Latin America and the Caribbean code against cancer: Developing evidence-based recommendations to reduce the risk of cancer in Latin America and the Caribbean

Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) has a population of more than 650 million inhabitants (8.5% of the world population),1 with a cancer incidence of more than 1.4 million new patients and more than 670,000 deaths in 2018. These figures will increase by 78% by 2040 to more than 2.5 million people diagnosed with cancer each year, and these patients will require medical attention, care, and support. However, many of these new cancer diagnoses can be prevented through public policies, supportive environments, and lifestyles that promote health and prevent cancer (Fig 1).2 In the LAC region, there are many organizations and institutions providing information on cancer prevention, including national cancer institutes, cancer societies and foundations, and public health agencies. Nevertheless, the information is frequently confusing, overwhelming, or even contradictory. The scientific source and credibility, as well as the primary message, differ according to the type of organization that provides the information (eg, patient organization, scientific or governmental institution).For the LAC region, a coalition of institutions and international organizations has joined forces to adapt the European Code to the cancer risks and situation in the LAC region. This involves collecting, analyzing, and evaluating the scientific evidence to support suitable cancer prevention recommendations to the LAC context. A multistakeholder participation in the project is a key approach to ensure that all players will be owners of the Code and true promoters. The coalition is composed of the Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO; also part of the WHO) and the IARC as leading international organizations; a Scientific Committee of senior researchers and distinguished leaders in cancer prevention from LAC; and an Advocacy Group representing important organizations in LAC, including the Latin American and Caribbean Society of Medical Oncology, the Network of Latin-American Cancer Institutes, the Healthy Caribbean Coalition, and the Association of Latin American Leagues Against Cancer.Fil: Cazap, Eduardo. Sociedad Latinoamericana y del Caribe de Oncología Médica; ArgentinaFil: de Almeida, Liz Maria. Instituto Nacional de Câncer Brasil Jose Alencar Gomes da Silva; BrasilFil: Arrossi, Silvina. Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: García, Patricia J.. Universidad Cayetano Heredia; PerúFil: Garmendia, María Luisa. Universidad de Chile; ChileFil: Gil, Enrique. South America Pan-American Health Organization; PerúFil: Hassel, Trevor. Healthy Caribbean Coalition; BarbadosFil: Mayorga, Rubén. South America Pan-American Health Organization; PerúFil: Mohar, Alejandro. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; MéxicoFil: Murillo, Raúl. Centro Javeriano de Oncología; ColombiaFil: Owen, Gabriel O.. Healthy Caribbean Coalition; BarbadosFil: Paonessa, Diego. Liga Argentina de Lucha contra el Cancer; ArgentinaFil: Santamaría, Julio. Centro Hemato Oncológico Panamá; PanamáFil: Tortolero Luna, Guillermo. Universidad de Puerto Rico; Puerto RicoFil: Zoss, Walter. Red de Institutos e Instituciones Nacionales de Cancer; BrasilFil: Herrero, Rolando. Agencia Internacional para la Investigación del Cáncer; FranciaFil: Luciani, Silvana. Pan-American Health Organization; Estados UnidosFil: Schüz, Joachim. Agencia Internacional para la Investigación del Cáncer; FranciaFil: Espina, Carolina. Agencia Internacional para la Investigación del Cáncer; Franci

Socioeconomic, Clinical, and Molecular Features of Breast Cancer Influence Overall Survival of Latin American Women

