Você pesquisou por y - Critical Care Science (CCS)
You searched for:"Miriam Cristine Vahl Machado"
We found (1) results for your search.
, , Abstract
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva. 2021;33(1):1-11
04-19-2021
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20210001
, , , , , , , To contribute to updating the recommendations for brain-dead potential organ donor management.
A group of 27 experts, including intensivists, transplant coordinators, transplant surgeons, and epidemiologists, answered questions related to the following topics were divided into mechanical ventilation, hemodynamics, endocrine-metabolic management, infection, body temperature, blood transfusion, and checklists use. The outcomes considered were cardiac arrests, number of organs removed or transplanted as well as function / survival of transplanted organs. The quality of evidence of the recommendations was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to classify the recommendations.
A total of 19 recommendations were drawn from the expert panel. Of these, 7 were classified as strong, 11 as weak and 1 was considered a good clinical practice.
Despite the agreement among panel members on most recommendations, the grade of recommendation was mostly weak.
Abstract
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva. 2021;33(1):1-11
04-19-2021
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20210001
, , , , , , , To contribute to updating the recommendations for brain-dead potential organ donor management.
A group of 27 experts, including intensivists, transplant coordinators, transplant surgeons, and epidemiologists, answered questions related to the following topics were divided into mechanical ventilation, hemodynamics, endocrine-metabolic management, infection, body temperature, blood transfusion, and checklists use. The outcomes considered were cardiac arrests, number of organs removed or transplanted as well as function / survival of transplanted organs. The quality of evidence of the recommendations was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to classify the recommendations.
A total of 19 recommendations were drawn from the expert panel. Of these, 7 were classified as strong, 11 as weak and 1 was considered a good clinical practice.
Despite the agreement among panel members on most recommendations, the grade of recommendation was mostly weak.
