ライフサイエンスコーパス: life support

1 g the content about the use of postoperative life support.

2 surgery patients who require extracorporeal life support.

3 children who require cardiac extracorporeal life support.

4 surgical procedures, combined with advanced life support.

5 ission in which they received extracorporeal life support.

6 ical tests and encourages the maintenance of life support.

7 gnized concern in patients on extracorporeal life support.

8 ates, such as those requiring extracorporeal life support.

9 rred early and primarily after withdrawal of life support.

10 uscitate orders and to undergo withdrawal of life support.

11 hocardiography into advanced cardiopulmonary life support.

12 erate on a patient with preferences to limit life support.

13 reoperatively about the use of postoperative life support.

14 rrogates with recommendations about limiting life support.

15 ted with the timing of decisions to withdraw life support.

16 comes when considering a course of prolonged life support.

17 ons, including surgery and on extracorporeal life support.

18 us and 12 (55%) veno-arterial extracorporeal life support.

19 e chest syndrome managed with extracorporeal life support.

20 aneous circulation and 22% by extracorporeal life support.

21 herapy were implanted with an extracorporeal life support.

22 in addition to the standard advanced cardiac life-support (1D), lipid-emulsion therapy (1D), and we s

23 nd euthanasia and withholding or withdrawing life support, 3) the morality of a physician deliberatel

24 48.2%, p < 0.001), and undergo withdrawal of life support (61.2% vs 47.5%, p = 0.005).

25 opose that hotspots of chemolithoautotrophic life support a 'belt' of heterotrophic bacteria signific

26 ponsive to initial standard advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) treatment.

27 py, technological advances in extracorporeal life support, advances in understanding of the genetics

28 s may be reluctant to withdraw postoperative life support after a poor outcome.

29 pid emulsion therapy in the advanced cardiac life support algorithm for lidocaine toxicity as well as

30 Involvement in the decision to limit life support allowed surrogates to regain a sense of age

31 We previously reported life-supporting alpha1,3-galactosyltransferase knockout

32 n health care professionals receive advanced life support (ALS) training.

33 d by ambulance providers trained in advanced life support (ALS).

34 viding basic life support (BLS) and advanced life support (ALS).

35 Advanced life support always included IV epinephrine (0.05 mug/kg

36 a significantly longer time to withdrawal of life support among dying patients whose surrogates had o

37 y survival status, and time to withdrawal of life support among nonsurvivors.

38 surrogates and a shorter duration of use of life support among patients who died.

39 The review this year includes 5 basic life support and 1 pediatric Consensuses on Cardiopulmon

40 ing agreed upon limitations of postoperative life support and 2) declining to operate on such patient

41 proach to resolve decisional conflicts about life support and attempted to change surrogates' decisio

42 proach to resolve decisional conflicts about life support and attempted to change surrogates' decisio

43 tandard European Resuscitation Council basic life support and automatic external defibrillator course

44 ve high-risk surgery), 2) family demands for life support and clinicians' perception of a lack of leg

45 itored by a nurse with experience in cardiac life support and device programming who had immediate ba

46 To explore differences in the utilization of life support and end-of-life care between patients dying

47 e were significant differences in the use of life support and end-of-life care.

48 Patients with active cancer use less life support and may receive better end-of-life care tha

49 Patients requiring extracorporeal life support and patients initiated on continuous renal

50 who died within 60 mins after withdrawal of life support and those who did not.

51 , despite continuing progression of advanced life support and treatment.

52 reviewed are that decisions about initiating life support and withdrawing life support have received

53 C, our approach provides a unique pathway to life-support and fuel production for future human missio

54 97% were treated by out-of-hospital advanced life support, and 26% underwent intra-arrest transport.

55 d higher MELD scores (>=45), age, sex, race, life support, and encephalopathy.

56 lung injury, vasopressor use, extracorporeal life support, and mortality than either group (P <= .000

57 The 2020 CoSTRs for neonatal life support are published either as new statements or,

58 ecently developed systems for extracorporeal life support are required.

59 ged hospital stay and receive other forms of life support around the time of dialysis initiation have

60 nd whether it is associated with more use of life support at the end of life.

61 timism is associated with longer duration of life support at the end of life.

62 tivity, donor age, donor cause of death, and life support at the time of OLT were also risk factors f

63 list were compared using the Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) performance score, designed to measu

64 ithout primary biliary cirrhosis, and not on life support before transplant.

