ライフサイエンスコーパス: life support

1 aneous circulation and 22% by extracorporeal life support.

2 rred early and primarily after withdrawal of life support.

3 uscitate orders and to undergo withdrawal of life support.

4 hocardiography into advanced cardiopulmonary life support.

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

6 reoperatively about the use of postoperative life support.

7 rrogates with recommendations about limiting life support.

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

9 comes when considering a course of prolonged life support.

10 and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and life support.

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

12 receive MICR but received standard advanced life support.

13 sic life support and advanced cardiovascular life support.

14 2005 guideline-recommended advanced cardiac life support.

15 deaths occurred by consensual withdrawal of life support.

16 t occurred after 15 mins of advanced cardiac life support.

17 directive for whom they considered limiting life support.

18 ation, prone positioning, and extracorporeal life support.

19 (sternal (cardiac) compressions) into basic life support.

20 ipient age > 50 years old; and 4) history of life support.

21 dose) therapies during simulated prehospital life support.

22 surgery patients who require extracorporeal life support.

23 herapy were implanted with an extracorporeal life support.

24 children who require cardiac extracorporeal life support.

25 surgical procedures, combined with advanced life support.

26 ission in which they received extracorporeal life support.

27 ical tests and encourages the maintenance of life support.

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

29 e a recommendation about whether to continue life support; 2) facilitative role (23 of 63), in which

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

31 48.2%, p < 0.001), and undergo withdrawal of life support (61.2% vs 47.5%, p = 0.005).

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

33 for bystanders; a different Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) algorithm for Emergency Medical Syst

34 demonstrating the efficacy of extracorporeal life support, adult cardiopulmonary failure extracorpore

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

36 ation and dies from consensual withdrawal of life support after a prolonged and costly hospital stay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

46 stantial changes to the algorithms for basic life support and advanced cardiovascular life support.

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

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

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

50 a paradigm shift away from advanced cardiac life support and basic life support, which emphasize sta

51 School children can be taught basic life support and can be used to help disseminate the ski

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

61 ecently developed systems for extracorporeal life support are required.

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

63 l, invasive technique termed 'extracorporeal life support' as a means to provide temporary pulmonary

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

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

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

67 Basic life support (BLS) protocols have been simplified.

68 Twenty female pigs and 20 Basic Life Support (BLS)-certified rescuers.

69 family deliberations about whether to forego life support, but physicians did not discuss the patient

70 The algorithms provided for advanced cardiac life support by the American Heart Association and the E

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

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

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

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

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

76 he treatment algorithms for Advanced Cardiac Life Support, citing the evidence on which the Guideline

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

78 y were evaluated across three extracorporeal life support cohorts.

79 monstrate its efficacy, adult extracorporeal life support continues in limited centers of excellence.

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

81 % of direct procedure-related extracorporeal life support costs.

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

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

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

85 es, and state laws regarding who should make life-support decisions for this patient population.

86 Most life-support decisions were made by physicians without i

87 Thirty-six of 37 life-support decisions were made in a manner inconsisten

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

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

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

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

92 discussion of the patient's wish to withdraw life support during a family conference (p < .001).

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

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

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

96 Critically ill neonates on extracorporeal life support (ECLS) demonstrate elevated rates of protei

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

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

99 Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is a means of respiratory and hemody

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

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

102 S) complications of pediatric extracorporeal life support (ECLS).

103 g for improved skill acquisition in advanced life support, emergency airway management, and nontechni

104 include simplifying the technique for basic life support, emphasizing the importance of compressions

105 d is disrupting the global climate and other life-supporting environmental systems, thereby creating

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

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

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

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

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

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

112 ctive antithrombotic therapy during advanced life support for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, we did

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

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

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

116 an donations when they are asked to withdraw life support from patients in the operating room and mon

117 ve care unit (ICU) physicians have withdrawn life-support from a patient who lacked decision-making c

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

119 The new pediatric basic life support guideline changes are underscored.

120 enough data," "not part of Advanced Cardiac Life Support guidelines," and "too technically difficult

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

122 Extracorporeal life support has been implemented since the origins of c

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

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

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

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

127 eceded by a decision to withhold or withdraw life support, high-quality decision making and end-of-li

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

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

130 Physicians considered limiting life support in 37 such patients or would have considere

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

132 ion enables laypeople to be trained in basic life support in a fraction of the time of traditional co

133 cians in intensive care units have withdrawn life support in incapacitated patients who lack surrogat

134 ns take in the decision-making process about life support in intensive care units.

