Sex-based Differences in the Use of Best Practices in Mechanically Ventilated Adults in the Intensive Care Unit: An Analysis of the Toronto Multicenter iCORE Database.

Sangeeta Mehta, Christopher Yarnell, Ruxandra Pinto, Andre Carlos K B Amaral
{"title":"Sex-based Differences in the Use of Best Practices in Mechanically Ventilated Adults in the Intensive Care Unit: An Analysis of the Toronto Multicenter iCORE Database.","authors":"Sangeeta Mehta, Christopher Yarnell, Ruxandra Pinto, Andre Carlos K B Amaral","doi":"10.1513/AnnalsATS.202403-227OC","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Rationale:</b> Patients who are critically ill and require admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) should receive the same quality of care regardless of their sex. <b>Objectives:</b> To determine, using population data from a multicenter database in Ontario, Canada, whether sex is associated with differences in the use of eight best practices and other interventions during the ICU care of mechanically ventilated women and men. <b>Methods:</b> Using a cohort of patients receiving mechanical ventilation in eight ICUs, our coprimary outcomes were differences in compliance with eight evidence-based practices between women and men (opioid administration, use of continuous sedation or opioids, sedation minimization, spontaneous breathing trials, stress ulcer prophylaxis, deep venous thrombosis [DVT] prophylaxis, physical restraint, and mobilization). All analyses were adjusted for confounders using logistic regression and restricted to patients eligible for each best practice <b>Results:</b> We included 19,070 (11,910 men, 7,160 women) patients who were mechanically ventilated for >4 hours. Men and women had similar opioid administration, sedation minimization, stress ulcer prophylaxis, DVT prophylaxis, and mobilization. Women were less likely to receive continuous infusions of sedation or opioids than men (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.95) and less likely to be physically restrained (adjusted OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.89). <b>Conclusions:</b> In this cohort of mechanically ventilated patients, the use of evidence-based practices was similar between women and men, except for a higher use of continuous sedative or opioid infusions and physical restraints in men.</p>","PeriodicalId":93876,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the American Thoracic Society","volume":" ","pages":"1751-1758"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of the American Thoracic Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202403-227OC","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rationale: Patients who are critically ill and require admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) should receive the same quality of care regardless of their sex. Objectives: To determine, using population data from a multicenter database in Ontario, Canada, whether sex is associated with differences in the use of eight best practices and other interventions during the ICU care of mechanically ventilated women and men. Methods: Using a cohort of patients receiving mechanical ventilation in eight ICUs, our coprimary outcomes were differences in compliance with eight evidence-based practices between women and men (opioid administration, use of continuous sedation or opioids, sedation minimization, spontaneous breathing trials, stress ulcer prophylaxis, deep venous thrombosis [DVT] prophylaxis, physical restraint, and mobilization). All analyses were adjusted for confounders using logistic regression and restricted to patients eligible for each best practice Results: We included 19,070 (11,910 men, 7,160 women) patients who were mechanically ventilated for >4 hours. Men and women had similar opioid administration, sedation minimization, stress ulcer prophylaxis, DVT prophylaxis, and mobilization. Women were less likely to receive continuous infusions of sedation or opioids than men (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.95) and less likely to be physically restrained (adjusted OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.89). Conclusions: In this cohort of mechanically ventilated patients, the use of evidence-based practices was similar between women and men, except for a higher use of continuous sedative or opioid infusions and physical restraints in men.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重症监护病房机械通气成人使用最佳实践的性别差异:多伦多多中心 iCORE 数据库分析》。
理由 需要入住重症监护病房(ICU)的重症患者,无论其性别如何,都应该得到同等质量的护理。目的 利用加拿大安大略省多中心数据库中的人口数据,确定在重症监护室护理接受机械通气的女性和男性时,性别是否与使用 8 项最佳实践和其他干预措施的差异有关。方法 通过对 8 个重症监护病房接受机械通气的患者进行队列分析,我们得出的共同主要结果是女性和男性在遵守 8 项循证实践(阿片类药物管理、持续镇静或阿片类药物的使用、镇静最小化、自主呼吸试验、应激性溃疡预防、深静脉血栓预防、身体约束和移动)方面的差异。所有分析均采用逻辑回归法对混杂因素进行了调整,并仅限于符合每种最佳实践条件的患者。测量和主要结果 我们纳入了 19070 名(男性 11910 名,女性 7160 名)机械通气时间超过 4 小时的患者。男性和女性的阿片类药物使用、镇静最小化、应激性溃疡预防、深静脉血栓预防和移动的情况相似。与男性相比,女性接受持续输注镇静剂或阿片类药物的可能性较低(调整后 OR 为 0.86,95% CI 为 0.78,0.95),受到身体约束的可能性也较低(调整后 OR 为 0.82,95% CI 为 0.74,0.89)。结论在这组机械通气患者中,除了男性更多使用持续镇静剂或阿片类药物输注和物理约束外,女性和男性使用循证实践的情况相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Airway Remodeling in Cystic Fibrosis Is Heterogeneous. County Level Social Determinates of Health and Correlation with COPD Prevalence in the US. Lest a Smoky Haze of Doubt Suffocate Progress Towards Better Pulse Oximeters. Lung Function Recovery from Pulmonary Exacerbations Treated with Oral Antibiotics in Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia. Trends in the Treatment of Allergic Bronchopulmonary Aspergillosis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1