Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 10 de 10
Filtrar
1.
Curr Probl Cardiol ; 47(10): 100960, 2022 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34363848

RESUMO

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a risk factor for cognitive decline. The aim of this study was to systematically review recent literature on whether coronary artery revascularizations are associated to cognitive decline and dementia. Pubmed, Scopus, and CINAHL (EBSCO) were searched systematically from January 2009 to September 2020. Studies were conducted on persons with CAD undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedure compared to other coronary artery disease treatments, and the outcome was cognitive decline or dementia. Altogether four of the 680 reviewed articles met inclusion criteria. Results were inconsistent, and the outcome measurements heterogeneous between studies. Our findings indicate an evidence gap in the current understanding of long-term outcomes following coronary artery revascularization. However, evidence of long-term effects on cognition would complement our understanding of their benefits. There is a need for more studies on long-term cognitive outcomes after coronary artery revascularizations.


Assuntos
Disfunção Cognitiva , Doença da Artéria Coronariana , Demência , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea , Humanos , Resultado do Tratamento
2.
J Am Med Dir Assoc ; 23(6): 1059-1065.e4, 2022 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34717887

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Antipsychotic use for neuropsychiatric symptoms in Alzheimer's disease (AD) is common despite the increased risk of cardiovascular events and mortality. There is limited and inconsistent evidence on the possible risk of stroke. We assessed whether antipsychotic initiation increases the risk of stroke in people with a verified diagnosis of AD and whether there is a difference in stroke risk between the 2 most commonly used antipsychotics, risperidone and quetiapine. DESIGN: Register-based exposure-matched cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The Medication Use and Alzheimer's Disease (MEDALZ) cohort included 70,718 community-dwelling people with AD in Finland during 2005-2011. People with previous strokes were excluded. METHODS: For each incident antipsychotic user (n = 20,467), 1 nonuser was matched according to sex, age, and time since AD diagnosis. Analyses were conducted with inverse probability of treatment-weighted (IPTW) Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Compared with nonuse, antipsychotic use was associated with an increased risk of stroke within 60 days of antipsychotic initiation [IPTW hazard ratio (HR) 1.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32-2.28]. However, there was no significant overall association between antipsychotic use and the risk of stroke (IPTW HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.98-1.22). There was no difference in stroke risk between risperidone and quetiapine (IPTW HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.91-1.37). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Stroke risk is increased shortly after antipsychotic initiation in people with AD, suggesting that even short-term use of antipsychotics should be avoided if possible. If antipsychotics are prescribed, effectiveness and safety should be assessed soon after initiation and treatment limited to the shortest possible duration.


Assuntos
Doença de Alzheimer , Antipsicóticos , Acidente Vascular Cerebral , Doença de Alzheimer/complicações , Antipsicóticos/efeitos adversos , Estudos de Coortes , Humanos , Vida Independente , Fumarato de Quetiapina/efeitos adversos , Risperidona/efeitos adversos , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/induzido quimicamente , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/complicações , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/epidemiologia
3.
BMC Geriatr ; 21(1): 173, 2021 03 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33750334

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is one of the leading causes of death world-wide, but little is known on the role of comorbidities on mortality among people with AD. We studied how comorbidities and age at AD diagnosis impact the survival of people with AD. METHODS: The Medication Use and Alzheimer's disease (MEDALZ) cohort study included 70,718 community-dwelling persons in Finland with AD diagnosis from 2005 to 2011 and were matched 1:1 (age, gender, and hospital district) to people without AD (mean age 80 years, 65% women, and the mean follow-up 4.9 and 5.6 years, respectively). Covariates (age, gender, and socioeconomic position), comorbidities (cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes, asthma/ chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), hip fracture, cancer treatment, and mental or behavioral disorders excluding dementia) and survival data were obtained from nationwide registers. Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare risk of death between people with and without AD. RESULTS: During the follow-up period a greater proportion of the AD cohort died compared to the non-AD cohort (63% versus 37%). In both cohorts, older age, male gender, lower socioeconomic position, and history of comorbidities were associated with shorter survival and higher risk of death. The associations of comorbidities with survival is weaker in the older age groups and people with AD. Hip fracture (adjusted HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.30-1.41), stroke (1.30, 1.27-1.34), and recent cancer treatment (1.29, 1.26-1.32) had the strongest associations in the AD cohort. Age modified the associations in both cohorts (weaker associations among older people). CONCLUSION: Alzheimer's disease is the major factor affecting survival, but comorbidities further decrease survival also in individuals with Alzheimer's disease. Therefore, appropriate management of care of these comorbidities might affect not only survival but also the wellbeing of this vulnerable population.


