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

    How Much Energy Vaquejada Horses Spend in a Field Simulation Test?

    No full text
    Vaquejada is a high-intensity and short-duration exercise in which helper horses (HH) are responsible to keep a bull running in a line while pull horses (PH) work to put the bull down after 100 m of running. The purpose of this study was to quantify and compare energy expenditures (EE), transport costs (COT) and metabolic energy requirements (Pmet) of horses used in Vaquejada. Thus, eight Quarter Horses, in randomly formed pairs, performed a vaquejada simulation test (VST), which consisted of three races on a sand track (130–150 m), with a 5-min interval between them. All horses used an integrated heart rate (HR) and GPS monitoring system (V800, Polar Electro) and, from these data, EE, COT and Pmet were calculated using the formulas: EE (J/kg/min) = 0.0566 × HR1.9955, COT = (HR-35)/kg/m × 103 and Pmet = (HR-35)/min/kg. Blood samples were collected for lactate analysis at rest, immediately after the first, second and third race and after 30 min of recovery. Data obtained were submitted to one-way ANOVA and Tukey tests (p ≤ 0.05). In VST, HH had higher EE and higher HR at trot; while PH presented higher EE and HR at canter. Finally, considering total VST, PH had higher EE and COT, while HH had higher Pmet. Lactate was higher in PH. Despite practicing the same sport, PH and HH should be considered distinct athletes, and these must be considered to set up appropriate physical and nutritional programs, which will lead to better performance and guarantees of well-being

    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