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

    Cost-Effective Protein Production in CHO Cells Following Polyethylenimine-Mediated Gene Delivery Showcased by the Production and Crystallization of Antibody Fabs

    No full text
    Laboratory production of recombinant mammalian proteins, particularly antibodies, requires an expression pipeline assuring sufficient yield and correct folding with appropriate posttranslational modifications. Transient gene expression (TGE) in the suspension-adapted Chinese Hamster Ovary (CHO) cell lines has become the method of choice for this task. The antibodies can be secreted into the media, which facilitates subsequent purification, and can be glycosylated. However, in general, protein production in CHO cells is expensive and may provide variable outcomes, namely in laboratories without previous experience. While achievable yields may be influenced by the nucleotide sequence, there are other aspects of the process which offer space for optimization, like gene delivery method, cultivation process or expression plasmid design. Polyethylenimine (PEI)-mediated gene delivery is frequently employed as a low-cost alternative to liposome-based methods. In this work, we are proposing a TGE platform for universal medium-scale production of antibodies and other proteins in CHO cells, with a novel expression vector allowing fast and flexible cloning of new genes and secretion of translated proteins. The production cost has been further reduced using recyclable labware. Nine days after transfection, we routinely obtain milligrams of antibody Fabs or human lactoferrin in a 25 mL culture volume. Potential of the platform is established based on the production and crystallization of antibody Fabs and their complexes

    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