METHODOLOGY: A prospective observational study was conducted by inviting pre-dialysis CKD patients. Fluid overload was assessed by BIS.
RESULTS: A total of 312 CKD patients with mean eGFR 24.5 ± 11.2 ml/min/1.73 m2were enrolled. Based on OH value ≥7 %, 135 (43.3 %) patients were hypervolemic while euvolemia was observed in 177 (56.7 %) patients. Patients were categorized in different regions of hydration reference plot (HRP) generated by BIS i.e., 5.1 % in region-N (normal BP and fluid status), 20.5 % in region I (hypertensive with severe fluid overload), 29.5 % in region I-II (hypertensive with mild fluid overload), 22 % in region II (hypertensive with normohydration), 10.2 % in region III (underhydration with normal/low BP) and 12.5 % in region IV (normal BP with severe fluid overload). A total of 144 (46 %) patients received diuretics on basis of physician assessment of BP and edema. Maximum diuretics 100 (69.4 %) were prescribed in patients belonging to regions I and I-II of HRP. Interestingly, a similar number of diuretic prescriptions were observed in region II (13 %) and region IV (12 %). Surprisingly, 7 (4.9 %) of patients in region III who were neither hypervolemic nor hypertensive were also prescribed with diuretics.
CONCLUSION: BIS can aid clinicians to categorize CKD patients on basis of their fluid status and provide individualized pharmacotherapy to manage hypertensive CKD patients.
SETTING: Obstetric unit of a university hospital in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
POPULATION: Women admitted for a planned caesarean under spinal anaesthesia.
METHODS: Participants were randomised to a sandwich meal served immediately on return to the ward or on-demand.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were patient satisfaction VAS (visual analog scale of 100 mm) on the feeding regimen and vomiting at 24 hours.
RESULTS: 453 women were initially enrolled, 395 were randomised and available for analysis. Median (full range) patient satisfaction VAS scores were 82 (15-100) versus 84 (0-100) mm, P = 0.88 and vomiting rates were 1/197 (0.5%) versus 2/198 (1.0%), P > 0.99 for immediate compared with on-demand feeding, respectively. The immediate versus on-demand arms first ate at a median of 105 (35-210) versus 165 (45-385) minutes, P
OBJECTIVES: To compare techniques of blood glucose monitoring and their impact on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2016), searched reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted trial authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing techniques of blood glucose monitoring including SMBG, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) or clinic monitoring among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2). Trials investigating timing and frequency of monitoring were also included. RCTs using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: This review update includes at total of 10 trials (538) women (468 women with type 1 diabetes and 70 women with type 2 diabetes). The trials took place in Europe and the USA. Five of the 10 included studies were at moderate risk of bias, four studies were at low to moderate risk of bias, and one study was at high risk of bias. The trials are too small to show differences in important outcomes such as macrosomia, preterm birth, miscarriage or death of baby. Almost all the reported GRADE outcomes were assessed as being very low-quality evidence. This was due to design limitations in the studies, wide confidence intervals, small sample sizes, and few events. In addition, there was high heterogeneity for some outcomes.Various methods of glucose monitoring were compared in the trials. Neither pooled analyses nor individual trial analyses showed any clear advantages of one monitoring technique over another for primary and secondary outcomes. Many important outcomes were not reported.1. Self-monitoring versus standard care (two studies, 43 women): there was no clear difference for caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.49; one study, 28 women) or glycaemic control (both very low-quality), and not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and neonatal mortality and morbidity composite. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, neurosensory disability, and preterm birth were not reported in either study.2. Self-monitoring versus hospitalisation (one study, 100 women): there was no clear difference for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (pre-eclampsia and hypertension) (RR 4.26, 95% CI 0.52 to 35.16; very low-quality: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.22; very low-quality). There was no clear difference in caesarean section or preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (both very low quality), and the sample size was too small to assess perinatal mortality (very low-quality). Large-for-gestational age, mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability and preterm birth less than 34 weeks were not reported.3. Pre-prandial versus post-prandial glucose monitoring (one study, 61 women): there was no clear difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.28; very low-quality), large-for-gestational age (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.85; very low-quality) or glycaemic control (very low-quality). The results for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: pre-eclampsia and perinatal mortality are not meaningful because these outcomes were too rare to show differences in a small sample (all very low-quality). The study did not report the outcomes mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability or preterm