You searched for:"Leandro Utino Taniguchi"
We found (13) results for your search.Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2016;28(3):354-355
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20160062
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2020;32(1):37-42
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20200007
To evaluate adherence to the stress ulcer prophylaxis protocol in critically ill patients at a tertiary university hospital.
In this prospective cohort study, we included all adult patients admitted to the medical and surgical intensive care units of an academic tertiary hospital. Our sole exclusion criterion was upper gastrointestinal bleeding at intensive care unit admission. We collected baseline variables and stress ulcer prophylaxis indications according to the institutional protocol and use of prophylaxis. Our primary outcome was adherence to the stress ulcer prophylaxis protocol. Secondary outcomes were appropriate use of stress ulcer prophylaxis, upper gastrointestinal bleeding incidence and factors associated with appropriate use of stress ulcer prophylaxis.
Two hundred thirty-four patients were enrolled from July 2nd through July 31st, 2018. Patients were 52 ± 20 years old, 125 (53%) were surgical patients, and the mean SAPS 3 was 52 ± 20. In the longitudinal follow-up, 1499 patient-days were studied; 1069 patient-days had stress ulcer prophylaxis indications, and 777 patient-days contained prophylaxis use (73% stress ulcer prophylaxis protocol adherence). Of the 430 patient-days without stress ulcer prophylaxis indications, 242 involved prophylaxis (56% inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis use). The overall appropriate use of stress ulcer prophylaxis was 64%. Factors associated with proper stress ulcer prophylaxis prescription were mechanical ventilation OR 2.13 (95%CI 1.64 - 2.75) and coagulopathy OR 2.77 (95%CI 1.66 - 4.60). The upper gastrointestinal bleeding incidence was 12.8%.
Adherence to the stress ulcer prophylaxis protocol was low and inappropriate use of stress ulcer prophylaxis was frequent in this cohort of critically ill patients.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2020;32(3):433-438
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20200073
To describe the use of neuromuscular blockade as well as other practices among Brazilian physicians in adult intensive care units.
An online national survey was designed and administered to Brazilian intensivists. Questions were selected using the Delphi method and assessed physicians’ demographic data, intensive care unit characteristics, practices regarding airway management, use of neuromuscular blockade and sedation during endotracheal intubation in the intensive care unit. As a secondary outcome, we applied a multivariate analysis to evaluate factors associated with the use of neuromuscular blockade.
Five hundred sixty-five intensivists from all Brazilian regions responded to the questionnaire. The majority of respondents were male (65%), with a mean age of 38 ( 8.4 years, and 58.5% had a board certification in critical care. Only 40.7% of the intensivists reported the use of neuromuscular blockade during all or in more than 75% of endotracheal intubations. In the multivariate analysis, the number of intubations performed monthly and physician specialization in anesthesiology were directly associated with frequent use of neuromuscular blockade. Etomidate and ketamine were more commonly used in the clinical situation of hypotension and shock, while propofol and midazolam were more commonly prescribed in the situation of clinical stability.
The reported use of neuromuscular blockade was low among intensivists, and sedative drugs were chosen in accordance with patient hemodynamic stability. These results may help the design of future studies regarding airway management in Brazil.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2020;32(4):521-527
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20200089
To compare the performance of the Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 (SAPS 3) in patients with and without solid cancer who were admitted to the intensive care unit of a comprehensive oncological hospital in Brazil.
We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of our administrative database of the first admission of adult patients to the intensive care unit from 2012 to 2016. The patients were categorized according to the presence of solid cancer. We evaluated discrimination using the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) and calibration using the calibration belt approach.
We included 7,254 patients (41.5% had cancer, and 12.1% died during hospitalization). Oncological patients had higher hospital mortality than nononcological patients (14.1% versus 10.6%, respectively; p < 0.001). SAPS 3 discrimination was better for oncological patients (AUROC = 0.85) than for nononcological patients (AUROC = 0.79) (p < 0.001). After we applied the calibration belt in oncological patients, the SAPS 3 matched the average observed rates with a confidence level of 95%. In nononcological patients, the SAPS 3 overestimated mortality in those with a low-middle risk. Calibration was affected by the time period only for nononcological patients.
SAPS 3 performed differently between oncological and nononcological patients in our single-center cohort, and variation over time (mainly calibration) was observed. This finding should be taken into account when evaluating severity-of-illness score performance.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2017;29(1):70-76
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20170011
The present systematic review searched for published data on the prevalence of required conditions for proper assessment in critically ill patients.
The Medline, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched to identify studies that evaluated the prevalence of validated conditions for the fluid responsiveness assessment using respiratory variations in the stroke volume or another surrogate in adult critically ill patients. The primary outcome was the suitability of the fluid responsiveness evaluation. The secondary objectives were the type and prevalence of pre-requisites evaluated to define the suitability.
Five studies were included (14,804 patients). High clinical and statistical heterogeneity was observed (I2 = 98.6%), which prevented us from pooling the results into a meaningful summary conclusion. The most frequent limitation identified is the absence of invasive mechanical ventilation with a tidal volume ≥ 8mL/kg. The final suitability for the fluid responsiveness assessment was low (in four studies, it varied between 1.9 to 8.3%, in one study, it was 42.4%).
Applicability of the dynamic indices of preload responsiveness requiring heart-lung interactions might be limited in daily practice.