Epidemiology and risk factors for mortality in critically ill patients with pancreatic infection.

Background: The AbSeS-classification defines specific phenotypes of patients with intra-abdominal infection based on the (1) setting of infection onset (community-acquired, early onset, or late-onset hospital-acquired), (2) presence or absence of either localized or diffuse peritonitis, and (3) severity of disease expression (infection, sepsis, or septic shock). This classification system demonstrated reliable risk stratification in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with intra-abdominal infection. This study aimed to describe the epidemiology of ICU patients with pancreatic infection and assess the relationship between the components of the AbSeS-classification and mortality. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of an international observational study ("AbSeS") investigating ICU patients with intra-abdominal infection. Only patients with pancreatic infection were included in this analysis (n=165). Mortality was defined as ICU mortality within 28 days of observation for patients discharged earlier from the ICU. Relationships with mortality were assessed using logistic regression analysis and reported as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: The overall mortality was 35.2% (n=58). The independent risk factors for mortality included older age (OR=1.03, 95% CI: 1.0 to 1.1 P=0.023), localized peritonitis (OR=4.4, 95% CI: 1.4 to 13.9 P=0.011), and persistent signs of inflammation at day 7 (OR=9.5, 95% CI: 3.8 to 23.9, P<0.001) or after the implementation of additional source control interventions within the first week (OR=4.0, 95% CI: 1.3 to 12.2, P=0.013). Gram-negative bacteria were most frequently isolated (n=58, 49.2%) without clinically relevant differences in microbial etiology between survivors and non-survivors. Conclusions: In pancreatic infection, a challenging source/damage control and ongoing pancreatic inflammation appear to be the strongest contributors to an unfavorable short-term outcome. In this limited series, essentials of the AbSeS-classification, such as the setting of infection onset, diffuse peritonitis, and severity of disease expression, were not associated with an increased mortality risk.ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT03270345.

Prevalence of skin pressure injury in critical care patients in the UK: results of a single-day point prevalence evaluation in adult critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVES: Hospital-acquired pressure injuries (PIs) are a source of morbidity and mortality, and many are potentially preventable. DESIGN: This study prospectively evaluated the prevalence and the associated factors of PIs in adult critical care patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) in the UK. SETTING: This service evaluation was part of a larger, international, single-day point prevalence study of PIs in adult ICU patients. Training was provided to healthcare givers using an electronic platform to ensure standardised recognition and staging of PIs across all sites. PARTICIPANTS: The characteristics of the ICUs were recorded before the survey; deidentified patient data were collected using a case report form and uploaded onto a secure online platform. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Factors associated with ICU-acquired PIs in the UK were analysed descriptively and using mixed multiple logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Data from 1312 adult patients admitted to 94 UK ICUs were collected. The proportion of individuals with at least one PI was 16% (211 out of 1312 patients), of whom 8.8% (n=115/1312) acquired one or more PIs in the ICU and 7.3% (n=96/1312) prior to ICU admission. The total number of PIs was 311, of which 148 (47.6%) were acquired in the ICU. The location of majority of these PIs was the sacral area, followed by the heels. Braden score and prior length of ICU stay were associated with PI development. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence and the stage of severity of PIs were generally low in adult critically ill patients admitted to participating UK ICUs during the study period. However, PIs are a problem in an important minority of patients. Lower Braden score and longer length of ICU stay were associated with the development of injuries; most ICUs assess risk using tools which do not account for this. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03270345.

A knowledge test on pressure injury in adult intensive care patients: Development, validation, and item analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pressure injuries are a major problem in critically ill patients, but both students' and intensive care nurses' knowledge about these injuries leaves room for improvement. As no knowledge test is currently available that focuses on pressure injuries in adult intensive care patients, we aimed to develop such tool, establish the content validity, and perform item analysis using Classical test theory. METHODS: Test development followed established multiple-choice question-writing guidelines. Content validation used a Delphi procedure including eight international experts. Item analysis (question difficulty and discrimination power, and quality of the distractors) was based on the test results of a convenience sample who completed the test online, based on ready knowledge. RESULTS: Four Delphi validation rounds resulted in a 24-item multiple-choice test within seven categories: Epidemiology, Aetiology, Prevention, Classification, Risk factors and risk assessment, Wound care, and Skin care. The content validity index was 0.96. The median score of 12 students and 38 qualified nurses was 12.5/24 (interquartile range 11-14.25; range 4-17; 52%). Least correct answers were in the categories Classification and Wound care. Item analysis revealed several knowledge gaps and misconceptions. CONCLUSIONS: The test has excellent content validity. The sample's overall score was low. Item analysis identified various training needs. Future users are recommended to further validate the test and establish its reliability, and to tailor it to their individual context and evaluation requirements.

Poor timing and failure of source control are risk factors for mortality in critically ill patients with secondary peritonitis.

