| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Ademuyiwa, Adesoji O., et al.
(författare)
-
Determinants of morbidity and mortality following emergency abdominal surgery in children in low-income and middle-income countries
- 2016
-
Ingår i: BMJ Global Health. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 2059-7908. ; 1:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Child health is a key priority on the global health agenda, yet the provision of essential and emergency surgery in children is patchy in resource-poor regions. This study was aimed to determine the mortality risk for emergency abdominal paediatric surgery in low-income countries globally.Methods: Multicentre, international, prospective, cohort study. Self-selected surgical units performing emergency abdominal surgery submitted prespecified data for consecutive children aged <16 years during a 2-week period between July and December 2014. The United Nation's Human Development Index (HDI) was used to stratify countries. The main outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality, analysed by multilevel logistic regression.Results: This study included 1409 patients from 253 centres in 43 countries; 282 children were under 2 years of age. Among them, 265 (18.8%) were from low-HDI, 450 (31.9%) from middle-HDI and 694 (49.3%) from high-HDI countries. The most common operations performed were appendectomy, small bowel resection, pyloromyotomy and correction of intussusception. After adjustment for patient and hospital risk factors, child mortality at 30 days was significantly higher in low-HDI (adjusted OR 7.14 (95% CI 2.52 to 20.23), p<0.001) and middle-HDI (4.42 (1.44 to 13.56), p=0.009) countries compared with high-HDI countries, translating to 40 excess deaths per 1000 procedures performed.Conclusions: Adjusted mortality in children following emergency abdominal surgery may be as high as 7 times greater in low-HDI and middle-HDI countries compared with high-HDI countries. Effective provision of emergency essential surgery should be a key priority for global child health agendas.
|
|
| 3. |
- Conte, Michael S, et al.
(författare)
-
Global vascular guidelines on the management of chronic limb-threatening ischemia.
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of Vascular Surgery. - : Elsevier BV. - 0741-5214 .- 1097-6809. ; 69:6S, s. 3S-125S.e40
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is associated with mortality, amputation, and impaired quality of life. These Global Vascular Guidelines (GVG) are focused on definition, evaluation, and management of CLTI with the goals of improving evidence-based care and highlighting critical research needs. The term CLTI is preferred over critical limb ischemia, as the latter implies threshold values of impaired perfusion rather than a continuum. CLTI is a clinical syndrome defined by the presence of peripheral artery disease (PAD) in combination with rest pain, gangrene, or a lower limb ulceration >2 weeks duration. Venous, traumatic, embolic, and nonatherosclerotic etiologies are excluded. All patients with suspected CLTI should be referred urgently to a vascular specialist. Accurately staging the severity of limb threat is fundamental, and the Society for Vascular Surgery Threatened Limb Classification system, based on grading of Wounds, Ischemia, and foot Infection (WIfI) is endorsed. Objective hemodynamic testing, including toe pressures as the preferred measure, is required to assess CLTI. Evidence-based revascularization (EBR) hinges on three independent axes: Patient risk, Limb severity, and ANatomic complexity (PLAN). Average-risk and high-risk patients are defined by estimated procedural and 2-year all-cause mortality. The GVG proposes a new Global Anatomic Staging System (GLASS), which involves defining a preferred target artery path (TAP) and then estimating limb-based patency (LBP), resulting in three stages of complexity for intervention. The optimal revascularization strategy is also influenced by the availability of autogenous vein for open bypass surgery. Recommendations for EBR are based on best available data, pending level 1 evidence from ongoing trials. Vein bypass may be preferred for average-risk patients with advanced limb threat and high complexity disease, while those with less complex anatomy, intermediate severity limb threat, or high patient risk may be favored for endovascular intervention. All patients with CLTI should be afforded best medical therapy including the use of antithrombotic, lipid-lowering, antihypertensive, and glycemic control agents, as well as counseling on smoking cessation, diet, exercise, and preventive foot care. Following EBR, long-term limb surveillance is advised. The effectiveness of nonrevascularization therapies (eg, spinal stimulation, pneumatic compression, prostanoids, and hyperbaric oxygen) has not been established. Regenerative medicine approaches (eg, cell, gene therapies) for CLTI should be restricted to rigorously conducted randomizsed clinical trials. The GVG promotes standardization of study designs and end points for clinical trials in CLTI. The importance of multidisciplinary teams and centers of excellence for amputation prevention is stressed as a key health system initiative.
|
|
| 4. |
- Conte, Michael S., et al.
