Disease severity adversely affects delivery of dialysis in acute renal failure

Background/Aims: Methods of intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) dose quantification in acute renal failure (ARF) are not well defined. This observational study was designed to evaluate the impact of disease activity on delivered single pool Kt/V-urea in ARF patients. Methods: 100 patients with severe ARF (acute intrinsic renal disease in 18 patients, nephrotoxic acute tubular necrosis in 38 patients, and septic ARF in 44 patients) were analyzed during four consecutive sessions of IHD, performed for 3.5-5 h every other day or daily. Target IHD dose was a single pool Kt/V-urea of 1.2 or more per dialysis session for all patients. Prescribed Kt/V-urea was calculated from desired dialyzer clearance (K), desired treatment time (t) and anthropometric estimates for urea distribution volume (V). The desired clearance (K) was estimated from prescribed blood flow rate and manufacturer's charts of in vivo data obtained in maintenance dialysis patients. Delivered single pool Kt/V-urea was calculated using the Daugirdas equation. Results: None of the patients had prescription failure of the target dose. The delivered IHD doses were substantially lower than the prescribed Kt/V values, particularly in ARF patients with sepsis/septic shock. Stratification according to disease severity revealed that all patients with isolated ARF, but none with 3 or more organ failures and none who needed vasopressive support received the target dose. Conclusion: Prescription of target IHD dose by single pool Kt/V-urea resulted in suboptimal dialysis dose delivery in critically ill patients. Numerous patient-related and treatment-immanent factors acting in concert reduced the delivered dose. Copyright (C) 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel

Underweight is independently associated with mortality in post-operative and non-operative patients admitted to the intensive care unit: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND: Low and high body mass index (BMI) have been recently shown to be associated with increased and decreased mortality after ICU admission, respectively. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of BMI on mortality and length of stay in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) III database of patients admitted to the ICUs of a tertiary academic medical center, from January 1997 to September 2002, was crossed with a Hospital Rule-based Systems database to obtain the height and weight of the patients on admission to the ICU. The cohort was divided in post-operative and non-operative groups. We created the following five subgroups based on the BMI: <18.5, 18.5 to 24.9, 25 to 29.9, 30.0 to 39.9, ≥ 40.0 Kg/m(2). A multiple logistic regression analysis was used to determine the independent impact of BMI on hospital mortality. The ICU length of stay ratio was defined as the ratio of the observed to the predicted LOS. P-value < 0.05 was considered significant. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for the odds ratio (OR). RESULTS: BMI was available in 19,669 of the 21,790 patients in the APACHE III database; 11,215 (57%) of the patients were admitted post-operatively. BMI < 18.5 was associated with increased mortality in both post-operative (OR = 2.14, 95% CI, 1.39 to 3.28) and non-operative (OR = 1.51, 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.01) patients. Post-operative patients with a BMI between 30.0 to 39.9 had a lower mortality rate (OR = 0.68, 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.94). Post-operative patients with BMI <18.5 or BMI ≥ 40 had an ICU length of stay ratio significantly higher than patients with BMI between 18.5 to 24.9. The addition of BMI < 18.5 did not improve significantly the accuracy of our prognostic model in predicting hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Low BMI is associated with higher mortality in both post- and non-operative patients admitted to the ICU. LOS is increased in post-operative patients with low and high BMIs

Would you be surprised if this patient died?: Preliminary exploration of first and second year residents' approach to care decisions in critically ill patients

BACKGROUND: How physicians approach decision-making when caring for critically ill patients is poorly understood. This study aims to explore how residents think about prognosis and approach care decisions when caring for seriously ill, hospitalized patients. METHODS: Qualitative study where we conducted structured discussions with first and second year internal medicine residents (n = 8) caring for critically ill patients during Medical Intensive Care Unit Ethics and Discharge Planning Rounds. Residents were asked to respond to questions beginning with "Would you be surprised if this patient died?" RESULTS: An equal number of residents responded that they would (n = 4) or would not (n = 4) be surprised if their patient died. Reasons for being surprised included the rapid onset of an acute illness, reversible disease, improving clinical course and the patient's prior survival under similar circumstances. Residents reported no surprise with worsening clinical course. Based on the realization that their patient might die, residents cited potential changes in management that included clarifying treatment goals, improving communication with families, spending more time with patients and ordering fewer laboratory tests. Perceived or implied barriers to changes in management included limited time, competing clinical priorities, "not knowing" a patient, limited knowledge and experience, presence of diagnostic or prognostic uncertainty and unclear treatment goals. CONCLUSIONS: These junior-level residents appear to rely on clinical course, among other factors, when assessing prognosis and the possibility for death in severely ill patients. Further investigation is needed to understand how these factors impact decision-making and whether perceived barriers to changes in patient management influence approaches to care