Molecular profile of breast cancer in Latin-American women was studied in five countries: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, and Uruguay. Data about socioeconomic characteristics, risk factors, prognostic factors, and molecular subtypes were described, and the 60- month overall cumulative survival probabilities (OS) were estimated. From 2011 to 2013, 1,300 eligible Latin-American women 18 years or older, with a diagnosis of breast cancer in clinical stage II or III, and performance status ≦̸ 1 were invited to participate in a prospective cohort study. Face-to-face interviews were conducted, and clinical and outcome data, including death, were extracted from medical records. Unadjusted associations were evaluated by Chi-squared and Fisher’s exact tests and the OS by Kaplan–Meier method. Log-rank test was used to determine differences between cumulative probability curves. Multivariable adjustment was carried out by entering potential confounders in the Cox regression model. The OS at 60 months was 83.9%. Multivariable-adjusted death hazard differences were found for women living in Argentina (2.27), Chile (1.95), and Uruguay (2.42) compared with Mexican women, for older (≥60 years) (1.84) compared with younger (≤40 years) women, for basal-like subtype (5.8), luminal B (2.43), and HER2-enriched (2.52) compared with luminal A subtype, and for tumor clinical stages IIB (1.91), IIIA (3.54), and IIIB (3.94) compared with stage IIA women. OS was associated with country of residence, PAM50 intrinsic subtype, age, and tumor stage at diagnosis. While the latter is known to be influenced by access to care, including cancer screening, timely diagnosis and treatment, including access to more effective treatment protocols, it may also influence epigenetic changes that, potentially, impact molecular subtypes. Data derived from heretofore understudied populations with unique geographic ancestry and sociocultural experiences are critical to furthering our understanding of this complexity.Fil: de Almeida, Liz María. Instituto Nacional de Câncer; BrasilFil: Cortés, Sandra. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile; ChileFil: Vilensky, Marta. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Oncología "Ángel H. Roffo"; ArgentinaFil: Valenzuela, Olivia. Universidad de Sonora; MéxicoFil: Cortes Sanabria, Laura. Hospital de Especialidades Centro Medico Nacional Siglo XXI; MéxicoFil: de Souza, Mirian. Instituto Nacional de Câncer; BrasilFil: Barbeito, Rafael Alonso. Universidad de la República; UruguayFil: Abdelhay, Eliana. Instituto Nacional de Câncer; BrasilFil: Artagaveytia, Nora. Universidad de la Republica; UruguayFil: Daneri Navarro, Adrian. Universidad de Guadalajara; MéxicoFil: Llera, Andrea Sabina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires. Fundación Instituto Leloir. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Müller, Bettina. Instituto Nacional del Cáncer; ChileFil: Podhajcer, Osvaldo Luis. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires. Fundación Instituto Leloir. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Velazquez, Carlos. Universidad de Sonora; MéxicoFil: Alcoba, Elsa. Hospital Maria Curie; ArgentinaFil: Alonso, Isabel. Centro Hospitalario Pereira Rossell; UruguayFil: Bravo, Alicia I.. Hospital Higa Eva Perón; ArgentinaFil: Camejo, Natalia. Universidad de la República; UruguayFil: Carraro, Dirce Maria. A. C. Camargo Cancer Center; BrasilFil: Castro, Mónica. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Oncología "Ángel H. Roffo"; ArgentinaFil: Cataldi, Sandra. Instituto Nacional del Cáncer; UruguayFil: Cayota, Alfonso. Instituto Pasteur de Montevideo; UruguayFil: Cerda, Mauricio. Universidad de Chile; ChileFil: Colombo, Alicia. Universidad de Chile; ChileFil: Crocamo, Susanne. Instituto Nacional de Câncer; BrasilFil: Silva-Garcia, Aida A.. Universidad de Guadalajara; MéxicoFil: Viña, Stella. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Oncología "Ángel H. Roffo"; ArgentinaFil: Zagame, Livia. Instituto Jalisciense de Cancerología; MéxicoFil: Jones, Beth. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Szklo, Moysés. University Johns Hopkins; Estados Unido

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

Cancer survivorship needs in Brazil: Patient and family perspective.

