RESUMO
Introduction: There is evidence that prolonged invasive mechanical ventilation has negative consequences for critically ill patients and that performing tracheostomy (TQT) could help to reduce these consequences. The ideal period for performing TQT is still not clear in the literature since few studies have compared clinical aspects between patients undergoing early or late TQT. Objective: To compare the mortality rate, length of stay in the intensive care unit, length of hospital stay, and number of days free of mechanical ventilation in patients undergoing TQT before or after ten days of orotracheal intubation. Methods: A retrospective cohort study carried out by collecting data from patients admitted to an intensive care unit between January 2008 and December 2017. Patients who underwent TQT were divided into an early TQT group (i.e., time to TQT ≤ 10 days) or late TQT (i.e., time to TQT > 10 days) and the clinical outcomes of the two groups were compared. Results: Patients in the early TQT group had a shorter ICU stay than the late TQT group (19 ± 16 vs. 32 ± 22 days, p < 0.001), a shorter stay in the hospital (42 ± 32 vs. 52 ± 50 days, p < 0.001), a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (17 ± 14 vs. 30 ± 18 days, p < 0.001), and a higher proportion of survivors in the ICU outcome (57% vs. 46%, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Tracheostomy performed within 10 days of mechanical ventilation provides several benefits to the patient and should be considered by the multidisciplinary team as a part of their clinical practice.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To analyze whether a viscoelastic mattress support surface can reduce the incidence of stage 2 pressure injuries compared to a standard hospital mattress with pyramidal overlay in critically ill patients. METHOD: A randomized clinical trial with intention-to-treat analysis was carried out recruiting patients with Braden scale ≤14 on intensive care unit admission from April 2016 to April 2017. Patients were allocated into two groups: intervention group (viscoelastic mattress) and control group (standard mattress with pyramidal overlay). The level of significance adopted was 5%. RESULTS: A total of 62 patients were included in the study. There was a predominance of males (53%) and the mean age was 67.9 (SD 18.8) years. There were no differences in clinical or severity characteristics between the patients in the control group and the intervention group. Pressure injuries occurred in 35 patients, with a median time of 7 days (ITQ 4-10) from admission. The frequency of pressure injuries was higher in the control group (80.6%) compared to the intervention group (32.2%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Viscoelastic support surfaces reduced the incidence of pressure injuries in moderate or higher risk critically ill patients when compared to pyramidal support surfaces.