160 resultados para CRITICAL CARE
Resumo:
Background: There is growing interest in the potential utility of real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in diagnosing bloodstream infection by detecting pathogen deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in blood samples within a few hours. SeptiFast (Roche Diagnostics GmBH, Mannheim, Germany) is a multipathogen probe-based system targeting ribosomal DNA sequences of bacteria and fungi. It detects and identifies the commonest pathogens causing bloodstream infection. As background to this study, we report a systematic review of Phase III diagnostic accuracy studies of SeptiFast, which reveals uncertainty about its likely clinical utility based on widespread evidence of deficiencies in study design and reporting with a high risk of bias.
Objective: Determine the accuracy of SeptiFast real-time PCR for the detection of health-care-associated bloodstream infection, against standard microbiological culture.
Design: Prospective multicentre Phase III clinical diagnostic accuracy study using the standards for the reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies criteria.
Setting: Critical care departments within NHS hospitals in the north-west of England.
Participants: Adult patients requiring blood culture (BC) when developing new signs of systemic inflammation.
Main outcome measures: SeptiFast real-time PCR results at species/genus level compared with microbiological culture in association with independent adjudication of infection. Metrics of diagnostic accuracy were derived including sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and predictive values, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Latent class analysis was used to explore the diagnostic performance of culture as a reference standard.
Results: Of 1006 new patient episodes of systemic inflammation in 853 patients, 922 (92%) met the inclusion criteria and provided sufficient information for analysis. Index test assay failure occurred on 69 (7%) occasions. Adult patients had been exposed to a median of 8 days (interquartile range 4–16 days) of hospital care, had high levels of organ support activities and recent antibiotic exposure. SeptiFast real-time PCR, when compared with culture-proven bloodstream infection at species/genus level, had better specificity (85.8%, 95% CI 83.3% to 88.1%) than sensitivity (50%, 95% CI 39.1% to 60.8%). When compared with pooled diagnostic metrics derived from our systematic review, our clinical study revealed lower test accuracy of SeptiFast real-time PCR, mainly as a result of low diagnostic sensitivity. There was a low prevalence of BC-proven pathogens in these patients (9.2%, 95% CI 7.4% to 11.2%) such that the post-test probabilities of both a positive (26.3%, 95% CI 19.8% to 33.7%) and a negative SeptiFast test (5.6%, 95% CI 4.1% to 7.4%) indicate the potential limitations of this technology in the diagnosis of bloodstream infection. However, latent class analysis indicates that BC has a low sensitivity, questioning its relevance as a reference test in this setting. Using this analysis approach, the sensitivity of the SeptiFast test was low but also appeared significantly better than BC. Blood samples identified as positive by either culture or SeptiFast real-time PCR were associated with a high probability (> 95%) of infection, indicating higher diagnostic rule-in utility than was apparent using conventional analyses of diagnostic accuracy.
Conclusion: SeptiFast real-time PCR on blood samples may have rapid rule-in utility for the diagnosis of health-care-associated bloodstream infection but the lack of sensitivity is a significant limiting factor. Innovations aimed at improved diagnostic sensitivity of real-time PCR in this setting are urgently required. Future work recommendations include technology developments to improve the efficiency of pathogen DNA extraction and the capacity to detect a much broader range of pathogens and drug resistance genes and the application of new statistical approaches able to more reliably assess test performance in situation where the reference standard (e.g. blood culture in the setting of high antimicrobial use) is prone to error.
Resumo:
Background: Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is intended to inform decision making in clinical practice, and is central to patientcentered outcomes research (PCOR). Purpose: To summarize key aspects of CER definitions and provide examples highlighting the complementary nature of efficacy and CER studies in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. Methods: An ad hoc working group of the American Thoracic Society with experience in clinical trials, health services research, quality improvement, and behavioral sciences in pulmonary, critical care, and sleepmedicinewas convened. The group used an iterative consensus process, including a reviewbyAmerican Thoracic Society committees and assemblies. Results: The traditional efficacy paradigm relies on clinical trials with high internal validity to evaluate interventions in narrowly defined populations and in research settings. Efficacy studies address the question, "Can it work in optimal conditions?" The CER paradigm employs a wide range of study designs to understand the effects of interventions in clinical settings. CER studies address the question, "Does it work in practice?" The results of efficacy and CER studies may or may not agree. CER incorporates many attributes of outcomes research and health services research, while placing greater emphasis on meeting the expressed needs of nonresearcher stakeholders (e.g., patients, clinicians, and others). Conclusions: CER complements traditional efficacy research by placing greater emphasis on the effects of interventions in practice, and developing evidence to address the needs of the many stakeholders involved in health care decisions. Stakeholder engagement is an important component of CER. Copyright © 2013 by the American Thoracic Society.