135 hysician should be involved in withdrawal of life support in non-heart-beating donors, unless special

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

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

138 uired the rapid initiation of extracorporeal life support, in order to achieve hemodynamic stability.

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

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

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

142 ill, a power of attorney for health care, or life-support instructions.

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

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

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

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

147 Extracorporeal life support is an invasive technique that can provide s

148 Advanced life support is associated with substantially higher mor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

156 Life-supporting kidney transplantations were performed b

157 Life-supporting kidney transplantations were performed b

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

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

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

161 Existing advanced life support management guidelines for children in limit

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

163 om patients who have requested withdrawal of life support may be one way to increase supply.

164 survivable with the application of advanced life support measures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

173 s during which discussions about withdrawing life support or delivery of bad news were likely to occu

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

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

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

177 tructure of mitochondria and other important life supporting organelles.

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

179 2012 were extracted from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) international registry.

180 The extracorporeal life support organization (ELSO) registry was queried fo

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

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

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

184 2013 were extracted from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization international multi-institutio

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

186 Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry database.

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

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

192 e analyzed with data from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization, and predictors of in-hospital

193 n centers registered with the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization.

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

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

196 physician-family conflict about withdrawing life support (p<.001) and the physician's race being whi

197 ly's decision to withdraw or not to withdraw life-support (p=.005).

198 mortality in three cohorts of extracorporeal life support patients.

199 On arrival of advanced life support, patients were treated with standard cardio

200 odality for teaching physicians and advanced life support personnel emergency airway management skill

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

202 Mechanical ventilation is a life-supporting process employed in the management of re

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

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

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

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

207 ients and families have chosen to forego all life support, receiving comfort measures only.

208 the MTL is involved in memory from early in life, supporting recognition memory within the first pos

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

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

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

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

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

214 ite advances in resuscitation science, basic life support remains the key to improving survival outco

215 EMS advanced life support rescuers (paramedics, prehospital nurses, a

216 rgeting EPOR would offer an even longer half-life, support robust monthly dosing, and, unlike EPO pro

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

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

219 Because extracorporeal life support serves only to supplement physiological der

220 ystems as natural capital assets that supply life-support services of tremendous value.

221 ices (EMS) providers who administer advanced life support should include diagnostic 12-lead electroca

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

223 model: history of previous transplantation, life support status at transplantation, donor age, donor

224 Adult extracorporeal life support survival rates for respiratory failure aver

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

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

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

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

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

230 The optimal basic life support technique that will generate the highest su

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

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

233 6 patients undergoing cardiac extracorporeal life support, the majority of patients were of white rac

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

250 an advance directive limiting postoperative life-supporting therapy.

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

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

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

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

255 preoperative request to limit postoperative life- supporting treatment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

263 adult cardiopulmonary failure extracorporeal life support trials have proved less compelling.

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

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

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

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

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

269 the mean time to death after withdrawal from life support was 18.3 minutes.

270 ferences in which withholding or withdrawing life support was discussed or bad news was delivered.

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

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

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

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

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

276 Decisions to limit life support were generally made by physicians without j

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

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

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

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

281 ns on life-sustaining treatments, 2) NPPV as life support when patients and families have decided to

282 from advanced cardiac life support and basic life support, which emphasize standardization of content

283 ch patient for whom they considered limiting life-support who lacked decisional capacity and a legall

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

285 Advanced life support with active compression-decompression plus

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

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

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

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

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

291 classified into three categories: 1) NPPV as life support with no preset limitations on life-sustaini

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

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

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

295 les physicians take in decision-making about life support with surrogates but little negotiation of d

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

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

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

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

300 swine followed by standard advanced cardiac life support would result in short-term outcomes approxi