尿干化学法和离心沉渣镜检法检测穿刺羊水母体细胞污染的应用

目的　探讨一种快速简便鉴别羊水母血污染的方案。方法　选取30 例2019 年6~10 月羊水穿刺样本, 检测 羊水及母血DNA，将母血DNA 污染量换算对应体积全血量建立羊水母血DNA 污染梯度模型，运用尿干化学法及离 心沉渣镜检法检测母血污染情况。结果　羊水母血DNA 污染率为5%，10%，20% 和30%，尿干化学法检出率分别为 16.67%，60%，100% 和100%；离心沉渣镜检法检出率分别为60%，100%，100% 和100%。结论　尿干化学法及离心 沉渣镜检法联合检测可更简便快捷地进行羊水母血污染鉴定，检出率与母血DNA 污染率呈正比关系。     

Safety and efficacy of different anesthetic regimens for parturients with COVID-19 undergoing Cesarean delivery: a case series of 17 patients

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie - To assess the management and safety of epidural or general anesthesia for Cesarean delivery in parturients with coronavirus...     

Use of a Checklist During Observation of a Simulated Cardiac Arrest Scenario Does Not Improve Time to CPR and Defibrillation Over Observation Alone for Subsequent Scenarios

Theory: Immersive simulation is a common mode of education for medical students. Observation of clinical simulations prior to participation is believed to be beneficial, though this is often a passive process. Active observation may be more beneficial. Hypotheses: The hypothesis tested in this study was that the active use of a simple checklist during observation of an immersive simulation would result in better participant performance in a subsequent scenario compared with passive observation alone. Methods: Medical students were randomized to either passive or active (with checklist) observation of an immersive simulation involving cardiac arrest prior to participating in their own simulation. Performance measures included time to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and time to defibrillation and were compared between first and second scenarios as well as between passive and active observers. Results: Seventy-nine simulations involving 232 students were conducted. Mean time to CPR was 18 seconds (SD = 11.6) for those using the checklist and 24 seconds (SD = 15.8) for those who observed passively (M difference = 6 seconds), t(35) = 1.46, p =.153. Time to defibrillation was 94 seconds (SD = 26.4) for those using the checklist and 92 seconds (SD = 23.8) for those who observed passively (M difference = –2 seconds), t(38) =.21, p =.837. Time to CPR was 24 seconds (SD = 15.8) for passive observers and 31 seconds (SD = 21.0; M difference = 7 seconds), t(35) = 1.13, p =.265, for their first scenario counterparts. Time to CPR was 18 seconds (SD = 11.6) for active observers and 36 seconds (SD = 26.2; M difference = 18 seconds), t(24) = 2.81, p =.010, for their first scenario counterparts. Time to defibrillation was 92 seconds (SD = 23.8) for passive observers and 125 seconds (SD = 32.2; M difference = 33 seconds), t(33) = 3.63, p =.001, for their first scenario counterparts. Time to defibrillation was 94 seconds (SD = 26.4) for the active observers and 132 seconds (SD = 52.9; M difference = 38 seconds), t(28) =.46, p =.008, for their first scenario counterparts. Conclusions: Observation alone leads to improved performance in the management of a simulated cardiac arrest. The active use of a simple skills-based checklist during observation did not appear to improve performance over passive observation alone.