Meta-analysis of hemodynamic optimization: relationship to methodological quality

INTRODUCTION: To review systematically the effect of interventions aimed at hemodynamic optimization and to relate this to the quality of individual published trials. METHODS: A systematic, computerized bibliographic search of published studies and citation reviews of relevant studies was performed. All randomized clinical trials in which adult patients were included in a trial deliberately aiming at an optimized or maximized hemodynamic condition of the patients (with oxygen delivery, cardiac index, oxygen consumption, mixed venous oxygen saturation and/or stroke volume as end-points) were selected. A total of 30 studies were selected for independent review. Two reviewers extracted data on population, intervention, outcome and methodological quality. Agreement between reviewers was high: differences were eventually resolved by third-party decision. The methodological quality of the studies was moderate (mean 9.0, SD 1.7), and the outcomes of the randomized clinical trials were not related to their quality. RESULTS: Efforts to achieve an optimized hemodynamic condition resulted in a decreased mortality rate (relative risk ratio (RR) 0.75 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.90) in all studies combined. This was due to a significantly decreased mortality in peri-operative intervention studies (RR 0.66 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.81). Overall, patients with sepsis and overt organ failure do not benefit from this method (RR 0.92 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.11)). CONCLUSION: This systematic review showed that interventions aimed at hemodynamic optimization reduced mortality. In particular, trials including peri-operative interventions aimed at the hemodynamic optimization of high-risk surgical patients reduce mortality. Overall, this effect was not related to the trial quality

An international sepsis survey: a study of doctors' knowledge and perception about sepsis

BACKGROUND: To be able to diagnose and treat sepsis better it is important not only to improve the knowledge about definitions and pathophysiology, but also to gain more insight into specialists' perception of, and attitude towards, the current diagnosis and treatment of sepsis. METHODS: The study was conducted as a prospective, international survey by structured telephone interview. The subjects were intensive care physicians and other specialist physicians caring for intensive care unit (ICU) patients. RESULTS: The 1058 physicians who were interviewed (including 529 intensivists) agreed that sepsis is a leading cause of death on the ICU and that the incidence of sepsis is increasing, but that the symptoms of sepsis can easily be misattributed to other conditions. Physicians were concerned that this could lead to under-reporting of sepsis. Two-thirds (67%) were concerned that a common definition is lacking and 83% said it is likely that sepsis is frequently missed. Not more than 17% agreed on any one definition. CONCLUSION: There is a general awareness about the inadequacy of the current definitions of sepsis. Physicians caring for patients with sepsis recognise the difficulty of defining and diagnosing sepsis and are aware that they miss the diagnosis frequently

Gait analysis and functional outcome in patients after Lisfranc injury treatment

Introduction: Lisfranc injuries involve any bony or ligamentous disruption of the tarsometatarsal joint. Outcome results after treatment are mainly evaluated using patient-reported outcome measures (PROM), physical examination and radiographic findings. Less is known about the kinematics during gait.Methods: Nineteen patients (19 feet) treated for Lisfranc injury were recruited. Patients with conservative treatment and surgical treatment consisting of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or primary arthrodesis were included. PROM, radiographic findings and gait analysis using the Oxford Foot Model (OFM) were analysed. Results were compared with twenty-one healthy subjects (31 feet). Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors influencing outcome.Results: Patients treated for Lisfranc injury had a significantly lower walking speed than healthy subjects (P &lt;0.001). There was a significant difference between the two groups regarding the range of motion (ROM) in the sagittal plane (flexion-extension) in the midfoot durieng the push-off phase (p &lt;0.001). The ROM in the sagittal plane was significantly correlated with the AOFAS midfoot score (r2 = 0.56, p = 0.012), FADI (r(2) = 0.47, p = 0.043) and the SF-36-physical impairment score (r(2) = 0.60, p = 0.007) but not with radiographic parameters for quality of reduction. In a multivariable analysis, the best explanatory factors were ROM in the sagittal plane during the push-off phase (beta = 0.707, p = 0.001), stability (beta = 0.423, p = 0.028) and BMI (beta = -0.727 p = &lt;0.001). This prediction model explained 87% of patient satisfaction.Conclusions: This study showed that patients treated for Lisfranc injury had significantly lower walking speed and significantly lower flexion/extension in the midfoot than healthy subjects. The ROM in these patients was significantly correlated with PROM, but not with radiographic quality of reduction. Most important satisfaction predictors were BMI, ROM in the sagittal plane during the push-off phase and fracture stability. (c) 2017 European Foot and Ankle Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</p

