David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Mind 83 (332):481-497 (1974)
BACKGROUND: Although placing patients with acute respiratory failure in a prone (face down) position improves their oxygenation 60 to 70 percent of the time, the effect on survival is not known. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized trial, we compared conventional treatment (in the supine position) of patients with acute lung injury or the acute respiratory distress syndrome with a predefined strategy of placing patients in a prone position for six or more hours daily for 10 days. We enrolled 304 patients, 152 in each group. RESULTS: The mortality rate was 23.0 percent during the 10-day study period, 49.3 percent at the time of discharge from the intensive care unit, and 60.5 percent at 6 months. The relative risk of death in the prone group as compared with the supine group was 0.84 at the end of the study period (95 percent confidence interval, 0.56 to 1.27), 1.05 at the time of discharge from the intensive care unit (95 percent confidence interval, 0.84 to 1.32), and 1.06 at six months (95 percent confidence interval, 0.88 to 1.28). During the study period the mean (+/-SD) increase in the ratio of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen, measured each morning while patients were supine, was greater in the prone than the supine group (63.0+/-66.8 vs. 44.6+/-68.2, P=0.02). The incidence of complications related to positioning (such as pressure sores and accidental extubation) was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although placing patients with acute respiratory failure in a prone position improves their oxygenation, it does not improve survival.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Peter Adamson (2015). Miskawayh on Pleasure. Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 25 (2):199-223.
Similar books and articles
Jon Miller (ed.) (2011). Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics: A Critical Guide. Cambridge University Press.
Dorothea Frede (2006). Pleasure and Pain in Aristotle's Ethics. In Richard Kraut (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. Blackwell Pub. 255--275.
J. O. Urmson (1988). Aristotle's Ethics. B. Blackwell.
Irwin Goldstein (2003). Malicious Pleasure Evaluated: Is Pleasure an Unconditional Good? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 84 (1):24–31.
Sarah Broadie (1991). Ethics with Aristotle. Oxford University Press.
J. M. E. Moravcsik (1968). Aristotle: A Collection of Critical Essays. Melbourne, Macmillan.
J. M. E. Moravcsik (1967). Aristotle. Garden City, N.Y.,Anchor Books.
Amelie Oksenberg Rorty (1978). The Place of Contemplation in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. Mind 87 (347):343-358.
Gerd van Riel (1999). Does a Perfect Activity Necessarily Yield Pleasure? An Evaluation of the Relation Between Pleasure and Activity in Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics VII and X. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 7 (2):211-224.
Gerd Van Riel (1999). Does a Perfect Activity Necessarily Yield Pleasure? An Evaluation of the Relation Between Pleasure and Activity in Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics VII and X. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 7 (2):211 – 224.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads45 ( #81,176 of 1,781,276 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #295,025 of 1,781,276 )
How can I increase my downloads?