Search

Abstract Background and objectives The primary aim was to determine risk factors for flumazenil administration during postanesthesia recovery. A secondary aim was to describe outcomes among patients who received flumazenil. Methods Patients admitted to the postanesthesia recovery room at a large, academic, tertiary care facility after surgery under general anesthesia from January 1, 2010, to April 30, 2015, were identified and matched to 2 controls each, by age, sex, and surgical procedure. Flumazenil was administered in the recovery phase immediately after general anesthesia, according to the clinical judgment of the anesthesiologist. Demographic, procedural, and outcome data were extracted from the electronic health record. Conditional logistic regression, accounting for the 1:2 matched-set case-control study designs, was used to assess characteristics associated with flumazenil use. Results The incidence of flumazenil administration in the postanesthesia care unit was 9.9 per 10,000 (95% CI, 8.4-11.6) general anesthetics. History of obstructive sleep apnea (Odds Ratio [OR] = 2.27; 95% CI 1.02-5.09), longer anesthesia (OR = 1.13; 95% CI 1.03-1.24 per 30 minutes), use of total intravenous anesthesia (OR = 6.09; 95% CI 2.60-14.25), and use of benzodiazepines (OR = 8.17; 95% CI 3.71-17.99) were associated with risk for flumazenil administration. Among patients who received midazolam, cases treated with flumazenil received a higher median (interquartile range) dose than controls: 3.5 mg (2.0-4.0 mg) vs. 2.0 mg (2.0-2.0 mg), respectively (p < 0.001). Flumazenil use was correlated with a higher rate of unanticipated noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, longer postanesthesia care unit stay, and increased rate of intensive care unit admissions. Conclusions Patients who required flumazenil postoperatively had received a higher dosage of benzodiazepines and utilized more postoperative health care resources. More conservative perioperative use of benzodiazepines may improve postoperative recovery and use of health care resources.

Considero três questões principais. Em primeiro lugar, a relação ente os conceitos de Justificação, Justiça e Legitimidade. Eu abordo estes conceitos a partir de teorias similares, embora divergentes, como encontradas primeiramente em John Rawls e sua teoria do liberalimso político, nomeadamente em Justice as Fairness e depois em Jürgen Habermas, em Between Facts and Norms, nomeadamente suas teorias acerca da Communicative Action and Discourse Ethics. Em segundo lugar, qual é o nível adequado da relação entre legitimidade e justiça? Quais instituições sociais são as melhores para descrever a legitimidade e para o que isso se aplica? Em terceiro lugar, enfim, eu apresento uma argumentação demonstrando que a legitimidade não é suficiente para uma teoria completa da justiça. Sendo justiça e legitimidade conceitos divergentes, então este último, enquanto o termo mais fraco, falha em proporcionar uma estrutura social estável. Para construir esta argumentação, eu foco no distanciamento entre Habermas e Rawls acerca da temática do Liberalismo Político.

Objective: To evaluate the ability of the 6-Minute Walk Test to predict long-term physical functional status improvement among intensive care unit survivors., Methods: Thirty-two intensive care unit survivors were prospectively evaluated from February 2017 to August 2018 in a post-intensive care unit outpatient clinic in Brazil. Individuals with intensive care unit stays > 72 hours (emergency admissions) or > 120 hours (elective admissions) attending the post-intensive care unit clinic four months after intensive care unit discharge were consecutively enrolled. The association between the 6-Minute Walk Test distance at baseline and physical functional status was assessed over 8 months using the Barthel Index., Results: The mean 6-Minute Walk Test distance was significantly lower in intensive care unit survivors than in the general population (405m versus 557m; p < 0.001). Age (β = -4.0; p < 0.001) and muscle weakness (β = -99.7; p = 0.02) were associated with the 6-Minute Walk Test distance. A 6-Minute Walk Test distance was associated with improvement in physical functional status over the 8-month follow-up (odds ratio for each 10m of 1.07; 95%CI 1.01 - 1.16; p = 0.03). The area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve for the 6-Minute Walk Test prediction of physical functional status improvement was 0.72 (95%CI 0.53 - 0.88)., Conclusion: The 6-Minute Walk Test performed 4 months after intensive care unit discharge predicted long-term physical functional status among intensive care unit survivors with moderate accuracy.

Objective: To compare the functional capacity of younger elderly individuals (60 to 79 years old) with that of older elderly individuals (≥ 80 years old) during the first 6 months after discharge from the intensive care unit., Methods: A multicenter prospective cohort study was conducted, in which data on intensive care unit admission and outcomes after hospital discharge (immediate post-discharge, after 3 months and after 6 months) were collected. Muscle strength was evaluated through the protocol of the Medical Research Council and dynamometry (handgrip); the ability to perform activities of daily life and functional independence were assessed by the Barthel index and the usual level of physical activity (International Physical Activity Questionnaire); and quality of life was assessed by the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2., Results: Among the 253 patients included, 167 were younger elderly (between 61 and 79 years old), and 86 were older elderly (≥ 80 years old). During the sixth month of evaluation, the older elderlies presented a higher need for a caregiver (69.0% versus 49, 5%, p = 0.002). Functional capacity prior to intensive care unit admission and in the third month after discharge was lower in older elderlies than in younger ones (Barthel prior to the intensive care unit: 73.0 ± 30.0 versus 86.5 ± 22.6; p <0.001, Barthel in the third month: 63.5 ± 34.0 versus 71.5 ± 35.5, p = 0.03), as was the usual level of physical activity (International Physical Activity Questionnaire in the third month: active/very active 3.4% versus 18.3%, no physical activity 64.4% versus 39.7%, p < 0.001, and International Physical Activity Questionnaire in the sixth month: active/very active 5.8% versus 20.8%, no physical activity 69.2% versus 43.4%, p = 0.005). Older elderlies had lower muscle strength when assessed according to handgrip in both the dominant (14.5 ± 7.7 versus 19.9 ± 9.6, p = 0.008) and non-dominant limb (13.1 ± 6.7 versus 17.5 ± 9.1, p = 0.02). There were no differences in functional capacity loss or reported quality of life between the age groups., Conclusion: Although there were great functional capacity losses after discharge from the intensive care unit in both age groups, there was no difference in the magnitude of functional capacity loss between younger (60 to 79 years) and older elderly individuals (≥ 80 years old) during the first 6 months after discharge from the intensive care unit.