search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Sergey Mironov/Shutterstock.com


Critical care


Oxygen paradox Inside the


In recent years, a number of studies have found that conservative, normoxic oxygenation strategies could yield certain benefi ts and can help reduce mortality. Recently, a study conducted by researchers at UCL and Great Ormond Street Hospital has found similar fi ndings with reduced oxygen levels in critically ill children on mechanical ventilators potentially saving tens of young lives each year. Roughly 20,000 children are admitted to intensive care each year; with three-quarters requiring oxygen through a ventilator, how can reduced oxygen result in improved health outcomes? Monica Karpinski speaks to associate professor of medicine and critical care physician at Vanderbilt University Medical Centre, Matthew Semler and Mark Peters professor of paediatric intensive care at University College London Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health to investigate the latest research to fi nd out whether reduced oxygen could help save lives.


ince its first reported use in acute care in 1885, oxygen has become a mainstay of clinical practice. It’s the most used drug in emergency medicine today, where it’s typically prescribed to prevent hypoxemia by bringing the amount of oxygen in the blood to around 94–98%, towards normal levels.


S Practical Patient Care / www.practical-patient-care.com


This widespread use of oxygen has largely gone unquestioned: after all, it’s considered very safe and low levels can be dangerous. Yet, until very recently, there’s been a lack of experimental evidence supporting the use of oxygen therapy. “We’ve never had any rigorous trials evaluating its impact on patient outcomes until the last five


49


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61