GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    In: Journal of Intensive Care, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Vol. 9, No. 1 ( 2021-08-25)
    Abstract: The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS] , and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members. As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2052-0492
    Language: English
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
    Publication Date: 2021
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2739853-5
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: Acute Medicine & Surgery, Wiley, Vol. 8, No. 1 ( 2021-01)
    Abstract: The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J‐SSCG 2020), a Japanese‐specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J‐SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English‐language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese‐language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high‐quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J‐SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU‐acquired weakness [ICU‐AW], post‐intensive care syndrome [PICS] , and body temperature management). The J‐SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient‐ and family‐centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro‐intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large‐scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members. As a result, 79 GRADE‐based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J‐SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2052-8817 , 2052-8817
    URL: Issue
    Language: English
    Publisher: Wiley
    Publication Date: 2021
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2751184-4
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    In: Journal of Intensive Care, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Vol. 12, No. 1 ( 2024-01-30)
    Abstract: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has exposed critical care supply shortages worldwide. This study aimed to investigate the association between regional critical care capacity and the incidence of invasive mechanical ventilation following novel COVID-19 during the pandemic in Japan, a country with a limited intensive care unit (ICU) bed capacity of a median of 5.1 ICU beds per 100,000 individuals. Methods This population-based cohort study used data from the CRoss Icu Searchable Information System database and publicly available databases provided by the Japanese government and Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine. We identified patients recently diagnosed with COVID-19, those who received invasive mechanical ventilation, and those who received extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) between February 2020 and March 2023. We analyzed the association between regional critical care capacity (ICU beds, high-dependency care unit (HDU) beds, resource-rich ICU beds, and intensivists) and the incidence of invasive mechanical ventilation, ECMO, and risk-adjusted mortality across 47 Japanese prefectures. Results Among the approximately 127 million individuals residing in Japan, 33,189,809 were recently diagnosed with COVID-19, with 12,203 and 1,426 COVID-19 patients on invasive mechanical ventilation and ECMO, respectively, during the study period. Prefecture-level linear regression analysis revealed that the addition of ICU beds, resource-rich ICU beds, and intensivists per 100,000 individuals increased the incidence of IMV by 5.37 (95% confidence interval, 1.99–8.76), 7.27 (1.61–12.9), and 13.12 (3.48–22.76), respectively. However, the number of HDU beds per 100,000 individuals was not statistically significantly associated with the incidence of invasive mechanical ventilation. None of the four indicators of regional critical care capacity was statistically significantly associated with the incidence of ECMO and risk-adjusted mortality. Conclusions The results of prefecture-level analyses demonstrate that increased numbers of ICU beds, resource-rich ICU beds, and intensivists are associated with the incidence of invasive mechanical ventilation among patients recently diagnosed with COVID-19 during the pandemic. These findings have important implications for healthcare policymakers, aiding in efficiently allocating critical care resources during crises, particularly in regions with limited ICU bed capacities. Registry and the registration no. of the study/trial The approval date of the registry was August 20, 2020, and the registration no. of the study was lUMIN000041450.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2052-0492
    Language: English
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
    Publication Date: 2024
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2739853-5
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    American Thoracic Society ; 2023
    In:  Annals of the American Thoracic Society Vol. 20, No. 1 ( 2023-01), p. 102-109
    In: Annals of the American Thoracic Society, American Thoracic Society, Vol. 20, No. 1 ( 2023-01), p. 102-109
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2329-6933 , 2325-6621
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Thoracic Society
    Publication Date: 2023
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2702474-X
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 5
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) ; 2020
    In:  Circulation Vol. 142, No. Suppl_4 ( 2020-11-17)
    In: Circulation, Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health), Vol. 142, No. Suppl_4 ( 2020-11-17)
    Abstract: Aim: Acute aortic dissection has been considered a contraindication for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR). However, studies are lacking regarding the epidemiology and effectiveness of ECPR for this condition. We aimed to examine whether ECPR for acute aortic dissection during cardiac arrest is effective or not. Methods: Using the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination inpatient database from July 2010 to March 2018, we identified all emergently hospitalized adults who received ECPR on the day of admission. ECPR was defined as receiving both chest compressions and percutaneous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation on the day of hospital admission. In-hospital mortality and neurological outcomes were compared between patients with and without acute aortic dissection. We also calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ECPR for acute aortic dissection. Results: We identified 10,238 patients who received ECPR on the day of admission. Of these, 398 patients (3.9%) had acute aortic dissection. In-hospital mortality was 98% in the acute aortic dissection group and 79% in the non-acute aortic dissection group. Seven patients (1.8%) in the acute aortic dissection group survived to discharge after ECPR; of these, six patients had good neurological outcomes at discharge. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ECPR for patients with acute aortic dissection was estimated at 159,337 US dollars per quality-adjusted life year gained. Conclusion: ECPR successfully rescued a small number of acute aortic dissection patients with cardiac arrest; however, the cost burden of ECPR for acute aortic dissection patients was unacceptably high.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0009-7322 , 1524-4539
    Language: English
    Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
    Publication Date: 2020
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1466401-X
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 6
    In: Resuscitation, Elsevier BV, Vol. 156 ( 2020-11), p. 237-243
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0300-9572
    Language: English
    Publisher: Elsevier BV
    Publication Date: 2020
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2010733-X
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 7
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) ; 2022
    In:  Critical Care Medicine Vol. 50, No. 12 ( 2022-12), p. 1768-1777
    In: Critical Care Medicine, Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health), Vol. 50, No. 12 ( 2022-12), p. 1768-1777
    Abstract: Although existing guidelines recommend commencing cannulation for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) within 10–20 minutes of failed conventional resuscitation efforts for cardiac arrest, there is little supportive evidence. The present study aimed to determine the association of low-flow duration with survival-to-discharge rate in in-hospital cardiac arrest patients who received ECPR. DESIGN: A nationwide retrospective cohort study analyzed a nationwide inpatient database in Japan. Low-flow duration was defined as the time interval from initiation of chest compression to termination of chest compression. We assessed the association between low-flow duration and survival-to-discharge rate by predicting estimates with covariate adjustment stratified by categories of low-flow duration. SETTING: More than 1,600 acute-care hospitals in Japan. PATIENTS: All in-hospital cardiac arrest patients greater than or equal to 18 years old who received ECPR during hospitalization from July 2010 to March 2018. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 303,319 in-hospital cardiac arrest patients, 9,844 (3.2%) received ECPR in 697 hospitals during the study period and 9,433 were eligible in the study. The overall survival-to-discharge rate was 20.5% (1,932/9,433). The median low-flow duration was 26.0 minutes (interquartile range, 12.0–46.0 min) in the overall cohort. The highest and lowest estimated survival-to-discharge rates were 35.1% in the group with low-flow duration 0–5 minutes and 7.9% in the group with low-flow duration greater than 90 minutes. The estimated survival-to-discharge rate dropped sharply by about 20% during the first 35 minutes of low-flow duration (decreasing by about 3% every 5 min), followed by small decreases after the first 35 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated survival-to-discharge rate was markedly decreased by approximately 20% during the first 35 minutes of low-flow duration. Whether we should wait for the first 10–20 minutes of cardiac arrest without preparing for ECPR is questionable.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0090-3493
    Language: English
    Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
    Publication Date: 2022
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2034247-0
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...