Critical care science最新文献

Objective: To investigate a cohort of sepsis survivors readmitted within 30 days postdischarge, explore the one-year mortality rate based on different causes of readmission and identify factors associated with increased one-year mortality risk among all sepsis survivors readmitted within this timeframe.

Methods: This was a single-center retrospective cohort study involving adult sepsis survivors who were readmitted within 30 days of discharge. Patients were categorized into 3 groups based on the cause of readmission: same-source infectious readmission, different-source infectious readmission, and noninfectious readmission. The outcome of interest was all-cause one-year mortality. Cox proportional hazard analysis was performed to compare factors associated with one-year mortality.

Results: Of the 1,666 patients admitted with sepsis, 243 (14.5%) were readmitted within 30 days. Readmissions were due to same-source infections (40.7%), different-source infections (21.4%), or noninfectious causes (37.9%). All-cause one-year mortality was 46.9%, with no difference between the groups. Age (HR 1.02; 95%CI: 1.003 - 1.04; p = 0.01), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (HR 1.1; 95%CI: 1.02 - 1.18; p = 0.01), discharge to a care facility during index admission (HR 1.6; 95%CI: 1.04 - 2.40; p = 0.03), and malignancy (HR 2.3; 95%CI: 1.5 - 3.7; p < 0.001) were associated with one-year mortality.

Conclusion: Thirty-day readmission in sepsis survivors was common and was associated with a 46.9% one-year mortality rate regardless of readmission cause. Quality improvement patient safety initiatives based on local institutional factors may allow for targeted interventions to improve sepsis survivor outcomes.

Objective: To identify the relative importance of several clinical variables present at intensive care unit admission on the short- and long-term mortality of critically ill patients with cancer after unplanned intensive care unit admission.

Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with cancer with unplanned intensive care unit admission from January 2017 to December 2018. We developed models to analyze the relative importance of well-known predictors of mortality in patients with cancer admitted to the intensive care unit compared with mortality at 28, 90, and 360 days after intensive care unit admission, both in the full cohort and stratified by the type of cancer when the patient was admitted to the intensive care unit.

Results: Among 3,592 patients, 3,136 (87.3%) had solid tumors, and metastatic disease was observed in 60.8% of those patients. A total of 1,196 (33.3%), 1,738 (48.4%), and 2,435 patients (67.8%) died at 28, 90, and 360 days, respectively. An impaired functional status was the greatest contribution to mortality in the short term for all patients and in the short and long term for the subgroups of patients with solid tumors. For patients with hematologic malignancies, the use of mechanical ventilation was the most important variable associated with mortality in all study periods. The SOFA score at admission was important for mortality prediction only for patients with solid metastatic tumors and hematological malignancies. The use of vasopressors and renal replacement therapy had a small importance in predicting mortality at every time point analyzed after the SOFA score was accounted for.

Conclusion: Healthcare providers must consider performance status, the use of mechanical ventilation, and the severity of illness when discussing prognosis, preferences for care, and end-of-life care planning with patients or their families during intensive care unit stays.

Objective: To evaluate whether changes in central venous pressure during fluid expansion and baseline cyclic respiratory variation in the central venous pressure amplitude (RespCVP) curve could be used to discriminate between fluid responders and nonresponders.

Methods: This prospective observational study included critically ill adult patients who underwent fluid expansion in the form of a fluid bolus or fluid challenge with crystalloids. All patients were under mechanical ventilation and adequately sedated. We determined the central venous pressure at baseline (CVPT0) and the changes at 5 (ΔCVPT5), 10 (ΔCVPT10) and 15 (ΔCVPT15) minutes during fluid infusion. We also measured the RespCVP at baseline. Fluid responsiveness was defined as a cardiac index increase of ≥ 15%.

Results: The study included 30 patients (11 responders and 19 nonresponders). The CVPT0 and the changes after a fluid challenge at all three time points did not adequately predict fluid responsiveness, as determined by their area under the curve values (CVPT0: 0.70, (95%CI: 0.49 - 0.90; ΔCVPT5: 0.78, (95%CI: 0.57 - 0.99; ΔCVPT10: 0.63, (95%CI: 0.39 - 0.88; ΔCVPT15: 0.68, ((95%CI: 0.45 - 0.92). The RespCVP at baseline also had a poor performance (area under the curve: 0.70; 95%CI: 0.50 - 0.91).

Conclusion: Changes in central venous pressure have limited value in predicting fluid responsiveness.

