Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
Eur Heart J Digit Health ; 2(1): 49-59, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36711174

ABSTRACT

Commercially available health technologies such as smartphones and smartwatches, activity trackers and eHealth applications, commonly referred to as wearables, are increasingly available and used both in the leisure and healthcare sector for pulse and fitness/activity tracking. The aim of the Position Paper is to identify specific barriers and knowledge gaps for the use of wearables, in particular for heart rate (HR) and activity tracking, in clinical cardiovascular healthcare to support their implementation into clinical care. The widespread use of HR and fitness tracking technologies provides unparalleled opportunities for capturing physiological information from large populations in the community, which has previously only been available in patient populations in the setting of healthcare provision. The availability of low-cost and high-volume physiological data from the community also provides unique challenges. While the number of patients meeting healthcare providers with data from wearables is rapidly growing, there are at present no clinical guidelines on how and when to use data from wearables in primary and secondary prevention. Technical aspects of HR tracking especially during activity need to be further validated. How to analyse, translate, and interpret large datasets of information into clinically applicable recommendations needs further consideration. While the current users of wearable technologies tend to be young, healthy and in the higher sociodemographic strata, wearables could potentially have a greater utility in the elderly and higher-risk population. Wearables may also provide a benefit through increased health awareness, democratization of health data and patient engagement. Use of continuous monitoring may provide opportunities for detection of risk factors and disease development earlier in the causal pathway, which may provide novel applications in both prevention and clinical research. However, wearables may also have potential adverse consequences due to unintended modification of behaviour, uncertain use and interpretation of large physiological data, a possible increase in social inequality due to differential access and technological literacy, challenges with regulatory bodies and privacy issues. In the present position paper, current applications as well as specific barriers and gaps in knowledge are identified and discussed in order to support the implementation of wearable technologies from gadget-ology into clinical cardiology.

3.
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg ; 41(5): 993-1004, 2012 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22411264

ABSTRACT

The Safety Checklist concept has been an integral part of many industries that face high-complexity tasks for many decades and in industries such as aviation and engineering checklists have evolved from their very inception. Investigations of the causes of surgical deaths around the world have repeatedly pointed to medical errors that could be prevented as an important cause of death and disability. As a result, the World Health Organisation developed and evaluated a three-stage surgical checklist in 2007 demonstrating that complications were significantly reduced, including surgical infection rates and even mortality. Together with the results from other large cohort studies into the utility of the surgical checklist, many countries have fully implemented the use of surgical checklists into routine practice. A key factor in the successful implementation of a surgical checklist is engagement of the staff implementing the checklist. In surgical specialties such as our own it was quickly seen that there were many important omissions in the generic checklist that did not cover issues particular to our specialty, and thus the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery embarked on a process to create a version of the checklist that might be more appropriate and specific to cardiothoracic surgery, including checks on preparations for excessive bleeding, perfusion arrangements and ICU preparations, for example. The guideline presented here summarizes the evidence for the surgical checklist and also goes through in detail the changes recommended for our specialty.


Subject(s)
Checklist/standards , Medical Errors/prevention & control , Patient Safety/standards , Thoracic Surgical Procedures/standards , Evidence-Based Medicine/methods , Heart Defects, Congenital/surgery , Heart-Lung Transplantation/standards , Humans , Safety Management/methods , Safety Management/standards
6.
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg ; 36(1): 3-28, 2009 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19297185

ABSTRACT

The Clinical Guidelines Committee of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery provides this professional view on resuscitation in cardiac arrest after cardiac surgery. This document was created using a multimodal methodology for evidence generation including the extrapolation of existing guidelines from the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation where possible, our own structured literature reviews on issues particular to cardiac surgery, an international survey on resuscitation hosted by CTSNet and manikin simulations of potential protocols. This protocol differs from existing generic guidelines in a number of areas, the most import of which are the following: successful treatment of cardiac arrest after cardiac surgery is a multi-practitioner activity with six key roles that should be allocated and rehearsed on a regular basis; in ventricular fibrillation, three sequential attempts at defibrillation (where immediately available) should precede external cardiac massage; in asystole or extreme bradycardia, pacing (where immediately available) should precede external cardiac massage; where the above measures fail, and in pulseless electrical activity, early resternotomy is advocated; adrenaline should not be routinely given; protocols for excluding reversible airway and breathing complications and for safe emergency resternotomy are given. This guideline is subject to continuous informal review, and when new evidence becomes available.


Subject(s)
Cardiac Surgical Procedures , Heart Arrest/therapy , Postoperative Complications/therapy , Resuscitation/methods , Clinical Protocols , Critical Care/methods , Electric Countershock , Epinephrine/therapeutic use , Evidence-Based Medicine , Heart Arrest/diagnosis , Heart Massage/methods , Humans , Intensive Care Units/organization & administration , Postoperative Complications/diagnosis , Sternum/surgery , Vasoconstrictor Agents/therapeutic use
7.
Eur Heart J ; 27(1): 49-56, 2006 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-16183695

ABSTRACT

AIMS: To assess risk factors for early and late outcome after concurrent carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS AND RESULTS: Records of all 311 consecutive patients having concurrent CEA and CABG from 1989 to 2002 were reviewed, and follow-up obtained (100% complete). In the group (mean age 67 years; 74% males), 62% had triple-vessel disease, 57% unstable angina, 31% left main coronary stenosis, 19% congestive heart failure, and 35% either a history of vascular procedures or existing vasculopathies. Preoperative assessment revealed transient ischaemic attack in 16%, stroke in 7%, and bilateral carotid disease in 20%. There were 7% emergent and 19% urgent operations, and ascending aorta was described as atheromatous or calcified in 21%. Hospital death occurred in 19 patients, myocardial infarction in seven, and permanent stroke in 12. Significant multivariable predictors of hospital death were aortic calcifications, coexisting vasculopathy, and emergent procedure. Significant predictors of postoperative stroke were calcified or dilated aorta, and of prolonged hospital stay were advanced age, unstable angina, and coexisting vascular disease. For hospital survivors, 10-year actuarial late event-free rates were: death, 50%; myocardial infarction, 84%; stroke, 93%; percutaneous angioplasty, 95%; redo CABG, 98%; and all morbidity and mortality, 48%. Significant multivariable predictors of late deaths were coexisting vasculopathy, age, renal insufficiency, previous cardiac surgery, tobacco abuse, calcified or atheromatous aorta, and duration of intensive care unit stay. CONCLUSION: Concurrent CEA and CABG can be performed with acceptable operative mortality and morbidity, and good long-term freedom from coronary and neurologic events. Atheromatous aortic disease is a harbinger of poor operative and long-term outcome.


Subject(s)
Carotid Stenosis/surgery , Coronary Artery Bypass/methods , Coronary Disease/surgery , Endarterectomy, Carotid/methods , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Carotid Stenosis/complications , Coronary Artery Bypass/mortality , Coronary Disease/complications , Coronary Disease/mortality , Endarterectomy, Carotid/mortality , Female , Humans , Ischemic Attack, Transient/etiology , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Postoperative Complications/mortality , Stroke/etiology , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...