8 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 chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) with electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA) for Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA)

    No full text
    Introduction: Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is used for monitoring of disease progression and treatment response in cancer patients. Our aim was to compare the performance of chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) with electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA) for CEA. Methods: A total of 115 samples were collected during routine diagnostic, prognostic and therapy monitoring procedures in patients with colorectal and pancreatic cancer. We used ARCHITECT i2000SR and Cobas E601 for CEA analysis in sera samples. Results: The correlation coefficient of 0.984 [95% CI: 0.972 to 0.991] for results obtained on both platforms was observed for CEA≤10 ng/mL group. Moreover, intercept of 0.9027 [95% CI: 0.705 to 1.099] and slope 0.8076 [95% CI: 0.765 to 0.8498]  (p 10 ng/mL group we observed slope = 1.1986  [95%CI: 1.1474 to 1.2498]  (p 10 ng/mL were 0.2066 (95% CI: 0.0019 to 0.4113) and –2.66 (95% CI: -10.10 to 4.76) ng/mL, respectively. Conclusion: Although there were differences, based on 20 days precision tests, overall results showed a good analytical performance and correlation between CEA assays on ARCHITECT i2000SR and Cobas E601 platforms. Reference intervals appropriate for the method of CEA measurement should be used. The standardization and harmonization of serum CEA concentration assays are needed

    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