IntroductionCancer Survivorship is a growing public health challenge. Effective responses from health care and social services depend on appropriate identification of survivors and their families´ specific needs. There are few studies on survivorship in low and middle-income countries, therefore, more evidence-based studies are necessary to develop a comprehensive approach to cancer survivorship.ObjectivesIdentify the needs of cancer survivors and their relatives, specifically those of individuals with breast, cervical or prostate cancer, and with acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL).MethodsA qualitative, exploratory study conducted in two referral institutions in Brazil, located in Rio de Janeiro (Southeast region) and Fortaleza (Northeast region). The study included 47 patients of public and private health services and 12 family members. We used script-based semi-structured interviews. The discursive material obtained was categorized and analyzed using the Thematic Analysis approach.ResultsThe analysis identified three central themes: 1) consequences of cancer treatment; 2) Changes in daily life associated with cancer survivorship; and 3) Unmet structural needs in cancer survivorship.ConclusionSocial and cancer control policies in Brazil should provide resources, specific care standards and clinical, psychological and social support. Cancer survivors should also receive rehabilitation and work reintegration guidelines. This matter requires broader access to qualified cancer information, development of an integrated patient-centered care and care model, and more research resources for the country's post-treatment cancer period

Socioeconomic, Clinical, and Molecular Features of Breast Cancer Influence Overall Survival of Latin American Women

