Prognostic factors for 30-days mortality in eighty years aged and older critically ill patients: a single center retrospective cohort study

Background/aim: Nowadays, with the rise in average life expectancy, the rate of hospitalization of the older population in intensive care unit (ICU) is gradually increasing. Unfortunately, there are no ideal combination of prognostic factors predicting the mortality in older patients admitted to the ICU. In the present study, we aim to determine the prognostic factors and their impacts on short-time mortality in older critically ill patients. Materials and methods: This retrospective cohort study was performed between January 2019 and February 2020. We included 133 patients aged ≥80 years and hospitalized ≥24 h in the ICU. Results: A total of 133 critically ill patients enrolled in the present study. And, the median age of the patients was 85 (80­106) years. 30-days and overall ICU mortality rates were found 30.1% and 34.6%, respectively. The patients were grouped as survivors (n = 94) and nonsurvivors (n = 39). Hospital length of stay before the ICU admission was found significantly longer in nonsurvivors (p = 0.001). Sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation-II (APACHE-II) score were significantly higher in nonsurvivors (p < 0.001, p < 0.001). Also, blood lactate level and glucose level were respectively significantly higher in nonsurvivors (p < 0.001, p = 0.006). We found that modified nutrition risk in critically ill (mNUTRIC) score and prehospital clinical frailty scale (CFS) were independent prognostic factors for the older critically ill patients (HR = 9.19, 95% CI=1.47­57.32, p = 0.018, HR = 20.16, 95% CI = 2.63­54.07, p =0.004). Conclusion: mNUTRIC score and prehospital CFS score were the most important prognostic factors in the admission of older patients to intensive care units.

[Comparison of three different insertion techniques with LMA-Unique™ in adults: results of a randomized trial]. / Comparação de três técnicas diferentes de inserção com a máscara laríngea LMA­Unique™ em adultos: resultados de um estudo randômico.

BACKGROUND: The triple airway maneuver insertion technique allowed faster insertion of the LMA. This study compared three different insertion techniques of the laryngeal mask airway-Unique™. METHODS: One hundred and eighty ASA I-II patients aged 18-65 years were included into the study. Patients were randomly allocated to the standard, rotational and triple airway maneuver (triple) group. In the standard group (n=60), the LMA (Laryngeal Mask Airway) was inserted with digital intraoral manipulation. In the triple group (n=60), the LMA was inserted with triple airway maneuver (mouth opening, head extension and jaw thrust). In the rotational group (n=60), LMA was inserted back-to-front, like a Guedel airway. Successful insertion at first attempt, time for successful insertion, fiber optic assessment, airway morbidity and hemodynamic responses were assessed. RESULTS: Successful insertion at the first attempt was 88.3% for the standard, 78.3% for the rotational and 88.3% for the triple group. Overall success rate (defined as successful insertion at first and second attempt) was 93% for the standard, 90% for the rotational and 95% for the triple group. Time for successful insertion was significantly shorter in the triple group (mean [range] 8.63 [5-19]s) compared with the standard (11.78 [6-24]s) and rotational group (11.57 [5-31]s). Fiber optic assessment, airway morbidity and hemodynamic responses were similar in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Rotational and triple airway maneuver insertion techniques are acceptable alternatives. Triple airway maneuver technique shows higher overall success rates and allows shorter insertion time for LMA insertion and should therefore be kept in mind for emergent situations.

Comparison of Two Different Enteral Nutrition Protocol in Critically Ill Patients.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, two enteral nutrition protocols with different gastric residual volumes (GRVs) and different monitoring intervals were compared with respect to gastrointestinal intolerance findings in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. METHODS: The study was carried out prospectively in 60 patients in the anaesthesiology and reanimation ICU under mechanical ventilation support, who were scheduled to take enteral feeding. Patients were sequentially divided into two groups: Group 1, GRV threshold of 100 mL, and monitoring interval of 4 hours, and Group 2, GRV threshold of 200 mL, monitoring interval of 8 hours. To test the significant difference between the groups, Student's t test, chi-square text and Fisher exact test were used. RESULTS: In Group 1, 3.3% vomiting, 6.6% diarrhoea was observed; in Group 2, 16.6% vomiting, 10% diarrhoea. In terms of total intolerance (vomiting and/or diarrhoea) of the two groups, the incidence was significantly higher in Group 2 (33.3%) than in Group 1 (10%) (p=0.02). CONCLUSION: According to the results of the study, a lower gastrointestinal intolerance rate was detected in the GRV threshold 100 mL, monitoring interval for 4 hours protocol (Group 1) than in GRV threshold 200 mL, monitoring interval for 8 hours protocol (Group 2); Group 1 may be preferred renovation.

