12 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

    Comparison of post-aerobic exercise recovery effect between chocolate milk and plain milk

    No full text
    This study compared the effects of commercially available carbohydrate-protein (CHO-PRO) supplements, namely chocolate milk (CM) and plain milk (PM), on recovery after a prior exercise bout, through post recovery exercise. Eight recreationally active and healthy males in university participated in a randomised, cross-over study that required ingestion of either CM (CHO: 89.6 g, PRO: 41.6 g, FAT: 8 g) or PM (CHO: 42.4 g, PRO: 40 g, FAT: 8 g). In each experimental session, participants ran on a treadmill at ~75% VO2max for 45 minutes or until fatigue (EX1), followed by a 4 hour recovery period where they ingested the test beverage immediately and at 2 hours after EX1. At the end of 4 hours, participants completed a 5 kilometre run at self-selected speeds (EX2). Results showed that time taken to complete EX2 was significantly shorter during CM trial compared to PM trial (CM: 26.8 ± 2.7 min; PM: 28.3 ± 3.4 min; p = 0.03). Participants also exercised at a higher heart rate (CM: 179 ± 7 beats/min, PM: 173 ± 6 beats/min; p = 0.03) during CM than PM trial but had similar ratings of perceived exertion (CM: 14 ± 1, PM: 13 ± 1; p = 0.59). The greater effectiveness of CM found in this study could be due to its greater total caloric and CHO content compared to PM. Future research can compare the effects of CM against other calorically and macronutrient matched CHO-PRO supplements to determine any differences in post-aerobic exercise recovery effects.Bachelor of Science (Sport Science and Management

    Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

    No full text
    In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

    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