PURPOSE: To describe data on epidemiology, microbiology, clinical characteristics and outcome of adult patients admitted in the intensive care unit (ICU) with secondary peritonitis, with special emphasis on antimicrobial therapy and source control. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of a multicenter observational study (Abdominal Sepsis Study, AbSeS) including 2621 adult ICU patients with intra-abdominal infection in 306 ICUs from 42 countries. Time-till-source control intervention was calculated as from time of diagnosis and classified into 'emergency' (< 2 h), 'urgent' (2-6 h), and 'delayed' (> 6 h). Relationships were assessed by logistic regression analysis and reported as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: The cohort included 1077 cases of microbiologically confirmed secondary peritonitis. Mortality was 29.7%. The rate of appropriate empiric therapy showed no difference between survivors and non-survivors (66.4% vs. 61.3%, p = 0.1). A stepwise increase in mortality was observed with increasing Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores (19.6% for a value ≤ 4-55.4% for a value > 12, p < 0.001). The highest odds of death were associated with septic shock (OR 3.08 [1.42-7.00]), late-onset hospital-acquired peritonitis (OR 1.71 [1.16-2.52]) and failed source control evidenced by persistent inflammation at day 7 (OR 5.71 [3.99-8.18]). Compared with 'emergency' source control intervention (< 2 h of diagnosis), 'urgent' source control was the only modifiable covariate associated with lower odds of mortality (OR 0.50 [0.34-0.73]). CONCLUSION: 'Urgent' and successful source control was associated with improved odds of survival. Appropriateness of empirical antimicrobial treatment did not significantly affect survival suggesting that source control is more determinative for outcome.

Mobile phones as a vector for Healthcare-Associated Infection: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Mobile phones have become indispensable accessories of both our social and professional lives. They increase the quality of healthcare by providing fast communication, and easy access to laboratory results, imaging and patients' files. Simultaneously however, they may act as vectors for potentially pathogenic micro-organisms and as such hold a potential risk for nosocomial infection. OBJECTIVES: To assess the risk of mobile phones as vectors for nosocomial infection and the impact of disinfecting mobile phones on infection risks. METHODS: The MEDLINE and Embase database were searched from January 2000 - January 2019 for a systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies of any design were critically appraised by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: We identified 50 studies, of which 12 were interventional. Data for a total of 5425 microbiological samples resulted in a prevalence of potentially pathogenic micro-organisms from 0% to 100%. The 2 most commonly found micro-organisms were coagulase-negative staphylococci (most commonly found in 30 studies) and Staphylococcus aureus (most commonly found in 10 studies). The frequency of microbial growth varied across studies. CONCLUSIONS: The use of mobile phones by healthcare workers without proper disinfection may imply a risk for nosocomial infection. A direct relationship however, remains unproven. Healthcare workers are recommended to include proper handling of mobile phones in their 'classic' hand hygiene routine as proposed by the World Health Organisation.

International variation in length of stay in intensive care units and the impact of patient-to-nurse ratios.

OBJECTIVE: To assess variation in ICU length of stay between countries with varying patient-to-nurse ratios; to compare ICU length of stay of individual countries against an international benchmark. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the DecubICUs trial (performed on 15 May 2018). SETTING: The study cohort included 12,794 adult ICU patients (57 countries). Only countries with minimally twenty patients discharged (or deceased) within 30 days of ICU admission were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Multivariate Cox regression was used to evaluate ICU length of stay, censored at 30 days, across countries and for patient-to-nurse ratio, adjusted for sex, age, admission type and Simplified Acute Physiology Score II. The resulting hazard ratios for countries, indicating longer or shorter length of stay than average, were plotted on a forest plot. Results by country were benchmarked against the overall length of stay using Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: Patients had a median ICU length of stay of 11 days (interquartile range, 4-27). Hazard ratio by country ranged from minimally 0.42 (95% confidence interval 0.35-0.51) for Greece, to maximaly1.94 (1.28-2.93) for Lithuania. The hazard ratio for patient-to-nurse was 0.96 (0.94-0.98), indicating that higher patient-to-nurse ratio results in longer length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Despite adjustment for case-mix, we observed significant heterogeneity of ICU length of stay in-between countries, and a significantly longer length of stay when patient-to-nurse ratio increases. Future studies determining underlying characteristics of individual ICUs and broader organisation of healthcare infrastructure within countries may further explain the observed heterogeneity in ICU length of stay.

