west china medical publishers
Author
  • Title
  • Author
  • Keyword
  • Abstract
Advance search
Advance search

Search

find Author "王姣" 2 results
  • 三种监测方法评价重症监护病房环境物体表面清洁消毒效果的对比研究

    目的采用3种监测方法评价重症监护病房(ICU)环境物体表面清洁消毒效果,为ICU选择环境物体表面清洁消毒效果监测方法提供依据,提高ICU医务人员对环境清洁消毒工作重要性的认识。 方法2015年4月1日-30日选择ICU手高频接触物体表面100处,分别采用荧光标记监测法、棉拭子采样监测法、平皿印迹监测法监测环境物体表面清洁消毒效果,数据分析采用SPSS 19.0软件处理。 结果荧光标记监测法、棉拭子采样监测法、平皿印迹监测法监测合格率分别为26%、67%和75%,荧光标记监测法合格率低于棉拭子采样监测法和平皿印迹监测法,差异有统计学意义(χ2=33.786,P<0.001;χ2=48.025,P<0.001),棉拭子采样监测法与平皿印迹监测法合格率比较差异无统计学意义(χ2=1.554,P=0.213);3种监测方法结果不合格采样点具有一致性;荧光标记监测法具有便捷性、可视性、操作简单,成本低。 结论荧光标记监测法、棉拭子采样监测法、平皿印迹监测法3种监测方法均可用于评价ICU环境物体表面清洁消毒效果,但荧光标记监测法优于棉拭子采样监测法和平皿印迹监测法。

    Release date: Export PDF Favorites Scan
  • Efficacy and safety of SGLT2 inhibitors for heart failure: a network meta-analysis

    Objective To systematically review the efficacy and safety of different SGLT2 inhibitors in the treatment of heart failure. Methods The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed and EMbase databases were searched for randomized controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure from inception to July 2, 2021. Two researchers independently screened literature, extracted data and evaluated the risk of bias of the included studies. Network meta-analysis was then performed using Stata 16.0 software. Results A total of 16 randomized controlled trials, including 15 312 patients, involving 5 interventions, namely dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, canagliflozin, sotagliflozin and ertugliflozin were included. Results of network meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the compound outcome of hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, all-cause mortality, risk of cardiovascular mortality and serious adverse reactions among patients with heart failure among 5 different SGLT2 inhibitors (P>0.05). Compared with placebo, both selective and non-selective SGLT2 inhibitors improved the risk of hospitalization for heart failure, hospitalization for heart failure, or compound cardiovascular mortality (P<0.05), while only selective SGLT2 inhibitors improved the risk of cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and serious adverse events (P<0.05). However, there was no significant difference between them (P>0.05). The area under the cumulative ordering probability curve of selective and non-selective SGLT2 inhibitors ranked first and second, except for the combined outcome of heart failure or cardiovascular death. Conclusion The current evidence indicates that there is no significant difference in the efficacy and safety of the 5 different SGLT2 inhibitors in the treatment of heart failure, and there is no significant difference between selective SGLT2 inhibitors and non-selective SGLT2 inhibitors. Due to the limited quantity and quality of included studies, more high-quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.

    Release date: Export PDF Favorites Scan
1 pages Previous 1 Next

Format

Content