Endre søk
Begrens søket
1 - 3 of 3
RefereraExporteraLink til resultatlisten
Permanent link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Treff pr side
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sortering
  • Standard (Relevans)
  • Forfatter A-Ø
  • Forfatter Ø-A
  • Tittel A-Ø
  • Tittel Ø-A
  • Type publikasjon A-Ø
  • Type publikasjon Ø-A
  • Eldste først
  • Nyeste først
  • Skapad (Eldste først)
  • Skapad (Nyeste først)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Eldste først)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Nyeste først)
  • Disputationsdatum (tidligste først)
  • Disputationsdatum (siste først)
  • Standard (Relevans)
  • Forfatter A-Ø
  • Forfatter Ø-A
  • Tittel A-Ø
  • Tittel Ø-A
  • Type publikasjon A-Ø
  • Type publikasjon Ø-A
  • Eldste først
  • Nyeste først
  • Skapad (Eldste først)
  • Skapad (Nyeste først)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Eldste først)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Nyeste først)
  • Disputationsdatum (tidligste først)
  • Disputationsdatum (siste først)
Merk
Maxantalet träffar du kan exportera från sökgränssnittet är 250. Vid större uttag använd dig av utsökningar.
  • 1. Bengtsson, A
    et al.
    Herlitz, Johan
    Högskolan i Borås, Akademin för vård, arbetsliv och välfärd. [external].
    Karlsson, T
    Brandrup-Wognsen, G
    Hjalmarson, Å
    The appropriateness of performing coronary angiography and coronary artery revascularization in a Swedish population1994Inngår i: Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), ISSN 0098-7484, E-ISSN 1538-3598, Vol. 271, nr 16, s. 1260-1265Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert)
    Abstract [en]

    Objective. —To evaluate the appropriateness of performing coronary angiography and revascularization in a Swedish population. Design. —Prospective population study of questionnaires and medical records. Setting. —All the hospitals in southwestern Sweden that perform coronary angiography and revascularization. Patients. —Random sample of 831 patients (with chronic stable angina) on the waiting list for coronary angiography or revascularization in southwestern Sweden in September 1990. Main Outcome Measure. —Percentage of patients referred for coronary angiography or revascularization for appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate indications. Results. —Of the patients referred for angiography, 89% were classified as appropriate, 9% as uncertain, and 2% as inappropriate. The percentages are similar for patients referred for coronary artery bypass graft surgery and for angioplasty (91% and 86%, respectively, classified as appropriate). The majority of patients had chest pain rated as Canadian Cardiovascular Society classes II through IV (93%), despite maximum anti-ischemic therapy in 90% of these patients. Conclusions. —Few patients were referred for coronary angiography or revascularization for inappropriate or uncertain indications. The percentage of these patients who are from southwestern Sweden is similar to the percentage recently reported from New York State.

  • 2. Rubertsson, S
    et al.
    Lindgren, E
    Smekal, E
    Östlund, O
    Silverstolpe, J
    Lichtveld, RA
    Boomars, R
    Ahlstedt, B
    Skoog, B
    Kastberg, R
    Halliwell, D
    Box, M
    Herlitz, J
    Högskolan i Borås, Institutionen för Vårdvetenskap.
    Karlsten, R
    Mechanical Chest Compressions and Simultanous Defibrillation vs Conventional Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest:the LINC Randomized Trial2014Inngår i: Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), ISSN 0098-7484, E-ISSN 1538-3598, Vol. 311, nr 1Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert)
    Abstract [en]

