Você pesquisou por y - Critical Care Science (CCS)
You searched for:"Ederlon Rezende"
We found (15) results for your search.Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2019;31(1):1-4
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20190008
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2019;31(1):1-4
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20190008
Abstract
Abstract
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2006;18(2):137-142
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2006000200006
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Use of Pulmonary Artery Catheter (PAC) is still a debatable issue, mainly due to questions raised about its security and efficacy. This study reproduced in a sample of Brazilian physicians, another one conducted amidst American doctors, in which was pointed out the heterogeneity of clinical decisions guided by data obtained from PAC. METHODS: During the Brazilian Congress of Intensive Care Medicine (Curitiba 2004), doctors were asked to answer a survey form with three vignettes. Each of them contained PAC data and one half of the surveys contained echocardiographic information. Every doctor was asked to select one of six interventions for each vignette. A homogeneous answer was considered when it was selected by at least 80% of the respondents. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty seven doctors answered the questionnaires. They selected completely different therapeutic interventions in all three vignettes and none of the interventions achieved more than 80% agreement. Variability persisted with the choices guided by echocardiography. CONCLUSIONS: As in the original study, we observed total heterogeneity of therapeutic interventions guided by CAP and echocardiography. These results could be caused by lack of knowledge about basic pathophysiologic concepts and maybe we had to improve its teaching at the medical school benches.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2006;18(2):137-142
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2006000200006
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Use of Pulmonary Artery Catheter (PAC) is still a debatable issue, mainly due to questions raised about its security and efficacy. This study reproduced in a sample of Brazilian physicians, another one conducted amidst American doctors, in which was pointed out the heterogeneity of clinical decisions guided by data obtained from PAC. METHODS: During the Brazilian Congress of Intensive Care Medicine (Curitiba 2004), doctors were asked to answer a survey form with three vignettes. Each of them contained PAC data and one half of the surveys contained echocardiographic information. Every doctor was asked to select one of six interventions for each vignette. A homogeneous answer was considered when it was selected by at least 80% of the respondents. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty seven doctors answered the questionnaires. They selected completely different therapeutic interventions in all three vignettes and none of the interventions achieved more than 80% agreement. Variability persisted with the choices guided by echocardiography. CONCLUSIONS: As in the original study, we observed total heterogeneity of therapeutic interventions guided by CAP and echocardiography. These results could be caused by lack of knowledge about basic pathophysiologic concepts and maybe we had to improve its teaching at the medical school benches.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2006;18(2):154-160
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2006000200009
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The main cardiovascular function is to maintain the adequate perfusion e oxygen delivery to the cells. Physiologically, this is controlled by the cellular metabolic rate. The critically ill patients are in high danger of tissue hipoperfusion and this is directly related to cellular injury and organ dysfunction. Therefore, the tissue perfusion monitoring makes part and is indissociated of hemodynamic evaluation of the critically ill patient and is indicated to all this patients. The objective was to define recommendations about clinical utility of different tolls to bedside perfusion monitoring. METHODS: Modified Delphi methodology was used to create and quantify the consensus between the participants. AMIB indicated a coordinator who invited more six experts in the area of monitoring and hemodynamic support to constitute the Consensus Advisory Board. Twenty five physician and two nurses selected from different regions of the country completed the expert panel, which reviewed the pertinent bibliography listed at the MedLine in the period from 1996 to 2004. RESULTS: Recommendations were done about the utility of clinical monitoring of tissue perfusion, temperature gradient and transcutaneous oxygen monitoring, serum lactate, base excess, SvO² and ScvO², gastric and sublingual capnometry, CO² venous-arterial gradient and Orthogonal Polarization Spectral (OPS). CONCLUSIONS: The homodynamic compensation of a critically ill patient isn’t complete unless the tissue perfusion is corrected. Many different methods of monitoring is available and are useful in clinical practice, however, none has accuracy and effectiveness characteristics to be used independently of clinical context.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2006;18(2):154-160
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2006000200009
