applied. The date of the most recent search was 19 November 2012. The original search was performed in June 2006.Selection criteriaWe included randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized controlled trials of intravenous (e. g. propofol) versus inhalation (e. g. isoflurane, sevoflurane, desflurane) anaesthesia for one-lung ventilation in both surgical and intensive care participants. We excluded studies of participants who had only one lung (i.e. pneumonectomy or congenital absence of one lung).Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.Main resultsWe included in this updated review 20 studies that enrolled 850 participants, all of which assessed surgical participants no studies investigated one-lung ventilation performed outside the operating theatre. No evidence indicated that the drug used to maintain anaesthesia during one-lung ventilation affected participant outcomes. The methodological quality of the included studies was difficult to assess as it was reported poorly, so the predominant classification of bias was 'unclear'.Authors' conclusionsVery little evidence from randomized controlled trials suggests differences in participant outcomes with anaesthesia maintained by intravenous versus inhalational anaesthesia during one-lung ventilation. If researchers believe that the type of drug used to maintain anaesthesia during one-lung ventilation is important, they should design randomized controlled trials with appropriate participant outcomes, rather than report temporary fluctuations in physiological variables.

Application of passive control to energy harvester efficiency using a nonideal portal frame structural support system

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Air versus saline in the loss of resistance technique for identification of the epidural space

BackgroundThe success of epidural anaesthesia depends on correct identification of the epidural space. For several decades, the decision of whether to use air or physiological saline during the loss of resistance technique for identification of the epidural space has been governed by the personal experience of the anaesthesiologist. Epidural block remains one of the main regional anaesthesia techniques. It is used for surgical anaesthesia, obstetrical analgesia, postoperative analgesia and treatment of chronic pain and as a complement to general anaesthesia. The sensation felt by the anaesthesiologist from the syringe plunger with loss of resistance is different when air is compared with saline (fluid). Frequently fluid allows a rapid change from resistance to non-resistance and increased movement of the plunger. However, the ideal technique for identification of the epidural space remains unclear.ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of both air and saline in the loss of resistance technique for identification of the epidural space.To evaluate complications related to the air or saline injected.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS) (from inception to September 2013). We applied no language restrictions. The date of the most recent search was 7 September 2013.Selection criteriaWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized controlled trials (quasi-RCTs) on air and saline in the loss of resistance technique for identification of the epidural space.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.Main resultsWe included in the review seven studies with a total of 852 participants. The methodological quality of the included studies was generally ranked as showing low risk of bias inmost domains, with the exception of one study, which did not mask participants. We were able to include data from 838 participants in the meta-analysis. We found no statistically significant differences between participants receiving air and those given saline in any of the outcomes evaluated: inability to locate the epidural space (three trials, 619 participants) (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 2.31, low-quality evidence); accidental intravascular catheter placement (two trials, 223 participants) (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.45, low-quality evidence); accidental subarachnoid catheter placement (four trials, 682 participants) (RR 2.95, 95% CI 0.12 to 71.90, low-quality evidence); combined spinal epidural failure (two trials, 400 participants) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.18, low-quality evidence); unblocked segments (five studies, 423 participants) (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.72 to 3.85); and pain measured by VAS (two studies, 395 participants) (mean difference (MD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.18). With regard to adverse effects, we found no statistically significant differences between participants receiving air and those given saline in the occurrence of paraesthesias (three trials, 572 participants) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.15); difficulty in advancing the catheter (two trials, 227 participants) (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.56); catheter replacement (two trials, 501 participants) (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.83); and postdural puncture headache (one trial, 110 participants) (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.12 to 5.71).Authors' conclusionsLow-quality evidence shows that results do not differ between air and saline in terms of the loss of resistance technique for identification of the epidural space and reduction of complications. Applicability might be compromised, as most of the results described in this review were obtained from parturient patients. This review underlines the need to conduct well-designed trials in this field.

Human teeth versus bovine teeth: cutting effectiviness of diamond burs

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Outpatient versus inpatient treatment for acute pulmonary embolism

Background: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common life-threatening cardiovascular condition, with an incidence of 23 to 69 new cases per 100,000 people per year. Outpatient treatment instead of traditional inpatient treatment in selected non-high-risk patients with acute PE might provide several advantages, such as reduction of hospitalizations, substantial cost saving and an improvement in health-related quality of life. Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of outpatient versus inpatient treatment for acute PE for the outcomes of all-cause and PE-related mortality; bleeding; and adverse events such as hemodynamic instability, recurrence of PE and patients'satisfaction.Search methodsThe Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator (TSC) searched the Specialised Register (last searched October 2014) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 9). The TSC also searched clinical trials databases. The review authors searched LILACS (last searched November 2014). Selection criteria: Randomized controlled trials of outpatient versus inpatient treatment in people diagnosed with acute PE. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors selected relevant trials, assessed methodological quality, and extracted and analyzed data. Main results: We included one study, involving 339 participants. We ranked the quality of the evidence as very low due to not blinding the outcome assessors, the small number of events with imprecision in the confidential interval (CI), the small sample size and it was not possible to verify publication bias. For all outcomes, the CIs were wide and included clinically significant treatment effects in both directions: short-term mortality (30 days) (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.98, P = 0.49), long-term mortality (90 days) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.58, P = 0.99), major bleeding at 14 days (RR 4.91, 95% CI 0.24 to 101.57, P = 0.30) and 90 days (RR 6.88, 95% CI 0.36 to 134.14, P = 0.20), recurrent PE within 90 days (RR 2.95, 95% CI 0.12 to 71.85, P = 0.51) and participant satisfaction (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.03, P = 0.30). PE-related mortality, minor bleeding, and adverse course such as hemodynamic instability and compliance were not assessed by the single included study. Authors' conclusions: Current very low quality evidence from one published randomized controlled trial did not provide sufficient evidence to assess the efficacy and safety of outpatient versus inpatient treatment for acute PE in overall mortality, bleeding and recurrence of PE adequately. Further well-conducted research is required before informed practice decisions can be made.