Assuntos
Doença de Alzheimer , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Doença de Alzheimer/diagnóstico , Doença de Alzheimer/epidemiologia , Doença de Alzheimer/terapia , Estudos de Coortes , Comorbidade , Feminino , Finlândia/epidemiologia , Humanos , Masculino , Modelos de Riscos Proporcionais
4.
Emergencias (Sant Vicenç dels Horts) ; 33(1): 59-61, feb. 2021.
Artigo em Espanhol | IBECS | ID: ibc-202136

RESUMO

FUNDAMENTO: El personal sanitario que trata a pacientes con infecciones como el coronavirus (COVID-19) corre el riesgo de infectarse. Este utiliza equipos de protección individual (EPI) para protegerse de las gotas de la tos, los estornudos u otros fluidos corporales de los pacientes infectados y de las superficies contaminadas que puedan infectarlos. El EPI puede incluir delantales, batas o monos (un traje de una sola pieza), guantes, máscaras y equipo de respiración (respiradores) y gafas protectoras. El EPI debe ser puesto correctamente; puede ser incómodo de usar, y los trabajadores de la salud pueden contaminarse cuando se lo quitan. Algunos se han adaptado, por ejemplo, añadiendo pestañas para facilitar su retirada. Las organizaciones como los Centros para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC) de Estados Unidos ofrecen orientación sobre el procedimiento correcto para ponerse y quitarse el EPI. Esta es la actualización de 2020 de una revisión publicada por primera vez en 2016 y actualizada previamente en 2019. ¿QUÉ SE QUERÍA DESCUBRIR?: Se quería saber qué tipo de EPI o combinación de EPI confiere a los trabajadores de la salud la mejor protección; si la modificación del EPI para facilitar su retirada es efectiva; si seguir la guía para retirar el EPI reduce la contaminación; y si el entrenamiento reduce la contaminación. ¿QUÉ SE ENCONTRÓ?: Se encontraron 24 estudios relevantes con 2.278 participantes que evaluaron los tipos de EPI, EPI modificado, procedimientos para poner y quitar el EPI y tipos de entrenamiento. Dieciocho de los estudios no evaluaron a los trabajadores sanitarios que trataban a pacientes infectados, sino que simularon el efecto de la exposición a la infección mediante el uso de marcadores fluorescentes o virus o bacterias inofensivos. La mayoría de los estudios fueron pequeños, y solo 1 o 2 estudios abordaron cada una de las preguntas. TIPOS DE EPI: Cubrir más el cuerpo lleva a una mejor protección. Sin embargo, como esto suele estar asociado con una mayor dificultad para ponerse y quitarse el EPI y una menor comodidad, puede conducir a una mayor contaminación. Los monos son los EPI más difíciles de quitar, pero pueden ofrecer la mejor protección, seguida de los vestidos largos, batas y delantales. Los respiradores que se usan con los monos pueden proteger mejor que una máscara que se usa con una bata, pero son más difíciles de poner. Los tipos de EPI más transpirables pueden conducir a niveles similares de contaminación, pero son más cómodos. La contaminación fue común en la mitad de los estudios a pesar de la mejora del EPI. EPI MODIFICADO: Las batas que tienen guantes adheridos al puño, de manera que los guantes y la bata se quitan juntos y cubren la zona de la muñeca, y las batas que se modifican para que se ajusten bien al cuello pueden reducir la contaminación. Además, añadir lengüetas a los guantes y mascarillas también puede conducir a una menor contaminación. Sin embargo, un estudio no encontró menos errores al ponerse o quitarse las batas modificadas. ORIENTACIÓN SOBRE EL USO DEL EPI: Seguir la guía de los CDC para la eliminación del delantal o la bata, o cualquier instrucción para eliminar el EPI en comparación con las propias preferencias de un individuo, pueden reducir la autocontaminación. Quitarse la bata y los guantes en un solo paso, usar 2 pares de guantes y limpiar los guantes con lejía o desinfectante (pero no con alcohol) también puede reducir la contaminación. ENTRENAMIENTO DE LOS USUARIOS: El entrenamiento en persona, la simulación por computadora y el entrenamiento por video condujeron a menos errores en la extracción del EPI, tanto un entrenamiento entregado como material escrito solamente o una conferencia tradicional. CERTEZA DE LA EVIDENCIA: La certeza (confianza) en las evidencias es limitada porque los estudios simularon la infección (es decir, no fue real), y tuvieron un número de participantes pequeño. ¿QUÉ FALTA DESCUBRIR?: No hubo estudios que investigaran las gafas o las pantallas faciales. No queda claro cuál es la mejor manera de quitarse los EPI después de su uso y el mejor tipo de entrenamiento a largo plazo. Los hospitales deben organizar más estudios, y los investigadores deben ponerse de acuerdo sobre la mejor manera de simular la exposición a un virus. En el futuro, los estudios de simulación deben tener al menos 60 participantes cada uno, y utilizar la exposición a un virus inofensivo para evaluar qué tipo y combinación de EPI protege más. Sería útil que los hospitales pudieran registrar el tipo de EPI utilizado por sus trabajadores para proporcionar información urgente de la vida real. FECHA DE LA BÚSQUEDA: Esta revisión incluye pruebas publicadas hasta el 20 de marzo de 2020


