Mostrando las entradas con la etiqueta American College of Chest Physicians. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando las entradas con la etiqueta American College of Chest Physicians. Mostrar todas las entradas

13 mayo, 2013

Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis,9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians


Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline

Gordon H. Guyatt , MD, FCCP ; Elie A. Akl , MD, PhD, MPH ; Mark Crowther , MD ;
David D. Gutterman , MD, FCCP ; Holger J. Schü nemann , MD, PhD, FCCP ; for the American
College of Chest Physicians Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Panel*
 CHEST 2012; 141(2)(Suppl):7S–47S

Full Text




The eighth iteration of the American College of Chest Physicians Antithrombotic Guidelines presented, in a paper version, a narrative evidence summary and rationale for the recommendations, a small number of evidence profiles summarizing bodies of evidence, and some articles with quite extensive summary tables of primary studies. In total, this represented 600 recommendations summarized in 968 pages of text. Many readers responded that the result was too voluminous for their liking or practical use.
Cognizant of this feedback, we worked hard to minimize the length of the text for the ninth iteration of the guidelines Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (AT9) without sacrificing key content. A number of topic editors found our shortening edits draconian, but we were determined to produce the leanest product possible.
There were, however, a number of obstacles. In what we believe is a key advance in AT9, we conducted a systematic review of what is known about patients’ values and preferences regarding antithrombotic therapy and included the results as an article in AT9. In another forward step, we recognized the problems with asymptomatic thrombosis as a surrogate outcome, and devised strategies to estimate reductions in symptomatic DVT and pulmonary embolism with antithrombotic prophylaxis. We felt it important to explain this innovation to users of AT9, and this meant another article.
We included, for the first time, an article on diagnosis addressing patients with symptoms and signs suggesting DVT. We increased the range of interventions we have covered, resulting in additional recommendations. Finally, we produced many summary of findings tables, which offer extremely succinct and informative presentations of best estimates of effect and the confidence associated with those estimates.
If published in the same fashion as the Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy, 8th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Antithrombotic Guidelines, this would have resulted in a document with > 850 pages of paper text, an unacceptable length. Given this and with the advice of the journal, we decided to adopt a highly focused print version that includes only this executive summary and the following articles:
  • An introduction describing the major innovations in AT9
  • A methods article explaining how we developed the guidelines (a potential model for other guideline groups interested in optimal rigor)
  • Recommendations and grading from each article embedded in the table of contents of each article
Those seeking the rationale for the recommendations, including the supporting evidence, should access the online version of the guideline (http://http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/141/2_suppl) that includes a narrative summaries and supporting summary of findings tables. The numbering indicated beside the recommendations in this summary is aligned with the sections and tables found in the full articles. Those interested in a deeper understanding of the evidence can turn to online data supplements for each of the articles that include recommendations. There, they will find evidence profiles (expanded versions of the summary of findings tables) and some tables summarizing the methods and results, and the risk of bias, associated with the individual studies that contributed to the evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.
The world of medical information is rapidly becoming a world of electronic storage and presentation of primary studies, recommendations, and a wide variety of other information of interest to health care practitioners. Although our abbreviated paper copy presentation represents a necessary response to a challenging situation, it is also a harbinger of the increasingly electronic world of medical information into which future editions of guidelines are destined to move.

Summary of Recommendations

Note on Shaded Text: Throughout this guideline, shading is used within the summary of recommendations sections to indicate recommendations that are newly added or have been changed since the publication of Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Recommendations that remain unchanged are not shaded.

30 mayo, 2012

Vicks VapoRub

Image of a container of Vicks VapoRub
Image of a container of Vicks VapoRub (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Via: Rochy Mauricio. Salud_Loreto

Misuse of Vicks® Vaporub® May Harm Infants and Toddlers

Toddler in Respiratory Distress After Popular Salve Used
(NORTHBROOK, IL, January 13, 2009)—Vicks® VapoRub®, the popular salve used to relieve symptoms of cough and congestion, may be harmful for infants and toddlers. New research appearing in the January issue of CHEST, the peer-reviewed journal of the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), shows that Vicks® VapoRub® (VVR) may stimulate mucus production and airway inflammation, which can have severe effects on breathing in an infant or toddler. Research findings are consistent with current VVR labeling which indicates the product should not be used on children under 2 years of age.
“The ingredients in Vicks can be irritants, causing the body to produce more mucus to protect the airway,” said Bruce K. Rubin, MD, FCCP, the study’s lead author from the Department of Pediatrics at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston Salem, NC. “Infants and young children have airways that are much narrower than those of adults, so any increase in mucus or inflammation can narrow them more severely.”
Dr. Rubin and his colleagues at Wake Forest became interested in the effects of VVR on small children after they cared for an 18-month-old girl who developed severe respiratory distress after VVR was put directly under her nose. The research team then launched an investigation to determine the effects of VVR on the respiratory system. Using ferrets, which have an airway anatomy and cellular composition similar to humans, the team conducted tests that measured the effects of VVR on mucus secretion and build up in the airways, and fluid build up in the lungs. Healthy ferrets and ferrets who had induced tracheal inflammation (simulating a person with a chest infection) underwent testing after they were exposed to VVR through intubation.
Results showed that in vitro VVR exposure increased mucus secretion 59 percent over baseline, while in vivo VVR exposure increased mucus secretion 14 percent in normal airways and 8 percent in the inflamed airway, in addition to the increase in secretion due to the inflammation. Mucus clearance, as measured by ciliary beat frequency in the trachea, also decreased by 36 percent during in vitro testing.
VVR is not indicated for patients under age 2. However, Dr. Rubin realizes that some parents are still choosing to use VVR to relieve their sick young child’s symptoms, usually rubbing the salve on the feet or chest.
“I recommend never putting Vicks in, or under, the nose of anybody—adult or child. I also would follow the directions and never use it at all in children under age 2,” said Dr. Rubin. Even when directions are followed, VVR may make people with congestion feel more comfortable, but it does nothing to increase airflow or actually relieve congestion. “Some of the ingredients in Vicks, notably the menthol, trick the brain into thinking that it is easier to breathe by triggering a cold sensation, which is processed as indicating more airflow. Vicks may make you feel better but it can’t help you breathe better.” Dr. Rubin also feels that although the study only tested Vick's VapoRub, similar products, including generic brands, could cause the same adverse reaction in infants and toddlers.
In addition to VVR, decongestants are not recommended for young children; however, there are other treatments that are safe and effective.
Cough and cold medicines and decongestants are dangerous and neither effective nor safe for young children. Medications to dry up nasal passages also have problems,” said Dr. Rubin. “The best treatments for congestion are a bit of saline (salt water) and gentle rubber bulb suction, warm drinks or chicken soup, and, often, just letting the passage of time heal the child.” Dr. Rubin also notes that if a child is struggling to breathe, it is a medical emergency and would require the child to be seen by a doctor as quickly as possible.
“Parents should consult with a physician before administering any over-the-counter medicine to infants and young children,” said James A. L. Mathers, Jr., MD, FCCP, President of the American College of Chest Physicians. “Furthermore, the American College of Chest Physicians and several other health-care organizations have concluded that over-the-counter cough and cold medicines can be harmful for infants and young children and are, therefore, not recommended.”