Polidocanol versus hypertonic glucose for sclerotherapy treatment of reticular veins of the lower limbs: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

In Vitro Safety Evaluation of Caffeic Acid

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Effects of irrigation on water use and water use efficiency in two fast growing Eucalyptus plantations

Eucalyptus plantations occupy almost 20 million ha worldwide and exceed 3.7 million ha in Brazil alone. Improved genetics and silviculture have led to as much as a three-fold increase in productivity in Eucalyptus plantations in Brazil and the large land area occupied by these highly productive ecosystems raises concern over their effect on local water supplies. As part of the Brazil Potential Productivity Project, we measured water use of Eucalyptus grandis x urophylla clones in rainfed and irrigated stands in two plantations differing in productivity. The Aracruz (lower productivity) site is located in the state of Espirito Santo and the Veracel (higher productivity) site in Bahia state. At each plantation, we measured stand water use using homemade sap flow sensors and a calibration curve using the clones and probes we utilized in the study. We also quantified changes in growth, leaf area and water use efficiency (the amount of wood produced per unit of water transpired). Measurements were conducted for 1 year during 2005 at Aracruz and from August through December 2005 at Veracel. Transpiration at both sites was high compared to other studies but annual estimates at Aracruz for the rainfed treatment compared well with a process model calibrated for the Aracruz site (within 10%). Annual water use at Aracruz was 1394 mm in rainfed treatments versus 1779 mm in irrigated treatments and accounted for approximately 67% and 58% of annual precipitation and irrigation inputs respectively. Increased water use in the irrigated stands at Aracruz was associated with higher sapwood area, leaf area index and transpiration per unit leaf area but there was no difference in the response of canopy conductance with air saturation deficit between treatments. Water use efficiency at the Aracruz site was also not influenced by irrigation and was similar to the rainfed treatment. During the period of overlapping measurements, the response to irrigation treatments at the more productive Veracel site was similar to Aracruz. Stand water use at the Veracel site totaled 975 mm and 1102 mm in rainfed and irrigated treatments during the 5-month measurement period respectively. Irrigated stands at Veracel also had higher leaf area with no difference in the response of canopy conductance with air saturation deficit between treatments. Water use efficiency was also unaffected by irrigation at Veracel. Results from this and other studies suggest that improved resource availability does not negatively impact water use efficiency but increased productivity of these plantations is associated with higher water use and should be given consideration during plantation management decision making processes aimed at increasing productivity. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Safety and efficacy of sitaxsentan 50 and 100 mg in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension

Objective: To assess safety and efficacy of sitaxsentan 50 and 100 mg in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Background: Sitaxsentan is a highly selective endothelin-A receptor antagonist that was recently withdrawn by the manufacturer because of a pattern of idiosyncratic liver injury. Methods: Before sitaxsentan withdrawal, this 18-week double-blind, placebo-controlled study randomized patients with PAH to receive placebo or sitaxsentan 50 or 100 mg once daily. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in 6-min walk distance (6MWD) at week 18. Changes in World Health Organization (WHO) functional class and time to clinical worsening (TTCW) were secondary endpoints. The primary efficacy analysis was powered for sitaxsentan 100 mg versus placebo. Results: Of 98 randomized patients, 61% were WHO functional class II at baseline. Improvement from baseline to week 18 in 6MWD occurred with sitaxsentan 100 but not 50 mg; a strong placebo effect was observed. At week 18, WHO functional class was improved or maintained in more patients receiving sitaxsentan 100 mg than placebo (P = 0.038); 0% versus 12% of patients deteriorated, respectively. TTCW was not significantly different for 100-mg sitaxsentan patients than placebo (P = 0.090). Adverse events (AEs) occurring more frequently with sitaxsentan (50 or 100 mg) included headache, peripheral edema, dizziness, nausea, extremity pain, and fatigue; most AEs were of mild or moderate severity. Conclusion: Sitaxsentan 100 mg improved functional class but not 6MWD in PAH patients who were mostly WHO functional class II at baseline. No patient receiving sitaxsentan 100 mg experienced clinical worsening; sitaxsentan was well tolerated. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.