10 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

    Interatrial block and atrial arrhythmias in centenarians: Prevalence, associations, and clinical implications

    No full text
    Data are lacking on the characteristics of atrial activity in centenarians, including interatrial block (IAB). The aim of this study was to describe the prevalence of IAB and auricular arrhythmias in subjects older than 100 years and to elucidate their clinical implications. We studied 80 centenarians (mean age 101.4 ± 1.5 years; 21 men) with follow-ups of 6–34 months. Of these 80 centenarians, 71 subjects (88.8%) underwent echocardiography. The control group comprised 269 septuagenarians. A total of 23 subjects (28.8%) had normal P wave, 16 (20%) had partial IAB, 21 (26%) had advanced IAB, and 20 (25.0%) had atrial fibrillation/flutter. The IAB groups exhibited premature atrial beats more frequently than did the normal P wave group (35.1% vs 17.4%; P < .001); also, other measurements in the IAB groups frequently fell between values observed in the normal P wave and the atrial fibrillation/flutter groups. These measurements included sex preponderance, mental status and dementia, perceived health status, significant mitral regurgitation, and mortality. The IAB group had a higher previous stroke rate (24.3%) than did other groups. Compared with septuagenarians, centenarians less frequently presented a normal P wave (28.8% vs 53.5%) and more frequently presented advanced IAB (26.3% vs 8.2%), atrial fibrillation/flutter (25.0% vs 10.0%), and premature atrial beats (28.3 vs 7.0%) (P < .01). Relatively few centenarians (<30%) had a normal P wave, and nearly half had IAB. Our data suggested that IAB, particularly advanced IAB, is a pre–atrial fibrillation condition associated with premature atrial beats. Atrial arrhythmias and IAB occurred more frequently in centenarians than in septuagenarians.Sin financiación4.825 JCR (2016) Q1, 26/126 Cardiac and Carciovascular SystemsUE

    Comparison of 1-year outcome in patients with severe aorta stenosis treated conservatively or by aortic valve replacement or by percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve implantation (data from a multicenter Spanish registry)

    No full text
    The factors that influence decision making in severe aortic stenosis (AS) are unknown. Our aim was to assess, in patients with severe AS, the determinants of management and prognosis in a multicenter registry that enrolled all consecutive adults with severe AS during a 1-month period. One-year follow-up was obtained in all patients and included vital status and aortic valve intervention (aortic valve replacement [AVR] and transcatheter aortic valve implantation [TAVI]). A total of 726 patients were included, mean age was 77.3 ± 10.6 years, and 377 were women (51.8%). The most common management was conservative therapy in 468 (64.5%) followed by AVR in 199 (27.4%) and TAVI in 59 (8.1%). The strongest association with aortic valve intervention was patient management in a tertiary hospital with cardiac surgery (odds ratio 2.7, 95% confidence interval 1.8 to 4.1, p <0.001). The 2 main reasons to choose conservative management were the absence of significant symptoms (136% to 29.1%) and the presence of co-morbidity (128% to 27.4%). During 1-year follow-up, 132 patients died (18.2%). The main causes of death were heart failure (60% to 45.5%) and noncardiac diseases (46% to 34.9%). One-year survival for patients treated conservatively, with TAVI, and with AVR was 76.3%, 94.9%, and 92.5%, respectively, p <0.001. One-year survival of patients treated conservatively in the absence of significant symptoms was 97.1%. In conclusion, most patients with severe AS are treated conservatively. The outcome in asymptomatic patients managed conservatively was acceptable. Management in tertiary hospitals is associated with valve intervention. One-year survival was similar with both interventional strategies

    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