Then under the Printer Features header, make sure the following values are set: Department Code- Enabled DC Digit 1-5 containing your copier code number. In the Other tab, type your code into the Department Code field.In addition to collaborations between members of the Hillmyer Group, several formal cooperative relationships have been established with several other research groups at the University of Minnesota. The following technology services are made available to you by the Humphrey School in partnership with the University of Minnesota’s Office of Information Technology. The University’s Technology Help service desk is open 24/7 and available via chat, email, and phone to help answer any questions you may have. Open a chat session, e mail email protected, or call 61.The Hillmyer Research Group efforts focus on the design, synthesis, characterization, and applications of advanced macromolecular materials.Initiate your UMN Account Set up Duo Two-Factor Authentication Check your UMN.We use modern polymer synthesis techniques that include various controlled polymerizations and selective polymer modifications, and these synthetic efforts provide the foundation for most projects. Ultimately, we aim to combine contemporary polymer synthesis with detailed molecular, morphological and property characterization to expand our knowledge of fundamental polymer science and advance new technologies.Currently Big Stone County has one Master Gardener available. Contact this office or Suzanne Souza for your questions at 32 or souza004umn.edu. You can also contact the University of Minnesota Yard & Garden team: Minnesota Master Gardener Hotline Available year-round 61Our spotlight areas of research include the development of sustainable polymers from renewable resources and hybrid macromolecular structures that combine disparate polymeric elements into a single compound.Objectives The objective was to compare first-pass success in patients undergoing emergency intubation with DL or VL using a C-MAC device. Current observational data suggest that VL has higher first-pass success, although randomized trials are lacking. Background Direct laryngoscopy (DL) has long been the most common approach for emergency endotracheal intubation, although the use of video laryngoscopy (VL) is becoming more widespread. Collaborations formed among people with varied views, perspectives, and backgrounds enhance our collective experiences and form the foundation for creative and innovative solutions to contemporary research problems.
Office Umn Code Into TheThe study was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT01710891. Secondary outcomes included time to intubation, development of aspiration pneumonia, and hospital length of stay (LOS). The primary outcome was first-pass success. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either DL or VL using a C-MAC device for the first intubation attempt. Objectives The objective was to compare first-pass success in patients undergoing emergency intubation with DL or VL using a C-MAC device. Current observational data suggest that VL has higher first-pass success, although randomized trials are lacking. Conclusions In patients undergoing emergency intubation in whom DL was planned for the first attempt, we did not detect a difference between VL or DL using the C-MAC device in first-pass success, duration of intubation attempt, aspiration pneumonia, or hospital LOS.Abstract = "Background Direct laryngoscopy (DL) has long been the most common approach for emergency endotracheal intubation, although the use of video laryngoscopy (VL) is becoming more widespread. Time to intubation, rates of aspiration pneumonia, and hospital LOS were not different between the two groups. First-attempt success was 86 and 92% for the DL and VL groups, respectively (difference = -5.9%, 95% confidence interval = -14.5% to 2.7%, p = 0.18). ![]() Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either DL or VL using a C-MAC device for the first intubation attempt. Methods This was an open-label, prospective, randomized, controlled trial in an academic emergency department of patients undergoing emergency intubation with a plan of DL for the first attempt. Objectives The objective was to compare first-pass success in patients undergoing emergency intubation with DL or VL using a C-MAC device. Current observational data suggest that VL has higher first-pass success, although randomized trials are lacking. Conclusions In patients undergoing emergency intubation in whom DL was planned for the first attempt, we did not detect a difference between VL or DL using the C-MAC device in first-pass success, duration of intubation attempt, aspiration pneumonia, or hospital LOS.",T1 - Direct Versus Video Laryngoscopy Using the C-MAC for Tracheal Intubation in the Emergency Department, a Randomized Controlled Trial© 2016 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.Copyright 2017 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.N2 - Background Direct laryngoscopy (DL) has long been the most common approach for emergency endotracheal intubation, although the use of video laryngoscopy (VL) is becoming more widespread. Time to intubation, rates of aspiration pneumonia, and hospital LOS were not different between the two groups. First-attempt success was 86 and 92% for the DL and VL groups, respectively (difference = -5.9%, 95% confidence interval = -14.5% to 2.7%, p = 0.18). Results A total of 198 patients were enrolled and intubated with either DL (n = 95) or VL (n = 103). The study was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT01710891. Secondary outcomes included time to intubation, development of aspiration pneumonia, and hospital length of stay (LOS). Delete mac ads cleaner from macbookThe primary outcome was first-pass success. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either DL or VL using a C-MAC device for the first intubation attempt. Methods This was an open-label, prospective, randomized, controlled trial in an academic emergency department of patients undergoing emergency intubation with a plan of DL for the first attempt. Objectives The objective was to compare first-pass success in patients undergoing emergency intubation with DL or VL using a C-MAC device. Current observational data suggest that VL has higher first-pass success, although randomized trials are lacking. ![]() Conclusions In patients undergoing emergency intubation in whom DL was planned for the first attempt, we did not detect a difference between VL or DL using the C-MAC device in first-pass success, duration of intubation attempt, aspiration pneumonia, or hospital LOS.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorScott ArchivesCategories |