No abstract

No abstract

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of death and disability and impairs health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Psychiatric disorders have been recognized as major components of TBI morbidity, yet few studies have addressed the relationship between these outcomes. Sample size, selection bias, and retrospective design, are methodological limitations for TBI-related psychiatric studies. For this study, 33 patients with severe TBI were evaluated prospectively regarding demographic, clinical, radiological, neurosurgical, laboratory, and psychosocial characteristics, as well as psychiatric manifestations and HRQOL, 18 months after hospitalization. Psychiatric manifestations were assessed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID-I), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), and the Apathy Evaluation Scale (AES). HRQOL was determined using the Medical Outcomes Study's 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Following TBI, a significant increase in the prevalence of major depressive disorder (MDD) and generalized anxiety disorder (p=0.02), and a significant decrease in the prevalence of alcohol and cannabinoid abuse (p=0.001) were observed. The most frequent psychiatric disorders following severe TBI were found to be MDD (30.3%), and personality changes (33.3%). In comparison to patients without personality changes, patients with personality changes experienced a decline in general health and impairments in physical and social functioning. Patients with MDD showed impairment in all SF-36 domains compared to non-depressed patients. This prospective TBI-related psychiatric study is the first to demonstrate a significant association between MDD, personality changes, and HRQOL, following severe TBI in a well-defined sample of patients.

No abstract

The study highlights the variability in estimates of depression prevalence in COPD. It could be explained by methodological differences across the included studies. This suggests that a standardization is critical to improve precision of the estimates.

Objective:To present the essential guidelines for pharmacological management of patients with psychomotor agitation in Brazil.Methods:This is a systematic review of articles retrieved from the MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and SciELO databases published from 1997 to 2017. Other relevant articles in the literature were also used to develop these guidelines. The search strategy used structured questions formulated using the PICO model, as recommended by the Guidelines Project of the Brazilian Medical Association. Recommendations were summarized according to their level of evidence, which was determined using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine system and critical appraisal tools.Results:Of 5,362 articles retrieved, 1,731 abstracts were selected for further reading. The final sample included 74 articles that met all inclusion criteria. The evidence shows that pharmacologic treatment is indicated only after non-pharmacologic approaches have failed. The cause of the agitation, side effects of the medications, and contraindications must guide the medication choice. The oral route should be preferred for drug administration; IV administration must be avoided. All subjects must be monitored before and after medication administration.Conclusion:If non-pharmacological strategies fail, medications are needed to control agitation and violent behavior. Once medicated, the patient should be monitored until a tranquil state is possible without excessive sedation.Systematic review registry number:CRD42017054440.

Objective:To present the essential guidelines for non-pharmacological management of patients with psychomotor agitation in Brazil.Methods:These guidelines were developed based on a systematic review of articles published from 1997 to 2017, retrieved from MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Database of Systematic Review, and SciELO. Other relevant articles identified by searching the reference lists of included studies were also used to develop these guidelines. The search strategy used structured questions formulated using the PICO model, as recommended by the Guidelines Project of the Brazilian Medical Association. Recommendations were summarized according to their level of evidence, which was determined using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine system and critical appraisal tools.Results:We initially selected 1,731 abstracts among 5,362 articles. The final sample included 104 articles that fulfilled all the inclusion criteria. The management of agitated patients should always start with the least coercive approach. The initial non-pharmacological measures include a verbal strategy and referral of the patient to the appropriate setting, preferably a facility designed for the care of psychiatric patients with controlled noise, lighting, and safety aspects. Verbal de-escalation techniques have been shown to decrease agitation and reduce the potential for associated violence in the emergency setting. The possibility of underlying medical etiologies must be considered first and foremost. Particular attention should be paid to the patient’s appearance and behavior, physical signs, and mental state. If agitation is severe, rapid tranquilization with medications is recommended. Finally, if verbal measures fail to contain the patient, physical restraint should be performed as the ultimate measure for patient protection, and always be accompanied by rapid tranquilization. Healthcare teams must be thoroughly trained to use these techniques and overcome difficulties if the verbal approach fails. It is important that healthcare professionals be trained in non-pharmacological management of patients with psychomotor agitation as part of the requirements for a degree and graduate degree.Conclusion:The non-pharmacological management of agitated patients should follow the hierarchy of less invasive to more invasive and coercive measures, starting with referral of the patient to an appropriate environment, management by a trained team, use of verbal techniques, performance of physical and mental assessment, use of medications, and, if unavoidable, use of the mechanical restraint.Systematic review registry number:CRD42017054440.

ANSM Register N°2015-A00800-49.