10 research outputs found

    A comparative study of target contolled infusion (TCI) and manual controlled infusion (MCI) of propofol for sedation in severe traumatic brain-injured patient

    Get PDF
    Background. The aims of this study are to compare TCI with MCI propofol as sedation in severe traumatic brain-injured (TBI) patients. Methods. Post emergency craniotomy for severe TBI patients (n = 50), were randomly assigned to receive propofol sedation over 24 hours using two modes of infusion: TCI versus MCI (n = 25 in each groups). Sedation was monitored using bispectral index \BIS) monitor and sedation agitation scale (SAS). TCI was titrated between 0.2-2.0 llg mr and MCI was between 0.3-4.0 mg kg·1 h"1 to achieve sedative state at BIS 60-70 and SAS 2-3. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), intracranial pressure (ICP), cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), time taken and volume used to achieve BIS 70, total volume of propofol over 24 hours and recovery time to BIS 90 were recorded. Results. TCI achieved BIS 70 significantly faster than MCI (6.3 ± 2.9 min vs. 19.7 ± 7.0 min). Total volume of propofol at BIS 70 was significantly less in TCI (12.0 ± 2.9 ml vs.l7.8 ± 4.3 ml). Recovery time to BIS 90 was also significantly faster in TCI (24.4 ± 11.5 min vs. 57.3 ± 19.9 min). TCI showed significantly lower in HR and ICP trends over 24 hours. CPP trends were significantly higher in TCI. There were no significant differences in MAP and total volume over 24 hours. Conclusions. TCI modes had more advantages for propofol sedation in TBI by providing faster onset and offset of sedation and better in controlling ICP and CPP

    Comparison of three different target blood concentrations of propofol for induction of anaesthesia using target controlled infusion (TCI) technique

    Get PDF
    We studied three different target blood concentrations (TBC) of propofol for induction of anaesthesia using target controlled infusion (TCI) technique. One hundred and thirty five ASA I and II patients, between 18-55 years of age and undergoing any type of elective surgery were included in the study. All patients were premedicated with oral midazolam 7.5 mg in the ward an hour before induction. Patients were randomly divided into three groups. Group I (n = 45) received initial TBC of 2 J,Jg/ml, group II (n = 45) TBC of 3 J.Jg/ml and group Ill (n = 45) TBC of 4 J,Jg/ml for induction of anaesthesia. Intravenous alfentanil 30 ~g/kg bolus was given as analgesia. Patients were observed for success rate of induction, induction time, effect site concentration and haemodynamic parameters at baseline, 1 minute, 3 minutes and 5 minutes after induction. Success rate of induction was 55.6 %, 86.7% and 91.1 %in group I, 11 and 111 respectively, which showed significant difference only between group I and Ill. Effect site concentration was 0.6 ~g/ml, 0.9 J,Jg/ml and 0.8 JJQ/ml in group I, II and Ill respectively which showed significant difference only between group I and II. There was no significant difference in induction time and haemodynamic parameters among the three groups. Hence, TBC 3 J,Jg/ml was comparable with TBC 4 J.Jg/ml for induction of anaesthesia using TCI technique. However TBC 2 IJQ/ml was not recommended for rapid induction

    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

    International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium report, data summary of 50 countries for 2010-2015: Device-associated module

    No full text
    •We report INICC device-associated module data of 50 countries from 2010-2015.•We collected prospective data from 861,284 patients in 703 ICUs for 3,506,562 days.•DA-HAI rates and bacterial resistance were higher in the INICC ICUs than in CDC-NHSN's.•Device utilization ratio in the INICC ICUs was similar to CDC-NHSN's. Background: We report the results of International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC) surveillance study from January 2010-December 2015 in 703 intensive care units (ICUs) in Latin America, Europe, Eastern Mediterranean, Southeast Asia, and Western Pacific. Methods: During the 6-year study period, using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Healthcare Safety Network (CDC-NHSN) definitions for device-associated health care-associated infection (DA-HAI), we collected prospective data from 861,284 patients hospitalized in INICC hospital ICUs for an aggregate of 3,506,562 days. Results: Although device use in INICC ICUs was similar to that reported from CDC-NHSN ICUs, DA-HAI rates were higher in the INICC ICUs: in the INICC medical-surgical ICUs, the pooled rate of central line-associated bloodstream infection, 4.1 per 1,000 central line-days, was nearly 5-fold higher than the 0.8 per 1,000 central line-days reported from comparable US ICUs, the overall rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia was also higher, 13.1 versus 0.9 per 1,000 ventilator-days, as was the rate of catheter-associated urinary tract infection, 5.07 versus 1.7 per 1,000 catheter-days. From blood cultures samples, frequencies of resistance of Pseudomonas isolates to amikacin (29.87% vs 10%) and to imipenem (44.3% vs 26.1%), and of Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates to ceftazidime (73.2% vs 28.8%) and to imipenem (43.27% vs 12.8%) were also higher in the INICC ICUs compared with CDC-NHSN ICUs. Conclusions: Although DA-HAIs in INICC ICU patients continue to be higher than the rates reported in CDC-NSHN ICUs representing the developed world, we have observed a significant trend toward the reduction of DA-HAI rates in INICC ICUs as shown in each international report. It is INICC's main goal to continue facilitating education, training, and basic and cost-effective tools and resources, such as standardized forms and an online platform, to tackle this problem effectively and systematically

    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