7 research outputs found

    Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

    Get PDF
    Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

    Investigating Effect of Rapamycin and Metformin on Angiogenesis in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Cell Line

    No full text
    Purpose: Human hepatocellular carcinoma is one of the most common causes of death in the world. Metformin and rapamycin may decrease the expression of VEGF protein and subsequently angiogenesis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of these two drugs on expression of VEGF protein and the cell proliferation in the hepatocellular carcinoma cell line (ATCC HB-8065). Methods: HepG2 was cultured in RPMI-1640 medium at 37°C for 48h as a pre-culture and then treated by different concentrations of metformin (0, 5, 10 and 20 mM) and rapamycin (0, 5, 10 and 20 nM) at different times (12, 24 and 48 h). Cell viability was assessed by the MTT assay. Total RNA was extracted by the Trizol reagent and VEGF gene expression was analyzed by quantitative real-time PCR and was calculated by 2–ΔCt method. The VEGF protein level was determined by Elisa assay. Finally, Apoptosis index was calculated by DAPI staining. Results: Metformin and rapamycin significantly decrease cancer cells viability (p<0.05). Rapamycin but not metformin decreases VEGF gene expression in HepG2 cells. Metformin and rapamycin significantly induce cell apoptosis in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cells. Conclusion: Metformin and rapamycin have an anti-tumor effect on HCC. According to our data rapamycin might have an anti-angiogenesis effect via inhibition of VEGF expression. Our results provide an insight into future clinical strategies to improve chemotherapy outcomes in HCC

    Correction to: Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study (Intensive Care Medicine, (2021), 47, 2, (160-169), 10.1007/s00134-020-06234-9)

    No full text
    The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The members of the ESICM Trials Group Collaborators were not shown in the article but only in the ESM. The full list of collaborators is shown below. The original article has been corrected
    corecore