Resumo:
Purpose of review: Appropriate selection and definition of outcome measures are essential for clinical trials to be maximally informative. Core outcome sets (an agreed, standardized collection of outcomes measured and reported in all trials for a specific clinical area) were developed due to established inconsistencies in trial outcome selection. This review discusses the rationale for, and methods of, core outcome set development, as well as current initiatives in critical care.
Recent findings: Recent systematic reviews of reported outcomes and measurement instruments relevant to the critically ill highlight inconsistencies in outcome selection, definition, and measurement, thus establishing the need for core outcome sets. Current critical care initiatives include development of core outcome sets for trials aimed at reducing mechanical ventilation duration; rehabilitation following critical illness; long-term outcomes in acute respiratory failure; and epidemic and pandemic studies of severe acute respiratory infection.
Summary: Development and utilization of core outcome sets for studies relevant to the critically ill is in its infancy compared to other specialties. Notwithstanding, core outcome set development frameworks and guidelines are available, several sets are in various stages of development, and there is strong support from international investigator-led collaborations including the International Forum for Acute Care Trialists.
Resumo:
Organ and tissue dysfunction and failure cause high mortality rates around the world. Tissue and organs transplantation is an established, cost-effective, life-saving treatment for patients with organ failure. However, there is a large gap between the need for and the supply of donor organs. Acute and critical care nurses have a central role in the organ donation process, from identifying and assessing potential donors and supporting their families to involvement in logistics. Nurses with an in-depth knowledge of donation understand its clinical and technical aspects as well as the moral and legal considerations. Nurses have a major role to play in tackling organ and tissue shortages. Such a role cannot be adequately performed if nurses are not fully educated about donation and transplant. Such education could be incorporated into mandatory training and completed by all nurses.
Resumo:
Background Rapid Response Systems (RRS) consist of four interrelated and interdependent components; an event detection and trigger mechanism, a response strategy, a governance structure and process improvement system. These multiple components of the RRS pose problems in evaluation as the intervention is complex and cannot be evaluated using a traditional systematic review. Complex interventions in healthcare aimed at changing service delivery and related behaviour of health professionals require a different approach to summarising the evidence. Realist synthesis is such an approach to reviewing research evidence on complex interventions to provide an explanatory analysis of how and why an intervention works or doesn’t work in practice. The core principle is to make explicit the underlying assumptions about how an intervention is suppose to work (ie programme theory) and then use this theory to guide evaluation. Methods A realist synthesis process was used to explain those factors that enable or constrain the success of RRS programmes. Results The findings from the review include the articulation of the RRS programme theories, evaluation of whether these theories are supported or refuted by the research evidence and an evaluation of evidence to explain the underlying reasons why RRS works or doesn’t work in practice. Rival conjectured RRS programme theories were identified to explain the constraining factors regarding implementation of RRS in practice. These programme theories are presented using a logic model to highlight all the components which impact or influence the delivery of RRS programmes in the practice setting. The evidence from the realist synthesis provided the foundation for the development of hypothesis to test and refine the theories in the subsequent stages of the Realist Evaluation PhD study [1]. This information will be useful in providing evidence and direction for strategic and service planning of acute care to improve patient safety in hospital. References: McGaughey J, Blackwood B, O’Halloran P, Trinder T. J. & Porter S. (2010) Realistic Evaluation of Early Warning Systems and the Acute Life-threatening Events – Recognition and Treatment training course for early recognition and management of deteriorating ward-based patients: research protocol. Journal of Advanced Nursing 66 (4), 923-932.