65 in the number of ambulances providing basic life support (BLS) and advanced life support (ALS).

66 supporting the superiority of ALS over basic life support (BLS) is limited, but some studies suggest

67 genation provides short-term cardiopulmonary life support, but is associated with peripheral innate i

68 roup compared with the conventional advanced life support (c-ALS) group; 1033 persons (74.5%) in the

69 Extracorporeal life support can lead to rapid reversal of hypoxemia and

70 tems have been suggested to possess the same life supporting capability as hydrothermal systems assoc

71 demographics, diagnosis, pre-extracorporeal life support care, extracorporeal life support variables

72 fluence on surgeons' willingness to withdraw life-supporting care.

73 The extracorporeal life support cohorts were as follows: 1) veno-venous ext

74 y were evaluated across three extracorporeal life support cohorts.

75 culation, they underwent either normothermic life support (control group, n = 12) or hypothermia indu

76 % of direct procedure-related extracorporeal life support costs.

77 Extracorporeal life support could be helpful for severe acute chest syn

78 professional group, the most recent advanced life-support course (in months) they had undergone, adva

79 /kg, at the onset of advanced cardiovascular life support (cyclosporine group) or no additional inter

80 aled that 1294 is well absorbed, with a half-life supporting daily administration.

81 e of interest was a documented limitation in life support defined as any of the following: 1) no card

82 Group A had significantly higher life support dependence (34.6%; P < .001), listing as Un

83 ic waveform data increasingly available from life support devices such as mechanical ventilators.

84 despite high illness acuity and presence of life support devices.

85 bin, minority ethnicity, graft under-sizing, life support, diabetes, and donor age were independent p

86 f ISS-like CM exercise upon the provision of life-support during exploration missions.

87 endance was lower in the electronic advanced life support (e-ALS) group compared with the conventiona

88 nger among those who received extracorporeal life support: each extra week of gestation was associate

89 rization laboratory (CCL) for extracorporeal life support (ECLS) and revascularization.

90 Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) as a bridge to lung transplantation

91 Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) has become increasingly popular as a

92 An artificial placenta using extracorporeal life support (ECLS) has been investigated in the laborat

93 systems (MCSs) in patients on extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is challenging due to expected poor

94 vival after pediatric cardiac extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is guarded, and neurological morbidi

95 We hypothesized that extracorporeal life support (ECLS) may be an effective treatment option

96 epth of 51 mm with standard advanced cardiac life support epinephrine dosing (Guideline care).

97 this study was to report the extracorporeal life support experience for severe acute chest syndrome

98 Participating in a decision to limit life support for a loved one in the ICU is associated wi

99 randomized clinical trial of extracorporeal life support for acute respiratory failure and (2) the u

100 Clinical trials of extracorporeal life support for acute respiratory failure in adults in

101 the last decade in the use of extracorporeal life support for adults with acute respiratory failure r

102 cision makers involved in decisions to limit life support for an incapacitated patient in the ICU hav

103 ational Registry who received extracorporeal life support for cardiac support between 1998 and 2012 w

104 ediatric patients who receive extracorporeal life support for cardiac support.

105 ility exists in the timing of limitations in life support for critically ill patients.

106 to lighten sedation; and (5) do not continue life support for patients at high risk for death or seve

107 ents temporary implanted with extracorporeal life support for refractory arrhythmic storm responsible

108 sickle cell disease required extracorporeal life support for severe acute chest syndrome, including

109 pful in decision making about the utility of life support for very elderly patients who are admitted

110 oorganisms are key components that determine life support functions, but the functional redundancy in

111 ces and internal tissues provide a number of life-support functions for their host.

112 American Heart Association Advanced Cardiac Life Support guideline updates.

113 merican Heart Association pediatric advanced life support guidelines follows the 2018 and 2019 system

114 e American Heart Association pediatric basic life support guidelines follows the 2019 systematic revi

115 American Heart Association Advanced Cardiac Life Support guidelines have had a rapid and substantial

116 an Heart Association advanced cardiovascular life support guidelines summarizes the most recent publi

117 following the withholding or withdrawing of life support had a formal do-not-resuscitate order in pl

118 e of pump-driven and pumpless extracorporeal life support has rapidly expanded and allow for prolonge

119 bout initiating life support and withdrawing life support have received significant attention.

120 kidney grafts and more than 2 years for non-life-supporting heart grafts to less than 1 month for li

121 erapy with prone ventilation, extracorporeal life support, high-frequency oscillatory ventilation, or

122 median time of 3 hours after extracorporeal life support implantation for the remaining ones.

123 cteristics and outcomes after extracorporeal life support implantation were analyzed.

124 vors had a higher severity at extracorporeal life support implantation, as assessed by their Vasoacti

125 ng to extreme illness that requires advanced life support in a distinct geographic location in the ho

126 ry failure and (2) the use of extracorporeal life support in patients with severe acute respiratory d

127 Adults who participated in decisions about life support in the ICU.

128 d surrogates involved in a decision to limit life support in the ICU.

129 The role of extracorporeal life support in the management of adults with acute resp

130 performed for this 2020 CoSTR for pediatric life support included the topics of sequencing of airway

131 eatment Recommendations (CoSTR) for neonatal life support includes evidence from 7 systematic reviews

132 With Treatment Recommendations for advanced life support includes updates on multiple advanced life

133 for the treatment of opioid overdose; basic life support, including automated external defibrillator

134 Association recommendations for adult basic life support incorporate the most recently published evi

135 Interest in extracorporeal life support increased with the confluence of 2 events i

136 vidence supporting the use of extracorporeal life support increases, its indications are expanding to

137 th an increase in the rate of limitations in life support independent of the absolute magnitude of Se

138 nt scores was associated with limitations in life support, independent of the absolute magnitude of t

139 rse (in months) they had undergone, advanced life-support instructor/provider status, and whether the

140 can pediatric patients in the Extracorporeal Life Support International Registry who received extraco

141 ons generally assume that patients buy-in to life-supporting interventions that might be necessary po

142 On day1, 733 patients (72.5%) received life-supporting interventions.

143 Advanced life support is associated with substantially higher mor

144 atment Recommendations (CoSTR) for pediatric life support is based on the most extensive evidence eva

145 severe forms of the syndrome, extracorporeal life support is increasingly being deployed for severe h

146 Extracorporeal life support is now an acceptable form of organ support

147 redict the time of death after withdrawal of life support is of specific interest for organ donation

148 Extracorporeal life support is used for patients with severe heart fail

149 s be discontinued at the end of life or when life support is withdrawn.

150 Cynomolgus monkey recipients of life-supporting kidney allografts were treated orally wi

151 assessed in non-human primate recipients of life-supporting kidney allografts.

152 primates, varying from almost 10 months for life-supporting kidney grafts and more than 2 years for

153 significantly better survival 21 days after life-supporting kidney transplantation and developed les

154 We have previously reported life-supporting kidney xenograft-survival greater than 8

155 orting heart grafts to less than 1 month for life-supporting liver and lung grafts.

156 care programmes, simple inexpensive advanced life support management can improve child survival world

157 Existing advanced life support management guidelines for children in limit

158 ances in prevention are being made, advanced life support management in children in developing countr

159 ent of viral fulminant myocarditis relies on life support measures.

160 survivable with the application of advanced life support measures.

161 port further evaluation of this new advanced life support methodology in humans.

162 Haem is a life supporting molecule that is ubiquitous in all major

163 distress syndrome, have made extracorporeal life support more widely accepted in clinical practice.

164 d Life Support, Pediatric Basic and Advanced Life Support, Neonatal Life Support, Resuscitation Educa

165 BCCNS from 5 US clinical sites and the BCCNS Life Support Network and 4 physicians.

166 tute and Basal Cell Carcinoma Nevus Syndrome Life Support Network.

167 Whilst closed-loop life-support (O(2), water and CO(2)) systems may be poss

168 o believed it was not acceptable to withdraw life support on postoperative day 14 (odds ratio 2.1, 95

169 geons who felt it was acceptable to withdraw life support on postoperative day 14 compared with those

170 atients' desires for prolonged postoperative life support on the basis of these preoperative conversa

171 was well tolerated, with the estimated half-life supporting once-daily (QD) dosing.

172 or renal replacement therapy, extracorporeal life support or cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and appea

173 ac arrest, immediate need for extracorporeal life support or hemodialysis.

174 bstructive pulmonary disease, extracorporeal life support or hyperbaric oxygen therapy, and animal st

175 d at least one specific procedure related to life support or organ failure (23.0%).

176 tructure of mitochondria and other important life supporting organelles.

177 We examined data from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organisation registry to identify risk fact

178 2012 were extracted from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) international registry.

