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

    Pervaporation of Aqueous Ethanol Solutions through Rigid Composite Polyvinyl-Alcohol/Bacterial Cellulose Membranes

    No full text
    The paper focuses on synthesis, characterization and testing in ethanol-water separation by pervaporation of new membrane types based on polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and bacterial cellulose (BC). A technology for obtaining these membranes deposited on a ceramic support is presented in the experimental section. Three PVA-BC composite membranes with different BC content were obtained and characterized by FTIR, SEM and optic microscopy. The effects of operating temperature (40–60 °C), permeate pressure (18.7–37.3 kPa) and feed ethanol concentration (24–72%wt) on total permeate flow rate (0.09–0.23 kg/m2/h) and water/ethanol selectivity (5–23) were studied based on an appropriate experimental plan for each PVA-BC membrane. Statistical models linking the process factors to pervaporation performances were obtained by processing the experimental data. Ethanol concentration of the processed mixture had the highest influence on permeate flow rate, an increase in ethanol concentration leading to a decrease in the permeate flow rate. All 3 process factors and their interactions had positive effects on membrane selectivity. Polynomial regression models were used to assess the effect of BC content in the dried membrane on pervaporation performances. Values of process performances obtained in this study indicate that these membranes could be effective for ethanol-water separation by pervaporation

    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