Molecular profile of breast cancer in Latin-American women was studied in five countries: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, and Uruguay. Data about socioeconomic characteristics, risk factors, prognostic factors, and molecular subtypes were described, and the 60-month overall cumulative survival probabilities (OS) were estimated. From 2011 to 2013, 1,300 eligible Latin-American women 18 years or older, with a diagnosis of breast cancer in clinical stage II or III, and performance status ≦̸1 were invited to participate in a prospective cohort study. Face-to-face interviews were conducted, and clinical and outcome data, including death, were extracted from medical records. Unadjusted associations were evaluated by Chi-squared and Fisher’s exact tests and the OS by Kaplan–Meier method. Log-rank test was used to determine differences between cumulative probability curves. Multivariable adjustment was carried out by entering potential confounders in the Cox regression model. The OS at 60 months was 83.9%. Multivariable-adjusted death hazard differences were found for women living in Argentina (2.27), Chile (1.95), and Uruguay (2.42) compared with Mexican women, for older (≥60 years) (1.84) compared with younger (≤40 years) women, for basal-like subtype (5.8), luminal B (2.43), and HER2-enriched (2.52) compared with luminal A subtype, and for tumor clinical stages IIB (1.91), IIIA (3.54), and IIIB (3.94) compared with stage IIA women. OS was associated with country of residence, PAM50 intrinsic subtype, age, and tumor stage at diagnosis. While the latter is known to be influenced by access to care, including cancer screening, timely diagnosis and treatment, including access to more effective treatment protocols, it may also influence epigenetic changes that, potentially, impact molecular subtypes. Data derived from heretofore understudied populations with unique geographic ancestry and sociocultural experiences are critical to furthering our understanding of this complexity. Copyright © 2022 de Almeida, Cortés, Vilensky, Valenzuela, Cortes-Sanabria, de Souza, Barbeito, Abdelhay, Artagaveytia, Daneri-Navarro, Llera, Müller, Podhajcer, Velazquez, Alcoba, Alonso, Bravo, Camejo, Carraro, Castro, Cataldi, Cayota, Cerda, Colombo, Crocamo, Del Toro-Arreola, Delgadillo-Cristerna, Delgado, Breitenbach, Fernández, Fernández, Fernández, Franco-Topete, Gaete, Gómez, Gonzalez-Ramirez, Guerrero, Gutierrez-Rubio, Jalfin, Lopez-Vazquez, Loria, Míguez, Moran-Mendoza, Morgan-Villela, Mussetti, Nagai, Oceguera-Villanueva, Reis, Retamales, Rodriguez, Rosales, Salas-Gonzalez, Segovia, Sendoya, Silva-Garcia, Viña, Zagame, Jones, Szklo and United States-Latin American Cancer Research Network (US-LACRN).Fil: de Almeida, Liz Maria. Instituto Nacional de Cáncer; BrasilFil: Cortés, Sandra. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile; ChileFil: Vilensky, Marta. Instituto de Oncología Angel Roffo; ArgentinaFil: Valenzuela, Olivia. Universidad de Sonora; MéxicoFil: Cortes-Sanabria, Laura. Hospital de Especialidades, CMNO-IMSS; MéxicoFil: de Souza, Mirian. Instituto Nacional de Cáncer; BrasilFil: Barbeito, Rafael Alonso. Facultad de Medicina; ArgentinaFil: Abdelhay, Eliana. Instituto Nacional de Cáncer; BrasilFil: Artagaveytia, Nora. Hospital de Clínicas Manuel Quintela. Universidad de la República; UruguayFil: Daneri-Navarro, Adrian. Universidad de Guadalajara; MéxicoFil: Llera, Andrea S. CONICET. Fundación Instituto Leloir; ArgentinaFil: Müller, Bettina. Instituto Nacional del Cáncer; ArgentinaFil: Podhajcer, Osvaldo L. CONICET. Fundación Instituto Leloir; ArgentinaFil: Velazquez, Carlos. Universidad de Sonora; MéxicoFil: Alcoba, Elsa. Hospital Municipal de Oncología María Curie; ArgentinaFil: Alonso, Isabel. Centro Hospitalario Pereira Rossell; ArgentinaFil: Bravo, Alicia I. Hospital Regional de Agudos Eva Perón; ArgentinaFil: Camejo, Natalia. Hospital de Clínicas Manuel Quintela. Universidad de la República; UruguayFil: Carraro, Dirce Maria. AC Camargo Cancer Center; BrasilFil: Castro, Mónica. Instituto de Oncología Angel Roffo; ArgentinaFil: Cataldi, Sandra. Instituto Nacional de Cáncer; UruguayFil: Cayota, Alfonso. Institut Pasteur de Montevideo; UruguayFil: Cerda, Mauricio. Universidad de Chile; ChileFil: Colombo, Alicia. Universidad de Chile; ChileFil: Crocamo, Susanne. Instituto Nacional de Cáncer; BrasilFil: Del Toro-Arreola, Alicia. Universidad de Guadalajara; MéxicoFil: Delgadillo-Cristerna, Raul. Hospital de Especialidades. CMNO-IMSS; MéxicoFil: Delgado, Lucia. Hospital de Clínicas Manuel Quintela; UruguayFil: Breitenbach, Marisa Dreyer. Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Fernández, Elmer. Universidad Católica de Córdoba. CONICET. Centro de Investigaciones en Bioquímica Clínica e Inmunologia; ArgentinaFil: Fernández, Jorge. Instituto de Salud Pública; ChileFil: Fernández, Wanda. Hospital San Borja Arriarán; ChileFil: Franco-Topete, Ramon A. OPD Hospital Civil de Guadalajara. Universidad de Guadalajara; MéxicoFil: Gaete, Fancy. Hospital Luis Tisne; ChileFil: Gómez, Jorge. Texas A&M University; Estados UnidosFil: Gonzalez-Ramirez, Leivy P. Universidad de Guadalajara; MéxicoFil: Guerrero, Marisol. Hospital San José; ChileFil: Gutierrez-Rubio, Susan A. Universidad de Guadalajara; MéxicoFil: Jalfin, Beatriz. Hospital Regional de Agudos Eva Perón; ArgentinaFil: Lopez-Vazquez, Alejandra. Universidad de Sonora; MéxicoFil: Loria, Dora. Instituto de Oncología Angel Roffo; ArgentinaFil: Míguez, Silvia. Hospital Municipal de Oncología María Curie; ArgentinaFil: Moran-Mendoza, Andres de J. Hospital de Gineco-Obstetricia CMNO-IMSS; MéxicoFil: Morgan-Villela, Gilberto. Hospital de Especialidades. CMNO-IMSS; MéxicoFil: Mussetti, Carina. Registro Nacional de Cancer; UruguayFil: Nagai, Maria Aparecida. Instituto de Câncer de São Paulo; BrasilFil: Oceguera-Villanueva, Antonio. Instituto Jalisciense de Cancerologia; MéxicoFil: Reis, Rui M. Hospital de Câncer de Barretos; BrasilFil: Retamales, Javier. Grupo Oncológico Cooperativo Chileno de Investigación; ChileFil: Rodriguez, Robinson. Hospital Central de las Fuerzas Armadas; UruguayFil: Rosales, Cristina, Hospital Municipal de Oncología María Curie; ArgentinaFil: Salas-Gonzalez, Efrain. Hospital San José; ChileFil: Segovia, Laura. Hospital Barros Luco Trudeau; ChileFil: Sendoya, Juan M. CONICET. Fundación Instituto Leloir,; ArgentinaFil: Silva-Garcia, Aida A. OPD Hospital Civil de Guadalajara. Universidad de Guadalajara; MéxicoFil: Viña, Stella. Instituto de Oncología Angel Roffo; ArgentinaFil: Zagame, Livia. Instituto Jalisciense de Cancerologia; MéxicoFil: Jones, Beth. Yale University. Yale School of Public Health; Estados UnidosFil: Szklo, Moysés. Johns Hopkins University. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; Estados Unido

