Critical care science最新文献

Objective: To determine whether admission to critical care is associated with subsequent disease progression in patients with non-metastatic solid tumors.

Methods: This observational cohort study of UK Biobank participants identified those diagnosed with solid tumors and survived hospitalization. Two cohorts were identified based on critical care admission and new metastatic disease as reported at UK Biobank follow-up visits, or primary or secondary care records were compared. Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to account for potential confounders in the multivariate analysis.

Results: A total of 1,854 solid tumor patients were identified, of whom 453 (24.4%) experienced critical care admission. Unadjusted rates of metastatic disease and death were higher for the critical care cohort with lower progression-free survival. At five years, 25% of the critical care survivors and 14% of the hospitalized survivors had developed metastatic disease (p < 0.001), with a corresponding progression-free survival rate of 65% versus 81% (p < 0.001). After adjustment for confounders, the hazard ratio for progression-free survival between critical care survivors and the hospitalized cohort was 1.69 (95%CIs 1.31 - 2.18; p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Solid tumor patients admitted to the hospital within 2 years of diagnosis had poorer subsequent progression-free survival if they had experienced a critical care admission. This observation was maintained after adjustment for confounding variables.

Objective: To analyze in-hospital and 1-year morbidity and mortality associated with acute gastrointestinal dysfunction in critically ill patients with COVID-19 via a prespecified scoring system.

Methods: Between March and July 2020, consecutive hospitalized patients with COVID-19 from a single institution were retrospectively analyzed by medical chart review. Only those who remained in the intensive care unit for more than 24 hours were included. Gastrointestinal dysfunction was assessed according to a predefined 5-point progressive gastrointestinal injury scoring system, considering the first 7 days of hospitalization. Laboratory data, comorbidities, the need for mechanical ventilation, the duration of intensive care unit stay, and subsequent in-hospital and 1-year mortality rates were also recorded.

Results: Among 230 patients who were screened, 215 were included in the analysis. The median age was 68 years (54 - 82), and 57.7% were male. The total gastrointestinal dysfunction scores were 0 (79.1%), I (15.3%), II (4.7%), III (0.9%), and IV (0%). Any manifestation of gastrointestinal dysfunction was present in 20.9% of all patients and was associated with longer lengths of stay (20 days [11 - 33] versus 7 days [4 - 16]; p < 0.001] and higher C-reactive protein levels on admission (12.8mg/mL [6.4 - 18.4] versus 5.7mg/mL [3.2 - 13.4]; p < 0.001). The gastrointestinal dysfunction score was significantly associated with mortality (OR 2.8; 95%CI 1.7 - 4.8; p < 0.001) and the need for mechanical ventilation (OR 2.8; 95%CI 1.7 - 4.6; p < 0.001). Both in-hospital and 1-year death rates progressively increased as gastrointestinal dysfunction scores increased.

Conclusion: In the current series of intensive care unit patients with COVID-19, gastrointestinal dysfunction severity, as defined by a prespecified scoring system, was predictive of adverse in-hospital and 1-year outcomes.

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of the awake-prone position on relevant clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure requiring high-flow nasal oxygen between different waves in Argentina.

Methods: This multicenter, prospective cohort study included adult patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure requiring high-flow nasal oxygen. The main exposure position was the awake-prone position (≥ 6 hours/day) compared to the non-prone position. The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation, and the secondary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The inverse probability weighting-propensity score was used to adjust the conditional probability of treatment assignment. We then adjusted for contextual variables that varied over time and compared the effectiveness between the first and second waves.

Results: A total of 728 patients were included: 360 during the first wave and 368 during the second wave, of whom 195 (54%) and 227 (62%) remained awake-prone for a median (p25 - 75) of 12 (10 - 16) and 14 (8 - 17) hours/day, respectively (Awake-Prone Position Group). The ORs (95%CIs) for endotracheal intubation in the Awake-Prone Position Group were 0.25 (0.13 - 0.46) and 0.19 (0.09 - 0.31) for the first and second waves, respectively (p = 0.41 for comparison between waves). The ORs for in-hospital mortality in the awake-prone position were 0.35 (0.17 - 0.65) and 0.22 (0.12 - 0.43), respectively (p = 0.44 for comparison between waves).

Conclusion: The awake-prone position was associated with a reduction in the risk of endotracheal intubation and in-hospital mortality. These effects were independent of the context in which the intervention was applied, and no differences were observed between the different waves.