Predictors of mortality of patients with acute respiratory failure secondary to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease admitted to an intensive care unit: A one year study

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) commonly require hospitalization and admission to intensive care unit (ICU). It is useful to identify patients at the time of admission who are likely to have poor outcome. This study was carried out to define the predictors of mortality in patients with acute exacerbation of COPD and to device a scoring system using the baseline physiological variables for prognosticating these patients. METHODS: Eighty-two patients with acute respiratory failure secondary to COPD admitted to medical ICU over a one-year period were included. Clinical and demographic profile at the time of admission to ICU including APACHE II score and Glasgow coma scale were recorded at the time of admission to ICU. In addition, acid base disorders, renal functions, liver functions and serum albumin, were recorded at the time of presentation. Primary outcome measure was hospital mortality. RESULTS: Invasive ventilation was required in 69 patients (84.1%). Fifty-two patients survived to hospital discharge (63.4%). APACHE II score at the time of admission to ICU {odds ratio (95 % CI): 1.32 (1.138–1.532); p < 0.001} and serum albumin (done within 24 hours of admission) {odds ratio (95 % CI): 0.114 (0.03-0.432); p = 0.001}. An equation, constructed using the adjusted odds ratio for the two parameters, had an area under the ROC curve of 91.3%. For the choice of cut-off, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value for predicting outcome was 90%, 86.5%, 79.4% and 93.7%. CONCLUSION: APACHE II score at admission and SA levels with in 24 hrs after admission are independent predictors of mortality for patients with COPD admitted to ICU. The equation derived from these two parameters is useful for predicting outcome of these patients

Mortality in Peripheral Arterial Disease: A Comparison of Patients Managed by Vascular Specialists and General Practitioners

BACKGROUND: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is undertreated by general practitioners (GPs). However, the impact of the suboptimal clinical management is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the mortality rate of PAD patients in relation to the type of physician who provides their care (GP or vascular specialist). DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Primary care practice and academic vascular laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: GP patients (n = 60) were those of the Peripheral Arteriopathy and Cardiovascular Events study (PACE). Patients managed by specialists (n = 82) were consecutive subjects with established PAD who were referred to our vascular laboratory during the enrolment period of the PACE study. MEASUREMENTS: All-cause and cardiovascular mortality. RESULTS: After 32 months of follow-up, specialist management was associated with a lower rate of all-cause mortality (RR = 0.04; 95% CI 0.01–0.34; p = .003) and cardiovascular mortality (RR = 0.07; 95% CI 0.01–0.65; p = .020), after adjustment for patients’ characteristics. Specialists were more likely to use antiplatelet agents (93% vs 73%, p < .001), statins (62% vs 25%, p < .001) and beta blockers (28% vs 3%, p < .001). Survival differences between specialists and GPs disappeared once the use of pharmacotherapies was added to the proportional hazard model. The fully adjusted model showed that the use of statins was significantly associated with a reduced risk of all-cause mortality (RR = 0.02; 95% CI 0.01–0.73, p = .034) and cardiovascular mortality (RR = 0.02; 95% CI 0.01–0.71, p = .033). CONCLUSIONS: Specialist management of patients with symptomatic PAD resulted in better survival than generalist management. This effect appears to be mainly caused by the more frequent use of effective medicines by specialists

Estimating Long-Term Survival of Critically Ill Patients: The PREDICT Model

BACKGROUND: Long-term survival outcome of critically ill patients is important in assessing effectiveness of new treatments and making treatment decisions. We developed a prognostic model for estimation of long-term survival of critically ill patients. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: This was a retrospective linked data cohort study involving 11,930 critically ill patients who survived more than 5 days in a university teaching hospital in Western Australia. Older age, male gender, co-morbidities, severe acute illness as measured by Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II predicted mortality, and more days of vasopressor or inotropic support, mechanical ventilation, and hemofiltration within the first 5 days of intensive care unit admission were associated with a worse long-term survival up to 15 years after the onset of critical illness. Among these seven pre-selected predictors, age (explained 50% of the variability of the model, hazard ratio [HR] between 80 and 60 years old = 1.95) and co-morbidity (explained 27% of the variability, HR between Charlson co-morbidity index 5 and 0 = 2.15) were the most important determinants. A nomogram based on the pre-selected predictors is provided to allow estimation of the median survival time and also the 1-year, 3-year, 5-year, 10-year, and 15-year survival probabilities for a patient. The discrimination (adjusted c-index = 0.757, 95% confidence interval 0.745-0.769) and calibration of this prognostic model were acceptable. SIGNIFICANCE: Age, gender, co-morbidities, severity of acute illness, and the intensity and duration of intensive care therapy can be used to estimate long-term survival of critically ill patients. Age and co-morbidity are the most important determinants of long-term prognosis of critically ill patients

Evaluation of a new arterial pressure-based cardiac output device requiring no external calibration