A comparison between the APACHE II and Charlson Index Score for predicting hospital mortality in critically ill patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Risk adjustment and mortality prediction in studies of critical care are usually performed using acuity of illness scores, such as Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), which emphasize physiological derangement. Common risk adjustment systems used in administrative datasets, like the Charlson index, are entirely based on the presence of co-morbid illnesses. The purpose of this study was to compare the discriminative ability of the Charlson index to the APACHE II in predicting hospital mortality in adult multisystem ICU patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This was a population-based cohort design. The study sample consisted of adult (>17 years of age) residents of the Calgary Health Region admitted to a multisystem ICU between April 2002 and March 2004. Clinical data were collected prospectively and linked to hospital outcome data. Multiple regression analyses were used to compare the performance of APACHE II and the Charlson index.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The Charlson index was a poor predictor of mortality (C = 0.626). There was minimal difference between a baseline model containing age, sex and acute physiology score (C = 0.74) and models containing either chronic health points (C = 0.76) or Charlson index variations (C = 0.75, 0.76, 0.77). No important improvement in prediction occurred when the Charlson index was added to the full APACHE II model (C = 0.808 to C = 0.813).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The Charlson index does not perform as well as the APACHE II in predicting hospital mortality in ICU patients. However, when acuity of illness scores are unavailable or are not recorded in a standard way, the Charlson index might be considered as an alternative method of risk adjustment and therefore facilitate comparisons between intensive care units.</p

APACHE III outcome prediction in patients admitted to the intensive care unit after liver transplantation: a retrospective cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) III prognostic system has not been previously validated in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). We hypothesized that APACHE III would perform satisfactorily in patients after OLT</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A retrospective cohort study was performed. Patients admitted to the ICU after OLT between July 1996 and May 2008 were identified. Data were abstracted from the institutional APACHE III and liver transplantation databases and individual patient medical records. Standardized mortality ratios (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated by dividing the observed mortality rates by the rates predicted by APACHE III. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the Hosmer-Lemeshow C statistic were used to assess, respectively, discrimination and calibration of APACHE III.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>APACHE III data were available for 918 admissions after OLT. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) APACHE III (APIII) and Acute Physiology (APS) scores on the day of transplant were 60.5 (25.8) and 50.8 (23.6), respectively. Mean (SD) predicted ICU and hospital mortality rates were 7.3% (15.4) and 10.6% (18.9), respectively. The observed ICU and hospital mortality rates were 1.1% and 3.4%, respectively. The standardized ICU and hospital mortality ratios with their 95% C.I. were 0.15 (0.07 to 0.27) and 0.32 (0.22 to 0.45), respectively.</p> <p>There were statistically significant differences in APS, APIII, predicted ICU and predicted hospital mortality between survivors and non-survivors. In predicting mortality, the AUC of APACHE III prediction of hospital death was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.62 to 0.68). The Hosmer-Lemeshow C statistic was 5.288 with a p value of 0.871 (10 degrees of freedom).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>APACHE III discriminates poorly between survivors and non-survivors of patients admitted to the ICU after OLT. Though APACHE III has been shown to be valid in heterogenous populations and in certain groups of patients with specific diagnoses, it should be used with caution – if used at all – in recipients of liver transplantation.</p

Computerized ICU Data Management Pitfalls and Promises

journal articleBiomedical Informatic

Limited effect of patient and disease characteristics on compliance with hospital antimicrobial guidelines

Objective: Physicians frequently deviate from guidelines that promote prudent use of antimicrobials. We explored to what extent patient and disease characteristics were associated with compliance with guideline recommendations for three common infections. Methods: In a 1-year prospective observational study, 1,125 antimicrobial prescriptions were analysed for compliance with university hospital guidelines. Results: Compliance varied significantly between and within the groups of infections studied. Compliance was much higher for lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs; 79%) than for sepsis (53%) and urinary tract infections (UTIs; 40%). Only predisposing illnesses and active malignancies were associated with more compliant prescribing, whereas alcohol/ intravenous drug abuse and serum creatinine levels > 130 mu mol/l were associated with less compliant prescribing. Availability of culture results had no impact on compliance with guidelines for sepsis but was associated with more compliance in UTIs and less in LRTIs. Narrowing initial broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy to cultured pathogens was seldom practised. Most noncompliant prescribing concerned a too broad spectrum of activity when compared with guideline-recommended therapy. Conclusion: Patient characteristics had only a limited impact on compliant prescribing for a variety of reasons. Physicians seemed to practise defensive prescribing behaviour, favouring treatment success in current patients over loss of effectiveness due to resistance in future patients