Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

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

Correction to: Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

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

Incidence of Suture-Method Catheter Dislocation with Femoral Nerve Block and Femoral Triangle Block after Total Knee Arthroplasty

Catheter dislocation with continuous peripheral nerve blocks represents a major problem in clinical settings. There is a range of factors affecting the incidence of catheter dislocation, including catheter type. This study aimed to assess the incidence of suture-method catheter (SMC) dislocation 24 h after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), with continuous femoral nerve block (CFNB) and continuous femoral triangle block (CFTB), respectively. In the prospective randomized trial, 40 patients qualified for TKA with SMC and were divided into two groups, those who received CFNB (Group 1, n = 20) and those who received CFTB (Group 2, n = 20). After 24 h, the degree of catheter displacement (cm), pain intensity (NRS) and opioid consumption (mg) was assessed. The catheter dislocation rates were found to be 15% in Group 1 versus 5% in Group 2, with the catheter dislocated by 0.83 cm (SD = ±0.87) and 0.43 cm (SD = ±0.67), respectively. There were no differences in NRS score (p = 0.86) or opioid consumption (p = 0.16) between the groups. In each case, a displaced catheter was successfully repositioned by pulling, which clinically resulted in a lower NRS score. The results of the study suggest that CFTB with SMC may be used after TKA with a good effect, as it is associated with low catheter dislocation rates and an adequate analgesic effect

Radiological and Clinical Efficacy of Intra-Arterial 90Y-DOTATATE in Patients with Unresectable, Progressive, Liver Dominant Neuroendocrine Neoplasms

This study was performed to determine if intra-arterial (i.a.) administration of 90Y DOTATATE can provide an effective and safe alternative to the accepted standard for i.v. of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) in liver-dominant metastases of gastrointestinal pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm (GEP-NEN). A single site, prospective, preliminary case series study included 39 patients with histologically proven liver-dominant NEN. PRRT in the form of 1.15GBq 90Y DOTATATE was given selectively into the liver via radiological catheterization of the hepatic artery, up to four times. The endpoint was radiological response (RECIST). Secondary endpoints assessed clinical well-being post-treatment, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. Partial response (PR) was noted in 13% of subjects six weeks post-therapy, increasing to 24% at six months and dropping to 13% at 36 months. Disease progression (DP) was not seen at six weeks, was 5% at six months, and 47% at 36 months. Clinical response based on PS seen in 74% of patients at six weeks, 69% at six months, and 39% at 36 months had PFS and OS, respectively, of 22.7 months and 38.2 months. There was no difference in OS/PFS between those with RECIST PR and SD. One patient had significant toxicity (3%). Use of i.a. PRRT appears to be safe and effective in treating patients with liver-dominant NEN. In addition, the best OS (51 vs. 22 months) was seen when i.a. was used as an upfront treatment of bulky GEP-NEN liver metastases and not after i.v. 90Y DOTATATE. The use of i.a. 90Y DOTATATE PRRT appears to be safe and effective in treating patients with liver-dominant NEN

Outcomes of Patients with Pulmonary Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma in I–IV Stage

Background and Objectives: Large cell neuroendocrine cancer is characterised by poor prognosis. The standard of treatment is still not established. The aim of this study was to assess the predictive factors of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of pulmonary large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) and combined LCNEC. Materials and Methods: All patients had confirmed pathology stage I-IV disease recorded between period 2002–2018. Survival curves were estimated by Kaplan–Meier method. Uni- and multivariable analysis was conducted using Cox-regression analysis. Results: A total of 132 patients with LCNEC and combined LCNEC were included. Half of them had clinical stage IIIB/C-IV. Patients were treated with radical (n = 67, including surgery alone; resection with neo-adjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, radiochemotherapy, or adjuvant radiotherapy; patients treated with radiochemotherapy alone), palliative (n = 41) or symptomatic (n = 24) intention. Seventeen patients were treated with resection margin R1 or R2. Non-small cell carcinoma (NSCLC) chemotherapy (platinum-vinorelbine; PN schedule) and small-cell lung carcinoma (SCLC) chemotherapy approaches (platinum/carboplatinum-etoposide; PE/KE schedule) were administered in 20 and in 55 patients, respectively. The median (95% Confidence Interval (CI)) OS and PFS were 17 months (9.0–36.2 months) and 7 months (3.0–15.0 months), respectively. Patients treated with negative resection margin, with lower clinical stage, without lymph node metastasis, and with size of primary tumour ≤4 cm showed significantly better OS and PFS. The main risk factors with an adverse effect on survival were advanced CS and positive resection margin. Conclusions: Patients with LCNEC characterized poor prognosis. Independent prognostic factors influencing PFS were initial clinical stage and resection margin R0 vs. R1-2

Outcomes of Patients with Pulmonary Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma in I–IV Stage

Background and Objectives: Large cell neuroendocrine cancer is characterised by poor prognosis. The standard of treatment is still not established. The aim of this study was to assess the predictive factors of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of pulmonary large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) and combined LCNEC. Materials and Methods: All patients had confirmed pathology stage I-IV disease recorded between period 2002–2018. Survival curves were estimated by Kaplan–Meier method. Uni- and multivariable analysis was conducted using Cox-regression analysis. Results: A total of 132 patients with LCNEC and combined LCNEC were included. Half of them had clinical stage IIIB/C-IV. Patients were treated with radical (n = 67, including surgery alone; resection with neo-adjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, radiochemotherapy, or adjuvant radiotherapy; patients treated with radiochemotherapy alone), palliative (n = 41) or symptomatic (n = 24) intention. Seventeen patients were treated with resection margin R1 or R2. Non-small cell carcinoma (NSCLC) chemotherapy (platinum-vinorelbine; PN schedule) and small-cell lung carcinoma (SCLC) chemotherapy approaches (platinum/carboplatinum-etoposide; PE/KE schedule) were administered in 20 and in 55 patients, respectively. The median (95% Confidence Interval (CI)) OS and PFS were 17 months (9.0–36.2 months) and 7 months (3.0–15.0 months), respectively. Patients treated with negative resection margin, with lower clinical stage, without lymph node metastasis, and with size of primary tumour ≤4 cm showed significantly better OS and PFS. The main risk factors with an adverse effect on survival were advanced CS and positive resection margin. Conclusions: Patients with LCNEC characterized poor prognosis. Independent prognostic factors influencing PFS were initial clinical stage and resection margin R0 vs. R1-2

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

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

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

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

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)

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