You searched for:"Wilson de Oliveira Filho"
We found (4) results for your search.Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2017;29(1):105-110
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20170015
Acute respiratory distress syndrome is characterized by diffuse inflammatory lung injury and is classified as mild, moderate, and severe. Clinically, hypoxemia, bilateral opacities in lung images, and decreased pulmonary compliance are observed. Sepsis is one of the most prevalent causes of this condition (30 - 50%). Among the direct causes of acute respiratory distress syndrome, chlorine inhalation is an uncommon cause, generating mucosal and airway irritation in most cases. We present a case of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome after accidental inhalation of chlorine in a swimming pool, with noninvasive ventilation used as a treatment with good response in this case. We classified severe acute respiratory distress syndrome based on an oxygen partial pressure/oxygen inspired fraction ratio <100, although the Berlin classification is limited in considering patients with severe hypoxemia managed exclusively with noninvasive ventilation. The failure rate of noninvasive ventilation in cases of acute respiratory distress syndrome is approximately 52% and is associated with higher mortality. The possible complications of using noninvasive positive-pressure mechanical ventilation in cases of acute respiratory distress syndrome include delays in orotracheal intubation, which is performed in cases of poor clinical condition and with high support pressure levels, and deep inspiratory efforts, generating high tidal volumes and excessive transpulmonary pressures, which contribute to ventilation-related lung injury. Despite these complications, some studies have shown a decrease in the rates of orotracheal intubation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome with low severity scores, hemodynamic stability, and the absence of other organ dysfunctions.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2020;32(1):17-27
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20200005
To define the epidemiological profile and the main determinants of morbidity and mortality in noncardiac high surgical risk patients in Brazil.
This was a prospective, observational and multicenter study. All noncardiac surgical patients admitted to intensive care units, i.e., those considered high risk, within a 1-month period were evaluated and monitored daily for a maximum of 7 days in the intensive care unit to determine complications. The 28-day postoperative, intensive care unit and hospital mortality rates were evaluated.
Twenty-nine intensive care units participated in the study. Surgeries were performed in 25,500 patients, of whom 904 (3.5%) were high-risk (95% confidence interval - 95%CI 3.3% - 3.8%) and were included in the study. Of the participating patients, 48.3% were from private intensive care units, and 51.7% were from public intensive care units. The length of stay in the intensive care unit was 2.0 (1.0 - 4.0) days, and the length of hospital stay was 9.5 (5.4 - 18.6) days. The complication rate was 29.9% (95%CI 26.4 - 33.7), and the 28-day postoperative mortality rate was 9.6% (95%CI 7.4 - 12.1). The independent risk factors for complications were the Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 (SAPS 3; odds ratio - OR = 1.02; 95%CI 1.01 - 1.03) and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score (SOFA) on admission to the intensive care unit (OR = 1.17; 95%CI 1.09 - 1.25), surgical time (OR = 1.001, 95%CI 1.000 - 1.002) and emergency surgeries (OR = 1.93, 95%CI, 1.10 - 3.38). In addition, there were associations with 28-day mortality (OR = 1.032; 95%CI 1.011 - 1.052), SAPS 3 (OR = 1.041; 95%CI 1.107 - 1.279), SOFA (OR = 1.175, 95%CI 1.069 - 1.292) and emergency surgeries (OR = 2.509; 95%CI 1.040 - 6.051).
Higher prognostic scores, elderly patients, longer surgical times and emergency surgeries were strongly associated with higher 28-day mortality and more complications during the intensive care unit stay.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2021;33(2):206-218
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20210028
To describe fluid resuscitation practices in Brazilian intensive care units and to compare them with those of other countries participating in the Fluid-TRIPS.
This was a prospective, international, cross-sectional, observational study in a convenience sample of intensive care units in 27 countries (including Brazil) using the Fluid-TRIPS database compiled in 2014. We described the patterns of fluid resuscitation use in Brazil compared with those in other countries and identified the factors associated with fluid choice.
On the study day, 3,214 patients in Brazil and 3,493 patients in other countries were included, of whom 16.1% and 26.8% (p < 0.001) received fluids, respectively. The main indication for fluid resuscitation was impaired perfusion and/or low cardiac output (Brazil: 71.7% versus other countries: 56.4%, p < 0.001). In Brazil, the percentage of patients receiving crystalloid solutions was higher (97.7% versus 76.8%, p < 0.001), and 0.9% sodium chloride was the most commonly used crystalloid (62.5% versus 27.1%, p < 0.001). The multivariable analysis suggested that the albumin levels were associated with the use of both crystalloids and colloids, whereas the type of fluid prescriber was associated with crystalloid use only.
Our results suggest that crystalloids are more frequently used than colloids for fluid resuscitation in Brazil, and this discrepancy in frequencies is higher than that in other countries. Sodium chloride (0.9%) was the crystalloid most commonly prescribed. Serum albumin levels and the type of fluid prescriber were the factors associated with the choice of crystalloids or colloids for fluid resuscitation.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2022;34(3):335-341
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20220040-en
To compare the lung mechanics and outcomes between COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome.
We combined data from two randomized trials in acute respiratory distress syndrome, one including only COVID-19 patients and the other including only patients without COVID-19, to determine whether COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome is associated with higher 28-day mortality than non-COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome and to examine the differences in lung mechanics between these two types of acute respiratory distress syndrome.
A total of 299 patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and 1,010 patients with non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome were included in the main analysis. The results showed that non-COVID-19 patients used higher positive end-expiratory pressure (12.5cmH2O; SD 3.2 versus 11.7cmH2O SD 2.8; p < 0.001), were ventilated with lower tidal volumes (5.8mL/kg; SD 1.0 versus 6.5mL/kg; SD 1.2; p < 0.001) and had lower static respiratory compliance adjusted for ideal body weight (0.5mL/cmH2O/kg; SD 0.3 versus 0.6mL/cmH2O/kg; SD 0.3; p = 0.01). There was no difference between groups in 28-day mortality (52.3% versus 58.9%; p = 0.52) or mechanical ventilation duration in the first 28 days among survivors (13 [IQR 5 - 22] versus 12 [IQR 6 - 26], p = 0.46).
This analysis showed that patients with non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome have different lung mechanics but similar outcomes to COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome patients. After propensity score matching, there was no difference in lung mechanics or outcomes between groups.