179 We used data from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) Registry to characteris

180 Case reports submitted to the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization and hospital records of the su

181 s of acute myocarditis in the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization database from 1995 through 201

182 Data reported to Extracorporeal Life Support Organization from 350 international extraco

183 2013 were extracted from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization international multi-institutio

184 Data from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry and the Organ Procure

185 Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry database.

186 ective cohort study using the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry, including adults wit

187 The Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry, which includes data

188 ective cohort study using the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry.

189 ygenation and included in the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry.

190 International Registry of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization to identify risk factors for m

191 atory failure reported to the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization's data registry during 2001-20

192 Retrospective analysis of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization's data registry.

193 n centers registered with the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization.

194 ritical Care Medicine and the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization.

195 ne chronic illness (P = 0.02); limitation of life support (P = 0.0004); a high Sepsis-Related Organ F

196 tensivists intended to discuss withdrawal of life support (p = 0.81), but intensivists randomized to

197 mortality in three cohorts of extracorporeal life support patients.

198 The Adult Basic and Advanced Life Support, Pediatric Basic and Advanced Life Support,

199 the spectrum of FM, including extracorporeal life support, percutaneous and durable ventricular assis

200 for waitlist mortality in Status 1A included life support, performance status, severe coagulopathy, s

201 Consistent survival of life-supporting pig heart xenograft recipients beyond 90

202 ng atmospheric composition and maintaining a life-supporting planet.

203 ithout primary biliary cirrhosis, and not on life support prior to transplant.

204 of life-sustaining therapy," "limitation of life support," "prognosis," or "goals of care" together

205 teractive with their care providers, and the life support provided in the intensive care unit would b

206 Advanced life support providers should be trained to use a manual

207 Forty advanced life-support providers leading a cardiac arrest team in

208 , administering heparin before withdrawal of life support reduced the incidence of primary nonfunctio

209 e first experimental arm, the patient wanted life support regardless of functional outcome.

210 lly died, none of them due to extracorporeal life support-related complications, but mostly due to th

211 l life support variables, and extracorporeal life support-related complications.

212 ite advances in resuscitation science, basic life support remains a critical factor in determining ou

213 ic Basic and Advanced Life Support, Neonatal Life Support, Resuscitation Education Science, and Syste

214 merican Heart Association/Pediatric Advanced Life Support sanctioned recommendations.

215 Extracorporeal life support seems an efficient therapy for acute, poten

216 Basic first aid and basic life support skills seem to be sufficient in case of an

217 s), witnessed arrest, and basic and advanced life support started within 10 and 20 min, respectively.

218 ence With Treatment Recommendations on basic life support summarizes evidence evaluations performed f

219 ad, have led a fringe existence connected to life support system engineering and space travel.

220 human population is rapidly eroding Earth's life-support system.

221 implement essential therapies and to tailor life support systems such as mechanical ventilation, thi

222 ustrial processes or for use as nutrients in life support systems.

223 utionary processes that maintain the Earth's life support systems.

224 e on different aspects of humanity's diverse life-support systems are complex and often difficult to

225 to save wild species and humanity's crucial life-support systems from this existential threat.

226 this goal will require rebuilding the marine life-support systems that deliver the many benefits that

227 The Neonatal Life Support Task Force generally determined by consensu

228 22 topics that were prioritized by the Basic Life Support Task Force of the International Liaison Com

229 ystematic reviews performed by the Pediatric Life Support Task Force of the International Liaison Com

230 Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Advanced Life Support Task Force performed a systematic review to

231 e evaluation ever performed by the Pediatric Life Support Task Force.

232 Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Neonatal Life Support Task Force.

233 od affect susceptibility to disease later in life, supporting the belief that epigenetic changes can

234 used by participation in a decision to limit life support, the act of decision making may, counterint

235 y-breaths in the delivery of pediatric basic life support, the initial timing and dose intervals for

236 6 patients undergoing cardiac extracorporeal life support, the majority of patients were of white rac

237 s been learned concerning the institution of life support therapies to sustain patients with diverse

238 who survive the organ failures that mandate life-support therapies such as mechanical ventilation.

239 al care medicine concerns the institution of life-support therapies, such as mechanical ventilation,

240 Life-supporting therapies were withheld in 11 (31%) pati

241 rding the high rate of decisions to withhold life-supporting therapies, the probability of a favorabl

242 aluation of hospital costs of extracorporeal life support therapy in the Netherlands showed that mean

243 declared dead beyond 1 hr from withdrawal of life support therapy.