Resumo:
Objectives: Acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome are characterized by noncardiogenic pulmonary edema, which can be assessed by measurement of extravascular lung water. Traditionally, extravascular lung water has been indexed to actual body weight (mL/kg). Because lung size is dependent on height rather than weight, we hypothesized indexing to predicted body weight may be a better predictor of mortality in acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: Despite the fact that outreach and early warning systems (EWS) are an integral part of a hospital wide systems approach to improve the early identification and management of deteriorating patients on general hospital wards, the widespread implementation of these interventions in practice is not based on robust research evidence. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to determine the impact of critical care outreach services on hospital mortality rates. Secondary objectives included determining the effect of outreach services on intensive care unit (ICU) admission patterns, length of hospital stay and adverse events. SEARCH STRATEGY: The review authors searched the following electronic databases: EPOC Specialised Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and other Cochrane databases (all on The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1996-June week 3 2006), EMBASE (1974-week 26 2006), CINAHL (1982-July week 5 2006), First Search (1992-2005) and CAB Health (1990-July 2006); also reference lists of relevant articles, conference abstracts, and made contact with experts and critical care organisations for further information. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), controlled before and after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series designs (ITS) which measured hospital mortality, unanticipated ICU admissions, ICU readmissions, length of hospital stay and adverse events following implementation of outreach and EWS in a general hospital ward to identify deteriorating adult patients versus general hospital ward setting without outreach and EWS were included in the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently extracted data and two review authors assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity. Summary statistics and descriptive summaries of primary and secondary outcomes are presented for each study. MAIN RESULTS: Two cluster-randomised control trials were included: one randomised at hospital level (23 hospitals in Australia) and one at ward level (16 wards in the UK). The primary outcome in the Australian trial (a composite score comprising incidence of unexpected cardiac arrests, unexpected deaths and unplanned ICU admissions) showed no statistical significant difference between control and medical emergency team (MET) hospitals (adjusted P value 0.640; adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.16). The UK-based trial found that outreach reduced in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.85) compared with the control group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from this review highlights the diversity and poor methodological quality of most studies investigating outreach. The results of the two included studies showed either no evidence of the effectiveness of outreach or a reduction in overall mortality in patients receiving outreach. The lack of evidence on outreach requires further multi-site RCT's to determine potential effectiveness.
Resumo:
Aims: This paper is a report of a three round Delphi study of intensive care nursing research priorities in Europe (October 2006–April 2009).
Background: Internationally, priorities for research in intensive care nursing have received some attention focusing on healthcare interventions and patient needs. Studies as early as the 1980s identified priorities in the United States, United Kingdom, Hong Kong and Australia. Research priorities of intensive care nurses across the European Union are unknown.
Methods: The participants, invited in 2006, included 110 intensive care nurses, managers, educators and researchers from 20 European Critical Care Nursing Associations. Delphi round one was an emailed questionnaire inviting participants to list important areas for research. The list was content analysed and developed into an online questionnaire for rounds two and three. In round two, participants ranked the topics on a scale of 1–6 (not important to extremely important). Mean scores of round two were added to the questionnaire of round three and participants ranked the topics again.
Results: There were 52 research topics in 12 domains. There was a dominance of priorities in five main areas: patient safety; impact of evidence based practice on outcomes; impact of workforce on outcomes; well being of patients and relatives; and impact of end-of-life care on staff and practice.
Conclusions: The results reflect worldwide healthcare concerns and objectives and highlight topics that nurses view as fundamental to the care of critically ill patients. These topics provide a platform for future research efforts to improve clinical practice and care of patients in intensive care.
Resumo:
Objective: Endothelial function may be impaired in critical illness. We hypothesized that impaired endothelium-dependent vasodilatation is a predictor of mortality in critically ill patients.
Design: Prospective observational cohort study.
Setting: Seventeen-bed adult intensive care unit in a tertiary referral university teaching hospital. Patients: Patients were recruited within 24 hrs of admission to the intensive care unit.
Interventions: The SphygmoCor Mx system was used to derive the aortic augmentation index from radial artery pulse pressure waveforms. Endothelium-dependent vasodilatation was calculated as the change in augmentation index in response to an endothelium-dependent vasodilator (salbutamol).
Measurements and Main Results: Demographics, severity of illness scores, and physiological parameters were collected. Statistically significant predictors of mortality identified using single regressor analysis were entered into a multiple logistic regression model. Receiver operator characteristic curves were generated. Ninety-four patients completed the study. There were 80 survivors and 14 nonsurvivors. The Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, leukocyte count, and endothelium-dependent vasodilatation conferred an increased risk of mortality. In logistic regression analysis, endothelium-dependent vasodilatation was the only predictor of mortality with an adjusted odds ratio of 26.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3-159.5). An endothelium-dependent vasodilatation value of 0.5% or less predicted intensive care unit mortality with a sensitivity of 79% (CI, 59-88%) and specificity of 98% (CI, 94-99%).
Conclusions: In vivo bedside assessment of endothelium-dependent vasodilatation is an independent predictor of mortality in the critically ill. We have shown it to be superior to other validated severity of illness scores with high sensitivity and specificity.