No disponible


Assuntos
Humanos , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/provisão & distribuição , Controle de Doenças Transmissíveis/métodos , Líquidos Corporais/microbiologia , Secreções Corporais/microbiologia , Doenças Transmissíveis/epidemiologia , Precauções Universais/métodos , Capacitação Profissional
6.
BMC Geriatr ; 20(1): 214, 2020 06 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32552688

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Hospital length of stays (LOS) for incident of hip fracture are decreasing, but it is unknown if these changes have negative impacts on vulnerable older patient populations, like those with Alzheimer's disease (AD). We aimed to assess if persons with and without AD have different hospital LOS for hip fracture, and is the LOS associated with hospital readmissions. METHODS: Utilizing register-based data for a matched cohort study nested in the Medication use and Alzheimer's disease study (MEDALZ), we collected all community-dwelling persons in Finland diagnosed with AD during 2005-2012, had incident of first hip fracture between 2005 and 2015 after AD diagnosis, and were discharged alive from an acute care hospital. Hospital LOS and hospital readmissions within 30-days and 90-days were compared between those with and without AD and risk of readmission was assessed using binary logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: In this matched cohort study of 12,532 persons (mean age 84.6 years (95% CI: 84.5-84.7), 76.8% women), the median LOS in an acute care hospital was 1 day shorter for those with AD (median 4 days, IQR 3-7) than those without AD (median 5 days, IQR 3-7) (P < 0.001). However, the AD cohort had respectively 6 days and 5 days longer median LOS in a community hospital, and total hospital stay compared to the non-AD cohort (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). Those with AD had fewer readmissions within 30-days (10.7%) and 90-days (16.9%) compared to those without AD (13.3% 30-days and 20.7% 90-days) (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). Both cohorts had a reduced readmission risk within 30-days when the LOS in an acute care hospital was 4-14 days, compared to a LOS less than 4 days. CONCLUSIONS: Persons with AD had shorter acute care hospital LOS, but had longer LOS in a community hospital setting compared to those without AD, which is similar to other findings when comparing total hospital LOS. These findings imply that short LOS in acute care hospitals may be associated with poor health outcomes for vulnerable older populations after hip fracture.


