Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Prophylactic Dose (prophylactic + dose)
Selected AbstractsIn vivo astaxanthin treatment partially prevents antioxidant alterations in dental pulp from alloxan-induced diabetic ratsINTERNATIONAL ENDODONTIC JOURNAL, Issue 11 2010M. F. Leite Leite MF, de Lima A, Massuyama MM, Otton R.In vivo astaxanthin treatment partially prevents antioxidant alterations in dental pulp from alloxan-induced diabetic rats. International Endodontic Journal, 43, 959,967, 2010. Abstract Aim, To evaluate the effect of astaxanthin on antioxidant parameters of dental pulp from diabetic rats. The hypothesis tested was that supplementation of diabetic rats with astaxanthin might eliminate, or at least attenuate, the defect in their antioxidative status. Methodology, Wistar rats (n = 32) were divided into four groups: untreated control, treated control, untreated diabetic and treated diabetic rats. A prophylactic dose of astaxanthin (20 mg kg,1 body weight) was administered daily by gavage for 30 days. On day 23, diabetes was induced by injection of alloxan (60 mg kg,1 body weight). After 7 days of diabetes induction, the rats were killed, and pulp tissue from incisor teeth removed. Superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase, glutathione peroxidase (GPx) and reductase activities were determined. Data were compared by anova and the Newman,Keuls test (P < 0.05). Results, Diabetes caused a reduction in SOD, GPx and reductase activity in dental pulp tissue. Astaxanthin had no effect on SOD and catalase activities; however, it stimulated GPx in control and diabetic rats. Conclusions, Diabetes altered the antioxidant system in dental pulp tissue; astaxanthin partially improved the diabetic complications. [source] Prospective observational cohort study of bioaccumulation of dalteparin at a prophylactic dose in patients with peritoneal dialysisJOURNAL OF THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS, Issue 4 2010P. SCHMID See also Schmid P, Brodmann D, Odermatt Y, Fischer AG, Wuillemin WA. Study of bioaccumulation of dalteparin at a therapeutic dose in patients with renal insufficiency. J Thromb Haemost 2009; 7: 1629,32. [source] Study of bioaccumulation of dalteparin at a prophylactic dose in patients with various degrees of impaired renal functionJOURNAL OF THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS, Issue 4 2009P. SCHMID Summary.,Background: Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) have been shown to be effective and safe for prophylaxis of thromboembolic diseases. However, issues regarding safety and optimal use of LMWH arise in patients with renal insufficiency (RI). Objectives: To compare pharmacokinetic data of dalteparin for up to 3 weeks in patients with various degrees of RI. Patients and methods: Patients from general medical and surgical wards were included in this prospective cohort study and divided into three groups according to renal function: A = normal (GFR , 60 mL min,11.73 m,2), B = mild RI (GFR 30,59 mL min,11.73 m,2), C = severe RI (GFR < 30 mL min,11.73 m,2). Dalteparin was injected s.c. once daily at a prophylactic dose. Peak anti-Xa activity levels (anti-Xa) were measured 4 ± 1 h after injection on day 1 and every third day up to 3 weeks. Primary objectives were peak anti-Xa levels and adjusted anti-Xa levels, adjustment being carried out for dose and body weight. Results: A total of 42 patients could be analyzed during a median of 10 days (interquartile range IQR 4,13, range 1,20). In all groups, adjusted peak anti-Xa levels were not different on day 10 compared with day 1. No bioaccumulation >30% could be found up to day 10 even in patients with severe RI. Conclusion: The use of dalteparin at a prophylactic dose was not associated with a bioaccumulation >30% even in patients with severe renal insufficiency during a median follow-up of 10 days (IQR 4,13, range 1,20). [source] Prophylactic steroids for paediatric open-heart surgery: a systematic reviewINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE BASED HEALTHCARE, Issue 4 2008Suzi Robertson-Malt BHSc PhD Background, The immune response to cardiopulmonary bypass in infants and children can lead to a series of post-operative morbidities and mortality, that is, hemodynamic instability, increased infection and tachyarrhythmias. Administration of prophylactic doses of corticosteroids is sometimes used to try and ameliorate this pro-inflammatory response. However, the clinical benefits and harms of this type of intervention in the paediatric patient remain unclear. Objectives, To systematically review the beneficial and harmful effects of the prophylactic administration of corticosteroids, compared with placebo, in paediatric open-heart surgery. Search strategy, The trials registry of the Cochrane Heart Group, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2006), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2007), EMBASE (1980 to January 2007) were searched. An additional hand-search of the EMRO database for Arabic literature was performed. Grey literature was searched, and experts in the field were contacted for any unpublished material. No language restrictions were applied. Selection criteria, All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of open-heart surgery in the paediatric population that received corticosteroids pre-, peri- or post-operatively, with reported clinical outcomes in terms of morbidity and mortality. Data collection