阿法霉素与异丙酚麻醉诱导剂在提高新生儿存活率和活力方面的比较

L. Sofyan, F. Martínez-Taboada
{"title":"阿法霉素与异丙酚麻醉诱导剂在提高新生儿存活率和活力方面的比较","authors":"L. Sofyan, F. Martínez-Taboada","doi":"10.18849/ve.v6i2.344","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PICO question \nIn routine canine caesareans, is alfaxalone a superior anaesthetic induction agent than propofol in increasing the rate of survival and vigour of neonates? \n  \nClinical bottom line \nCategory of research question \nTreatment \nThe number and type of study designs reviewed \nThree randomised positive clinical trials have compared the efficacy between alfaxalone and propofol in routine canine caesarean sections for increased neonatal survival and vigour \nStrength of evidence \nWeak \nOutcomes reported \nAlthough two studies found alfaxalone to be associated with higher Apgar scores for neonates than propofol, each study nonetheless revealed positive vigour and high survival rates from the use of either alfaxalone or propofol. The evidence is too weak to suggest that one induction agent is superior to another. The selection between the two induction agents may not be the main concern in regard to neonatal depression and 24 hour survival post-delivery, provided that the entire canine caesarean protocol is thoroughly and carefully studied \nConclusion \nText here \n  \nHow to apply this evidence in practice \nThe application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources. \nKnowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care. \n  \n","PeriodicalId":257905,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary Evidence","volume":"175 ","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of alfaxalone versus propofol as anaesthetic induction agents in increasing the rate of survival and vigour of neonates\",\"authors\":\"L. Sofyan, F. Martínez-Taboada\",\"doi\":\"10.18849/ve.v6i2.344\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PICO question \\nIn routine canine caesareans, is alfaxalone a superior anaesthetic induction agent than propofol in increasing the rate of survival and vigour of neonates? \\n  \\nClinical bottom line \\nCategory of research question \\nTreatment \\nThe number and type of study designs reviewed \\nThree randomised positive clinical trials have compared the efficacy between alfaxalone and propofol in routine canine caesarean sections for increased neonatal survival and vigour \\nStrength of evidence \\nWeak \\nOutcomes reported \\nAlthough two studies found alfaxalone to be associated with higher Apgar scores for neonates than propofol, each study nonetheless revealed positive vigour and high survival rates from the use of either alfaxalone or propofol. The evidence is too weak to suggest that one induction agent is superior to another. The selection between the two induction agents may not be the main concern in regard to neonatal depression and 24 hour survival post-delivery, provided that the entire canine caesarean protocol is thoroughly and carefully studied \\nConclusion \\nText here \\n  \\nHow to apply this evidence in practice \\nThe application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources. \\nKnowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care. \\n  \\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":257905,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Veterinary Evidence\",\"volume\":\"175 \",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Veterinary Evidence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18849/ve.v6i2.344\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Veterinary Evidence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18849/ve.v6i2.344","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在犬类常规剖腹产手术中,在提高新生儿存活率和活力方面,阿法沙龙是否优于异丙酚?临床结论研究问题类别治疗方法研究设计的数量和类型综述了三个随机阳性临床试验比较了阿法索酮和异丙酚在常规犬剖宫产中提高新生儿存活率和活力的疗效证据强度弱结果报告尽管有两项研究发现阿法索酮与新生儿Apgar评分高于异丙酚相关。尽管如此,每项研究都显示了使用甲氧嘧啶或异丙酚的积极活力和高存活率。证据太弱,不能表明一种诱导剂优于另一种。两种诱导剂的选择可能不是新生儿抑郁和产后24小时生存率的主要问题,前提是对整个犬剖宫产方案进行了彻底和仔细的研究。结论本文如何在实践中应用这一证据在实践中的应用应考虑多种因素,不限于:个人的临床专业知识,病人的情况和业主的价值观,你工作的国家,地点或诊所,你面前的个案,治疗和资源的可用性。知识摘要是帮助加强或告知决策的资源。他们不会凌驾于从业者的责任或判断之上,去做对他们照顾的动物最好的事情。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of alfaxalone versus propofol as anaesthetic induction agents in increasing the rate of survival and vigour of neonates
PICO question In routine canine caesareans, is alfaxalone a superior anaesthetic induction agent than propofol in increasing the rate of survival and vigour of neonates?   Clinical bottom line Category of research question Treatment The number and type of study designs reviewed Three randomised positive clinical trials have compared the efficacy between alfaxalone and propofol in routine canine caesarean sections for increased neonatal survival and vigour Strength of evidence Weak Outcomes reported Although two studies found alfaxalone to be associated with higher Apgar scores for neonates than propofol, each study nonetheless revealed positive vigour and high survival rates from the use of either alfaxalone or propofol. The evidence is too weak to suggest that one induction agent is superior to another. The selection between the two induction agents may not be the main concern in regard to neonatal depression and 24 hour survival post-delivery, provided that the entire canine caesarean protocol is thoroughly and carefully studied Conclusion Text here   How to apply this evidence in practice The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources. Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.  
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Erratum to: Comparing the effectiveness of clomipramine and fluoxetine in dogs with anxiety-related behaviours In dogs with thoracolumbar disc extrusion does the use of acupuncture improve clinical recovery? Effectiveness of mesenchymal stem cell therapy in cats with chronic gingivostomatitis Effectiveness of mesenchymal stem cell therapy in cats with chronic gingivostomatitis Does local anaesthetic reduce pain in rubber ring castration of neonatal lambs?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1