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

    Low use of condom and high STI incidence among men who have sex with men in PrEP programs.

    No full text
    ObjectiveSince the recent introduction of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), several studies have reported a decrease in the use of condoms and a rise in STIs among users. This rise in risk behavior associated with the advent of PrEP is known as "risk compensation." The aim of this study is to measure clinical and behavioral changes associated with the introduction of PrEP by analyzing condom use for anal intercourse, number of sexual partners, sexualized drug use and STI incidence.MethodsWe performed a retrospective descriptive study of PrEP users followed every 3months over a 2-year period spanning 2017-2019 in a referral clinic specializing in STI/HIV in Madrid, Spain. One hundred ten men who have sex with men and transgender women underwent regular screening for STIs and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Sociodemographic, clinical, and behavioral data were gathered for all subjects studied.ResultsThe risk compensation observed in this study consisted primarily of a lower rate of condom use, while the number of sexual partners and recreational drug consumption remained stable. We observed a very high incidence of STIs in this sample, particularly rectal gonorrhea and chlamydia. The factors shown to be independently associated with the presence of an STI on multivariate analysis were age below 30 years and over 10 sexual partners/month.ConclusionThe incidence of STI acquisition was higher than expected, indicating a need for strategies to minimize this impact, particularly among younger individuals with a higher number of sexual partners

    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