Epidemiology and age-related mortality in critically ill patients with intra-abdominal infection or sepsis: an international cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe epidemiology and age-related mortality in critically ill older adults with intra-abdominal infection. METHODS: A secondary analysis was undertaken of a prospective, multi-national, observational study (Abdominal Sepsis Study, ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT03270345) including patients with intra-abdominal infection from 309 intensive care units (ICUs) in 42 countries between January and December 2016. Mortality was considered as ICU mortality, with a minimum of 28 days of observation when patients were discharged earlier. Relationships with mortality were assessed by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The cohort included 2337 patients. Four age groups were defined: middle-aged patients [reference category; 40-59 years; n=659 (28.2%)], young-old patients [60-69 years; n=622 (26.6%)], middle-old patients [70-79 years; n=667 (28.5%)] and very old patients [≥80 years; n=389 (16.6%)]. Secondary peritonitis was the predominant infection (68.7%) and was equally prevalent across age groups. Mortality increased with age: 20.9% in middle-aged patients, 30.5% in young-old patients, 31.2% in middle-old patients, and 44.7% in very old patients (P<0.001). Compared with middle-aged patients, young-old age [odds ratio (OR) 1.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21-2.17], middle-old age (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.35-2.41) and very old age (OR 3.69, 95% CI 2.66-5.12) were independently associated with mortality. Other independent risk factors for mortality included late-onset hospital-acquired intra-abdominal infection, diffuse peritonitis, sepsis/septic shock, source control failure, liver disease, congestive heart failure, diabetes and malnutrition. CONCLUSIONS: For ICU patients with intra-abdominal infection, age >60 years was associated with mortality; patients aged ≥80 years had the worst prognosis. Comorbidities and overall disease severity further compromised survival. As all of these factors are non-modifiable, it remains unclear how to improve outcomes.

Epidemiology and outcome of pressure injuries in critically ill patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A propensity score adjusted analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pressure injuries are a frequent complication in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, especially in those with comorbid conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Yet no epidemiological data on pressure injuries in critically ill COPD patients are available. OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of ICU-acquired pressure injuries in critically ill COPD patients and to investigate associations between COPD status, presence of ICU-acquired pressure injury, and mortality. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of prospectively collected data from DecubICUs, a multinational one-day point-prevalence study of pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. We generated a propensity score summarizing risk for COPD and ICU-acquired pressure injury. The propensity score was used as matching criterion (1:1-ratio) to assess the proportion of ICU-acquired pressure injury attributable to COPD. The propensity score was then used in regression modeling assessing the association of COPD with risk of ICU-acquired pressure injury, and examining variables associated with mortality (Cox proportional-hazard regression). RESULTS: Of the 13,254 patients recruited to DecubICUs, 1663 (12.5%) had documented COPD. ICU-acquired pressure injury prevalence was higher in COPD patients: 22.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 20.2 to 24.2) vs. 15.3% (95% CI 14.7 to 16.0). COPD was independently associated with developing ICU-acquired pressure injury (odds ratio 1.40, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.61); the proportion attributable to COPD was 6.4% (95% CI 5.2 to 7.6). Compared with non-COPD patients without pressure injury, mortality was no different among patients without COPD but with pressure injury (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.17) or COPD patients without pressure injury (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.27). Mortality was higher among COPD patients with pressure injury (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.58). CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Critically ill COPD patients have a statistically significant higher risk of pressure injury. Moreover, those that develop pressure injury are at higher risk of mortality. As such, pressure injury may serve as a surrogate for poor prognostic status to help clinicians identify patients at high risk of death. Also, delivery of interventions to prevent pressure injury are paramount in critically ill COPD patients. Further studies should determine if early intervention in critically ill COPD patients can modify development of pressure injury and improve prognosis.

Heterogeneity hampers the identification of general pressure injury risk factors in intensive care populations: A predictive modelling analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine risk factors for pressure injury in distinct intensive care subpopulations according to admission type (Medical; Surgical elective; Surgery emergency; Trauma/Burns). METHODOLOGY/DESIGN: Predictive modelling using generalised linear mixed models with backward elimination on prospectively gathered data of 13 044 adult intensive care patients. SETTINGS: 1110 intensive care units, 89 countries worldwide. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pressure injury risk factors. RESULTS: A generalised linear mixed model including admission type outperformed a model without admission type (p = 0.004). Admission type Trauma/Burns was not withheld in the model and excluded from further analyses. For the other three admission types (Medical, Surgical elective, and Surgical emergency), backward elimination resulted in distinct prediction models with 23, 17, and 16 predictors, respectively, and five common predictors only. The Area Under the Receiver Operating Curve was 0.79 for Medical admissions; and 0.88 for both the Surgical elective and Surgical emergency models. CONCLUSIONS: Risk factors for pressure injury differ according to whether intensive care patients have been admitted for medical reasons, or elective or emergency surgery. Prediction models for pressure injury should target distinct subpopulations with differing pressure injury risk profiles. Type of intensive care admission is a simple and easily retrievable parameter to distinguish between such subgroups.

Pressure injury prevalence in Australian intensive care units: A secondary analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pressure injuries (PIs) are an enduring problem for patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) because of their vulnerability and numerous risk factors. METHOD: This study reports Australian data as a subset of data from an international 1-day point prevalence study of ICU-acquired PI in adult patients. Patients aged 18 years or older and admitted to the ICU on the study day were included. The outcome measure was the identification of a PI by direct visual skin assessment on the study day. Data collected included demographic data and clinical risk factors, PI location and stage, and PI prevention strategies used. Descriptive statistics were used to describe PI characteristics, and odds ratios (ORs) were used to identify factors associated with the development of a PI. RESULTS: Data were collected from 288 patients from 16 Australian ICUs. ICU-acquired PI prevalence was 9.7%, with 40 PIs identified on 28 patients. Most PIs were of stage 1 and stage 2 (26/40, 65.0%). Half of the ICU-acquired PIs were found on the head and face. The odds of developing an ICU-acquired PI increased significantly with renal replacement therapy (OR: 4.25, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.49-12.11), impaired mobility (OR: 3.13, 95% CI: 1.08-9.12), fastest respiratory rate (OR: 1.05 [per breath per minute], 95% CI: 1.00-1.10), longer stay in the ICU (OR: 1.04 [per day], 95% CI: 1.01-1.06), and mechanical ventilation on admission (OR: 0.36, CI: 0.14-0.91). CONCLUSION: This study found that Australian ICU-acquired PI prevalence was 9.7% and these PIs were associated with many risk factors. Targeted PI prevention strategies should be incorporated into routine prevention approaches to reduce the burden of PIs in the Australian adult ICU patient population.

Pressure injury prevalence and risk factors in Chinese adult intensive care units: A multi-centre prospective point prevalence study.

Despite increasing preventive efforts, pressure injury still occurs in intensive care patients. This study was aimed to describe pressure injury prevalence, risk factors, and prevention practices in adult intensive care patients. This was a multi-centre, one-day, prospective point prevalence study in which a total of 198 intensive care units from 21 provinces in China participated. Overall and ICU-acquired prevalence in intensive care patients were 12.26% and 4.31%, respectively. Consistent with earlier reports, almost half of the ICU-acquired pressure injuries were at stage I, one-fourth were at stage 2, and the most common body sites for pressure injuries were sacral and heel region. Risk factors identified were consistent with prior studies. Repositioning was the most commonly used pressure injury prevention strategy, followed by alternating pressure mattresses/overlays, floating heels, and air-filled mattresses/overlays. These reflect a good level of adherence to recommended international pressure injury prevention clinical practice guidelines. The results provide a baseline reference for overall and ICU-acquired prevalence among adult intensive care patients in China. Future research on what contributed to the lower pressure injury incidence in China needs to be conducted to inform healthcare organisations on their future preventive strategies for pressure injury prevention.

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study.

PURPOSE: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. METHODS: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. RESULTS: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9-27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6-16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score < 19, ICU stay > 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2-1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4-1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3-3.3). CONCLUSION: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat.

Epidemiology of intra-abdominal infection and sepsis in critically ill patients: "AbSeS", a multinational observational cohort study and ESICM Trials Group Project.

PURPOSE: To describe the epidemiology of intra-abdominal infection in an international cohort of ICU patients according to a new system that classifies cases according to setting of infection acquisition (community-acquired, early onset hospital-acquired, and late-onset hospital-acquired), anatomical disruption (absent or present with localized or diffuse peritonitis), and severity of disease expression (infection, sepsis, and septic shock). METHODS: We performed a multicenter (n = 309), observational, epidemiological study including adult ICU patients diagnosed with intra-abdominal infection. Risk factors for mortality were assessed by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The cohort included 2621 patients. Setting of infection acquisition was community-acquired in 31.6%, early onset hospital-acquired in 25%, and late-onset hospital-acquired in 43.4% of patients. Overall prevalence of antimicrobial resistance was 26.3% and difficult-to-treat resistant Gram-negative bacteria 4.3%, with great variation according to geographic region. No difference in prevalence of antimicrobial resistance was observed according to setting of infection acquisition. Overall mortality was 29.1%. Independent risk factors for mortality included late-onset hospital-acquired infection, diffuse peritonitis, sepsis, septic shock, older age, malnutrition, liver failure, congestive heart failure, antimicrobial resistance (either methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-resistant enterococci, extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Gram-negative bacteria, or carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria) and source control failure evidenced by either the need for surgical revision or persistent inflammation. CONCLUSION: This multinational, heterogeneous cohort of ICU patients with intra-abdominal infection revealed that setting of infection acquisition, anatomical disruption, and severity of disease expression are disease-specific phenotypic characteristics associated with outcome, irrespective of the type of infection. Antimicrobial resistance is equally common in community-acquired as in hospital-acquired infection.