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The main cardiovascular function is to maintain the adequate perfusion e oxygen delivery to the cells. Physiologically, this is controlled by the cellular metabolic rate. The critically ill patients are in high danger of tissue hipoperfusion and this is directly related to cellular injury and organ dysfunction. Therefore, the tissue perfusion monitoring makes part and is indissociated of hemodynamic evaluation of the critically ill patient and is indicated to all this patients. The objective was to define recommendations about clinical utility of different tolls to bedside perfusion monitoring. METHODS: Modified Delphi methodology was used to create and quantify the consensus between the participants. AMIB indicated a coordinator who invited more six experts in the area of monitoring and hemodynamic support to constitute the Consensus Advisory Board. Twenty five physician and two nurses selected from different regions of the country completed the expert panel, which reviewed the pertinent bibliography listed at the MedLine in the period from 1996 to 2004. RESULTS: Recommendations were done about the utility of clinical monitoring of tissue perfusion, temperature gradient and transcutaneous oxygen monitoring, serum lactate, base excess, SvO² and ScvO², gastric and sublingual capnometry, CO² venous-arterial gradient and Orthogonal Polarization Spectral (OPS). CONCLUSIONS: The homodynamic compensation of a critically ill patient isn’t complete unless the tissue perfusion is corrected. Many different methods of monitoring is available and are useful in clinical practice, however, none has accuracy and effectiveness characteristics to be used independently of clinical context.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2006;18(2):161-176
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2006000200010
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Shock occurs when the circulatory system cannot maintain adequate cellular perfusion. If this condition is not reverted irreversible cellular injury establishes. Shock treatment has as its initial priority the fast and vigorous correction of mean arterial pressure and cardiac output to maintain life and avoid or lessen organic dysfunctions. Fluid challenge and vasoactive drugs are necessary to warrant an adequate tissue perfusion and maintenance of function of different organs and systems, always guided by cardiovascular monitorization. The recommendations built in this consensus are aimed to guide hemodynamic support needed to maintain adequate tisular perfusion. METHODS: Modified Delphi methodology was used to create and quantify the consensus between the participants. AMIB indicated a coordinator who invited more six experts in the area of monitoring and hemodynamic support to constitute the Consensus Advisory Board. Twenty five physician and two nurses selected from different regions of the country completed the expert panel, which reviewed the pertinent bibliography listed at the MEDLINE in the period from 1996 to 2004. RESULTS: Recommendations were made answering 17 questions about hemodynamic support with focus on fluid challenge, red blood cell transfusions, vasoactive drugs and perioperative hemodynamic optimization. CONCLUSIONS: Hemodynamic monitoring by itself does not reduce the mortality of critically ill patients, however, we believe that the correct interpretation of the data obtained by the hemodynamic monitoring and the use of hemodynamic support protocols based on well defined tissue perfusion goals can improve the outcome of these patients.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2006;18(2):161-176
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2006000200010
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Shock occurs when the circulatory system cannot maintain adequate cellular perfusion. If this condition is not reverted irreversible cellular injury establishes. Shock treatment has as its initial priority the fast and vigorous correction of mean arterial pressure and cardiac output to maintain life and avoid or lessen organic dysfunctions. Fluid challenge and vasoactive drugs are necessary to warrant an adequate tissue perfusion and maintenance of function of different organs and systems, always guided by cardiovascular monitorization. The recommendations built in this consensus are aimed to guide hemodynamic support needed to maintain adequate tisular perfusion. METHODS: Modified Delphi methodology was used to create and quantify the consensus between the participants. AMIB indicated a coordinator who invited more six experts in the area of monitoring and hemodynamic support to constitute the Consensus Advisory Board. Twenty five physician and two nurses selected from different regions of the country completed the expert panel, which reviewed the pertinent bibliography listed at the MEDLINE in the period from 1996 to 2004. RESULTS: Recommendations were made answering 17 questions about hemodynamic support with focus on fluid challenge, red blood cell transfusions, vasoactive drugs and perioperative hemodynamic optimization. CONCLUSIONS: Hemodynamic monitoring by itself does not reduce the mortality of critically ill patients, however, we believe that the correct interpretation of the data obtained by the hemodynamic monitoring and the use of hemodynamic support protocols based on well defined tissue perfusion goals can improve the outcome of these patients.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2010;22(3):229-235
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2010000300003
OBJECTIVES: An increased lactate level is classically considered a marker for poorer prognosis, however little information is available on intraoperative lactate's kinetics and its connection with prognosis. This study aimed to evaluate the time when perioperative lactate is most relevant for prognosis. METHODS: This was an observational prospective study conducted in a tertiary hospital. Patients with requested intensive care unit postoperative stay, aged > 18 years, undergoing major surgery were included. Palliative surgery patients and those with heart and/or severe liver failure were excluded. Arterial lactate levels were measured immediately before the surgery start (T0), after anesthesia induction (T1), 3 hours after the surgery start (T2), intensive care unit admission (T3) and 6 hours after the intensive care unit admission (T4). RESULTS: Sixty seven patients were included. The mean lactate values for the patients' T0, T1, T2 and T4 were 1.5 ± 0.8 mmol/L, 1.5 ± 0.7 mmol/L, 1.8 ± 1.2 mmol/L, 2.7 ± 1.7 mmol/L and 3.1 ± 2.0 mmol/L, respectively. The hospital mortality rate was 25.8%, and surviving and non-surviving patients lactate values in the intensive care unit were 2.5 ± 1. and 4.8 ± 2.8 mmol/L (P < 0.0001), respectively. The other times measurements showed no statistically significant differences between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In surgical patients, intraoperative arterial lactate levels failed to show a predictive value; however during the postoperative period, this assessment was shown to be useful for hospital mortality prediction.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2010;22(3):229-235