Assuntos
Doença de Alzheimer , Readmissão do Paciente , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Doença de Alzheimer/diagnóstico , Doença de Alzheimer/epidemiologia , Doença de Alzheimer/terapia , Estudos de Coortes , Feminino , Finlândia , Humanos , Tempo de Internação , Masculino
7.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 5: CD011621, 2020 05 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32412096

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), or coronavirus (COVID-19), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk by covering exposed body parts. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to put PPE on (i.e. donning) or to remove PPE (i.e. doffing), and how to train HCWs to use PPE as instructed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate which type of full-body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to 20 March 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all controlled studies that evaluated the effect of full-body PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training on the same outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included trials. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses were appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Earlier versions of this review were published in 2016 and 2019. In this update, we included 24 studies with 2278 participants, of which 14 were randomised controlled trials (RCT), one was a quasi-RCT and nine had a non-randomised design. Eight studies compared types of PPE. Six studies evaluated adapted PPE. Eight studies compared donning and doffing processes and three studies evaluated types of training. Eighteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless microbes. In simulation studies, median contamination rates were 25% for the intervention and 67% for the control groups. Evidence for all outcomes is of very low certainty unless otherwise stated because it is based on one or two studies, the indirectness of the evidence in simulation studies and because of risk of bias. Types of PPE The use of a powered, air-purifying respirator with coverall may protect against the risk of contamination better than a N95 mask and gown (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.43) but was more difficult to don (non-compliance: RR 7.5, 95% CI 1.81 to 31.1). In one RCT (59 participants) coveralls were more difficult to doff than isolation gowns (very low-certainty evidence). Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (small patches: mean difference (MD) -10.28, 95% CI -14.77 to -5.79). PPE made of more breathable material may lead to a similar number of spots on the trunk (MD 1.60, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.35) compared to more water-repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5). According to three studies that tested more recently introduced full-body PPE ensembles, there may be no difference in contamination. Modified PPE versus standard PPE The following modifications to PPE design may lead to less contamination compared to standard PPE: sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55), a better cover of the gown-wrist interface (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78, low-certainty evidence), added tabs to grab to facilitate doffing of masks (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Donning and doffing Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (small patches: MD -5.44, 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45). One-step removal of gloves and gown may lead to less bacterial contamination (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.77) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28) than separate removal. Double-gloving may lead to less viral or bacterial contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28). Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4) and to fewer contamination spots (MD -5, 95% CI -8.08 to -1.92). Extra sanitation of gloves before doffing with quaternary ammonium or bleach may decrease contamination, but not alcohol-based hand rub. Training The use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7). A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70, 95% CI 20.14 to 41.26) than a traditional lecture. Face-to-face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that covering more parts of the body leads to better protection but usually comes at the cost of more difficult donning or doffing and less user comfort. More breathable types of PPE may lead to similar contamination but may have greater user satisfaction. Modifications to PPE design, such as tabs to grab, may decrease the risk of contamination. For donning and doffing procedures, following CDC doffing guidance, a one-step glove and gown removal, double-gloving, spoken instructions during doffing, and using glove disinfection may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than folder-based training. We still need RCTs of training with long-term follow-up. We need simulation studies with more participants to find out which combinations of PPE and which doffing procedure protects best. Consensus on simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. We also need more real-life evidence. Therefore, the use of PPE of HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should be registered and the HCW should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus , Doença pelo Vírus Ebola , Controle de Infecções , Transmissão de Doença Infecciosa do Paciente para o Profissional/prevenção & controle , Pandemias , Equipamento de Proteção Individual , Pneumonia Viral , Síndrome Respiratória Aguda Grave , Betacoronavirus , Líquidos Corporais , COVID-19 , Simulação por Computador , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/prevenção & controle , Infecções por Coronavirus/transmissão , Luvas Protetoras , Pessoal de Saúde , Doença pelo Vírus Ebola/prevenção & controle , Doença pelo Vírus Ebola/transmissão , Humanos , Controle de Infecções/métodos , Razão de Chances , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Pneumonia Viral/prevenção & controle , Pneumonia Viral/transmissão , Roupa de Proteção , Dispositivos de Proteção Respiratória , SARS-CoV-2 , Síndrome Respiratória Aguda Grave/prevenção & controle , Síndrome Respiratória Aguda Grave/transmissão
8.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 4: CD011621, 2020 04 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32293717

