Conectar
by Sang Ah Lee, Jin-Myung Kim, Hye Eun Kwon, Youngmin Ko, Joo Hee Jung, Sung Shin, Young Hoon Kim, Sung-Han Kim, Hyunwook Kwon
PurposeOptimal perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in kidney transplantation remains undefined despite routine antibiotic administration to prevent infections. In this retrospective observational cohort study with historical comparison, we compared the clinical efficacy of 6 days of ampicillin/sulbactam vs. a single dose of cefazolin.
Materials and methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 2322 kidney transplantation recipients at a single center, with the evaluation period spanning from 2015 through 2021. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the perioperative antibiotic regimen received: 971 patients received ampicillin/sulbactam, and 1351 received cefazolin. This study focused on evaluating the impact of these regimens on postoperative infection incidence and the 6-month acute rejection (AR) rates.
ResultsThe cefazolin group exhibited a tendency toward higher urinary tract infection rates within 1 month after transplantation (3.4% vs. 2.2%, p= = 0.078). There were no significant differences in surgical site infections between the groups. The 6-month AR rates were significantly lower in the cefazolin group than in the ampicillin/sulbactam group (5.1% vs. 7.9%, p= = 0.009). Cefazolin was also confirmed to be significantly associated with reduced 6-month AR rates in the multivariable logistic regression analysis (odds ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval [0.45-0.89], p= = 0.009).
ConclusionIn this study, we observed that a single dose of cefazolin as perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis may lead to higher rates of postoperative urinary tract infections, but it could potentially lower the incidence of acute rejection within six months.
by Ariffin Kawaja, Aminath Shiwaza Moosa, Eric Kam Pui Lee, Ian Kwong Yun Phoon, Andrew Teck Wee Ang, Zi Ying Chang, Aileen Chelsea Ai’En Lim, Jonathan Yap, Weiting Huang, Ding Xuan Ng, Melvin Yuansheng Sng, Hao Yuan Loh, Chirk Jenn Ng
IntroductionRecent hypertension guidelines recommend ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) for accurate diagnosis and monitoring. However, patients’ experiences with cuff and wearable ABPM devices in primary care remain unclear. This study compared the acceptance of three devices (oscillometry cuff, tonometry wrist, and photoplethysmography chest devices) among patients with hypertension in primary care.
MethodsA multi-method study was conducted. Thirty-five participants with hypertension were recruited from two public primary care clinics in Singapore. All participants used cuff-based and either wrist or chest wearable devices for 24 hours. Structured surveys and in-depth audio-recorded interviews were used to gather feedback on their views, experiences, and challenges using the devices. The interviews were thematically analysed, and the surveys were analysed using descriptive statistics.
ResultsAll participants used the cuff (n = 35) device, while the wrist and chest devices were used by two-thirds (n = 22) and a third (n = 11) of the participants, respectively.The device usability questionnaire found that most participants were satisfied with the chest device, which did not disrupt their daily activities. Conversely, cuff arm devices interfered with daily activities (48%) and sleep (26%), were cumbersome (32%), and caused embarrassment (26%). The wrist device was uncomfortable (33%) and painful (22%) for some participants.The qualitative data were categorised into five themes: comfort, convenience, perceived accuracy, and impact on routine and sleep. Participants found the chest device more comfortable and convenient than the cuff and wrist devices. The cuff device was perceived as the most accurate due to its inflation-based BP measurement. All devices minimally affected routines and sleep, though participants expressed safety concerns about the cuff device, particularly while driving.
ConclusionWhile wearable ABPM devices offer increased comfort, convenience and reduced impact on patient’s daily activities, concerns regarding their accuracy must be addressed before the widespread adoption of these devices in routine clinical practice.
High-intensity statin therapy is recommended as a first-line strategy for lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). A combination of moderate-intensity statin and ezetimibe at an equivalent dose to high-intensity statin may achieve similar LDL-C reduction with fewer side effects. This study evaluates the long-term efficacy and safety of this approach, initiated following AMI, compared with high-intensity statin monotherapy.
The ROSUZET-AMI trial is a multicentre, prospective, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial. Patients with AMI who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention were randomised 1:1 to receive either moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe (rosuvastatin 5 mg with ezetimibe 10 mg) or high-intensity statin monotherapy (rosuvastatin 20 mg). The primary endpoint is the composite of cardiovascular death, major coronary events (non-fatal myocardial infarction, documented unstable angina requiring hospitalisation and all coronary revascularisation events occurring at least 30 days after randomisation), or non-fatal stroke.
Ethics approval for this study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital (No. 2020-0424-0003). Informed consent is obtained from every participant before randomisation. The results of this study will be submitted for publication in international peer-reviewed journals, and the key findings will be presented at international scientific conferences.
To systematically review and synthesise qualitative research on nurses' experiences of speaking up in various contexts and to identify factors facilitating or impeding such a behaviour.
This review was conducted as a qualitative metasynthesis, utilising the qualitative meta-ethnography approach.
