Additional file 1 of Comparison of the effects of lidocaine and amiodarone for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with shockable rhythms: a retrospective observational study from a multicenter registry

Additional file 1: e-Table 1. STROBE Statement—checklist of items that should be included in reports of observational studies

Additional file 2 of Comparison of the effects of lidocaine and amiodarone for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with shockable rhythms: a retrospective observational study from a multicenter registry

Additional file 2: e-Table 2. List of ethics committee of participating institutions of Japanese Association for Acute Medicine- out-of-hospital cardiac arrest registry

Data_Sheet_1_The research environment of critical care in three Asian countries: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey.PDF

Although inadequate research support for intensivists can be one major reason of the poor research productivity, no study has investigated the current research environment in critical care medicine in Asia. The objective of this study was to describe Asian academia in critical care from the research environment perspective. We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire survey targeting all physician members of the Societies of Intensive/Critical Care Medicine in Japan, South Korea, and Singapore. We collected the characteristics of the participants and their affiliated institutions and the research environment. The outcome was the number of peer-reviewed publications. Multivariable logistic regression analyses examined the association between the outcome and the following five research environmental factors (i.e., country of the respondents, availability of secured time for research activities or research supporting staff for the hospital, practice at a university-affiliated hospital, and years of clinical practice of 10 years or longer). Four hundred ninety responded (overall response rate: 5.6%) to the survey between June 2019 and January 2020. Fifty-five percent worked for a university-affiliated hospital, while 35% worked for a community hospital. Twenty-four percent had secured time for research within their full-time work hours. The multivariable logistic model found that a secured time for the research activities [odds ratio (OR): 2.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.46–5.24], practicing at a university-affiliated hospital (OR: 2.61; 95% CI, 1.19–5.74), having clinical experience of 10 years or longer (OR:11.2; 95%CI, 1.41–88.5), and working in South Korea (OR: 2.18; 95% CI, 1.09–4.34, Reference: Japan) were significantly associated with higher research productivity. Intensivists in the three countries had limited support for their research work. Dedicated time for research was positively associated with the number of research publications.</p

Data_Sheet_3_The research environment of critical care in three Asian countries: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey.PDF

Although inadequate research support for intensivists can be one major reason of the poor research productivity, no study has investigated the current research environment in critical care medicine in Asia. The objective of this study was to describe Asian academia in critical care from the research environment perspective. We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire survey targeting all physician members of the Societies of Intensive/Critical Care Medicine in Japan, South Korea, and Singapore. We collected the characteristics of the participants and their affiliated institutions and the research environment. The outcome was the number of peer-reviewed publications. Multivariable logistic regression analyses examined the association between the outcome and the following five research environmental factors (i.e., country of the respondents, availability of secured time for research activities or research supporting staff for the hospital, practice at a university-affiliated hospital, and years of clinical practice of 10 years or longer). Four hundred ninety responded (overall response rate: 5.6%) to the survey between June 2019 and January 2020. Fifty-five percent worked for a university-affiliated hospital, while 35% worked for a community hospital. Twenty-four percent had secured time for research within their full-time work hours. The multivariable logistic model found that a secured time for the research activities [odds ratio (OR): 2.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.46–5.24], practicing at a university-affiliated hospital (OR: 2.61; 95% CI, 1.19–5.74), having clinical experience of 10 years or longer (OR:11.2; 95%CI, 1.41–88.5), and working in South Korea (OR: 2.18; 95% CI, 1.09–4.34, Reference: Japan) were significantly associated with higher research productivity. Intensivists in the three countries had limited support for their research work. Dedicated time for research was positively associated with the number of research publications.</p

Data_Sheet_2_The research environment of critical care in three Asian countries: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey.PDF

Although inadequate research support for intensivists can be one major reason of the poor research productivity, no study has investigated the current research environment in critical care medicine in Asia. The objective of this study was to describe Asian academia in critical care from the research environment perspective. We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire survey targeting all physician members of the Societies of Intensive/Critical Care Medicine in Japan, South Korea, and Singapore. We collected the characteristics of the participants and their affiliated institutions and the research environment. The outcome was the number of peer-reviewed publications. Multivariable logistic regression analyses examined the association between the outcome and the following five research environmental factors (i.e., country of the respondents, availability of secured time for research activities or research supporting staff for the hospital, practice at a university-affiliated hospital, and years of clinical practice of 10 years or longer). Four hundred ninety responded (overall response rate: 5.6%) to the survey between June 2019 and January 2020. Fifty-five percent worked for a university-affiliated hospital, while 35% worked for a community hospital. Twenty-four percent had secured time for research within their full-time work hours. The multivariable logistic model found that a secured time for the research activities [odds ratio (OR): 2.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.46–5.24], practicing at a university-affiliated hospital (OR: 2.61; 95% CI, 1.19–5.74), having clinical experience of 10 years or longer (OR:11.2; 95%CI, 1.41–88.5), and working in South Korea (OR: 2.18; 95% CI, 1.09–4.34, Reference: Japan) were significantly associated with higher research productivity. Intensivists in the three countries had limited support for their research work. Dedicated time for research was positively associated with the number of research publications.</p

