Suchergebnisse

Introduction Les réactions allergiques péri-opératoires présentent plusieurs particularités. Ce sont des événements rares, mais leur incidence réelle est difficile à estimer. Les chiffres rapportés sont très variables d'une étude à l'autre, allant de 1 cas/ 1361 jusqu'à 1cas / 20'000 prises en charge anesthésiologiques 1. Une récente étude, qui constituera une des bases de notre travail rapporte même une incidence de 1 cas/ 385 interventions 1. Le diagnostic est facilement posé dans les cas où les signes et/ou symptômes sont évidents, mais ces-derniers peuvent également être beaucoup plus discrets. A l'inverse, certains médicaments peuvent provoquer une libération d'histamine, qui peut amener à une symptomatologie qui fait penser à tord à une réaction allergique. La recherche de l'agent causal est souvent rendue difficile par le nombre de médicaments administrés simultanément, comme c'est le cas lors de l'induction d'une anesthésie générale. De plus, la réaction peut être due à des agents qui ne sont pas directement liés à la pratique de l'anesthésie, comme les antibiotiques, les désinfectants ou le latex des gants chirurgicaux. Finalement le risque allergique évolue, principalement à cause de changements dans l'utilisation des différents produits, liés à l'apparition de nouvelles substances (comme certains curares) ou suite à des changements de politique institutionnelle (par exemple utilisation plus systématique de chlorhexidine comme désinfectant dans les blocs opératoires.

Surprisingly little attention has been paid to variation among countries in contributions to conservation. As a first step, we developed a Megafauna Conservation Index (MCI) that assesses the spatial, ecological and financial contributions of 152 nations towards conservation of the world's terrestrial megafauna. We chose megafauna because they are particularly valuable in economic, ecological and societal terms, and are challenging and expensive to conserve. We categorised these 152 countries as being above- or below-average performers based on whether their contribution to megafauna conservation was higher or lower than the global mean; 'major' performers or underperformers were those whose contribution exceeded 1 SD over or under the mean, respectively. Ninety percent of countries in North/Central America and 70% of countries in Africa were classified as major or above-average performers, while approximately one-quarter of countries in Asia (25%) and Europe (21%) were identified as major underperformers. We present our index to emphasise the need for measuring conservation performance, to help nations identify how best they could improve their efforts, and to present a starting point for the development of more robust and inclusive measures (noting how the IUCN Red List evolved over time). Our analysis points to three approaches that countries could adopt to improve their contribution to global megafauna conservation, depending on their circumstances: (1) upgrading or expanding their domestic protected area networks, with a particular emphasis on conserving large carnivore and herbivore habitat, (2) increase funding for conservation at home or abroad, or (3) 'rewilding' their landscapes. Once revised and perfected, we recommend publishing regular conservation rankings in the popular media to recognise major-performers, foster healthy pride and competition among nations, and identify ways for governments to improve their performance.

Surprisingly little attention has been paid to variation among countries in contributions to conservation. As a first step, we developed a Megafauna Conservation Index (MCI) that assesses the spatial, ecological and financial contributions of 152 nations towards conservation of the world's terrestrial megafauna. We chose megafauna because they are particularly valuable in economic, ecological and societal terms, and are challenging and expensive to conserve. We categorised these 152 countries as being above- or below-average performers based on whether their contribution to megafauna conservation was higher or lower than the global mean; 'major' performers or underperformers were those whose contribution exceeded 1 SD over or under the mean, respectively. Ninety percent of countries in North/Central America and 70% of countries in Africa were classified as major or above-average performers, while approximately one-quarter of countries in Asia (25%) and Europe (21%) were identified as major underperformers. We present our index to emphasize the need for measuring conservation performance, to help nations identify how best they could improve their efforts, and to present a starting point for the development of more robust and inclusive measures (noting how the IUCN Red List evolved over time). Our analysis points to three approaches that countries could adopt to improve their contribution to global megafauna conservation, depending on their circumstances: 1) upgrading or expanding their domestic protected area networks, with a particular emphasis on conserving large carnivore and herbivore habitat, 2) increase funding for conservation at home or abroad, or 3) 'rewilding' their landscapes. Once revised and perfected, we recommend publishing regular conservation rankings in the popular media to recognise major-performers, foster healthy pride and competition among nations, and identify ways for governments to improve their performance.