birth.4. Automated telemedicine monitoring versus conventional system (three studies, 84 women): there was no clear difference for caesarean section (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.48; one study, 32 women; very low-quality), and mortality or morbidity composite in the one study that reported these outcomes. There were no clear differences for glycaemic control (very low-quality). No studies reported hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality), neurosensory disability or preterm birth.5.CGM versus intermittent monitoring (two studies, 225 women): there was no clear difference for pre-eclampsia (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.59; low-quality), caesarean section (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54; I² = 62%; very low-quality) and large-for-gestational age (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.92; I² = 82%; very low-quality). Glycaemic control indicated by mean maternal HbA1c was lower for women in the continuous monitoring group (mean difference (MD) -0.60 %, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.29; one study, 71 women; moderate-quality). There was not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and there were no clear differences for preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (low-quality). Mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability and preterm birth less than 34 weeks were not reported.6. Constant CGM versus intermittent CGM (one study, 25 women): there was no clear difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.79; very low-quality), glycaemic control (mean blood glucose in the 3rd trimester) (MD -0.14 mmol/L, 95% CI -2.00 to 1.72; very low-quality) or preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.08 to 15.46; very low-quality). Other primary (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality), mortality or morbidity composite, and neurosensory disability) or GRADE outcomes (preterm birth less than 34 weeks' gestation) were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found no evidence that any glucose monitoring technique is superior to any other technique among pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The evidence base for the effectiveness of monitoring techniques is weak and additional evidence from large well-designed randomised trials is required to inform choices of glucose monitoring techniques.
OBJECTIVES: This survey aimed to clarify the current status of palliative care in the Asia-Pacific region.
METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to a representative physician of each member country/region of the Asia Pacific Hospice Palliative Care Network (APHN). The questionnaire examined palliative care service provision, information regarding physician certification in palliative care, the availability of essential drugs for palliative care listed by the International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care (IAHPC) and the regulation of opioid-prescribing practice.
RESULTS: Of the 14 member countries/regions of the APHN, 12 (86%) responded. Some form of specialist palliative care services had developed in all the responding countries/regions. Eight member countries/regions had physician certifications for palliative care. Most essential drugs for palliative care listed by the IAHPC were available, whereas hydromorphone, oxycodone and transmucosal fentanyl were unavailable in most countries/regions. Six member countries/regions required permission to prescribe and receive opioids.
CONCLUSIONS: The development of palliative care is in different stages across the surveyed countries/regions in the Asia-Pacific region. Data from this survey can be used as baseline data for monitoring the development of palliative care in this region.
BACKGROUND: Oral care is as an essential nursing intervention for intubated patients to maintain patient comfort and prevent colonization of dental plaque by respiratory pathogens.
DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study.
METHODS: Data were collected from 93 ICU nurses of a teaching hospital in the East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia using a self-administered questionnaire.
RESULTS: Some nurses agreed that oral cavity of intubated patients was difficult (40·8%) and unpleasant (16·2%) to clean, but all of them realized the importance of oral care and the majority (97·9%) would like to learn more about it. Most nurses reported providing oral care at least two times daily using various methods and products such as suction toothbrush (90·4%), manual toothbrush (49·5%), cotton swab (91·5%) and foam swab (65·7%). Chlorhexidine gluconate oral rinse was the preferred mouthwash (97·8%) and swabs (93·5%) solution although few used non-optimal products such as sodium bicarbonate (14·0%), tap water (4·3%) and hydrogen peroxide (3·2%) to wash their patients' mouths. While the majority of nurses agreed that oral care supplies and equipments were available (93·6%) and suitable (88·2%), most of them also thought they need better hospital support (88·2%).
CONCLUSIONS: The nurses' attitudes towards oral care were generally positive and most oral care methods were appropriate. However, some methods and products used were inconsistent with the current recommendations and they have mixed views about the suitability of oral care supplies and equipment provided by the hospital.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Recommendations were made for providing standard oral care protocols for intubated patients and oral care training programs for ICU nurses to support delivery of quality patient care.