(författare)
-
Global Vascular Guidelines on the Management of Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia
- 2019
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. - : Saunders Elsevier. - 1078-5884 .- 1532-2165. ; 58:1, s. S1-S109
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is associated with mortality, amputation, and impaired quality of life. These Global Vascular Guidelines (GVG) are focused on definition, evaluation, and management of CLTI with the goals of improving evidence-based care and highlighting critical research needs. The term CLTI is preferred over critical limb ischemia, as the latter implies threshold values of impaired perfusion rather than a continuum. CLTI is a clinical syndrome defined by the presence of peripheral artery disease (PAD) in combination with rest pain, gangrene, or a lower limb ulceration >2 weeks duration. Venous, traumatic, embolic, and nonatherosclerotic etiologies are excluded. All patients with suspected CLTI should be referred urgently to a vascular specialist. Accurately staging the severity of limb threat is fundamental, and the Society for Vascular Surgery Threatened Limb Classification system, based on grading of Wounds, Ischemia, and foot Infection (WIfI) is endorsed. Objective hemodynamic testing, including toe pressures as the preferred measure, is required to assess CLTI. Evidence-based revascularization (EBR) hinges on three independent axes: Patient risk, Limb severity, and ANatomic complexity (PLAN). Average-risk and high-risk patients are defined by estimated procedural and 2-year all-cause mortality. The GVG proposes a new Global Anatomic Staging System (GLASS), which involves defining a preferred target artery path (TAP) and then estimating limb-based patency (LBP), resulting in three stages of complexity for intervention. The optimal revascularization strategy is also influenced by the availability of autogenous vein for open bypass surgery. Recommendations for EBR are based on best available data, pending level 1 evidence from ongoing trials. Vein bypass may be preferred for average-risk patients with advanced limb threat and high complexity disease, while those with less complex anatomy, intermediate severity limb threat, or high patient risk may be favored for endovascular intervention. All patients with CLTI should be afforded best medical therapy including the use of antithrombotic, lipid-lowering, antihypertensive, and glycemic control agents, as well as counseling on smoking cessation, diet, exercise, and preventive foot care. Following EBR, long-term limb surveillance is advised. The effectiveness of nonrevascularization therapies (eg, spinal stimulation, pneumatic compression, prostanoids, and hyperbaric oxygen) has not been established. Regenerative medicine approaches (eg, cell, gene therapies) for CLTI should be restricted to rigorously conducted randomizsed clinical trials. The GVG promotes standardization of study designs and end points for clinical trials in CLTI. The importance of multidisciplinary teams and centers of excellence for amputation prevention is stressed as a key health system initiative.
|
|
| 5. |
- Huber, Thomas S., et al.
(författare)
-
Chronic mesenteric ischemia : Clinical practice guidelines from the Society for Vascular Surgery
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of Vascular Surgery. - : Elsevier. - 0741-5214 .- 1097-6809. ; 73:1, s. 87S-115S
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI) results from the inability to achieve adequate postprandial intestinal blood flow, usually from atherosclerotic occlusive disease at the origins of the mesenteric vessels. Patients typically present with postprandial pain, food fear, and weight loss, although they can present with acute mesenteric ischemia and bowel infarction. The diagnosis requires a combination of the appropriate clinical symptoms and significant mesenteric artery occlusive disease, although it is often delayed given the spectrum of gastrointestinal disorders associated with abdominal pain and weight loss. The treatment goals include relieving the presenting symptoms, preventing progression to acute mesenteric ischemia, and improving overall quality of life. These practice guidelines were developed to provide the best possible evidence for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with CMI from atherosclerosis. Methods: The Society for Vascular Surgery established a committee composed of vascular surgeons and individuals experienced with evidence-based reviews. The committee focused on six specific areas, including the diagnostic evaluation, indications for treatment, choice of treatment, perioperative evaluation, endovascular/open revascularization, and surveillance/remediation. A formal systematic review was performed by the evidence team to identify the optimal technique for revascularization. Specific practice recommendations were developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system based on review of literature, the strength of the data, and consensus. Results: Patients with symptoms consistent with CMI should undergo an expedited workup, including a computed tomography arteriogram, to exclude other potential causes. The diagnosis is supported by significant arterial occlusive disease in the mesenteric vessels, particularly the superior mesenteric artery. Treatment requires revascularization with the primary target being the superior mesenteric artery. Endovascular revascularization with a balloon-expandable covered intraluminal stent is there commended initial treatment with open repair reserved for select younger patients and those who are not endovascular candidates. Long-term follow-up and surveillance are recommended after revascularization and for asymptomatic patients with severe mesenteric occlusive disease. Patient with recurrent symptoms after revascularization owing to recurrent stenoses should be treated with an endovascular-first approach, similar to the de novo lesion. Conclusions: These practice guidelines were developed based on the best available evidence. They should help to optimize the care of patients with CMI. Multiple areas for future research were identified. (J Vasc Surg 2021;73:87S-115S.)
|
|
| 6. |
- Hultcrantz, Monica, et al.
(författare)
-
The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. - : Pergamon Press. - 0895-4356 .- 1878-5921. ; 87, s. 4-13
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To clarify the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) definition of certainty of evidence and suggest possible approaches to rating certainty of the evidence for systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and guidelines. Study Design and Setting: This work was carried out by a project group within the GRADE Working Group, through brainstorming and iterative refinement of ideas, using input from workshops, presentations, and discussions at GRADE Working Group meetings to produce this document, which constitutes official GRADE guidance. Results: Certainty of evidence is best considered as the certainty that a true effect lies on one side of a specified threshold or within a chosen range. We define possible approaches for choosing threshold or range. For guidelines, what we call a fully contextualized approach requires simultaneously considering all critical outcomes and their relative value. Less-contextualized approaches, more appropriate for systematic reviews and health technology assessments, include using specified ranges of magnitude of effect, for example, ranges of what we might consider no effect, trivial, small, moderate, or large effects. Conclusion: It is desirable for systematic review authors, guideline panelists, and health technology assessors to specify the threshold or ranges they are using when rating the certainty in evidence. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.
|
|