244 Staggered patterns of withdrawal of life-support therapy were reported in all studies descri

245 es described different aspects of process of life-support therapy withdrawal and measured different t

246 al research articles describing processes of life-support therapy withdrawal in North American, Europ

247 g patient preferences to limit postoperative life-supporting therapy during informed consent.

248 are more reluctant to withdraw postoperative life-supporting therapy for patients with complications

249 ow advance directives limiting postoperative life-supporting therapy influence the decision to operat

250 phic region, and gender, odds of withdrawing life-supporting therapy were significantly greater in ca

251 l (95%) discussed the need for postoperative life-supporting therapy.

252 e patient and family requested withdrawal of life-supporting therapy.

253 an advance directive limiting postoperative life-supporting therapy.

254 neuromuscular blockers during withdrawal of life support to assess pain; 4) endorsing the use of hig

255 ng the efficacy and safety of extracorporeal life support to treat refractory arrhythmic storm respon

256 upport includes updates on multiple advanced life support topics addressed with 3 different types of

257 s, and taught in current paediatric advanced life support training courses from the perspective of fu

258 nities, and cardiac arrest centers; advanced life support training, including team and leadership tra

259 t mean total hospital cost of extracorporeal life support treatment is euro 106.263 per patient.

260 period 2010-2013 and received extracorporeal life support treatment.

261 preoperative request to limit postoperative life- supporting treatment.

262 s 63 IU/L, and the period from withdrawal of life-supporting treatment to circulatory arrest was 150

263 the odds of preoperatively contracting about life-supporting treatment were more than two-fold greate

264 They rarely discussed the use of prolonged life-supporting treatment, and patients' questions were

265 ents would not honor the request to withdraw life-supporting treatment.

266 eir patients preoperatively about the use of life supporting treatments postoperatively as a conditio

267 However, they rarely discuss prolonged life-supporting treatments explicitly and patients do no

268 d what limits they would place on additional life-supporting treatments.

269 Assessment score, the rate of limitation in life support tripled in the first 3 days after acute lun

270 or life-saving crew trained to perform basic life support until arrival of the EMS.

271 of active cancer influences the intensity of life support utilization and the quality of end-of-life

272 Veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (VA-ECLS) is widely used to treat refractor

273 acorporeal life support care, extracorporeal life support variables, and extracorporeal life support-

274 investigate how the timing of limitations in life support varies with changes in organ failure status

275 lysis together suggested that extracorporeal life support was beneficial for patients with very sever

276 essions and mechanical ventilation, advanced life support was performed (100% O2, up to six defibrill

277 recipients if the location of withdrawal of life support was the operating theater, but not if the l

278 Life support was withdrawn in 330 of 427 patients (78%)

279 Willingness to withdraw life-support was significantly lower in the setting of s

280 The costs of extracorporeal life support were differentiated in costs of procedures

281 days and rates of ischemic events and use of life support were similar among those assigned to blood

282 d severe adverse reactions, and who required life support were similar in the two intervention groups

283 dvanced age, length of stay, and duration of life support were the least acceptable.

284 Surgeons who did not withdraw life-support were significantly more likely to report th

285 ervational study suggest that extracorporeal life support, when combined with lower Vt and airway pre

286 ll disease patients receiving extracorporeal life support while in severe multiple organ failure.

287 re regulator; and group C-3 minutes of basic life support with active compression-decompression cardi

288 Advanced life support with active compression-decompression plus

289 llation, and if needed 2 minutes of advanced life support with active compression-decompression plus

290 llation, and if needed 2 minutes of advanced life support with active compression-decompression plus

291 and physical therapy for patients requiring life support with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation be

292 nsivists' decisions to discuss withdrawal of life support with family.

293 you bring up the possibility of withdrawing life support with Mrs. X's family?" answered using a fiv

294 ere randomized to group A-3 minutes of basic life support with standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation

295 llation, and if needed 2 minutes of advanced life support with standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation

296 ry resuscitation; group B-3 minutes of basic life support with standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation

297 nts were stratified according to location of life support withdrawal (intensive care unit or operatin

298 Various aspects of the donor life support withdrawal procedure, including location of

299 maining 13 patients (50%) had extracorporeal life support withdrawn after 6.7 +/- 3.6 days and were d

300 cenarios, the patient did not want continued life support without a reasonable chance of independent