重症监护室入院时的再喂养综合征风险是重症监护室再入院的独立预测因素,但与重症患者的死亡率或住院时间无关。

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 NURSING Intensive and Critical Care Nursing Pub Date : 2024-06-04 DOI:10.1016/j.iccn.2024.103716
{"title":"重症监护室入院时的再喂养综合征风险是重症监护室再入院的独立预测因素,但与重症患者的死亡率或住院时间无关。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.iccn.2024.103716","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p><span>This study evaluated the association between refeeding syndrome<span> (RFS) risk and intensive care unit (ICU)/in-hospital mortality and length of stay (LOS) and ICU </span></span>readmission in critically ill patients.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This secondary analysis of a cohort study included patients aged ≥ 18 years admitted at ICU 24 h before data collection. We evaluated RFS risk based on the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), stratifying it into four categories (no, low, high, and very-high risk).</p></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><p>Five adult ICUs in Brazil.</p></div><div><h3>Main outcome measures</h3><p>ICU/in-hospital mortality and LOS and ICU readmission data were obtained from electronic medical records analysis, following patients until discharge (alive or not).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span>The study involved 447 patients, categorized into no (19.2 %), low (28.6 %), high (48.8 %), and very-high (3.4 %) RFS risk groups. No significant differences emerged between the two groups (at RFS risk and no RFS risk) regarding the ICU death ratio (34.3 % versus 23.4 %) and LOS (5 versus 4 days), respectively. In contrast, patients at RFS risk experienced higher in-hospital mortality rates (34.3 % versus 23.4 %) prolonged hospital LOS (21 days versus 17 days), and increased ICU readmission rates (15 % versus 8.4 %) than patients without RFS risk. After adjusting for age and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score, we found no association between RFS risk and increased mortality in the ICU or hospital. Also, there was no significant association between RFS risk and prolonged LOS in the ICU or hospital setting. However, patients identified as at risk of RFS showed nearly double the odds of ICU readmission (Odds ratio, 1.90; 95 % CI 1.02</span><strong>–</strong>3.43).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>This study found no significant association between RFS risk and increased mortality in both the ICU and hospital settings, nor was there a significant association with prolonged LOS in the ICU or hospital among critically ill patients. However, patients at risk of RFS exhibited nearly double the odds of ICU readmission.</p></div><div><h3>Implications for Clinical Practice</h3><p>Our findings may contribute to understanding risks associated with ICU readmissions, highlighting the complexity of discharge decision-making through comprehensive assessments.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51322,"journal":{"name":"Intensive and Critical Care Nursing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Refeeding syndrome risk at ICU admission is an independent predictor of ICU readmission but it is not associated with mortality or length of stay in critically ill patients\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.iccn.2024.103716\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p><span>This study evaluated the association between refeeding syndrome<span> (RFS) risk and intensive care unit (ICU)/in-hospital mortality and length of stay (LOS) and ICU </span></span>readmission in critically ill patients.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This secondary analysis of a cohort study included patients aged ≥ 18 years admitted at ICU 24 h before data collection. We evaluated RFS risk based on the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), stratifying it into four categories (no, low, high, and very-high risk).</p></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><p>Five adult ICUs in Brazil.</p></div><div><h3>Main outcome measures</h3><p>ICU/in-hospital mortality and LOS and ICU readmission data were obtained from electronic medical records analysis, following patients until discharge (alive or not).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span>The study involved 447 patients, categorized into no (19.2 %), low (28.6 %), high (48.8 %), and very-high (3.4 %) RFS risk groups. No significant differences emerged between the two groups (at RFS risk and no RFS risk) regarding the ICU death ratio (34.3 % versus 23.4 %) and LOS (5 versus 4 days), respectively. In contrast, patients at RFS risk experienced higher in-hospital mortality rates (34.3 % versus 23.4 %) prolonged hospital LOS (21 days versus 17 days), and increased ICU readmission rates (15 % versus 8.4 %) than patients without RFS risk. After adjusting for age and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score, we found no association between RFS risk and increased mortality in the ICU or hospital. Also, there was no significant association between RFS risk and prolonged LOS in the ICU or hospital setting. However, patients identified as at risk of RFS showed nearly double the odds of ICU readmission (Odds ratio, 1.90; 95 % CI 1.02</span><strong>–</strong>3.43).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>This study found no significant association between RFS risk and increased mortality in both the ICU and hospital settings, nor was there a significant association with prolonged LOS in the ICU or hospital among critically ill patients. However, patients at risk of RFS exhibited nearly double the odds of ICU readmission.</p></div><div><h3>Implications for Clinical Practice</h3><p>Our findings may contribute to understanding risks associated with ICU readmissions, highlighting the complexity of discharge decision-making through comprehensive assessments.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51322,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Intensive and Critical Care Nursing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Intensive and Critical Care Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964339724001010\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intensive and Critical Care Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964339724001010","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的本研究评估了重症患者再喂养综合征(RFS)风险与重症监护病房(ICU)/院内死亡率、住院时间(LOS)和ICU再入院率之间的关系:这项队列研究的二次分析包括数据收集前 24 小时入住重症监护室的年龄≥ 18 岁的患者。我们根据美国国家健康与临床优化研究所(NICE)的标准评估了RFS风险,并将其分为四类(无风险、低风险、高风险和极高风险):主要结果指标:从电子病历分析中获取重症监护室/院内死亡率、住院时间和重症监护室再入院数据,跟踪患者直至出院(存活与否):研究涉及 447 名患者,分为无 RFS 风险组(19.2%)、低 RFS 风险组(28.6%)、高 RFS 风险组(48.8%)和极高 RFS 风险组(3.4%)。两组患者(有 RFS 风险和无 RFS 风险)在重症监护室死亡率(34.3% 对 23.4%)和住院时间(5 天对 4 天)方面分别没有明显差异。相比之下,与无 RFS 风险的患者相比,有 RFS 风险的患者院内死亡率更高(34.3% 对 23.4%),住院时间更长(21 天对 17 天),ICU 再入院率更高(15% 对 8.4%)。在对年龄和序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)评分进行调整后,我们发现 RFS 风险与重症监护室或住院死亡率增加之间没有关联。此外,RFS 风险与重症监护室或住院时间延长之间也无明显关联。然而,被确定为有 RFS 风险的患者再次入住 ICU 的几率几乎增加了一倍(Odds ratio, 1.90; 95 % CI 1.02-3.43):本研究发现,RFS 风险与重症监护室和医院的死亡率增加之间没有明显关联,也与重症监护室或医院重症患者的住院时间延长没有明显关联。然而,有RFS风险的患者再次入住重症监护室的几率几乎增加了一倍:我们的研究结果可能有助于了解与重症监护室再入院相关的风险,并通过综合评估强调出院决策的复杂性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Refeeding syndrome risk at ICU admission is an independent predictor of ICU readmission but it is not associated with mortality or length of stay in critically ill patients