Table_1_The research environment of critical care in three Asian countries: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey.pdf

Although inadequate research support for intensivists can be one major reason of the poor research productivity, no study has investigated the current research environment in critical care medicine in Asia. The objective of this study was to describe Asian academia in critical care from the research environment perspective. We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire survey targeting all physician members of the Societies of Intensive/Critical Care Medicine in Japan, South Korea, and Singapore. We collected the characteristics of the participants and their affiliated institutions and the research environment. The outcome was the number of peer-reviewed publications. Multivariable logistic regression analyses examined the association between the outcome and the following five research environmental factors (i.e., country of the respondents, availability of secured time for research activities or research supporting staff for the hospital, practice at a university-affiliated hospital, and years of clinical practice of 10 years or longer). Four hundred ninety responded (overall response rate: 5.6%) to the survey between June 2019 and January 2020. Fifty-five percent worked for a university-affiliated hospital, while 35% worked for a community hospital. Twenty-four percent had secured time for research within their full-time work hours. The multivariable logistic model found that a secured time for the research activities [odds ratio (OR): 2.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.46–5.24], practicing at a university-affiliated hospital (OR: 2.61; 95% CI, 1.19–5.74), having clinical experience of 10 years or longer (OR:11.2; 95%CI, 1.41–88.5), and working in South Korea (OR: 2.18; 95% CI, 1.09–4.34, Reference: Japan) were significantly associated with higher research productivity. Intensivists in the three countries had limited support for their research work. Dedicated time for research was positively associated with the number of research publications.</p

Data_Sheet_1_A study of the risk factors for phlebitis in patients stratified using the acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score and admitted to the intensive care unit: A post hoc analysis of the AMOR-VENUS study.docx

IntroductionPeripheral intravascular catheters (PIVCs) are inserted in most patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Previous research has discussed various risk factors for phlebitis, which is one of the complications of PIVCs. However, previous studies have not investigated the risk factors based on the patient’s severity of illness, such as the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score. Different treatments can be used based on the relationship of risk factors to the illness severity to avoid phlebitis. Therefore, in this study, we investigate whether the risk factors for phlebitis vary depending on the APACHE II score.Materials and methodsThis study was a post hoc analysis of the AMOR-VENUS study involving 23 ICUs in Japan. We included patients with age ≥ 18 years and consecutive admissions to the ICU with PIVCs inserted during ICU admission. The primary outcome was phlebitis, and the objective was the identification of the risk factors evaluated by hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The cut-off value of the APACHE II score was set as ≤15 (group 1), 16–25 (group 2), and ≥26 (group 3). Multivariable marginal Cox regression analysis was performed for each group using the presumed risk factors.ResultsA total of 1,251 patients and 3,267 PIVCs were analyzed. Multivariable marginal Cox regression analysis reveals that there were statistically significant differences among the following variables evaluated HR (95%CI): (i) in group 1, standardized drug administration measures (HR, 0.4 [0.17–0.9]; p = 0.03) and nicardipine administration (HR, 2.25 [1.35–3.75]; p ConclusionWe found that phlebitis risk factors varied according to illness severity. By considering these different risk factors, different treatments may be provided to avoid phlebitis based on the patient’s severity of illness.</p

Table_1_A study of the risk factors for phlebitis in patients stratified using the acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score and admitted to the intensive care unit: A post hoc analysis of the AMOR-VENUS study.DOCX

IntroductionPeripheral intravascular catheters (PIVCs) are inserted in most patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Previous research has discussed various risk factors for phlebitis, which is one of the complications of PIVCs. However, previous studies have not investigated the risk factors based on the patient’s severity of illness, such as the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score. Different treatments can be used based on the relationship of risk factors to the illness severity to avoid phlebitis. Therefore, in this study, we investigate whether the risk factors for phlebitis vary depending on the APACHE II score.Materials and methodsThis study was a post hoc analysis of the AMOR-VENUS study involving 23 ICUs in Japan. We included patients with age ≥ 18 years and consecutive admissions to the ICU with PIVCs inserted during ICU admission. The primary outcome was phlebitis, and the objective was the identification of the risk factors evaluated by hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The cut-off value of the APACHE II score was set as ≤15 (group 1), 16–25 (group 2), and ≥26 (group 3). Multivariable marginal Cox regression analysis was performed for each group using the presumed risk factors.ResultsA total of 1,251 patients and 3,267 PIVCs were analyzed. Multivariable marginal Cox regression analysis reveals that there were statistically significant differences among the following variables evaluated HR (95%CI): (i) in group 1, standardized drug administration measures (HR, 0.4 [0.17–0.9]; p = 0.03) and nicardipine administration (HR, 2.25 [1.35–3.75]; p ConclusionWe found that phlebitis risk factors varied according to illness severity. By considering these different risk factors, different treatments may be provided to avoid phlebitis based on the patient’s severity of illness.</p

Le Courrier

14 septembre 18211821/09/14 (A0,N251)

Additional file 1: of The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016)

Financial and academic COIs and roles of committee members. (XLSX 30 kb