View clinical trials related to Emergencies.
Filter by:This study wants to compared the safety and efficacy of GDTs using standard pressure-related parameters vs. dynamic hemodynamic indices associated with fluid compartment monitoring, in septic patients requiring emergency surgery.
This study compares the safety and efficacy of GDTs using standard pressure-related parameters vs. dynamic hemodynamic indices associated with fluid compartment monitoring, in trauma patients requiring emergency surgery.
The purpose of the study is to determine the efficacity of a simple blind technic of loco regional anaesthesia of the sciatic nerve compared to the gold standard in emergency medecine : the intravenous morphine for treated the severe pain of leg, ankle or foot trauma in the prehospital setting and mountain rescue.
The purpose of the current study is proposed to prospectively assess how accurately the BrainScope® Ahead™ M-100 can distinguish risk categories for acute head injury.
Rationale: Heart Failure (HF) elevated prevalence in Brasil and the world; 20-30% AHF patients develop CardioRenal Syndrome (CRS) type 1; Worsening Renal Failure (WRF) is a prognostic marker of mortality in Acute HF;NGAL is a novel biomarker of Acute Kidney Injury released in 2 hours, and addressed in several different clinical scenarios(contrast injury, cardiopulmonary bypass, critical illness. Hypothesis: Admission NGAL predicts CRS in AHF patients admitted to the Emergency Room (ER). Primary goal: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and the best cutoff value of urinary NGAL to predict the development of CRS type 1 in patients admitted to the Emergency Room. Secondary goals: 1- To evaluate the prognostic impact of NGAL on in-hospital adverse outcomes (length of hospitalization, death, institution of renal replacement therapy, use of vasoactive drugs, mechanical ventilation).2- Evaluate the prognostic impact of NGAL in adverse outcomes in 30 days, 60 days and 6 months (death, rehospitalization, institution of renal replacement therapy).3- Identify clinical and hemodynamic characteristics of Acute HF that can influence the evolutionary behavior of NGAL levels in 48 hours.4- Identify the association of drugs commonly used for HF management, which might influence the evolutionary behavior of NGAL levels in 48 hours.5-Assess the impact of NGAL results in clinical decision making. Methods: Observational, prospective, blinded study. Population: Acute HF patients admitted to the ER of Hospital Pró Cardiaco and Hospital Antonio Pedro - Universidade Federal Fluminense. Statistics: Convenience Sample size (n=180); determination of best cut-off: ROC analysis; Predictive performance of the cut-off: sensibility, specificity, likelihood ratio, predictive value, accuracy; Identification of variables to predict CRS: logistic regression and square-Qui test; Correlations analysis of normally distributed variables: Pearson's linear correlation test; Mean values for normally distributed variables: Mann-Wittney test; Significance on p<0,05; Intra-assay variation analysis. Study chronogram: Recruitment: 12 months; Results analysis and conclusions: 60 days; Manuscript preparation for paper submission: 30 days.
The objective of this trial is to evaluate postoperative intermediate care versus ward care in patients who have undergone emergency abdominal surgery with a perioperative Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score ≥ 10 (high risk patients). Patients will be enrolled in the trial, if they are ready to be discharged from the recovery unit or intensive/intermediate care unit to the surgical ward within 24 hours after surgery. Discharge criteria will be according to the Danish national recommendation. The intermediate care bed in the trial is defined by a certain minimum requirements to patient observation and described treatment possibilities which have to be available to the intermediate bed. If the treatment exceeds these treatment possibilities, the patient will be classified as an intensive care patient. The intermediate care bed will be placed at an intensive care unit, recovery unit or a surgical high dependency unit. If there is no available intermediate care bed, the patients will not be randomized, but only registered as "excluded because of no available intermediate care bed". Hypothesis: Postoperative intermediate care for 48 hours or more will reduce the 30-day mortality in emergency abdominal surgery patients with a high risk of postoperative organ failure. Interim analysis: An independent Data Monitoring and Safety Committee (DMSC) will conducted the interim analysis based on the analysis of the primary outcome blinded for intervention allocation. The DMSC will use P<0.001 (Haybittle-Peto) on two subsequent interim analyses as the statistical limit to guide its recommendations regarding early termination of the trial for benefit or harm. The first interim analysis will be conducted when the 30 days follow-up data of about 50% (i.e., about 200 patients) of the trial participants have been obtained and/or 75 deaths have been documented during the trial. If P<0,001 in the first interim analysis a second interim analysis will be conducted when the 30 days follow-up data of about 75% (i.e., about 300 patients) of the trial participants have been obtained and/or 25 deaths have been documented during the trial. Trial terminated on the 30th November 2012. The Data Monitor Committee found a very low overall event rate of the primary outcome at the first interim-analysis as compared to the pre-trial estimated. This precluding any possibility to detect or reject the anticipated relative risk reduction of 34 % as used in the sample size estimation.