Objective: To evaluate whether the perfusion index response to semiorthostatic stress can be used to monitor the sympathetic-vascular response in sepsis patients.

Methods: Three groups were studied: Group A (30 healthy patients), Group B (30 critically ill patients without sepsis), and Group C (92 septic patients). The patients underwent a semiorthostatic stress test (head elevation from 0 to 60 degrees), and hemodynamics, perfusion index values and cardiac ultrasound data were evaluated. SOFA scores were also evaluated in septic patients, comparing those with increased and decreased perfusion indices after the test.

Results: After the test, Group A presented significant reductions in stroke volume (p < 0.01) and the cardiac index (p < 0.05), with increases in heart rate (p < 0.05) and mean arterial pressure (p < 0.001). These responses were not observed in Groups B and C. In the individual analysis of Group A, there was a decrease in the perfusion index (p < 0,001), whereas in Groups B and C, the response was heterogeneous. Additionally, septic patients who had a reduced perfusion index after the test had a significant decrease in the SOFA score at 72 hours compared with the group with an increased perfusion index (p < 0.05). However, the delta-SOFA score did not differ between the groups.

Conclusion: The perfusion index response to semiorthostatic stress in sepsis patients is a simple and inexpensive method that can be used to detect the sympathetic-microvascular response at the bedside and appears to have prognostic value.

Objective: To examine the associations between the scientific output of Brazilian intensive care units and their organizational characteristics.

Methods: This study is a re-analysis of a previous retrospective cohort that evaluated organizational intensive care unit characteristics and their associations with outcomes. We analyzed data from 93 intensive care units across Brazil. Intensive care units were assessed for scientific productivity and the effects of their research activities, using indicators of care for comparison. We defined the most scientifically productive intensive care units as those with numerous publications and a SCImago Journal Rank score or an H-index above the median values of the participating intensive care units.

Results: Intensive care units with more publications, higher SCImago Journal Rank scores and higher H-index scores had a greater number of certified intensivists (median of 7; IQR 5 - 10 versus 4; IQR 2 - 8; with p < 0.01 for the comparison between intensive care units with more versus fewer publications). Intensive care units with higher SCImago Journal Rank scores and H-index scores also had a greater number of fully implemented protocols (median of 8; IQR 6 - 8 versus 5; IQR 3.75 - 7.25; p < 0.01 for the comparison between intensive care units with higher versus lower SCImago Journal Rank scores).

Conclusions: Scientific engagement was associated with better staffing patterns and greater protocol implementation, suggesting that research activity may be an indicator of better intensive care unit organization and care delivery.

Objective: To explore the perceptions of healthcare workers in the intensive care unit about family visitation policies and to examine their impact on healthcare workers' psychological distress.

Methods: We disseminated an electronic survey to interdisciplinary healthcare workers via the Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira during Brazil's most severe peak of COVID-19 (March 2021). We assessed perceptions of and preferences for family visitation policies and measured healthcare worker distress, including burnout, depression, anxiety, irritability, and suicidal thoughts using validated scales. We conducted multivariable regressions to evaluate factors associated with healthcare worker distress, including family visitation policies and healthcare workers' concerns.

Results: We included responses from 903 healthcare workers: 67% physicians, 10% nurses, 10% respiratory therapists, and 13% other. Most healthcare workers reported that their hospitals allowed no family visitation (55%) or limited visitation (43%), and only 2% reported allowing unlimited visitation. Most believed that limiting visitation negatively impacted patient care (78%), and 46% preferred allowing more visitation (which was lower among nurses [44%] than among physicians [50%]; p < 0.01). Approximately half (49%) of healthcare workers reported that limited visitation contributed to their burnout, which was lower among nurses (43%) than among physicians (52%), p = 0.08. Overall, 62% of healthcare workers reported burnout, 24% reported symptoms of major depression, 37% reported symptoms of anxiety, 11% reported excessive alcohol/drug consumption, and 14% reported thoughts of hurting themselves. In the multivariable analysis, family visitation policies (limited visitation versus no visitation) and preferences about policies (more visitation versus same or less) were not associated with psychological distress. Instead, financial concerns and reporting poor communication with supervisors were most strongly associated with burnout, depression, and anxiety.

Conclusion: Half of healthcare workers self-reported that limited family visitation contributed to their burnout, and most felt that it negatively impacted patient care. However, family visitation preferences were not associated with healthcare worker distress in the multivariable regressions. More physicians than nurses indicated a preference for more liberal visitation policies.