Patients attended by palliative care teams: are they always comparable populations?

Patients attended by palliative care teams: are they always comparable populations? To answer this question we have compared the basic epidemiological characteristics of patients attended by home palliative care teams (HPCT) in two autonomous regions of Spain. We carried out a coordinated analytical, observational and prospective study in two Spanish autonomous regions: Aragon and Catalonia. Data were kept during each home care visit according to patients' needs. Inclusion criteria were: advanced cancer, over 18 years old and first contact with a HPCT. The recruitment period was 6 months. Variables included were: Survival time (days), age, sex, primary disease and extension, place of residence. Functional and cognitive state, and co-morbidity. 10 signs/symptoms: asthenia, anorexia, cachexia, dysphagia, xerostomy, dyspnoea, oedemas, level of consciousness, presence of delirium, presence of pressure ulcers and some treatment data. Others variables considered were: responsible team, origin, destination when discharge, date and place of death, number of visits made and duration of monitoring. We developed a comparison between groups by Chisquared test or the non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test and a survival analysis by Kaplan-Meier curves and the logrank test to determine differences between factors. The SPSS version 15.0 software package was used. 698 patients were included, 56.2% from Aragon and 43.8% from Catalonia. 60.3% were males, without differences between the regions. Characteristics relative to age, sex, place of residence and extension of oncological diseases were similar for both groups. We found significant differences between the two populations relative to survival time, co-morbidity, functional state, presence and intensity of a number of symptoms and the treatments, patient monitoring and the their destination after discharge. We can conclude that palliative care teams cover different profiles of patients with regard to their co-morbidity, functional, cognitive and symptomatic states. It must be pointed that the organization of palliative care services and their experience appears to condition the profile of patients they attend. There is a need of consensus on the basic descriptors for palliative care patients in order to ensure that results will be comparable

Dermatological Manifestations in the Intensive Care Unit: A Practical Approach

Dermatological problems are not usually related to intensive medicine because they are considered to have a low impact on the evolution of critical patients. Despite this, dermatological manifestations (DMs) are relatively frequent in critically ill patients. In rare cases, DMs will be the main diagnosis and will require intensive treatment due to acute skin failure. In contrast, DMs can be a reflection of underlying systemic diseases, and their identification may be key to their diagnosis. On other occasions, DMs are lesions that appear in the evolution of critical patients and are due to factors derived from the stay or intensive treatment. Lastly, DMs can accompany patients and must be taken into account in the comprehensive pathology management. Several factors must be considered when addressing DMs: on the one hand, the moment of appearance, morphology, location, and associated treatment and, on the other hand, aetiopathogenesis and classification of the cutaneous lesion. DMs can be classified into 4 groups: life-threatening DMs (uncommon but compromise the patient’s life); DMs associated with systemic diseases where skin lesions accompany the pathology that requires admission to the intensive care unit (ICU); DMs secondary to the management of the critical patient that considers the cutaneous manifestations that appear in the evolution mainly of infectious or allergic origin; and DMs previously present in the patient and unrelated to the critical process. (is review provides a characterization of DMs in ICU patients to establish a better identification and classification and to understand their interrelation with critical illnesses

Evaluation of Nutritional Practices in the Critical Care Patient (The ENPIC Study): Does Nutrition Really Affect ICU Mortality?

Background & aims: The importance of artificial nutritional therapy is underrecognized, typically being considered an adjunctive rather than a primary therapy. We aimed to evaluate the influence of nutritional therapy on mortality in critically ill patients. Methods: This multicenter prospective observational study included adult patients needing artificial nutritional therapy for >48 h if they stayed in one of 38 participating intensive care units for >= 72 h between April and July 2018. Demographic data, comorbidities, diagnoses, nutritional status and therapy (type and details for <= 14 days), and outcomes were registered in a database. Confounders such as disease severity, patient type (e.g., medical, surgical or trauma), and type and duration of nutritional therapy were also included in a multivariate analysis, and hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were reported. Results: We included 639 patients among whom 448 (70.1%) and 191 (29.9%) received enteral and parenteral nutrition, respectively. Mortality was 25.6%, with non-survivors having the following char-acteristics: older age; more comorbidities; higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores (6.6 +/- 3.3 vs 8.4 +/- 3.7; P < 0.001); greater nutritional risk (Nutrition Risk in the Critically Ill [NUTRIC] score: 3.8 +/- 2.1 vs 5.2 +/- 1.7; P < 0.001); more vasopressor requirements (70.4% vs 83.5%; P=0.001); and more renal replacement therapy (12.2% vs 23.2%; P=0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that older age (HR: 1.023; 95% CI: 1.008-1.038; P=0.003), higher SOFA score (HR: 1.096; 95% CI: 1.036-1.160; P=0.001), higher NUTRIC score (HR: 1.136; 95% CI: 1.025-1.259; P=0.015), requiring parenteral nutrition after starting enteral nutrition (HR: 2.368; 95% CI: 1.168-4.798; P=0.017), and a higher mean Kcal/Kg/day intake (HR: 1.057; 95% CI: 1.015-1.101; P=0.008) were associated with mortality. By contrast, a higher mean protein intake protected against mortality (HR: 0.507; 95% CI: 0.263-0.977; P=0.042). Conclusions: Old age, higher organ failure scores, and greater nutritional risk appear to be associated with higher mortality. Patients who need parenteral nutrition after starting enteral nutrition may represent a high-risk subgroup for mortality due to illness severity and problems receiving appropriate nutritional therapy. Mean calorie and protein delivery also appeared to influence outcomes. (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism