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











Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Arq Bras Cardiol ; 114(4): 666-672, 2020 04.
Artigo em Inglês, Português | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32074200

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Plasma levels of brain natriuretic peptides have better diagnostic accuracy compared to clinical-radiologic judgment for acute heart failure. In acute coronary syndromes (ACS), the prognostic value of acute heart failure is incorporated into predictive models through Killip classification. It is not established whether NT-proBNP could increment prognostic prediction. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether NT-proBNP, as a measure of left ventricular dysfunction, improves the in-hospital prognostic value of the GRACE score in ACS. METHODS: Patients admitted due to acute chest pain, with electrocardiogram and/or troponin criteria for ACS were included in the study. The plasma level of NT-proBNP was measured at hospital admission and the primary endpoint was defined as cardiovascular death during hospitalization. P-value < 0.05 was considered as significant. RESULTS: Among 352 patients studied, cardiovascular mortality was 4.8%. The predictive value of NT-proBNP for cardiovascular death was shown by a C-statistic of 0.78 (95% CI = 0.65-0.90). After adjustment for the GRACE model subtracted by Killip variable, NT-proBNP remained independently associated with cardiovascular death (p = 0.015). However, discrimination by the GRACE-BNP logistic model (C-statistics = 0.83; 95%CI = 0.69-0.97) was not superior to the traditional GRACE Score with Killip (C-statistic = 0.82; 95%CI = 0.68-0.97). The GRACE-BNP model did not provide improvement in the classification of patients to high risk by the GRACE Score (net reclassification index = - 0.15; p = 0.14). CONCLUSION: Despite the statistical association with cardiovascular death, there was no evidence that NT-proBNP increments the prognostic value of GRACE score in ACS.


Assuntos
Síndrome Coronariana Aguda , Biomarcadores , Humanos , Peptídeo Natriurético Encefálico , Fragmentos de Peptídeos , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Prognóstico , Medição de Risco
2.
J Evid Based Med ; 11(2): 105-111, 2018 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29878580

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To assess review articles on pragmatic trials in order to describe how authors define the aim of this type of study, how comprehensive methodological topics are covered, and which topics are most valued by authors. METHODS: Review articles were selected from Medline Database, based on the expression "pragmatic trial" in the titles. Five trained medical students evaluated the articles, based on a list of 15 self-explanatory methodological topics. Each article was evaluated regarding topics covered. Baseline statements on the aim of pragmatic trials were derived. RESULTS: Among 22 articles identified, there was general agreement that the aim of a pragmatic trial is to evaluate if the intervention works under real-world conditions. The mean number of methodological topics addressed by each article was 7.6 ± 3.1. Only one article covered all 15 topics, three articles (14%) responded to at least 75% of topics and 13 articles (59%) mentioned at least 50% of the topics. The relative frequency each of the 15 topics was cited by articles had a mean of 50% ± 25%. No topic was addressed by all articles, only three (20%) were addressed by more than 75% of articles. CONCLUSIONS: There is agreement on the different aims of explanatory and pragmatic trials. But there is a large variation on methodological topics used to define a pragmatic trial, which led to inconsistency in defining the typical methodology of a pragmatic trial.


Assuntos
Ensaios Clínicos Pragmáticos como Assunto , Literatura de Revisão como Assunto
3.
Arq Bras Cir Dig ; 30(1): 47-50, 2017.
Artigo em Inglês, Português | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28489169

RESUMO

Background: Surgical approach is still controversial in patients with acute cholecystitis: to treat clinically the inflammatory process and operate electively later or to operate immediately on an emergency basis? Aim: To test the hypothesis that urgent laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis has a higher mortality than elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods: From the data available in Datasus, mortality was compared between patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cholelithiasis and in urgency. Calculations were made of the relative reduction in risk of death, absolute reduction of risk of death and number needed to treat. Results: From 2009 to 2014 in Brazil, there were 250.439 laparoscopic cholecystectomy and 74.6% were electives. Mortality in the emergency group was 4.8 times higher compared to the elective group (0.0023% vs. 0.00048%). Despite the relative reduction in risk of death (RRR) was 83%, in the calculation of absolute risk was found 0.0018 and number needed to treat of 55,555. Conclusions: Despite the relative risk reduction for mortality was high comparing elective vs. urgent basis, the absolute risk reduction was minimal, since this outcome is very low in both groups, suggesting that mortality should not have much influence on surgical decision.