A total of 6250 articles were screened. Two reviewers screened titles, abstracts and full texts. A total of 15 studies were included in this review. Researchers conducted a quality appraisal using the JBI critical appraisal checklist for qualitative research. An a priori protocol was created and registered on the Open Science Framework.
Literature searches were conducted in five international bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global) and five Korean databases (RISS, KISS, DBpia, KCI and NDSL).
Three main themes were identified from the 15 studies used in the metasynthesis: (1) decisional complexity of speaking up, (2) motivators for speaking up and (3) barriers to speaking up. Nurses experienced challenges in speaking up. They were, and continue to be, concerned about negative responses. Hierarchy structure and poor work environment were identified as barriers to speaking up; professional responsibility and a supportive atmosphere were identified as facilitators for speaking up.
This review synthesised nurses' experiences of speaking up and influencing factors. Speaking up is crucial for nurses to improve patient safety, as frontline nurses are ideally positioned to observe early indicators of unsafe conditions in healthcare delivery.
Identified motivators and barriers of nurses' speaking-up behaviour offer considerations and opportunities for healthcare leaders and managers. This could lead to improvement in patient safety through the establishment of a safety culture that facilitates nurses' speaking-up behaviour.
The review adhered to the ENTREQ guideline.
No patient or public contribution has been made in this review.
by Dong Min Jung, Yong Jae Kwon, Yong Wan Cho, Jong Geol Baek, Dong Jae Jang, Yongdo Yun, Seok-Ho Lee, Gahee Son, Hyunjong Yoo, Min Cheol Han, Jin Sung Kim
Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for lung cancer involves complex multileaf collimator (MLC) motion, which increases sensitivity to interplay effects with tumour motion. Current dynamic conformal arc methods address this issue but may limit the achievable dose distribution optimisation compared with standard VMAT. This study examined the clinical utility of a VMAT technique with monitor unit limits (VMATliMU) to mimic conformal arc delivery and reduce interplay effects while maintaining plan quality. VMATliMU was implemented by applying monitor unit limitations during VMAT reoptimisation to minimise MLC encroachment into target volumes. Using mesh-type reference computational phantom CT images, treatment plans were generated for a simulated stage I lung cancer case prescribed to 45 Gy in three fractions. VMATliMU, conventional VMAT, VMAT with leaf speed limitations, dynamic conformal arc therapy, and constant dynamic conformal arc therapy were compared. Plans were optimised for multiple isodose line prescriptions (50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, and 90%) to investigate the impact of dose distribution. Evaluation parameters included MLC positional accuracy using area difference ratios, dosimetric indices, gradient metrics, and organ-at-risk doses. VMATliMU prevented MLC encroachment into the internal target volume across 60%–90% isodose lines, showing superior MLC accuracy compared with other methods. At the challenging 50% isodose line, VMATliMU had 4.5 times less intrusion than VMAT with leaf speed limits. VMAT plans had better dosimetric indices than dynamic conformal arc plans. VMATliMU reduced monitor units by 5.1%–19.2% across prescriptions. All plans met the clinical dose constraints, with the aortic arch below tolerance and acceptable lung doses. VMATliMU combines VMAT’s dosimetric benefits with the dynamic conformal arcs’s simplicity, minimising MLC encroachment while maintaining plan quality. Reduced monitor units lower low-dose exposure, treatment time, and interplay effects. VMATliMU is usable in existing planners with monitor unit limits, offering a practical solution for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy.This study aims to assess the economic feasibility and broader policy implications of the Korea International Cooperation Agency’s (KOICA) official development assistance (ODA) projects for the COVID-19 emergency response in Uzbekistan through a cost–benefit analysis. The primary research question is to evaluate whether the interventions provide sufficient economic returns relative to their costs while informing future pandemic preparedness of response strategies.
A cost–benefit analysis using quantitative methods was performed to assess the financial impact of the COVID-19 ODA projects.
The study was conducted in Uzbekistan, focusing on KOICA’s COVID-19 emergency response projects from January 2020 to December 2021.
The intervention involved the implementation of KOICA’s COVID-19 emergency response activities, including early diagnosis support, establishment of rapid response bases, provision of medical equipment and emergency relief efforts in Uzbekistan.
The primary outcome measure is the net present value (NPV) and benefit/cost ratio of the project. Secondary outcome measures are the project’s effectiveness in terms of death prevention, reduction in medical costs and timely COVID-19 testing.
The analysis revealed a total programme cost of US$11 353 173, with a net benefit ranging from US$21 026 032 to US$34 573 403, and a benefit/cost ratio between 1.85 and 3.05. A detailed examination of costs and benefits highlighted the programme’s positive NPV and benefit/cost ratio, indicating its economic feasibility. The study also underscored the programme’s effectiveness in preventing deaths, reducing medical costs and providing timely COVID-19 testing.
The findings confirm that KOICA’s COVID-19 emergency response projects in Uzbekistan were economically viable and effective. The study highlights the importance of integrating economic evaluations into ODA assessments, particularly for emergency response and infectious disease control. It recommends expanding the use of quantitative analysis to optimise resource allocation and improve decision-making in future global health crises.
FreshRSS 