The short term goal of this study is to evaluate a non-invasive approach that optimizes intravenous (IV) fluid administration according to heart performance and results in surrogate improvements in morbidity and mortality via lactate clearance. Additional objectives include comparative assessments of methods for determining volume responsiveness and establishing a prevalence of volume responsive shock in the Emergency Department (ED).
Introduction Numerous drugs and combinations of drugs are used for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in Emergency Departments, including propofol, ketamine, benzodiazepines, narcotics, barbiturates, and others, but propofol has gained popularity despite its potential to cause cardiac and respiratory depression. Obviously the optimal agent or combination of agents has not been identified. There are reasons to believe that a combination of ketamine and propofol may have advantages over other agents/combinations. These include better hemodynamic stability at equal depth of anesthesia with a combination of ketamine/propofol than with propofol alone, less respiratory depression with the combination in comparison to propofol alone, and preservation of respiratory drive with the combination. There is one study of ketamine/propofol in Emergency Department (ED) procedural sedation which demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of the combination, but did not compare it to any other agents or combinations. The investigators designed a randomized, placebo controlled study to compare propofol to propofol and ketamine for adequacy of sedation and respiratory depression in Emergency Department procedural sedation and analgesia. The investigators hypothesis was that the combination of propofol/ketamine would produce better sedation and/or less respiratory depression than propofol alone. Methods Study design The investigators conducted a randomized, prospective, double-blinded study of all patients receiving procedural sedation. From April 2007 until July 2009 in the ED of a 274 bed university teaching hospital. The study was approved by the University of Missouri's Institutional Review Board and informed consent was obtained from all participants.
Up to 50% of medication errors and 20% of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in the hospital setting are estimated to be related to communication issues regarding patient medications at various transition points of care from admission to discharge. The Joint Commission (TJC) requires accurate and complete medication reconciliation occur at each transition point throughout hospitalization. Evidence from NQF demonstrates pharmacists (RPh) are the most effective medication management team leaders in the implementation of medication management practices and design of medication error reduction strategies; medication reconciliation is one of the five safety objectives pharmacists are recommended to lead. In addition, the Massachusetts Coalition for the Prevention of Medical Errors states strong evidence supports the use of pharmacy technicians (CPhT) in conjunction with pharmacists in completing accurate medication histories. WMC nurses (RN) currently are involved in the medication reconciliation process. In 2009, a Medication Use Evaluation (MUE) of Medication Reconciliation Accuracy found a 67% medication error rate on admission determined by comparing the nurse-obtained medication history to the pharmacist-obtained medication history. The number of home medications identified by the pharmacist compared to the nurse was 411 versus 312 (p<0.0001). The total percentage of medication errors prevented by the pharmacist was 66.2. Using the VA Healthcare Failure Mode Effects Analysis - HFMEA™ Hazard Scoring Matrix, 3 independent pharmacist reviewers found that 18% of patients interviewed had a score greater than 7, and 3 patients had a score of 12 (major/probable), if the discrepancies would not have been identified and corrected by the pharmacist conducting the admission medication reconciliation audit. The same patients' discharge medication reconciliation and discharge medication lists were retrospectively reviewed for the MUE, and the total percentage of patients with medication errors on discharge was 43%.
This study is a single center, non-randomized, open-label, pilot efficacy and safety study evaluating the ability of clevidipine IV antihypertensive to rapidly control elevated blood pressure (BP) in the setting of an acute aortic emergencies (aneurysm, dissection or other aortic disease).