and analysis, Eligible studies were abstracted and evaluated by two independent reviewers. All meta-analyses were completed using RevMan4.2.8. Weighted mean difference (WMD) was the primary summary statistic with data pooled using a random-effects model. Main results, All cause mortality could not be assessed as the data reports were incomplete. There was weak evidence in favour of prophylactic corticosteroid administration for reducing intensive care unit stay, peak core temperature and duration of ventilation (WMD (95% confidence intervals) ,0.50 h (,1.41 to 0.41); ,0.20°C (,1.16 to 0.77) and ,0.63 h (,4.02 to 2.75) respectively). [source] The management of heparin-induced thrombocytopeniaBRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY, Issue 3 2006David Keeling Abstract The Haemostasis and Thrombosis Task Force of the British Committee for Standards in Haematology has produced a concise practical guideline to highlight the key issues in the management of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) for the practicing physician in the UK. The guideline is evidence-based and levels of evidence are included in the body of the article. All patients who are to receive heparin of any sort should have a platelet count on the day of starting treatment. For patients who have been exposed to heparin in the last 100 d, a baseline platelet count and a platelet count 24 h after starting heparin should be obtained. For all patients receiving unfractionated heparin (UFH), alternate day platelet counts should be performed from days 4 to 14. For surgical and medical patients receiving low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) platelet counts should be performed every 2,4 d from days 4 to 14. Obstetric patients receiving treatment doses of LMWH should have platelet counts performed every 2,4 d from days 4 to 14. Obstetric patients receiving prophylactic LMWH are at low risk and do not need routine platelet monitoring. If the platelet count falls by 50% or more, or falls below the laboratory normal range and/or the patient develops new thrombosis or skin allergy between days 4 and 14 of heparin administration HIT should be considered and a clinical assessment made. If the pretest probability of HIT is high, heparin should be stopped and an alternative anticoagulant started at full dosage unless there are significant contraindications while laboratory tests are performed. Platelet activation assays using washed platelets have a higher sensitivity than platelet aggregation assays but are technically demanding and their use should be restricted to laboratories experienced in the technique. Non-expert laboratories should use an antigen-based assay of high sensitivity. Only IgG class antibodies need to be measured. Useful information is gained by reporting the actual optical density, inhibition by high concentrations of heparin, and the cut-off value for a positive test rather than simply reporting the test as positive or negative. In making a diagnosis of HIT the clinician's estimate of the pretest probability of HIT together with the type of assay used and its quantitative result (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, ELISA, only) should be used to determine the overall probability of HIT. Clinical decisions should be made following consideration of the risks and benefits of treatment with an alternative anticoagulant. For patients with strongly suspected or confirmed HIT, heparin should be stopped and full-dose anticoagulation with an alternative, such as lepirudin or danaparoid, commenced (in the absence of a significant contraindication). Warfarin should not be used until the platelet count has recovered. When introduced in combination with warfarin, an alternative anticoagulant must be continued until the International Normalised Ratio (INR) is therapeutic for two consecutive days. Platelets should not be given for prophylaxis. Lepirudin, at doses adjusted to achieve an activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) ratio of 1·5,2·5, reduces the risk of reaching the composite endpoint of limb amputation, death or new thrombosis in patients with HIT and HIT with thrombosis (HITT). The risk of major haemorrhage is directly related to the APTT ratio, lepirudin levels and serum creatinine levels. The patient's renal function needs to be taken into careful consideration before treatment with lepirudin is commenced. Severe anaphylaxis occurs rarely in recipients of lepirudin and is more common in previously exposed patients. Danaparoid in a high-dose regimen is equivalent to lepirudin in the treatment of HIT and HITT. Danaparoid at prophylactic doses is not recommended for the treatment of HIT or HITT. Patients with previous HIT who are antibody negative (usually so after >100 d) who require cardiac surgery should receive intraoperative UFH in preference to other anticoagulants that are less validated for this purpose. Pre- and postoperative anticoagulation should be with an anticoagulant other than UFH or LMWH. Patients with recent or active HIT should have the need for surgery reviewed and delayed until the patient is antibody negative if possible. They should then proceed as above. If deemed appropriate early surgery should be carried out with an alternative anticoagulant. We recommend discussion of these complex cases requiring surgery with an experienced centre. The diagnosis must be clearly recorded in the patient's medical record. [source] | ||||||||||