PPV

PPV
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:确定在出生后30和60秒内执行了新生儿复苏指南中建议的任务的婴儿比例,以及执行每个任务所需的时间。
    方法:从分娩室的录像中,我们确定了从出生到到达复苏表到温暖的时间,评估心率(HR),安装血氧计,并为每个婴儿提供呼吸支持。我们确定了在30秒和60秒内完成这些任务的婴儿比例,以及执行每个任务所需的中位时间。
    结果:我们回顾并分析了189名婴儿的数据(中位胎龄,29周[IQR,27-34周];中位出生体重,1220g[IQR,930-2197g])。12名婴儿(6%)在出生后30秒内没有出现在复苏台上。少于10%的婴儿被放置在聚乙烯袋中或在30秒内测定其HR。到了60秒,48%在聚乙烯袋中,33%的人确定了他们的HR,38%接受了呼吸支持,60%有血氧计。执行所有任务所需的中位时间大于指南中建议的时间。
    结论:大多数新生儿未在复苏指南建议的时间范围内接受治疗。建议的30秒和60秒间隔可能太短。
    OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of infants who had the tasks recommended in the neonatal resuscitation guidelines performed within 30 and 60 seconds of birth, and the time taken to perform each task.
    METHODS: From video recordings in delivery rooms, we determined the time from birth and arrival on a resuscitation table to warm, assess heart rate (HR), attach an oximeter, and provide respiratory support for each infant. We determined the proportion of infants who had these tasks completed by 30 and 60 seconds, and the median time taken to perform each task.
    RESULTS: We reviewed and analyzed data from 189 infants (median gestational age, 29 weeks [IQR, 27-34 weeks]; median birth weight, 1220 g [IQR, 930-2197 g]). Twelve infants (6%) were not on the resuscitation table within 30 seconds of birth. Less than 10% of infants were placed in polyethylene bags or had their HR determined by 30 seconds. By 60 seconds, 48% were in polyethylene bags, 33% had their HR determined, 38% received respiratory support, and 60% had an oximeter attached. The median time taken to perform all tasks was greater than that recommended in the guidelines.
    CONCLUSIONS: Most newborns were not managed within the time frame recommended in resuscitation guidelines. The recommended 30- and 60-second intervals may be too short.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Sci-hub)

  • 文章类型: Evaluation Study
    OBJECTIVE: Differing threshold levels of hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) are recommended by international guidelines for commencement of antiviral therapy. These guidelines advocate therapy for patients with significant fibrosis (METAVIR score ≥F2); we assessed the accuracy of these guideline-defined thresholds in identifying patients with ≥F2 fibrosis.
    METHODS: We applied the European (European Association for the Study of the Liver [EASL] 2012), Asian-Pacific (Asian-Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver [APASL] 2012), American (American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases [AASLD] 2009), and United States Panel Algorithm (USPA 2008) criteria to 366 consecutive hepatitis B e antigen-negative patients with liver biopsy samples: EASL, ALT >laboratory-defined upper limit of normal (ULN) and HBV DNA ≥2000 IU/mL (n = 171); APASL, ALT >2-fold laboratory-defined ULN and HBV DNA ≥2000 IU/mL (n = 87); AASLD, ALT >2-fold the updated ULN (0.5-fold ULN [corresponding to ≤19 U/L] for women and 0.75-fold the ULN [corresponding to ≤30 U/L] for men) and HBV DNA ≥20,000 IU/mL (n = 53); and USPA, ALT >updated ULN (>0.5-fold ULN for women and >0.75-fold ULN for men) and HBV DNA ≥2000 IU/mL (n = 173).
    RESULTS: Overall, 113 patients (30.9%) had ≥F2 fibrosis, which was more frequent among patients who fulfilled any guideline criteria (45.7% vs 17.9% for those who did not fulfill any criteria, P < .0001). In applying the EASL, AASLD, APASL, and USPA criteria, sensitivity and specificity values for detection of ≥F2 fibrosis were 45.6%, 58.5%, 56.3%, and 45.7% (P = .145) and 82.1%, 73.8%, 77.1%, and 82.4% (P = .366), respectively. The EASL criteria (area under the receiver operating characteristic [AUROC] curve, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.71) and USPA criteria (AUROC, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.58-0.73) performed better than APASL (AUROC, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.59-0.69; P = .421) and significantly better than the AASLD criteria (AUROC, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.54-0.64; P = .013).
    CONCLUSIONS: In hepatitis B e antigen-negative patients with chronic hepatitis, the EASL, AASLD, APASL, and USPA criteria identify patients with ≥F2 fibrosis with low levels of accuracy. However, the EASL and USPA criteria are the most accurate for identification of these patients.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Sci-hub)

公众号