Objectives

This study evaluated the association between refeeding syndrome (RFS) risk and intensive care unit (ICU)/in-hospital mortality and length of stay (LOS) and ICU readmission in critically ill patients.

Methods

This secondary analysis of a cohort study included patients aged ≥ 18 years admitted at ICU 24 h before data collection. We evaluated RFS risk based on the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), stratifying it into four categories (no, low, high, and very-high risk).

Setting

Five adult ICUs in Brazil.

Main outcome measures

ICU/in-hospital mortality and LOS and ICU readmission data were obtained from electronic medical records analysis, following patients until discharge (alive or not).

Results

The study involved 447 patients, categorized into no (19.2 %), low (28.6 %), high (48.8 %), and very-high (3.4 %) RFS risk groups. No significant differences emerged between the two groups (at RFS risk and no RFS risk) regarding the ICU death ratio (34.3 % versus 23.4 %) and LOS (5 versus 4 days), respectively. In contrast, patients at RFS risk experienced higher in-hospital mortality rates (34.3 % versus 23.4 %) prolonged hospital LOS (21 days versus 17 days), and increased ICU readmission rates (15 % versus 8.4 %) than patients without RFS risk. After adjusting for age and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score, we found no association between RFS risk and increased mortality in the ICU or hospital. Also, there was no significant association between RFS risk and prolonged LOS in the ICU or hospital setting. However, patients identified as at risk of RFS showed nearly double the odds of ICU readmission (Odds ratio, 1.90; 95 % CI 1.023.43).

Conclusions

This study found no significant association between RFS risk and increased mortality in both the ICU and hospital settings, nor was there a significant association with prolonged LOS in the ICU or hospital among critically ill patients. However, patients at risk of RFS exhibited nearly double the odds of ICU readmission.

Implications for Clinical Practice

Our findings may contribute to understanding risks associated with ICU readmissions, highlighting the complexity of discharge decision-making through comprehensive assessments.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
15.10%
发文量
144
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: The aims of Intensive and Critical Care Nursing are to promote excellence of care of critically ill patients by specialist nurses and their professional colleagues; to provide an international and interdisciplinary forum for the publication, dissemination and exchange of research findings, experience and ideas; to develop and enhance the knowledge, skills, attitudes and creative thinking essential to good critical care nursing practice. The journal publishes reviews, updates and feature articles in addition to original papers and significant preliminary communications. Articles may deal with any part of practice including relevant clinical, research, educational, psychological and technological aspects.
期刊最新文献
“I will get out of this” - The patients’ experiences of early mobilisation in intensive care. A hermeneutic study Flexible ICU visiting: Improving family outcomes while navigating implementation challenges How to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in trauma patients Early changes in skin surface temperature to predict fever – Response to Xie et al. Intensive care nurses’ provision of culturally sensitive care through communication at the end-of-life
×
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