    Importance A strategy using mechanical chest compressions might improve the poor outcome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, but such a strategy has not been tested in large clinical trials. Objective To determine whether administering mechanical chest compressions with defibrillation during ongoing compressions (mechanical CPR), compared with manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (manual CPR), according to guidelines, would improve 4-hour survival. Design, Setting, and Participants Multicenter randomized clinical trial of 2589 patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest conducted between January 2008 and February 2013 in 4 Swedish, 1 British, and 1 Dutch ambulance services and their referring hospitals. Duration of follow-up was 6 months. Interventions Patients were randomized to receive either mechanical chest compressions (LUCAS Chest Compression System, Physio-Control/Jolife AB) combined with defibrillation during ongoing compressions (n = 1300) or to manual CPR according to guidelines (n = 1289). Main Outcomes and Measures Four-hour survival, with secondary end points of survival up to 6 months with good neurological outcome using the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) score. A CPC score of 1 or 2 was classified as a good outcome. Results Four-hour survival was achieved in 307 patients (23.6%) with mechanical CPR and 305 (23.7%) with manual CPR (risk difference, –0.05%; 95% CI, –3.3% to 3.2%; P > .99). Survival with a CPC score of 1 or 2 occurred in 98 (7.5%) vs 82 (6.4%) (risk difference, 1.18%; 95% CI, –0.78% to 3.1%) at intensive care unit discharge, in 108 (8.3%) vs 100 (7.8%) (risk difference, 0.55%; 95% CI, –1.5% to 2.6%) at hospital discharge, in 105 (8.1%) vs 94 (7.3%) (risk difference, 0.78%; 95% CI, –1.3% to 2.8%) at 1 month, and in 110 (8.5%) vs 98 (7.6%) (risk difference, 0.86%; 95% CI, –1.2% to 3.0%) at 6 months with mechanical CPR and manual CPR, respectively. Among patients surviving at 6 months, 99% in the mechanical CPR group and 94% in the manual CPR group had CPC scores of 1 or 2. Conclusions and Relevance Among adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, there was no significant difference in 4-hour survival between patients treated with the mechanical CPR algorithm or those treated with guideline-adherent manual CPR. The vast majority of survivors in both groups had good neurological outcomes by 6 months. In clinical practice, mechanical CPR using the presented algorithm did not result in improved effectiveness compared with manual CPR.

  • 3. Rubertsson, Sten
    et al.
    Lindgren, Erik
    Smekal, David
    Östlund, Ollie
    Silverstolpe, Johan
    Lichtveld, Robert A
    Boomars, Rene
    Ahlstedt, Björn
    Skoog, Gunnar
    Kastberg, Robert
    Halliwell, David
    Box, Martyn
    Herlitz, Johan
    Högskolan i Borås, Institutionen för Vårdvetenskap.
    Karlsten, Rolf
    Mechanical chest compressions and simultanous defibrillationvs conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitationin out-of hospital cardiac arrest:the LINC randomized trial2014Inngår i: Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), ISSN 0098-7484, E-ISSN 1538-3598, Vol. 311, nr 1, s. 53-61Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert)
    Abstract [en]

    IMPORTANCE: A strategy using mechanical chest compressions might improve the poor outcome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, but such a strategy has not been tested in large clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether administering mechanical chest compressions with defibrillation during ongoing compressions (mechanical CPR), compared with manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (manual CPR), according to guidelines, would improve 4-hour survival. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter randomized clinical trial of 2589 patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest conducted between January 2008 and February 2013 in 4 Swedish, 1 British, and 1 Dutch ambulance services and their referring hospitals. Duration of follow-up was 6 months. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive either mechanical chest compressions (LUCAS Chest Compression System, Physio-Control/Jolife AB) combined with defibrillation during ongoing compressions (n = 1300) or to manual CPR according to guidelines (n = 1289). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Four-hour survival, with secondary end points of survival up to 6 months with good neurological outcome using the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) score. A CPC score of 1 or 2 was classified as a good outcome. RESULTS: Four-hour survival was achieved in 307 patients (23.6%) with mechanical CPR and 305 (23.7%) with manual CPR (risk difference, -0.05%; 95% CI, -3.3% to 3.2%; P > .99). Survival with a CPC score of 1 or 2 occurred in 98 (7.5%) vs 82 (6.4%) (risk difference, 1.18%; 95% CI, -0.78% to 3.1%) at intensive care unit discharge, in 108 (8.3%) vs 100 (7.8%) (risk difference, 0.55%; 95% CI, -1.5% to 2.6%) at hospital discharge, in 105 (8.1%) vs 94 (7.3%) (risk difference, 0.78%; 95% CI, -1.3% to 2.8%) at 1 month, and in 110 (8.5%) vs 98 (7.6%) (risk difference, 0.86%; 95% CI, -1.2% to 3.0%) at 6 months with mechanical CPR and manual CPR, respectively. Among patients surviving at 6 months, 99% in the mechanical CPR group and 94% in the manual CPR group had CPC scores of 1 or 2. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, there was no significant difference in 4-hour survival between patients treated with the mechanical CPR algorithm or those treated with guideline-adherent manual CPR. The vast majority of survivors in both groups had good neurological outcomes by 6 months. In clinical practice, mechanical CPR using the presented algorithm did not result in improved effectiveness compared with manual CPR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00609778.

1 - 3 of 3
RefereraExporteraLink til resultatlisten
Permanent link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf