RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Adequate recruitment is essential for successful clinical research. ICU nurses play a crucial role in identifying eligible patients, introducing research teams, facilitating informed consent, and caring for enrolled patients. However, a larger group of multidisciplinary healthcare professionals (the ICU care team) is equally important in promoting clinical research participation.To describe the ICU care team's experiences in ongoing clinical research, identifying perceived barriers and enablers to their participation, and apply a behavior framework to enhance research engagement. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey study. SETTING: Four adult ICUs and one PICU between June 2021 and March 2023. SUBJECTS: We recruited nurses, physicians, nurse practitioners, allied health professionals, and unit clerks. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: We developed and validated a cross-sectional survey based on the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behavior model. This survey included: 1) demographic questions (n = 7); 2) research experience questions (n = 6), 3) capability questions (n = 8); 4) opportunity questions (n = 11); 5) and motivation questions (n = 13).A total of 172 ICU care team members completed the survey. Results showed differences in capabilities, opportunities, and motivations among ICU care team members. For example, fellow/attending physicians and nurse practitioners reported higher confidence in discussing research with patients/families, while registered nurses and allied health professionals expressed less confidence. CONCLUSIONS: ICU care team members face multiple barriers that impact their involvement with the conduct of ICU research. To effectively engage healthcare professionals in this process, it is essential to address their capabilities (research knowledge and skills to communicate research with patients/families), create opportunities (collaboration/communication with research team, discuss research during multidisciplinary rounds), and motivate them (recognize their help and share the results of the research being conducted at their site) to improve ICU care team engagement in the conduct of ICU research.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Patients with cirrhosis are at high risk of mortality after organ failure that requires ICU care. There have been attempts to predict which patients are at highest risk, with some success found in adapting liver disease-specific scoring systems with clinical variables commonly associated with critical illness. However, the clinical factors predictive of which patients with cirrhosis are most at-risk of needing ICU level care are unknown. AIMS: Our study set out to better understand which clinical variables were associated with need for ICU care in patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of admitted patients with cirrhosis at single tertiary care center. RESULTS: Patients with cirrhosis admitted to our center were categorized into three groups: those without ICU transfer, those admitted to the ICU directly from the emergency department (ED), and those admitted to the ICU from the medicine floor. These groups differed in mortality at 30 days (3.5% vs. 15% vs. 25%, P < 0.001) and at subsequent intervals up to 1 year. These groups differed in indication for ICU transfer, with GI bleed, hemorrhagic shock, hepatic encephalopathy, and hyponatremia occurring more in the ED-to-ICU group, while respiratory failure was more common in the floor-to-ICU group. In multivariable analysis, factors associated with ICU transfer included worsened kidney function, anemia, hyponatremia, leukocytosis, and the decision to obtain a lactate level. Similar analysis with only floor-to-ICU patients found that ICU transfer was associated with hypoalbuminemia, hyponatremia, hypotension, and SIRS score. CONCLUSION: Our study found significant differences in mortality among three distinct groups of patients with cirrhosis. A risk factor model for ICU transfer found that variables both specific and nonspecific to liver disease were associated with ICU transfer, with between-group differences supporting the idea of different clinical phenotypes and suggesting factors that should be considered in early triage and assessment of hospitalized patients with cirrhosis.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background and Aims: With the second wave of COVID-19, India lost close to three lakh people within the span of a few months. In this study, we aimed to investigate the impact of anemia on the severity of COVID-19 based on the hemoglobin (Hb) concentration of the patients noted at the time of admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), to mark Hb as a prognostic marker of disease severity for the future. Material and Methods: Retrospective data was collected from 784 patients admitted to the COVID adult ICU between March and June 2021. Patients were identified as anemic and non-anemic based on the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. Chi-squared test was applied to see the relationship of anemia with the patient deaths. Results: Among the 784 patients, 507 succumbed to COVID-19. Of these, 49.3% had varying degrees of anemia. Significant correlation of anemia with death due to COVID-19 was found in males and females (P = 0.002106 and P = 0.033071, respectively) and in patients without any other comorbidities except anemia (P = 0.002020). This suggests that anemia is independently an important parameter that plays a role in severity of COVID-19. Conclusion: Upon observing a significant correlation between anemia and COVID-19 severity, it can be stated that anemia should be considered as an independent prognostic risk factor for COVID-19 and that hemoglobin can be used for risk stratification in patients under home or hospital care.

RESUMEN

Background: Sedatives are commonly used in patients with or at risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) during mechanical ventilation. To systematically compare the outcomes of sedation with midazolam, propofol, and dexmedetomidine in patients with or at risk for ARDS. Methods: We developed a dataset of real-world data to enable the comparison of the effectiveness and safety of sedatives and the associated outcomes from the MIMIC-III database and the eICU Collaborative Research database. We performed a systematic study with six cohorts to estimate the relative risks of outcomes among patients administered different sedatives. Propensity score matching was performed to generate a balanced 1:1 matched cohort and to identify potential prognostic factors. The outcomes included hospital mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of intensive care unit stay, length of hospitalization, and likelihood of being discharged home. Results: We performed 60 calibrated analyses among all groups and outcomes with 17,410 eligible patients. Sedation with dexmedetomidine was associated with a lower in-hospital mortality rate than sedation with midazolam and propofol or sedation without dexmedetomidine (p < 0.001). When compared with no sedation, the use of midazolam, propofol or dexmedetomidine was associated with a longer ICU stay and longer hospitalization duration (p < 0.01). Patients treated with midazolam were relatively less likely to be discharged home (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Patients treated with dexmedetomidine had a reduced risk of mortality. These data suggest that dexmedetomidine may be the preferred sedative in patients with or at risk for ARDS.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: The majority of Indian hospitals do not provide intensive care unit (ICU) care or ward-based noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIV). Because no mechanical ventilation or NIV is available in these hospitals, the majority of patients suffering from respiratory failure die. OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effective analysis of two strategies (ward-based NIV with concurrent standard treatment vs standard treatment alone) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) respiratory failure patients treated in Indian hospitals without ICU care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision-analytical model was created to compare the cost-effectiveness for the two strategies. Estimates from the literature were used for parameters in the model. Future costs were discounted at 3%. All costs were reported in USD (2012). One-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed. The time horizon was lifetime and perspective was societal. RESULTS: The NIV strategy resulted in 17.7% more survival and was slightly more costly (increased cost of $101 (USD 2012) but resulted in increased quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (1.67 QALY). The cost-effectiveness (2012 USD)/QALY in the standard and NIV groups was $78/QALY ($535.02/6.82) and $75/QALY ($636.33/8.49), respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was only $61 USD/QALY. This was substantially lower than the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita for India (1489 USD), suggesting the NIV strategy was very cost effective. Using a 5% discount rate resulted in only minimally different results. Probabilistic analysis suggests that NIV strategy was preferred 100% of the time when willingness to pay was >$250 2012 USD. CONCLUSION: Ward-based NIV treatment is cost-effective in India, and may increase survival of patients with COPD respiratory failure when ICU is not available.