9 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

    Surgical Outcomes After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Followed by Curative Surgery in Patients With Esophageal Cancer: An Intergroup Phase lll Trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK 75/08).

    Get PDF
    OBJECTIVE To assess the impact of surgical technique in regard to morbidity and mortality after neoadjuvant treatment for esophageal cancer. BACKGROUND The SAKK trial 75/08 was a multicenter phase III trial (NCT01107639) comparing induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation and surgery in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer. METHODS Patients in the control arm received induction chemotherapy with cisplatin and docetaxel, followed by concomitant chemoradiation therapy with cisplatin, docetaxel, and 45Gy. In the experimental arm, the same regimen was used with addition of cetuximab. After completion of neoadjuvant treatment, patients underwent esophagectomy. The experimental arm received adjuvant cetuximab. Surgical outcomes and complications were prospectively recorded and analyzed. RESULTS Total of 259 patients underwent esophagectomy. Overall complication rate was 56% and reoperation rate was 15% with no difference in complication rates for transthoracic versus transhiatal resections (56% vs 54%, P = 0.77), nor for video assisted thoracic surgeries (VATS) versus open transthoracic resections (67% vs 55%, P = 0.32). There was a trend to higher overall complication rates in squamous cell carcinoma versus adenocarcinoma (65% vs 51%, P = 0.035), and a significant difference in ARDS in squamous cell carcinoma with 14% versus 2% in adenocarcinoma (P = 0.0002). For patients with involved lymph nodes, a lymph node ratio of ≥0.1 was an independent predictor of PFS (HR 2.5, P = 0.01) and OS (HR 2.2, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS This trial showed no difference in surgical complication rates between transthoracic and transhiatal resections. For patients with involved lymph nodes, lymph node ratio was an independent predictor of progression free survival and overall survival

    Phenotyping Cardiogenic Shock.

    Get PDF
    Background Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a heterogeneous syndrome with varied presentations and outcomes. We used a machine learning approach to test the hypothesis that patients with CS have distinct phenotypes at presentation, which are associated with unique clinical profiles and in-hospital mortality. Methods and Results We analyzed data from 1959 patients with CS from 2 international cohorts: CSWG (Cardiogenic Shock Working Group Registry) (myocardial infarction [CSWG-MI; n=410] and acute-on-chronic heart failure [CSWG-HF; n=480]) and the DRR (Danish Retroshock MI Registry) (n=1069). Clusters of patients with CS were identified in CSWG-MI using the consensus k means algorithm and subsequently validated in CSWG-HF and DRR. Patients in each phenotype were further categorized by their Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions staging. The machine learning algorithms revealed 3 distinct clusters in CS: non-congested (I) , cardiorenal (II), and cardiometabolic (III) shock. Among the 3 cohorts (CSWG-MI versus DDR versus CSWG-HF), in-hospital mortality was 21% versus 28% versus 10%, 45% versus 40% versus 32%, and 55% versus 56% versus 52% for clusters I, II, and III, respectively. The cardiometabolic shock cluster had the highest risk of developing stage D or E shock as well as in-hospital mortality among the phenotypes, regardless of cause. Despite baseline differences, each cluster showed reproducible demographic, metabolic, and hemodynamic profiles across the 3 cohorts. Conclusions Using machine learning, we identified and validated 3 distinct CS phenotypes, with specific and reproducible associations with mortality. These phenotypes may allow for targeted patient enrollment in clinical trials and foster development of tailored treatment strategies in subsets of patients with CS

    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