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

Evidence for models of diagnostic service provision in the community: literature mapping exercise and focused rapid reviews

Background Current NHS policy favours the expansion of diagnostic testing services in community and primary care settings. Objectives Our objectives were to identify current models of community diagnostic services in the UK and internationally and to assess the evidence for quality, safety and clinical effectiveness of such services. We were also interested in whether or not there is any evidence to support a broader range of diagnostic tests being provided in the community. Review methods We performed an initial broad literature mapping exercise to assess the quantity and nature of the published research evidence. The results were used to inform selection of three areas for investigation in more detail. We chose to perform focused reviews on logistics of diagnostic modalities in primary care (because the relevant issues differ widely between different types of test); diagnostic ultrasound (a key diagnostic technology affected by developments in equipment); and a diagnostic pathway (assessment of breathlessness) typically delivered wholly or partly in primary care/community settings. Databases and other sources searched, and search dates, were decided individually for each review. Quantitative and qualitative systematic reviews and primary studies of any design were eligible for inclusion. Results We identified seven main models of service that are delivered in primary care/community settings and in most cases with the possible involvement of community/primary care staff. Not all of these models are relevant to all types of diagnostic test. Overall, the evidence base for community- and primary care-based diagnostic services was limited, with very few controlled studies comparing different models of service. We found evidence from different settings that these services can reduce referrals to secondary care and allow more patients to be managed in primary care, but the quality of the research was generally poor. Evidence on the quality (including diagnostic accuracy and appropriateness of test ordering) and safety of such services was mixed. Conclusions In the absence of clear evidence of superior clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, the expansion of community-based services appears to be driven by other factors. These include policies to encourage moving services out of hospitals; the promise of reduced waiting times for diagnosis; the availability of a wider range of suitable tests and/or cheaper, more user-friendly equipment; and the ability of commercial providers to bid for NHS contracts. However, service development also faces a number of barriers, including issues related to staffing, training, governance and quality control. Limitations We have not attempted to cover all types of diagnostic technology in equal depth. Time and staff resources constrained our ability to carry out review processes in duplicate. Research in this field is limited by the difficulty of obtaining, from publicly available sources, up-to-date information about what models of service are commissioned, where and from which providers. Future work There is a need for research to compare the outcomes of different service models using robust study designs. Comparisons of ‘true’ community-based services with secondary care-based open-access services and rapid access clinics would be particularly valuable. There are specific needs for economic evaluations and for studies that incorporate effects on the wider health system. There appears to be no easy way of identifying what services are being commissioned from whom and keeping up with local evaluations of new services, suggesting a need to improve the availability of information in this area. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme