SwePub
Sök i SwePub databas

  Extended search

Träfflista för sökning "WFRF:(Sloot R) "

Search: WFRF:(Sloot R)

  • Result 1-6 of 6
Sort/group result
   
EnumerationReferenceCoverFind
1.
  • Sloot, Frea, et al. (author)
  • Inventory of current EU paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes
  • 2015
  • In: Journal of Medical Screening. - : SAGE Publications. - 0969-1413 .- 1475-5793. ; 22:2, s. 55-64
  • Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
    • Objective: To examine the diversity in paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes in Europe. Methods: Themes for comparison of screening programmes derived from literature were used to compile three questionnaires on vision, hearing, and public health screening. Tests used, professions involved, age, and frequency of testing seem to influence sensitivity, specificity, and costs most. Questionnaires were sent to ophthalmologists, orthoptists, otolaryngologists, and audiologists involved in paediatric screening in all EU full-member, candidate, and associate states. Answers were cross-checked. Results: Thirty-nine countries participated; 35 have a vision screening programme, 33 a nation-wide neonatal hearing screening programme. Visual acuity (VA) is measured in 35 countries, in 71% of these more than once. First measurement of VA varies from three to seven years of age, but is usually before age five. At age three and four, picture charts, including Lea Hyvarinen, are used most; in children over four, Tumbling-E and Snellen. As first hearing screening test, otoacoustic emission is used most in healthy neonates, and auditory brainstem response in premature newborns. The majority of hearing testing programmes are staged; children are referred after 1–4 abnormal tests. Vision screening is performed mostly by paediatricians, ophthalmologists, or nurses. Funding is mostly by health insurance or state. Coverage was reported as >95% in half of countries, but reporting was often not first-hand. Conclusion: Largest differences were found in VA charts used (12), professions involved in vision screening (10), number of hearing screening tests before referral (1–4), and funding sources (8).
  •  
2.
  • Engström, A E, et al. (author)
  • Mechanical circulatory support with the Impella 5.0 device for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock: a three-center experience
  • 2013
  • In: Minerva Cardioangiologica. - : Edizione Minerva Medica. - 0026-4725 .- 1827-1618. ; 61:5, s. 539-546
  • Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
    • AIM:Postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCCS) is associated with high mortality rates, despite full conventional treatment. Although the results of treatment with surgically implantable ventricular assist devices have been encouraging, the invasiveness of this treatment limits its applicability. Several less invasive devices have been developed, including the Impella system. The objective of this study was to describe our three-center experience with the Impella 5.0 device in the setting of PCCS.METHODS:From January 2004 through December 2010, a total of 46 patients were diagnosed with treatment-refractory PCCS and treated with the Impella 5.0 percutaneous left ventricular assist device at three european heart centers. Baseline and follow-up characteristics were collected retrospectively and entered into a dedicated database.RESULTS:Within the study cohort of 46 patients, mean logistic and additive EuroSCORES were 24 ± 19 and 10 ± 4. The majority of patients underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (48%) or combined surgery (33%). Half of all patients had been treated with an intra-aortic balloon pump before 5.0-implantation, 1 patient had been treated with an Impella 2.5 device. All patients were on mechanical ventilation and intravenous inotropes. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of overall 30-day survival was 39.5%.CONCLUSION:Thirty-day survival rates for patients with PCCS, refractory to aggressive conventional treatment and treated with the Impella 5.0 device, are comparable to those reported in studies evaluating surgically implantable VADs, whereas the Impella system is much less invasive. Therefore, mechanical circulatory support with the Impella 5.0 device is a suitable treatment modality for patients with severe PCCS.
  •  
3.
  •  
4.
  •  
5.
  •  
6.
  •  
Skapa referenser, mejla, bekava och länka
  • Result 1-6 of 6

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Close

Copy and save the link in order to return to this view