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), or coronavirus (COVID-19), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk by covering exposed body parts. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to put PPE on (i.e. donning) or to remove PPE (i.e. doffing), and how to train HCWs to use PPE as instructed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate which type of full-body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to 20 March 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all controlled studies that evaluated the effect of full-body PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training on the same outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included trials. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses were appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Earlier versions of this review were published in 2016 and 2019. In this update, we included 24 studies with 2278 participants, of which 14 were randomised controlled trials (RCT), one was a quasi-RCT and nine had a non-randomised design. Eight studies compared types of PPE. Six studies evaluated adapted PPE. Eight studies compared donning and doffing processes and three studies evaluated types of training. Eighteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless microbes. In simulation studies, median contamination rates were 25% for the intervention and 67% for the control groups. Evidence for all outcomes is of very low certainty unless otherwise stated because it is based on one or two studies, the indirectness of the evidence in simulation studies and because of risk of bias. Types of PPE The use of a powered, air-purifying respirator with coverall may protect against the risk of contamination better than a N95 mask and gown (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.43) but was more difficult to don (non-compliance: RR 7.5, 95% CI 1.81 to 31.1). In one RCT (59 participants), people with a long gown had less contamination than those with a coverall, and coveralls were more difficult to doff (low-certainty evidence). Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (small patches: mean difference (MD) -10.28, 95% CI -14.77 to -5.79). PPE made of more breathable material may lead to a similar number of spots on the trunk (MD 1.60, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.35) compared to more water-repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5). Modified PPE versus standard PPE The following modifications to PPE design may lead to less contamination compared to standard PPE: sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55), a better cover of the gown-wrist interface (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78, low-certainty evidence), added tabs to grab to facilitate doffing of masks (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Donning and doffing Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (small patches: MD -5.44, 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45). One-step removal of gloves and gown may lead to less bacterial contamination (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.77) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28) than separate removal. Double-gloving may lead to less viral or bacterial contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28). Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4) and to fewer contamination spots (MD -5, 95% CI -8.08 to -1.92). Extra sanitation of gloves before doffing with quaternary ammonium or bleach may decrease contamination, but not alcohol-based hand rub. Training The use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7). A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70, 95% CI 20.14 to 41.26) than a traditional lecture. Face-to-face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that covering more parts of the body leads to better protection but usually comes at the cost of more difficult donning or doffing and less user comfort, and may therefore even lead to more contamination. More breathable types of PPE may lead to similar contamination but may have greater user satisfaction. Modifications to PPE design, such as tabs to grab, may decrease the risk of contamination. For donning and doffing procedures, following CDC doffing guidance, a one-step glove and gown removal, double-gloving, spoken instructions during doffing, and using glove disinfection may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than folder-based training. We still need RCTs of training with long-term follow-up. We need simulation studies with more participants to find out which combinations of PPE and which doffing procedure protects best. Consensus on simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. We also need more real-life evidence. Therefore, the use of PPE of HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should be registered and the HCW should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.


Assuntos
Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus/transmissão , Pessoal de Saúde , Transmissão de Doença Infecciosa do Paciente para o Profissional/prevenção & controle , Equipamento de Proteção Individual , Pneumonia Viral/transmissão , Líquidos Corporais/virologia , COVID-19 , Simulação por Computador , Doença pelo Vírus Ebola/transmissão , Humanos , Pandemias , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Dispositivos de Proteção Respiratória , SARS-CoV-2 , Síndrome Respiratória Aguda Grave/transmissão
9.
Drugs Aging ; 37(4): 241-261, 2020 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32107741

RESUMO

The use of psychotropic drugs (antipsychotics, benzodiazepines and benzodiazepine-related drugs, and antidepressants) is common, with a prevalence estimates range of 19-29% among community dwelling older adults. These drugs are often prescribed for off-label use, including neuropsychiatric symptoms. The older adult population also has high rates of pneumonia and some of these cases may be associated with adverse drug events. In this narrative review, we summarize the findings from current observational studies on the association between psychotropic drug use and pneumonia in older adults. In addition to studies assessing the use of psychotropics, we included antiepileptic drugs, as they are also central nervous system-acting drugs, whose use is becoming more common in the aging population. The use of antipsychotics, benzodiazepine, and benzodiazepine-related drugs are associated with increased risk of pneumonia in older adults (≥ 65 years of age), and these findings are not limited to this age group. Minimal and conflicting evidence has been reported on the association between antidepressant drug use and pneumonia, but differences between study populations make it difficult to compare findings. Studies regarding antiepileptic drug use and risk of pneumonia in older persons are lacking, although an increased risk of pneumonia in antiepileptic drug users compared with non-users in persons with Alzheimer's disease has been reported. Tools such as the American Geriatric Society Beers Criteria and the STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate medications aids prescribers to avoid these drugs in order to reduce the risk of adverse drug events. However, risk of pneumonia is not mentioned in the current criteria and more research on this topic is needed, especially in vulnerable populations, such as persons with dementia.