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2010000300003
OBJECTIVES: An increased lactate level is classically considered a marker for poorer prognosis, however little information is available on intraoperative lactate's kinetics and its connection with prognosis. This study aimed to evaluate the time when perioperative lactate is most relevant for prognosis. METHODS: This was an observational prospective study conducted in a tertiary hospital. Patients with requested intensive care unit postoperative stay, aged > 18 years, undergoing major surgery were included. Palliative surgery patients and those with heart and/or severe liver failure were excluded. Arterial lactate levels were measured immediately before the surgery start (T0), after anesthesia induction (T1), 3 hours after the surgery start (T2), intensive care unit admission (T3) and 6 hours after the intensive care unit admission (T4). RESULTS: Sixty seven patients were included. The mean lactate values for the patients' T0, T1, T2 and T4 were 1.5 ± 0.8 mmol/L, 1.5 ± 0.7 mmol/L, 1.8 ± 1.2 mmol/L, 2.7 ± 1.7 mmol/L and 3.1 ± 2.0 mmol/L, respectively. The hospital mortality rate was 25.8%, and surviving and non-surviving patients lactate values in the intensive care unit were 2.5 ± 1. and 4.8 ± 2.8 mmol/L (P < 0.0001), respectively. The other times measurements showed no statistically significant differences between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In surgical patients, intraoperative arterial lactate levels failed to show a predictive value; however during the postoperative period, this assessment was shown to be useful for hospital mortality prediction.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2006;18(3):251-255
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2006000300006
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Oncologic diseases are conditions that have influence in the treatment offered to affected patients. The aim of this study was to compare hospitalar outcome of oncologic and non oncologic patients submitted to high risk elective surgery. METHODS: Prospective, observational cohort study realized in an ICU of a tertiary hospital during the period between 04/01/2005 and 07/31/2005. Demographic data, APACHE II and MODS scores and laboratorial and hemodynamic variables were collected and complications like re-intervention need for mechanical ventilation, red blood cell transfusions and pulmonary artery catheter use during the post-operative period were evaluated. All patients were followed until hospital discharge or death. T student and Mann Whitney tests were used to compare numerical variables. Chi-square test was used to compare categorical variables. A p < 0.05 was considered as significant. RESULTS: 119 patients were included in the study. 43 were oncologic and 76 were non-oncologic. 52.9% were female. Mean age was 65.1 ± 14.1 years. Mean APACHE II score was 16.5 ± 5.8 and MODS median was 3 (2-6). Median length of surgery was 5 (3.3-7) hours and ICU and hospital mortality were 10.9% and 25.2%, respectively. Oncologic patients had greater length of hospital stay and length of stay before surgery. These results were statistically significant. Hospital mortality of oncologic patients was not greater than non-oncologic patients (22.4% versus 30.2%, p = 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: In this series, oncologic patients submitted to high risk surgery had the same mortality rate as non-onconlogic patients with similar disease severity.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2006;18(3):251-255
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2006000300006
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Oncologic diseases are conditions that have influence in the treatment offered to affected patients. The aim of this study was to compare hospitalar outcome of oncologic and non oncologic patients submitted to high risk elective surgery. METHODS: Prospective, observational cohort study realized in an ICU of a tertiary hospital during the period between 04/01/2005 and 07/31/2005. Demographic data, APACHE II and MODS scores and laboratorial and hemodynamic variables were collected and complications like re-intervention need for mechanical ventilation, red blood cell transfusions and pulmonary artery catheter use during the post-operative period were evaluated. All patients were followed until hospital discharge or death. T student and Mann Whitney tests were used to compare numerical variables. Chi-square test was used to compare categorical variables. A p < 0.05 was considered as significant. RESULTS: 119 patients were included in the study. 43 were oncologic and 76 were non-oncologic. 52.9% were female. Mean age was 65.1 ± 14.1 years. Mean APACHE II score was 16.5 ± 5.8 and MODS median was 3 (2-6). Median length of surgery was 5 (3.3-7) hours and ICU and hospital mortality were 10.9% and 25.2%, respectively. Oncologic patients had greater length of hospital stay and length of stay before surgery. These results were statistically significant. Hospital mortality of oncologic patients was not greater than non-oncologic patients (22.4% versus 30.2%, p = 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: In this series, oncologic patients submitted to high risk surgery had the same mortality rate as non-onconlogic patients with similar disease severity.