Societal burden and quality of life in patients with Lisfranc Injuries

Background: The incidence of Lisfranc fractures is rising, along with the incidence of foot fractures in general. These injuries can lead to long-term healthcare use and societal costs. Current economic evaluation studies are scarce in Lisfranc fracture research, and only investigate the healthcare costs. The aim of the present study was to accurately measure the monetary societal burden of disease and quality of life in the first 6 months after the injury in patients with Lisfranc fractures in the Netherlands. Materials and methods: This study used a prevalence-based, bottom-up approach. Patients were included through thirteen medical centres in the Netherlands. Both stable and unstable injuries were included. The societal perspective was used. The costs were measured at baseline, 12 weeks and 6 months using the iMTA MCQ and PCQ questionnaires. Reference prices were used for valuation. Quality-of-life was measured using the EQ-5D-5 L and VAS scores. Results: 214 patients were included. The mean age was 45.9 years, and 24.3% of patients had comorbidities. The baseline questionnaires yielded approximately €2023 as the total societal costs in the 3 months prior to injury. The follow-up questionnaires and surgery costs assessment yielded approximately €17,083 as the total costs in the first 6 months after injury. Of these costs, approximately two thirds could be attributed to productivity losses. The EQ-5D-5 L found a mean index value of 0.449 at baseline and an index value of 0.737 at the 6-month follow-up. Conclusion: The total monetary societal costs in the first 6 months after injury are approximately €17,083. Approximately two thirds of these costs can be attributed to productivity losses. These costs appear to be somewhat higher than those found in other studies. However, these studies only included the healthcare costs. Furthermore, the baseline costs indicate relatively low healthcare usage before the injury compared to the average Dutch patient. The mean QoL index was 0.462 at baseline and 0.737 at 6 months, indicating a rise in QoL after treatment as well as a long-lasting impact on QoL. To our knowledge, this is only the first study investigating the societal costs of Lisfranc injuries, so more research is needed.</p

The effect of taping versus semi-rigid bracing on patient outcome and satisfaction in ankle sprains: A prospective, randomized controlled trial

Background: Functional treatment is a widely used and generally accepted treatment for ankle sprain. A meta-analysis comparing the different functional treatment options could not make definitive conclusions regarding the effectiveness, and until now, little was known about patient satisfaction in relation to the outcome. Methods: Patients with acute ankle sprain received rest, ice, compression and elevation with an compressive bandage at the emergency department. After 5-7 days, 100 patients with grade II and III sprains were randomized into two groups: one group was treated with tape and the other with a semi-rigid ankle brace, both for 4 weeks. Post-injury physical and proprioceptive training was standardized. As primary outcome parameter patient satisfaction and skin complications were evaluated using a predefined questionnaire and numeric rating scale. As secondary outcome parameter the ankle joint function was assessed using the Karlsson scoring scale and range of motion. Results: Patient-reported comfort and satisfaction during treatment with a semi-rigid brace was significantly increased. The rate of skin complication in this group was significantly lower compared to the tape group (14.6% versus 59.1%, P < 0.0001). Functional outcome of the ankle joint was similar between the two treatment groups, as well as reported pain. Conclusion: Treatment of acute ankle sprain with semi-rigid brace leads to significantly higher patient comfort and satisfaction, both with similar good outcome

Gastrointestinal function in intensive care patients: terminology, definitions and management. Recommendations of the ESICM Working Group on Abdominal Problems

Purpose: Acute gastrointestinal (GI) dysfunction and failure have been increasingly recognized in critically ill patients. The variety of definitions proposed in the past has led to confusion and difficulty in comparing one study to another. An international working group convened to standardize the definitions for acute GI failure and GI symptoms and to review the therapeutic options. Methods: The Working Group on Abdominal Problems (WGAP) of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) developed the definitions for GI dysfunction in intensive care patients on the basis of the available evidence and current understanding of the pathophysiology. Results: Definitions for acute gastrointestinal injury (AGI) with its four grades of severity, as well as for feeding intolerance syndrome and GI symptoms (e.g. vomiting, diarrhoea, paralysis, high gastric residual volumes) are proposed. AGI is a malfunctioning of the GI tract in intensive care patients due to their acute illness. AGI grade I=increased risk of developing GI dysfunction or failure (a self-limiting condition); AGI grade II=GI dysfunction (a condition that requires interventions); AGI grade III=GI failure (GI function cannot be restored with interventions); AGI grade IV=dramatically manifesting GI failure (a condition that is immediately life-threatening). Current evidence and expert opinions regarding treatment of acute GI dysfunction are provided. Conclusions: State-of-the-art definitions for GI dysfunction with gradation as well as management recommendations are proposed on the basis of current medical evidence and expert opinion. The WGAP recommends using these definitions for clinical and research purpose

Priority accuracy by dispatch centers and Emergency Medical Services professionals in trauma patients:a cohort study

PURPOSE: Priority-setting by dispatch centers and Emergency Medical Services professionals has a major impact on pre-hospital triage and times of trauma patients. Patients requiring specialized care benefit from expedited transport to higher-level trauma centers, while transportation of these patients to lower-level trauma centers is associated with higher mortality rates. This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of priority-setting by dispatch centers and Emergency Medical Services professionals. METHODS: This observational study included trauma patients transported from the scene of injury to a trauma center. Priority-setting was evaluated in terms of the proportion of patients requiring specialized trauma care assigned with the highest priority (i.e., sensitivity), undertriage, and overtriage. Patients in need of specialized care were defined by a composite resource-based endpoint. An Injury Severity Score ≥ 16 served as a secondary reference standard. RESULTS: Between January 2015 and December 2017, records of 114,459 trauma patients were collected, of which 3327 (2.9%) patients were in need of specialized care according to the primary reference standard. Dispatch centers and Emergency Medical Services professionals assigned 83.8% and 74.5% of these patients with the highest priority, respectively. Undertriage rates ranged between 22.7 and 65.5% in the different prioritization subgroups. There were differences between dispatch and transport priorities in 17.7% of the patients. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients that required specialized care were assigned with the highest priority by the dispatch centers and Emergency Medical Services professionals. Highly accurate priority criteria could improve the quality of pre-hospital triage. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00068-021-01685-1