Racional: Continua controversa a conduta nos pacientes com colecistite aguda: compensar o processo inflamatório e operar eletivamente ou operar imediatamente em caráter de urgência? Objetivo: Testar a hipótese de que a colecistectomia videolaparoscópica de urgência por colecistite aguda apresenta maior mortalidade que a colecistectomia videolaparoscópica eletiva. Métodos: A partir dos dados disponíveis no Datasus, foi comparada a mortalidade entre os pacientes submetidos à colecistectomia videolaparoscópica eletiva por colelitíase e a de urgência. Foram realizados cálculos da redução relativa de risco de morte, redução absoluta do risco de morte e número necessário para tartar. Resultados: De 2009 a 2014 no Brasil, foram realizadas 250.439 colecistectomias videolaparoscópicas sendo 74,6% eletivas. A mortalidade no grupo de emergência foi 4,8 vezes mais elevada em comparação com o grupo eletivo (0,0023% vs. 0,00048%). Apesar da redução relativa do risco de morte (RRR) ser de 83%, no cálculo do risco absoluto encontrou-se 0,0018 e número necessário para tratar de 55.555. Conclusões: Apesar da redução relativa de risco para mortalidade ser alta comparando o caráter eletivo vs. urgência, a redução de risco absoluto é mínima, já que esse desfecho é muito baixo nos dois grupos, sugerindo que a mortalidade não deve ter muita influência na tomada de decisão cirúrgica.


Assuntos
Colecistectomia Laparoscópica , Colecistite Aguda/mortalidade , Colecistite Aguda/cirurgia , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Eletivos , Tratamento de Emergência , Cirurgia Vídeoassistida , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Colecistectomia Laparoscópica/métodos , Feminino , Humanos , Lactente , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Adulto Jovem
4.
ABCD (São Paulo, Impr.) ; 30(1): 47-50, Jan.-Mar. 2017. tab
Artigo em Inglês | LILACS | ID: biblio-837568

RESUMO

ABSTRACT Background: Surgical approach is still controversial in patients with acute cholecystitis: to treat clinically the inflammatory process and operate electively later or to operate immediately on an emergency basis? Aim: To test the hypothesis that urgent laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis has a higher mortality than elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods: From the data available in Datasus, mortality was compared between patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cholelithiasis and in urgency. Calculations were made of the relative reduction in risk of death, absolute reduction of risk of death and number needed to treat. Results: From 2009 to 2014 in Brazil, there were 250.439 laparoscopic cholecystectomy and 74.6% were electives. Mortality in the emergency group was 4.8 times higher compared to the elective group (0.0023% vs. 0.00048%). Despite the relative reduction in risk of death (RRR) was 83%, in the calculation of absolute risk was found 0.0018 and number needed to treat of 55,555. Conclusions: Despite the relative risk reduction for mortality was high comparing elective vs. urgent basis, the absolute risk reduction was minimal, since this outcome is very low in both groups, suggesting that mortality should not have much influence on surgical decision.


RESUMO Racional: Continua controversa a conduta nos pacientes com colecistite aguda: compensar o processo inflamatório e operar eletivamente ou operar imediatamente em caráter de urgência? Objetivo: Testar a hipótese de que a colecistectomia videolaparoscópica de urgência por colecistite aguda apresenta maior mortalidade que a colecistectomia videolaparoscópica eletiva Métodos: A partir dos dados disponíveis no Datasus, foi comparada a mortalidade entre os pacientes submetidos à colecistectomia videolaparoscópica eletiva por colelitíase e a de urgência. Foram realizados cálculos da redução relativa de risco de morte, redução absoluta do risco de morte e número necessário para tratar . Resultados: De 2009 a 2014 no Brasil, foram realizadas 250.439 colecistectomias videolaparoscópicas sendo 74,6% eletivas. A mortalidade no grupo de emergência foi 4,8 vezes mais elevada em comparação com o grupo eletivo (0,0023% vs. 0,00048%). Apesar da redução relativa do risco de morte (RRR) ser de 83%, no cálculo do risco absoluto encontrou-se 0,0018 e número necessário para tratar de 55.555. Conclusões: Apesar da redução relativa de risco para mortalidade ser alta comparando o caráter eletivo vs. urgência, a redução de risco absoluto é mínima, já que esse desfecho é muito baixo nos dois grupos, sugerindo que a mortalidade não deve ter muita influência na tomada de decisão cirúrgica.


Assuntos
Humanos , Masculino , Feminino , Lactente , Pré-Escolar , Criança , Adolescente , Adulto , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Idoso , Adulto Jovem , Colecistectomia Laparoscópica/métodos , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Eletivos , Cirurgia Vídeoassistida , Colecistite Aguda/cirurgia , Colecistite Aguda/mortalidade , Tratamento de Emergência
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA