Brazilian Sepsis Epidemiological Study (BASES study).

INTRODUCTION: Consistent data about the incidence and outcome of sepsis in Latin American intensive care units (ICUs), including Brazil, are lacking. This study was designed to verify the actual incidence density and outcome of sepsis in Brazilian ICUs. We also assessed the association between the Consensus Conference criteria and outcome METHODS: This is a multicenter observational cohort study performed in five private and public, mixed ICUs from two different regions of Brazil. We prospectively followed 1383 adult patients consecutively admitted to those ICUs from May 2001 to January 2002, until their discharge, 28th day of stay, or death. For all patients we collected the following data at ICU admission: age, gender, hospital and ICU admission diagnosis, APACHE II score, and associated underlying diseases. During the following days, we looked for systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock criteria, as well as recording the sequential organ failure assessment score. Infection was diagnosed according to CDC criteria for nosocomial infection, and for community-acquired infection, clinical, radiological and microbiological parameters were used. RESULTS: For the whole cohort, median age was 65.2 years (49-76), median length of stay was 2 days (1-6), and the overall 28-day mortality rate was 21.8%. Considering 1383 patients, the incidence density rates for sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock were 61.4, 35.6 and 30.0 per 1000 patient-days, respectively. The mortality rate of patients with SIRS, sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock increased progressively from 24.3% to 34.7%, 47.3% and 52.2%, respectively. For patients with SIRS without infection the mortality rate was 11.3%. The main source of infection was lung/respiratory tract. CONCLUSION: Our preliminary data suggest that sepsis is a major public health problem in Brazilian ICUs, with an incidence density about 57 per 1000 patient-days. Moreover, there was a close association between ACCP/SCCM categories and mortality rate.

Orotracheal intubation: physicians knowledge assessment and clinical practices in intensive care units. / Intubação orotraqueal: avaliação do conhecimento médico e das práticas clínicas adotadas em unidades de terapia intensiva.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the physician’s knowledge on intubation techniques and to identify the common practices. METHODS: This was a prospective study, involving three different intensive care units within a University hospital: Anesthesiology (ANEST), Pulmonology (PULMO) and Emergency Department (ED). All physicians working in these units and consenting to participate in the study completed a questionnaire with their demographic data and questions on orotracheal intubation. RESULTS: 85 completed questionnaires were retrieved (90.42% of the physicians). ANEST had the higher mean age (p=0.001), being 43.5% of them intensivists. The use of hypnotic and opioid association was reported by 97.6%, and pre-oxygenation by 91.8%, but only 44.6% reported sub-occipital pad use, with no difference between the ICUs. On ANEST an increased neuromuscular blockade use was reported (p<0.000) as well as increased caution with full stomach (p=0.002). The rapid sequence knowledge was restricted (mean 2.20 ± 0.89), p=0.06 between the different units. The Sellick maneuver was known by 97.6%, but 72% used it inappropriately. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians knowledge on orotracheal intubation in the intensive care unit is unsatisfactory, even among qualified professionals. It is necessary to check if the responses to the questionnaire and actual clinical practices agree.

Intubação orotraqueal: avaliação do conhecimento médico e das práticas clínicas adotadas em unidades de terapia intensiva / Orotracheal intubation: physicians knowledge assessment and clinical practices in intensive care units

OBJETIVOS: Avaliar o conhecimento médico sobre as técnicas de intubação e identificar as práticas mais realizadas. MÉTODOS: Estudo prospectivo, envolvendo três diferentes unidades de terapia intensiva de um hospital universitário: da anestesiologia (ANEST), da pneumologia (PNEUMO) e do pronto socorro (PS). Todos os médicos que trabalham nessas unidades e que concordaram em participar do estudo, responderam um questionário contendo dados demográficos e questões sobre intubação orotraqueal. RESULTADOS: Foram obtidos 85 questionários (90,42 por cento dos médicos). ANEST teve maior média de idade (p = 0,001), com 43,5 por cento sendo intensivistas. Foi referido uso da associação hipnótico e opióide (97,6 por cento) e pré oxigenação (91,8 por cento), mas apenas 44,6 por cento referiram utilização de coxim suboccipital, sem diferença entre as UTIs. Na ANEST, referiu-se maior uso de bloqueador neuromuscular (p < 0,000) e maior cuidado com estômago cheio (p = 0,002). O conhecimento sobre sequência rápida foi restrito (nota média - 2,20 ± 0,89, com p = 0,6 entre as unidades de terapia intensiva. A manobra de Sellick era conhecida por (97,6 por cento), mas 72 por cento usaram-na inapropriadamente. CONCLUSÕES: O conhecimento médico sobre intubação orotraqueal em terapia intensiva não é satisfatório, mesmo entre profissionais qualificados para tal procedimento. É necessário avaliar se há concordância entre as respostas dos questionários e as práticas clínicas efetivamente adotadas.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the physician’s knowledge on intubation techniques and to identify the common practices. METHODS: This was a prospective study, involving three different intensive care units within a University hospital: Anesthesiology (ANEST), Pulmonology (PULMO) and Emergency Department (ED). All physicians working in these units and consenting to participate in the study completed a questionnaire with their demographic data and questions on orotracheal intubation. RESULTS: 85 completed questionnaires were retrieved (90.42 percent of the physicians). ANEST had the higher mean age (p=0.001), being 43.5 percent of them intensivists. The use of hypnotic and opioid association was reported by 97.6 percent, and pre-oxygenation by 91.8 percent, but only 44.6 percent reported sub-occipital pad use, with no difference between the ICUs. On ANEST an increased neuromuscular blockade use was reported (p<0.000) as well as increased caution with full stomach (p=0.002). The rapid sequence knowledge was restricted (mean 2.20 ± 0.89), p=0.06 between the different units. The Sellick maneuver was known by 97.6 percent, but 72 percent used it inappropriately. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians knowledge on orotracheal intubation in the intensive care unit is unsatisfactory, even among qualified professionals. It is necessary to check if the responses to the questionnaire and actual clinical practices agree.