Assuntos
Pneumonia/induzido quimicamente , Psicotrópicos/efeitos adversos , Idoso , Doença de Alzheimer/tratamento farmacológico , Antidepressivos/efeitos adversos , Antipsicóticos/uso terapêutico , Humanos
10.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 7: CD011621, 2019 07 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31259389

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Contact precautions by means of personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to remove PPE, and how to make sure HCW use PPE as instructed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate which type of full body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of self-contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (PubMed up to 15 July 2018), Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL up to 18 June 2019), Scopus (Scopus 18 June 2019), CINAHL (EBSCOhost 31 July 2018), and OSH-Update (up to 31 December 2018). We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews, and contacted NGOs and manufacturers of PPE. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all controlled studies that compared the effects of PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases with serious consequences, such as Ebola or SARS, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. This included studies that used simulated contamination with fluorescent markers or a non-pathogenic virus.We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training in PPE use on the same outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included trials. We planned to perform meta-analyses but did not find sufficiently similar studies to combine their results. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies with 1950 participants evaluating 21 interventions. Ten studies are Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs), one is a quasi RCT and six have a non-randomised controlled design. Two studies are awaiting assessment.Ten studies compared types of PPE but only six of these reported sufficient data. Six studies compared different types of donning and doffing and three studies evaluated different types of training. Fifteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless viruses. In simulation studies, contamination rates varied from 10% to 100% of participants for all types of PPE. In one study HCW were exposed to Ebola and in another to SARS.Evidence for all outcomes is based on single studies and is very low quality.Different types of PPEPPE made of more breathable material may not lead to more contamination spots on the trunk (Mean Difference (MD) 1.60 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -0.15 to 3.35) than more water repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46; 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5).Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (MD large patches -1.36 95% CI -1.78 to -0.94).The use of a powered air-purifying respirator may protect better than a simple ensemble of PPE without such respirator (Relative Risk (RR) 0.27; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.43).Five different PPE ensembles (such as gown vs. coverall, boots with or without covers, hood vs. cap, length and number of gloves) were evaluated in one study, but there were no event data available for compared groups.Alterations to PPE design may lead to less contamination such as added tabs to grab masks (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31), a sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), or a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55) compared to standard PPE.Different methods of donning and doffing proceduresDouble gloving may lead to less contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78).Following CDC recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (MD small patches -5.44; 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45).Alcohol-based hand rub used during the doffing process may not lead to less contamination than the use of a hypochlorite based solution (MD 4.00; 95% CI 0.47 to 34.24).Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4).Different types of trainingThe use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7).A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70; 95% CI 20.14,41.26) than a traditional lecture.Face to face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only.There were no studies on effects of training in the long term or on resource use.The quality of the evidence is very low for all comparisons because of high risk of bias in all studies, indirectness of evidence, and small numbers of participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low quality evidence that more breathable types of PPE may not lead to more contamination, but may have greater user satisfaction. Alterations to PPE, such as tabs to grab may decrease contamination. Double gloving, following CDC doffing guidance, and spoken instructions during doffing may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than video or folder based training. Because data come from single small studies with high risk of bias, we are uncertain about the estimates of effects.We still need randomised controlled trials to find out which training works best in the long term. We need better simulation studies conducted with several dozen participants to find out which PPE protects best, and what is the safest way to remove PPE. Consensus on the best way to conduct simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should have their use of PPE registered and should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection in the field.


Assuntos
Pessoal de Saúde , Transmissão de Doença Infecciosa do Paciente para o Profissional/prevenção & controle , Equipamento de Proteção Individual , Líquidos Corporais , Luvas Protetoras , Doença pelo Vírus Ebola/prevenção & controle , Doença pelo Vírus Ebola/transmissão , Humanos , Roupa de Proteção , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Síndrome Respiratória Aguda Grave/prevenção & controle , Síndrome Respiratória Aguda Grave/transmissão
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...