Clinical and genetic characteristics of late-onset Huntington's disease

Background: The frequency of late-onset Huntington's disease (>59 years) is assumed to be low and the clinical course milder. However, previous literature on late-onset disease is scarce and inconclusive. Objective: Our aim is to study clinical characteristics of late-onset compared to common-onset HD patients in a large cohort of HD patients from the Registry database. Methods: Participants with late- and common-onset (30–50 years)were compared for first clinical symptoms, disease progression, CAG repeat size and family history. Participants with a missing CAG repeat size, a repeat size of ≤35 or a UHDRS motor score of ≤5 were excluded. Results: Of 6007 eligible participants, 687 had late-onset (11.4%) and 3216 (53.5%) common-onset HD. Late-onset (n = 577) had significantly more gait and balance problems as first symptom compared to common-onset (n = 2408) (P <.001). Overall motor and cognitive performance (P <.001) were worse, however only disease motor progression was slower (coefficient, −0.58; SE 0.16; P <.001) compared to the common-onset group. Repeat size was significantly lower in the late-onset (n = 40.8; SD 1.6) compared to common-onset (n = 44.4; SD 2.8) (P <.001). Fewer late-onset patients (n = 451) had a positive family history compared to common-onset (n = 2940) (P <.001). Conclusions: Late-onset patients present more frequently with gait and balance problems as first symptom, and disease progression is not milder compared to common-onset HD patients apart from motor progression. The family history is likely to be negative, which might make diagnosing HD more difficult in this population. However, the balance and gait problems might be helpful in diagnosing HD in elderly patients

Clinical manifestations of intermediate allele carriers in Huntington disease

Objective: There is controversy about the clinical consequences of intermediate alleles (IAs) in Huntington disease (HD). The main objective of this study was to establish the clinical manifestations of IA carriers for a prospective, international, European HD registry. Methods: We assessed a cohort of participants at risk with <36 CAG repeats of the huntingtin (HTT) gene. Outcome measures were the Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale (UHDRS) motor, cognitive, and behavior domains, Total Functional Capacity (TFC), and quality of life (Short Form-36 [SF-36]). This cohort was subdivided into IA carriers (27-35 CAG) and controls (<27 CAG) and younger vs older participants. IA carriers and controls were compared for sociodemographic, environmental, and outcome measures. We used regression analysis to estimate the association of age and CAG repeats on the UHDRS scores. Results: Of 12,190 participants, 657 (5.38%) with <36 CAG repeats were identified: 76 IA carriers (11.56%) and 581 controls (88.44%). After correcting for multiple comparisons, at baseline, we found no significant differences between IA carriers and controls for total UHDRS motor, SF-36, behavioral, cognitive, or TFC scores. However, older participants with IAs had higher chorea scores compared to controls (p 0.001). Linear regression analysis showed that aging was the most contributing factor to increased UHDRS motor scores (p 0.002). On the other hand, 1-year follow-up data analysis showed IA carriers had greater cognitive decline compared to controls (p 0.002). Conclusions: Although aging worsened the UHDRS scores independently of the genetic status, IAs might confer a late-onset abnormal motor and cognitive phenotype. These results might have important implications for genetic counseling. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01590589

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