Is routine extubation overnight safe in cardiac surgery patients?

Objectives

Expedient extubation after cardiac surgery has been associated with improved outcomes, leading to postoperative extubation frequently during overnight hours. However, recent evidence in a mixed medical-surgical intensive care unit population demonstrated worse outcomes with overnight extubation. This study investigated the impact of overnight extubation in a statewide, multicenter Society of Thoracic Surgeons database.

分诊安全管理结合风险管理提高急诊科护理质量评分的作用分析

目的探讨分诊安全管理结合风险管理提高急诊科护理质量评分的作用。方法该院于2018年6月起加强对急诊科的分诊安全管理结合风险管理,以于2017年6月—2019年6月在该院急诊科就诊的患者为研究对象,评价管理策略实施前后护理风险发生率、护理质量评分以及患者满意度等评价指标变化情况。结果实施后基础护理、实践操作、消毒隔离、急救药品、护理文件方面的护理质量评分均较实施前显著提高(P<0.05);实施后护理差错、护理缺陷、护理投诉的发生率分别为0.26%、0.58%、0.19%,均较实施前显著降低(P<0.05);实施后护理总满意率为94.92%,较实施前显著提高(P<0.05)。结论分诊安全管理结合风险管理有效提高了急诊科护理质量,提升了患者满意度,减少了护理风险事件的发生。     

肝内胆管癌肝切除术后“教科书式结局”影响因素分析及预测模型建立

目的 分析肝内胆管癌（ICC）病人肝切除术后“教科书式结局”（TO）的影响因素，构建预测TO评分模型。方法 回顾性分析2011年1月至2017年1月东南大学附属中大医院和中国人民解放军东部战区总医院八一医院收治的261例行肝切除术的ICC病人临床病理资料，分析影响TO的独立危险因素，根据危险因素的权重构建预测TO的评分模型。结果 261例ICC病人中，67例（25.7%）术后发生TO。年龄、肝硬化、手术时间和T分期［第8版美国癌症联合委员会（AJCC）癌症分期］为术后TO的独立预测因素。依此4项因素构建的评分模型显示了较好的预测准确性，最佳截断值为-1.9分，其敏感度为67.2%，特异度为62.9%。一致性检验显示其预测概率和实际发生概率有着较好的一致性（χ2=1.350，P=0.853）。结论 基于年龄、肝硬化、手术时间、T分期4个因素建立的评分模型可较准确地预测ICC病人术后TO的可能性，即手术时间短、无肝硬化、肿瘤直径<5 cm的年轻ICC病人肝切除后获得TO的可能性更大。     

Cardiovascular risk assessment tools: A scoping review

ObjectivesThe objective of this review was to describe cardiovascular risk (CVR) assessment methods and to identify evidence-based practice recommendations when dealing with population at risk of developing cardiovascular diseases.Review methods and data sourcesA literature review following the Arksey and O'Malley scoping review methodology was conducted. By using appropriate key terms, literature searches were conducted in PubMed, SciELO, Cochrane Library, Dialnet, ENFISPO, Medigraphic, ScienceDirect, Cuiden, and Lilacs databases. A complementary search on websites related to the area of interest was conducted. Articles published in English or Spanish in peer-review journals between 2010 and 2017. Critical appraisal for methodological quality was conducted. Data was extracted using ad-hoc tables and qualitatively synthesized.ResultsAfter eliminating duplicates, 55 325 records remained, and 1432 records were selected for screening. Out of these, 88 full-text articles were selected for eligibility criteria, and finally, 67 studies were selected for this review, and 25 studies were selected for evidence synthesis. In total, 23 CVR assessment tools have been identified, pioneered by the Framingham study. Qualitative findings were grouped into four thematic areas: assessment tools and scores, CVR indicators, comparative models, and evidence-based recommendations.ConclusionsIt is necessary to adapt the instruments to the epidemiological reality of the population. The most appropriate way to estimate CVR is to choose the assessment tool that best suits individual conditions, accompanied by a comprehensive assessment of the patient. More research is required to determine a single, adequate, and reliable tool.