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

    External Validation of the Acute Kidney Injury Risk Prediction Score for Critically Ill Surgical Patients Who Underwent Major Non-Cardiothoracic Surgery

    No full text
    Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication encountered in an intensive care unit (ICU). In 2020, the AKI prediction score was developed specifically for critically ill surgical patients who underwent major non-cardiothoracic surgeries. This study aimed to externally validate the AKI prediction score in terms of performance and clinical utility. Methods: External validation was carried out in a prospective cohort of patients admitted to the ICU of the Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital between September 2014 and September 2015. The endpoint was AKI within seven days following ICU admission. Discriminative ability was based on the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AuROC). Calibration and clinical usefulness were evaluated. Results: A total of 201 patients were included in the analysis. AKI occurred in 37 (18.4%) patients. The discriminative ability dropped from good in the derivation cohort, to acceptable in the validation cohort (0.839 (95%CI 0.825–0.852) vs. 0.745 (95%CI 0.652–0.838)). No evidence of lack-of-fit was identified (p = 0.754). The score had potential clinical usefulness across the range of threshold probability from 10 to 50%. Conclusions: The AKI prediction score showed an acceptable discriminative performance and calibration with potential clinical usefulness for predicting AKI risk in surgical patients who underwent major non-cardiothoracic surgery

    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