Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
2.
Can J Anaesth ; 69(5): 644-657, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35112304

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Numerous guideline recommendations for airway and perioperative management during the COVID-19 pandemic have been published. We identified, synthesized, and compared guidelines intended for anesthesiologists. SOURCE: Member society websites of the World Federation of Societies of Anesthesiologists and the European Society of Anesthesiologists were searched. Recommendations that focused on perioperative airway management of patients with proven or potential COVID-19 were included. Accelerated screening was used; data were extracted by one reviewer and verified by a second. Data were organized into themes based on perioperative phase of care. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Thirty unique sets of recommendations were identified. None reported methods for systematically searching or selecting evidence to be included. Four were updated following initial publication. For induction and airway management, most recommended minimizing personnel and having the most experienced anesthesiologist perform tracheal intubation. Significant congruence was observed among recommendations that discussed personal protective equipment. Of those that discussed tracheal intubation methods, most (96%) recommended videolaryngoscopy, while discordance existed regarding use of flexible bronchoscopy. Intraoperatively, 23% suggested specific anesthesia techniques and most (63%) recommended a specific operating room for patients with COVID-19. Postoperatively, a minority discussed extubation procedures (33%), or care in the recovery room (40%). Non-technical considerations were discussed in 27% and psychological support for healthcare providers in 10%. CONCLUSION: Recommendations for perioperative airway management of patients with COVID-19 overlap to a large extent but also show significant differences. Given the paucity of data early in the pandemic, it is not surprising that identified publications largely reflected expert opinion rather than empirical evidence. We suggest future efforts should promote coordinated responses and provide suggestions for studying and establishing best practices in perioperative patients. STUDY REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/a2k4u/ ); date created, 26 March 2020.


RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: De nombreuses recommandations ont été publiées pour la prise en charge des voies aériennes et périopératoires pendant la pandémie de COVID-19. Nous avons identifié, synthétisé et comparé les lignes directrices destinées aux anesthésiologistes. SOURCES: Les sites internet des sociétés membres de la Fédération mondiale des sociétés d'anesthésiologistes et de la Société européenne d'anesthésiologie ont été consultés. Les recommandations axées sur la prise en charge périopératoire des voies aériennes des patients atteints de COVID-19 prouvée ou potentielle ont été incluses. Une sélection accélérée a été utilisée; les données ont été extraites par un examinateur et vérifiées par un second. Les données ont été thématiquement organisées en fonction de la phase périopératoire des soins. CONSTATATIONS PRINCIPALES: Trente ensembles uniques de recommandations ont été identifiés. Aucun de ces ensemble n'a fait état de méthodes de recherche ou de sélection systématiques des données probantes à inclure. Quatre ont été mis à jour après leur publication initiale. Pour l'induction et la prise en charge des voies aériennes, la plupart ont recommandé de minimiser le personnel et de demander à l'anesthésiologiste le plus expérimenté de réaliser l'intubation trachéale. Une congruence significative a été observée parmi les recommandations qui portaient sur les équipements de protection individuelle. Parmi les lignes directrices évoquant les méthodes d'intubation trachéale, la plupart (96 %) ont recommandé la vidéolaryngoscopie, alors qu'il existait une discordance concernant l'utilisation de bronchoscopes flexibles. En peropératoire, 23 % ont suggéré des techniques d'anesthésie spécifiques et la plupart (63 %) ont recommandé une salle d'opération spécifique pour les patients atteints de COVID-19. En postopératoire, une minorité a abordé le sujet des procédures d'extubation (33 %) ou des soins en salle de réveil (40 %). Les considérations non techniques ont été traitées dans 27 % des cas et le soutien psychologique aux fournisseurs de soins de santé dans 10 %. CONCLUSION: Les recommandations pour la prise en charge périopératoire des voies aériennes des patients atteints de COVID-19 se chevauchent dans une large mesure, mais montrent également des différences significatives. Compte tenu de la rareté des données au début de la pandémie, il n'est pas surprenant que les publications identifiées reflètent en grande partie l'opinion d'experts plutôt que de se fonder sur des données probantes empiriques. Nous suggérons que les efforts futurs soient déployés de manière à promouvoir des réponses coordonnées et proposer des suggestions pour étudier et établir les meilleures pratiques chez les patients en période périopératoire. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/a2k4u/ ); date de création, 26 mars 2020.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Airway Management/methods , Anesthesiologists , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Personal Protective Equipment
3.
Clin Rehabil ; 33(4): 796-804, 2019 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30537850

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:: To characterize environmental barriers to leisure participation among individuals living with stroke; examine relationships between environmental barriers and leisure interest and satisfaction; and investigate participant factors associated with the perception of environmental barriers. DESIGN:: Survey. SETTING:: Community. PARTICIPANTS:: Convenience sample of 51 community-dwelling adults less than six months post stroke. INTERVENTIONS:: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S):: Craig Hospital Inventory of Environmental Factors-Short Form. RESULTS:: Physical and structural environmental barriers were reported as the most frequent and large barrier to leisure participation ( n = 26 (51%) rated as "monthly or more," n = 12 (24%) rated as "big problem"). While attitude and support and policy barriers were not as commonly encountered, participants labeled these as "big problem(s)" (attitude and support n = 6 (12%), policy n = 7 (14%)). The presence of depressive symptoms was associated with the frequency in which attitudinal and support (rho = 0.50, P < 0.001), physical and structural (rho = 0.46, P < 0.001), and service and assistance (rho = 0.28, P = 0.04) barriers were reported, as well as magnitude of attitude and support barriers (rho = 0.48, P < 0.001). In multivariable regression analysis, depressive symptoms and walking capacity explained 21% of the variance of the frequency of attitude and support barriers ( P = 0.004), where depressive symptoms was an independent correlate ( P = 0.004). No other factors were associated with environmental barriers to leisure participation. CONCLUSION:: Individuals with stroke report frequent and large physical and structural environmental barriers to leisure participation, which may be associated with the presence of depressive symptoms.


Subject(s)
Architectural Accessibility , Leisure Activities , Stroke/physiopathology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Depression/psychology , Female , Humans , Independent Living , Male , Middle Aged , Mobility Limitation , Sampling Studies , Surveys and Questionnaires , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...