Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar:20 |50 |100
Resultados 1 -4 de 4
Filtrar
Mais filtros













Base de dados
Idioma
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Crit Care Med ;50(10): e759-e771, 2022 10 01.
ArtigoemInglês |MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35894598

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in adult ICU patients increasingly include patient-important outcomes other than mortality. This comes with challenges regarding outcome choices/definitions, handling of deceased patients and missing data in analyses, and choices of effect measures and statistical methods due to complex distributions. This scoping review aimed to characterize how these challenges are handled in relevant contemporary RCTs. DATA SOURCES: We systematically searched 10 selected journals for RCTs conducted primarily in adult ICU patients published between 1 January 2018 and 5 May 2022 reporting at least one patient-important outcome other than mortality, including "days alive without"…-type outcomes, functional/cognitive/neurologic outcomes, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes, and ordinal/other outcomes. STUDY SELECTION: Abstracts and full-texts were assessed independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted independently and in duplicate by two reviewers using predefined and pilot-tested extraction forms and subsequently categorized to facilitate analysis. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 687 outcomes from 167 RCTs, with 32% of RCTs using a patient-important outcome other than mortality as a (co-)primary outcome, most frequently "days alive without"…-type outcomes. Many different functional/cognitive/neurologic (103) and HRQoL (29) outcomes were reported. Handling of deceased patients varied, with analyses frequently restricted to survivors only for functional/cognitive/neurologic (62%) and HRQoL (89%) outcomes. Follow-up was generally longer and missing data proportions higher for functional/cognitive/neurologic and HRQoL outcomes. Most outcomes were analyzed using nonparametric tests (31%), linear regression/ t tests (27%), chi-square-like tests (12%), and proportional odds logistic regression (9%), often without presentation of actual treatment effects estimates (38%). CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of RCTs, substantial variation in practice and suboptimal methodological choices were observed. This calls for increased focus on standardizing outcome choices and definitions, adequate handling of missing data and deceased patients in analyses, and use of statistical methods quantifying effect sizes.


Assuntos
Qualidade de Vida, Sobreviventes, Adulto, Humanos, Unidades de Terapia Intensiva, Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente
2.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand ;65(7): 988-994, 2021 08.
ArtigoemInglês |MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33840095

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic platelet transfusions are frequently used to prevent bleeding in hospitalised patients with thrombocytopenia. Recommendations regarding the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions in non-haematological patients are based on extrapolations, observational studies, and expert opinions, and transfusion with platelets has been associated with adverse effects. We aim to assess the overall benefits and harms of prophylactic platelet transfusions in hospitalised patients with thrombocytopenia. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses in compliance with the recommendations by the Cochrane Collaboration and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We will prepare the manuscript in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. We will include randomised clinical trials assessing prophylactic platelet transfusion versus no prophylaxis or placebo in hospitalised patients with thrombocytopenia. The primary outcome is mortality at longest follow-up. Secondary outcomes include episodes of clinically important bleeding, nosocomial infections, transfusion-related adverse events, thromboembolic events, length of hospital stay, quality of life, and days alive without the use of life support. We will conduct prespecified subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses and assess the risk of random errors by trial sequential analyses. DISCUSSION: The proposed systematic review will provide an overview of the certainty of evidence for the benefits and harms of prophylactic platelet transfusion in hospitalised patients with thrombocytopenia.


Assuntos
Transfusão de Plaquetas, Trombocitopenia, Plaquetas, Hemorragia, Humanos, Metanálise como Assunto, Qualidade de Vida, Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto, Trombocitopenia/terapia
3.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand ;64(6): 714-728, 2020 07.
ArtigoemInglês |MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32060905

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Acutely ill patients are at risk of stress-related gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and prophylactic acid suppressants are frequently used. In this systematic review, we assessed the effects of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) versus placebo or no prophylaxis in acutely ill hospitalised patients. METHODS: We conducted the review according to the PRISMA statement, the Cochrane Handbook and GRADE, using conventional meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA). The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinically important GI bleeding and serious adverse events (SAEs). The primary analyses included overall low risk of bias trials. RESULTS: We included 65 comparisons from 62 trials (n = 9713); 43 comparisons were from intensive care units. Only three trials (n = 3596) had overall low risk of bias. We did not find an effect on all-cause mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.14; TSA-adjusted CI 0.90 to 1.18; high certainty). The rate of clinically important GI bleeding was lower with SUP (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.89; TSA-adjusted CI 0.14 to 2.81; moderate certainty). We did not find a difference in pneumonia rates (moderate certainty). Effects on SAEs, Clostridium difficile enteritis, myocardial ischaemia and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were inconclusive due to sparse data. Analyses of all trials regardless of risk of bias were consistent with the primary analyses. CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe a difference in all-cause mortality or pneumonia with SUP. The incidence of clinically important GI bleeding was reduced with SUP, whereas any effects on SAEs, myocardial ischaemia, Clostridium difficile enteritis and HRQoL were inconclusive. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42017055676; published study protocol: Marker, et al 2017 in Systematic Reviews.


Assuntos
Antiulcerosos/uso terapêutico, Cuidados Críticos/métodos, Hemorragia Gastrointestinal/prevenção & controle, Antagonistas dos Receptores H2 da Histamina/uso terapêutico, Pacientes Internados, Inibidores da Bomba de Prótons/uso terapêutico, Adulto, Estado Terminal, Hospitalização, Humanos
4.
N Engl J Med ;379(23): 2199-2208, 2018 12 06.
ArtigoemInglês |MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30354950

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Prophylaxis for gastrointestinal stress ulceration is frequently given to patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), but its risks and benefits are unclear. METHODS: In this European, multicenter, parallel-group, blinded trial, we randomly assigned adults who had been admitted to the ICU for an acute condition (i.e., an unplanned admission) and who were at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding to receive 40 mg of intravenous pantoprazole (a proton-pump inhibitor) or placebo daily during the ICU stay. The primary outcome was death by 90 days after randomization. RESULTS: A total of 3298 patients were enrolled; 1645 were randomly assigned to the pantoprazole group and 1653 to the placebo group. Data on the primary outcome were available for 3282 patients (99.5%). At 90 days, 510 patients (31.1%) in the pantoprazole group and 499 (30.4%) in the placebo group had died (relative risk, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.13; P=0.76). During the ICU stay, at least one clinically important event (a composite of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, or myocardial ischemia) had occurred in 21.9% of patients assigned to pantoprazole and 22.6% of those assigned to placebo (relative risk, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.11). In the pantoprazole group, 2.5% of patients had clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, as compared with 4.2% in the placebo group. The number of patients with infections or serious adverse reactions and the percentage of days alive without life support within 90 days were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among adult patients in the ICU who were at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, mortality at 90 days and the number of clinically important events were similar in those assigned to pantoprazole and those assigned to placebo. (Funded by Innovation Fund Denmark and others; SUP-ICU ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02467621 .).


Assuntos
Estado Terminal/terapia, Hemorragia Gastrointestinal/prevenção & controle, Pantoprazol/uso terapêutico, Úlcera Péptica/prevenção & controle, Inibidores da Bomba de Prótons/uso terapêutico, Idoso, Estado Terminal/mortalidade, Feminino, Hemorragia Gastrointestinal/epidemiologia, Humanos, Injeções Intravenosas, Unidades de Terapia Intensiva, Masculino, Pessoa de Meia-Idade, Pantoprazol/efeitos adversos, Inibidores da Bomba de Prótons/efeitos adversos, Fatores de Risco, Método Simples-Cego, Estresse Fisiológico, Análise de Sobrevida
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...