Search

Background and Aims: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) make it possible to assess health-status problems from the perspective of persons suffering from a disease. The objective of the paper is to examine and compare the contents of PROMs related to IBD based on the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) as the frame of reference., Methods: A systematic literature review (1999-2009) in the databases Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and CENTRAL was performed to select IBD-specific PROMs. Abstracts and full-text articles were checked applying predefined eligibility criteria; IBD-specific PROMs were identified. The contents of the identified PROMs were examined by linking the items to ICF categories. The linked ICF categories of the PROMs were then compared., Results: The review resulted in the selection of eight IBD-specific PROMs (e.g., Cleveland Global Quality of Life, Inflammatory Bowel Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire, Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire-32, Rating Form of IBD Patient Concerns, Short Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire). In total, 129 items were identified, the majority of which (n=90; 69.8%) could be linked to specific ICF categories. None of the linked categories were contained in all PROMs. The most frequently identified categories were 'b1300 Energy level', 'b5254 Flatulence', 'd910 Community life' and 'd920 Recreation and leisure'., Conclusion: The present study provides an overview of IBD-specific PROMs and their items. The results of the content comparison provide valuable information to facilitate and account for the selection of appropriate PROMs for different purposes of data collection in clinical and research settings., (Copyright © 2011 European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Unlabelled: We estimated the predictive power with respect to defibrillation outcome of ventricular fibrillation (VF) mean frequency (FREQ), mean peak-to-trough amplitude (AMPL), and their combination. We examined VF electrocardiogram signals of 64 pigs from 4 different cardiac arrest models with different durations of untreated VF, different durations of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and use of different drugs (epinephrine, vasopressin, N-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester, or saline placebo). The frequency domain was restricted to the range from 4.33 to 30 Hz. In the 10-s epoch between 20 and 10 s before the first defibrillation shock, FREQ and AMPL were estimated. We introduced the survival index (SI; 0.68 Hz(-1). FREQ + 12.69 mV(-1). AMPL) by use of multiple logistic regression. Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric one-way analysis was used to analyze the different porcine models for significant difference. The variables FREQ, AMPL, and SI were compared with defibrillation outcome by means of univariate logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic curves. SI increased predictive power compared with AMPL or FREQ alone, resulting in 89% sensitivity and 86% specificity. The probabilities of predicting defibrillation outcome for FREQ, AMPL, and SI were 0.85, 0.89 and 0.90, respectively. FREQ, AMPL, and SI values were not sensitive in regard to the four different cardiac arrest models but were significantly different for vasopressin and epinephrine animals., Implications: We present a retrospective data analysis to evaluate the predictive power of different ventricular fibrillation electrocardiogram variables in pigs with respect to defibrillation outcome. We showed that our combination of variables leads to an improved forecast, which may help to reduce harmful unsuccessful defibrillation attempts.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) during epidural anesthesia is considered difficult because of diminished coronary perfusion pressure. The efficacy of epinephrine and vasopressin in this setting is unknown. Therefore, we designed this study to assess the effects of epinephrine versus vasopressin on coronary perfusion pressure in a porcine model with and without epidural anesthesia and subsequent cardiac arrest. Thirty minutes before induction of cardiac arrest, 16 pigs received epidural anesthesia with bupivacaine while another 12 pigs received only saline administration epidurally. After 1 min of untreated ventricular fibrillation, followed by 3 min of basic life-support CPR, Epidural Animals and Control Animals randomly received every 5 min either epinephrine (45, 45, and 200 microg/kg) or vasopressin (0.4, 0.4, and 0.8 U/kg). During basic life-support CPR, mean +/- SEM coronary perfusion pressure was significantly lower after epidural bupivacaine than after epidural saline (13 +/- 1 vs 24 +/- 2 mm Hg, P < 0.05). Ninety seconds after the first drug administration, epinephrine increased coronary perfusion pressure significantly less than vasopressin in control animals without epidural block (42 +/- 2 vs 57 +/- 5 mm Hg, P < 0.05), but comparably to vasopressin after epidural block (45 +/- 4 vs 48 +/- 6 mm Hg). Defibrillation was attempted after 18 min of CPR. After return of spontaneous circulation, bradycardia required treatment in animals receiving vasopressin, especially with epidural anesthesia. Systemic acidosis was increased in animals receiving epinephrine than vasopressin, regardless of presence or absence of epidural anesthesia. We conclude that vasopressin may be a more desirable vasopressor for resuscitation during epidural block because the response to a single dose is longer lasting, and acidosis after multiple doses is less severe compared with epinephrine.

This study evaluated ventricular fibrillation mean frequency and amplitude to predict defibrillation success in a porcine cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) model using repeated administration of vasopressin or epinephrine. After 4 min of cardiac arrest and 3 min of CPR, 10 pigs were randomly assigned to receive either vasopressin (early vasopressin: 0.4, 0.4, and 0.8 units/kg, respectively, n = 5) or epinephrine (early epinephrine: 45, 45, and 200 microg/kg, respectively, n = 5). Another 11 animals were randomly allocated after 4 min of cardiac arrest and 8 min of CPR to receive every 5 min either vasopressin (late vasopressin: 0.4 and 0. 8 units/kg, respectively, n = 5) or epinephrine (late epinephrine: 45 and 200 microg/kg, n = 6). Ventricular fibrillation mean frequency and amplitude on defibrillation were significantly higher in the vasopressin groups than in the epinephrine groups, respectively. In vasopressin versus epinephrine animals, mean frequency immediately before defibrillation was 9.6 +/- 1.5 Hz vs 7. 0 +/- 0.7 Hz (P < 0.001), mean amplitude was 0.65 +/- 0.26 mV vs 0. 21 +/- 0.14 mV (P < 0.001, and coronary perfusion pressure was 27 +/- 9 mm Hg vs 8 +/- 4 mm Hg (P < 0.00001), respectively. In contrast to no epinephrine animals, all vasopressin animals were successfully defibrillated and survived 1 h (P < 0.05). Mean fibrillation frequency and amplitude predicted successful defibrillation and may serve as noninvasive markers to monitor continuing CPR efforts. Furthermore, vasopressin was superior to epinephrine in maintaining these variables above a threshold necessary for successful defibrillation.