共找到 5 条结果
Acute cholangitis (AC) is a serious condition caused by partial or complete obstruction of the common bile duct (CBD), leading to biliary tract infection. We aimed to evaluate whether teaching hospitals with trainees and non-teaching hospitals impact the outcome of AC in the United States. This study utilized the National Inpatient Sample database to analyze adult hospitalizations (> 18 years old) with a primary diagnosis of AC in the USA from 2016 to 2020. A multivariate logistic regression along with Chi-square and t-tests was performed using SAS 9.4 software to analyze inpatient AC-associated mortality, inflation-adjusted total hospitalization costs (THC), and length of stay (LOS) in US teaching and non-teaching hospitals during the study period. This study included a total of 30,300 patients, out of whom 23,535 (about 78%) were managed in teaching hospitals and 6,765 (about 22%) were managed in non-teaching hospitals. Primary outcomes showed a significant increase in mortality for patients managed in teaching hospitals (2.77% vs. 2.08%, P = 0.01) in comparison to non-teaching hospitals, hospital LOS was slightly higher in teaching hospitals (5 days (interquartile range (IQR): 3 - 6) vs. 4 days (IQR: 3 - 8)) and so did hospital cost ($15,259 vs. $14,506) in comparison to non-teaching hospitals. Secondary outcomes showed that patients in teaching hospitals had higher incidence of septic shock (16.06% vs. 12.53%, P < 0.0001), intensive care unit (ICU) admissions (6.61% vs. 5.07%, P = 0.0002), and intubation (5.30% vs. 3.46%, P < 0.0001) in comparison to non-teaching hospitals. Our study found higher mortality rates for AC patients in teaching hospitals compared to non-teaching hospitals. Teaching hospitals also had higher rates of septic shock, ICU admission, and intubation, with no difference in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) use. These differences could be due to several factors, such as greater resident and fellow autonomy in teaching hospitals and a potentially more proactive approach by physicians in non-teaching hospitals. Additionally, teaching hospitals often manage more complex, higher-acuity cases, which could contribute to worse outcomes.
Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a critical complication often seen in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), especially those undergoing dual antiplatelet therapy. GIB is associated with increased mortality and prolonged hospitalization, particularly in ACS patients. Despite advancements in management strategies, the role of gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) in this population remains controversial, with concerns about timing, safety, and clinical outcomes. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of GIE in patients with ACS and acute GIB, focusing on outcomes such as mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), hemorrhage control, rebleeding, and blood transfusion requirements. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic review was conducted using databases including PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE, up to December 2024. The protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42025630188). Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. Four studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising one RCT and three cohort studies with a total population of 1676130 patients. Most studies indicated that GIE was associated with improved survival in ACS patients with GIB. Three of our studies reported lower mortality rates in patients undergoing GIE compared to those managed without endoscopy, although this varied by study. While GIE demonstrated effectiveness in controlling hemorrhage and reducing rebleeding rates in one study. The rest of the studies did not evaluate these outcomes comprehensively. Hospital LOS outcomes were inconsistent, with two studies suggesting no significant difference, while only one study indicated potential reductions in LOS with GIE. Blood transfusion requirements were reported in one study to be higher in patients undergoing GIE, reflecting its frequent use in severe cases. The safety and effectiveness of GIE varied depending on patient characteristics, timing of the procedure, and type of intervention. GIE has the potential to improve survival in certain patients with ACS complicated by GIB; however, determining the ideal timing and appropriate candidates necessitates careful individual assessment. While evidence suggests benefits, the limitations of observational studies warrant caution. Collaboration between cardiology and gastroenterology is essential to optimizing outcomes. Future randomized trials should focus on timing, severity, and diverse populations to refine guidelines and improve care for this high-risk group.
A 9-month-old domestic shorthair cat was evaluated after being struck by a car. The cat had a fractured tibia and avulsion of the tail base. Motor and deep pain sensation were absent from the tail. The fractured tibia was repaired 2 days after the trauma. On the third day, the cat developed tachypnea, dyspnea, high serum urea nitrogen and total bilirubin concentrations, epistaxis, persistent hypotension, and oliguria. The cat recovered with supportive care but developed extensive necrosis of the skin on the dorsum by 9 days after the initial trauma. The skin was debrided from the caudal portion of the scapula to the anus and down each pelvic limb to the level of the distal portion of the femur. The tail was amputated. Wet-to-dry bandages were applied to the wound for 3 days. Approximately 50% of the wound underwent delayed primary closure, and the remainder was managed with vacuum-assisted closure. A healthy granulation bed was quickly established. Vacuum-assisted closure was also applied after graft application. Graft acceptance was 100%, and use of the vacuum-assisted closure bandage was not associated with the complications associated with the traditional bandage. Vacuum-assisted closure is a useful, easily applicable technique for open and grafted wounds, even when wounds are in challenging anatomic locations.
The purpose of this study was to determine if there were usability and training differences between the Medtronic MiniMed Paradigm Revel Insulin Pump and the Tandem Diabetes Care t:slim Insulin Pump during use by representative users, performing representative tasks, in a simulated use environment. This study utilized a between-subjects experimental design with a total of 72 participants from 5 sites across the United States. Study participants were randomized to either the Revel pump group or the t:slim Pump group. Participants were 18 years of age or older and managed their diabetes using multiple daily insulin injections. Dependent variables included training time, training satisfaction, time on task, task failures, System Usability Scale (SUS) ratings, perceived task difficulty, and a pump survey that measured different aspects of the pumps and training sessions. There was a statistically significant difference in training times and error rates between the t:slim and Revel groups. The training time difference represented a 27% reduction in time to train on the t:slim versus the Revel pump. There was a 65% reduction in participants' use error rates between the t:slim and the Revel group. The t:slim Pump had statistically significant training and usability advantages over the Revel pump. The reduction in training time may have been a result of an optimized information architecture, an intuitive navigational layout, and an easy-to-read screen. The reduction in use errors with the t:slim may have been a result of dynamic error handling and active confirmation screens, which may have prevented programming errors.