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Several techniques have been discussed as alternatives to the intermittent bolus thermodilution cardiac output (CO_PAC) measurement by the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC). However, these techniques usually require a central venous line, an additional catheter, or a special calibration procedure. A new arterial pressure-based cardiac output (CO_AP) device (FloTrac™, Vigileo™; Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) only requires access to the radial or femoral artery using a standard arterial catheter and does not need an external calibration. We validated this technique in critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) using CO_PACas the method of reference.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We studied 20 critically ill patients, aged 16 to 74 years (mean, 55.5 ± 18.8 years), who required both arterial and pulmonary artery pressure monitoring. CO_PACmeasurements were performed at least every 4 hours and calculated as the average of 3 measurements, while CO_APvalues were taken immediately at the end of bolus determinations. Accuracy of measurements was assessed by calculating the bias and limits of agreement using the method described by Bland and Altman.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 164 coupled measurements were obtained. Absolute values of CO_PACranged from 2.80 to 10.80 l/min (mean 5.93 ± 1.55 l/min). The bias and limits of agreement between CO_PACand CO_APfor unequal numbers of replicates was 0.02 ± 2.92 l/min. The percentage error between CO_PACand CO_APwas 49.3%. The bias between percentage changes in CO_PAC(ΔCO_PAC) and percentage changes in CO_AP(ΔCO_AP) for consecutive measurements was -0.70% ± 32.28%. CO_PACand CO_APshowed a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.58 (<it>p </it>< 0.01), while the correlation coefficient between ΔCO_PACand ΔCO_APwas 0.46 (<it>p </it>< 0.01).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Although the CO_APalgorithm shows a minimal bias with CO_PACover a wide range of values in an inhomogeneous group of critically ill patients, the scattering of the data remains relative wide. Therefore, the used algorithm (V 1.03) failed to demonstrate an acceptable accuracy in comparison to the clinical standard of cardiac output determination.</p

Clinical presentation and predictors of outcome in patients with severe acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease requiring admission to intensive care unit

BACKGROUND: Severe acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AE-COPD) is a common reason for emergency room (ER) visit about which little has been documented from India. METHODS: Prospective study of the clinical presentation and predictors of outcome in 116 patients presenting with severe AE-COPD requiring admission to the medical intensive care unit between January 2000 and December 2004. RESULTS: Their mean age was 62.1 ± 9.8 years. There were 102 males. Mean duration of COPD was 7.2 ± 5.8 years. All males were smokers (22.3 ± 11.2 pack years); 35.2% smoked cigarettes and 64.8% smoked bidis. All women were exposed to domestic fuel. Associated co-morbid illnesses were present in 81 patients (69.8%); 53(45.7%) had one co-morbid illness and the remaining 28 (54.3%) had two or more co-morbid illnesses. Evidence of past pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) was present in 28.4% patients; 5 patients who also had type II diabetes mellitus had active PTB. Arterial blood gas analysis revealed respiratory failure in 40 (33.8%) patients (type I 17.5% and type II 82.5%). Invasive mechanical ventilation was required in 18 patients. Sixteen (13.7%) patients died. Stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed need for invasive ventilation (OR 45.809, 95%CI 607.46 to 3.009;p < 0.001); presence of co-morbid illness (OR 0.126, 95%CI 0.428 to 0.037;p < 0.01) and hypercapnia (OR 0.114, 95%CI 1.324 to 0.010;p < 0.05) were predictors of death. CONCLUSION: Co-morbid conditions and metabolic abnormalities render the diagnosis of AE-COPD difficult and also contribute to mortality. High prevalence of past PTB and active PTB in patients with AE-COPD suggests an intriguing relationship between smoking, PTB and COPD which merits further study

Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

OBJECTIVE: Circulatory shock is a life-threatening syndrome resulting in multiorgan failure and a high mortality rate. The aim of this consensus is to provide support to the bedside clinician regarding the diagnosis, management and monitoring of shock. METHODS: The European Society of Intensive Care Medicine invited 12 experts to form a Task Force to update a previous consensus (Antonelli et al.: Intensive Care Med 33:575-590, 2007). The same five questions addressed in the earlier consensus were used as the outline for the literature search and review, with the aim of the Task Force to produce statements based on the available literature and evidence. These questions were: (1) What are the epidemiologic and pathophysiologic features of shock in the intensive care unit ? (2) Should we monitor preload and fluid responsiveness in shock ? (3) How and when should we monitor stroke volume or cardiac output in shock ? (4) What markers of the regional and microcirculation can be monitored, and how can cellular function be assessed in shock ? (5) What is the evidence for using hemodynamic monitoring to direct therapy in shock ? Four types of statements were used: definition, recommendation, best practice and statement of fact. RESULTS: Forty-four statements were made. The main new statements include: (1) statements on individualizing blood pressure targets; (2) statements on the assessment and prediction of fluid responsiveness; (3) statements on the use of echocardiography and hemodynamic monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus provides 44 statements that can be used at the bedside to diagnose, treat and monitor patients with shock

Action Plan to enhance self-management and early detection of exacerbations in COPD patients; a multicenter RCT

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Early detection of exacerbations by COPD patients initiating prompt interventions has shown to be clinically relevant. Until now, research failed to identify the effectiveness of a written individualized Action Plan (AP) to achieve this.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The current multicenter, single-blind RCT with a follow-up period of 6 months, evaluates the hypothesis that individualized AP's reduce exacerbation recovery time. Patients are included from regular respiratory nurse clinics and allocated to either usual care or the AP intervention. The AP provides individualized treatment prescriptions (pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical) related to a color coded symptom status (reinforcement at 1 and 4 months). Although usually not possible in self-management trials, we ensured blinding of patients, using a modified informed consent procedure in which patients give consent to postponed information. Exacerbations in both study arms are defined using the Anthonisen symptom diary-card algorithm. The Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) is assessed every 3-days. CCQ-recovery time of an exacerbation is the primary study outcome. Additionally, healthcare utilization, anxiety, depression, treatment delay, and self-efficacy are assessed at baseline and 6 months. We aim at including 245 COPD patients from 7 hospitals and 5 general practices to capture the a-priori sample size of at least 73 exacerbations per study arm.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This RCT identifies if an AP is an effective component of self-management in patients with COPD and clearly differentiates from existing studies in its design, outcome measures and generalizability of the results considering that the study is carried out in multiple sites including general practices.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>NCT00879281</p