Diagnostic Accuracy of Clinical Decision Rules to Exclude Fractures in Acute Ankle Injuries: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ankle decision rules are developed to expedite patient care and reduce the number of radiographs of the ankle and foot. Currently, only three systematic reviews have been conducted on the accuracy of the Ottawa Ankle and Foot Rules (OAFR) in adults and children. However, no systematic review has been performed to determine the most accurate ankle decision rule. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to examine which clinical decision rules are the most accurate for excluding ankle fracture after acute ankle trauma. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in the databases PubMed, CINAHL, PEDro, ScienceDirect, and EMBASE. The sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio of the included studies were calculated. A meta-analysis was conducted if the accuracy of a decision rule was available from at least three different experimental studies. RESULTS: Eighteen studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. These included six ankle decision rules, specifically, the Ottawa Ankle Rules, Tuning Fork Test, Low Risk Ankle Rule, Malleolar and Midfoot Zone Algorithms, and the Bernese Ankle Rules. Meta-analysis of the Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR), OAFR, Bernese Ankle Rules, and the Malleolar Zone Algorithm resulted in a negative likelihood ratio of 0.12, 0.14, 0.39, and 0.23, respectively. CONCLUSION: The OAR and OAFR are the most accurate decision rules for excluding fractures in the event of an acute ankle injury.

Patient recollection of airway suctioning in the ICU: routine versus a minimally invasive procedure.

OBJECTIVE: Many patients have an unpleasant recollection of routine endotracheal suctioning after discharge from the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). We hypothesized that through minimally invasive airway suctioning discomfort and stress may be prevented, resulting in less recollection. DESIGN: A prospective randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Two ICUs at the University Hospital of Groningen, the Netherlands. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with an intubation period exceeding 24 h were included. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received either routine endotracheal suctioning (RES) or minimally invasive airway suctioning (MIAS) during the duration of intubation. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Within 3 days after ICU discharge all patients were interviewed, regarding recollection and discomfort of suctioning. The level of discomfort was quantified on a visual analogue scale (VAS). We analyzed data from 208 patients (RES: n=113, and MIAS: n=95). A significantly lower prevalence of recollection of airway suctioning was found in the MIAS group (20%) compared to the RES group (41%) (P-value =0.001). No significant difference in level of discomfort was found between the RES and the MIAS group (P-value =0.136). CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive airway suctioning results in a lower prevalence of recollection of airway suction than in RES, but not in discomfort.

Endotracheal suctioning versus minimally invasive airway suctioning in intubated patients: a prospective randomised controlled trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Endotracheal suctioning in intubated patients is routinely applied in most ICUs but may have negative side effects. We hypothesised that on-demand minimally invasive suctioning would have fewer side effects than routine deep endotracheal suctioning, and would be comparable in duration of intubation, length of stay in the ICU, and ICU mortality. DESIGN: Randomised prospective clinical trial. SETTING: In two ICUs at University Hospital Groningen, the Netherlands. PATIENTS: Three hundred and eighty-three patients requiring endotracheal intubation for more than 24 h. INTERVENTIONS: Routine endotracheal suctioning (n=197) using a 49-cm suction catheter was compared with on-demand minimally invasive airway suctioning (n=186) using a suction catheter only 29 cm long. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: No differences were found between the routine endotracheal suctioning group and the minimally invasive airway suctioning group in duration of intubation [median (range) 4 (1-75) versus 5 (1-101) days], ICU-stay [median (range) 8 (1-133) versus 7 (1-221) days], ICU mortality (15% versus 17%), and incidence of pulmonary infections (14% versus 13%). Suction-related adverse events occurred more frequently with RES interventions than with MIAS interventions; decreased saturation: 2.7% versus 2.0% (P=0.010); increased systolic blood pressure 24.5% versus 16.8% (P<0.001); increased pulse pressure rate 1.4% versus 0.9% (P=0.007); blood in mucus 3.3% versus 0.9% (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that minimally invasive airway suctioning in intubated ICU-patients had fewer side effects than routine deep endotracheal suctioning, without being inferior in terms of duration on intubation, length of stay, and mortality.

Discomfort and factual recollection in intensive care unit patients.

INTRODUCTION: A stay in the intensive care unit (ICU), although potentially life-saving, may cause considerable discomfort to patients. However, retrospective assessment of discomfort is difficult because recollection of stressful events may be impaired by sedation and severe illness during the ICU stay. This study addresses the following questions. What is the incidence of discomfort reported by patients recently discharged from an ICU? What were the sources of discomfort reported? What was the degree of factual recollection during patients' stay in the ICU? Finally, was discomfort reported more often in patients with good factual recollection? METHODS: All ICU patients older than 18 years who had needed prolonged (>24 hour) admission with tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation were consecutively included. Within three days after discharge from the ICU, a structured, in-person interview was conducted with each individual patient. All patients were asked to complete a questionnaire consisting of 14 questions specifically concerning the environment of the ICU they had stayed in. Furthermore, they were asked whether they remembered any discomfort during their stay; if they did then they were asked to specify which sources of discomfort they could recall. A reference group of surgical ward patients, matched by sex and age to the ICU group, was studied to validate the questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 125 patients discharged from the ICU were included in this study. Data for 123 ICU patients and 48 surgical ward patients were analyzed. The prevalence of recollection of any type of discomfort in the ICU patients was 54% (n = 66). These 66 patients were asked to identify the sources of discomfort, and presence of an endotracheal tube, hallucinations and medical activities were identified as such sources. The median (min-max) score for factual recollection in the ICU patients was 15 (0-28). The median (min-max) score for factual recollection in the reference group was 25 (19-28). Analysis revealed that discomfort was positively related to factual recollection (odds ratio 1.1; P < 0.001), especially discomfort caused by the presence of an endotracheal tube, medical activities and noise. Hallucinations were reported more often with increasing age. Pain as a source of discomfort was predominantly reported by younger patients. CONCLUSION: Among postdischarge ICU patients, 54% recalled discomfort. However, memory was often impaired: the median factual recollection score of ICU patients was significantly lower than that of matched control patients. The presence of an endotracheal tube, hallucinations and medical activities were most frequently reported as sources of discomfort. Patients with a higher factual recollection score were at greater risk for remembering the stressful presence of an endotracheal tube, medical activities and noise. Younger patients were more likely to report pain as a source of discomfort.