Comparison of three different insertion techniques with LMA-UniqueTM in adults: results of a randomized trial / Comparação de três técnicas diferentes de inserção com a máscara laríngea LMA-UniqueTM em adultos: resultados de um estudo randômico

Abstract Background The triple airway maneuver insertion technique allowed faster insertion of the LMA. This study compared three different insertion techniques of the laryngeal mask airway-UniqueTM. Methods One hundred and eighty ASA I-II patients aged 18-65 years were included into the study. Patients were randomly allocated to the standard, rotational and triple airway maneuver (triple) group. In the standard group (n = 60), the LMA (Laryngeal Mask Airway) was inserted with digital intraoral manipulation. In the triple group (n = 60), the LMA was inserted with triple airway maneuver (mouth opening, head extension and jaw thrust). In the rotational group (n = 60), LMA was inserted back-to-front, like a Guedel airway. Successful insertion at first attempt, time for successful insertion, fiber optic assessment, airway morbidity and hemodynamic responses were assessed. Results Successful insertion at the first attempt was 88.3% for the standard, 78.3% for the rotational and 88.3% for the triple group. Overall success rate (defined as successful insertion at first and second attempt) was 93% for the standard, 90% for the rotational and 95% for the triple group. Time for successful insertion was significantly shorter in the triple group (mean [range] 8.63 [5-19]s) compared with the standard (11.78 [6-24]s) and rotational group (11.57 [5-31]s). Fiber optic assessment, airway morbidity and hemodynamic responses were similar in all groups. Conclusions Rotational and triple airway maneuver insertion techniques are acceptable alternatives. Triple airway maneuver technique shows higher overall success rates and allows shorter insertion time for LMA insertion and should therefore be kept in mind for emergent situations.

Resumo Justificativa A técnica de inserção com a manobra tripla das vias aéreas permitiu a inserção mais rápida da ML. Este estudo comparou três técnicas de inserção da máscara laríngea UniqueTM. Métodos Foram incluídos no estudo 180 pacientes ASA I-II, entre 18-65 anos. Os pacientes foram aleatoriamente designados para grupos de manobra das vias aéreas padrão, rotacional e tripla. No grupo padrão (n = 60), a máscara laríngea (ML) foi inserida com a técnica digital intraoral. No grupo tripla (n = 60), a ML foi inserida com a técnica de manobra tripla das vias aéreas (abertura bucal, extensão da cabeça e elevação da mandíbula). No grupo rotacional (n = 60), a ML foi inserida com a técnica de inserção de trás para frente, como uma cânula de Guedel. Inserção bem-sucedida na primeira tentativa, tempo de inserção bem-sucedida, avaliação por fibra óptica, morbidade das vias aéreas e respostas hemodinâmicas foram avaliados. Resultados O sucesso da inserção na primeira tentativa foi de 88,3% para o grupo padrão, 78,3% para o grupo rotacional e 88,3% para o grupo tripla. A taxa de sucesso global (definida como inserção bem-sucedida na primeira e segunda tentativas) foi de 93% para o grupo padrão, 90% para o grupo rotacional e 95% para o grupo tripla. O tempo de inserção bem-sucedida foi significativamente menor no grupo tripla (média [intervalo] 8,63 [5-19]s), em comparação com o grupo padrão (11,78 [6-24]s) e o grupo rotacional (11,57 [5-31]s). A avaliação por fibra óptica, a morbidade das vias aéreas e as respostas hemodinâmicas foram semelhantes em todos os grupos. Conclusões As técnicas de inserção rotacional e de manobra tripla das vias aéreas são opções aceitáveis. A técnica de manobra tripla das vias aéreas apresenta taxas mais altas de sucesso global e permite um tempo menor de inserção da ML e, portanto, deve ser considerada em situações de emergência.

Comparison of the effects of 2 different doses of remifentanil infusion for sedation during in-vitro fertilization procedure.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the sedation level, hemodynamic effects, patient and physician satisfactions following sedation achieved by 2 different doses of remifentanil (R) infusion with additional bolus infusions of propofol for in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedure. METHODS: A double-blind prospective randomized study was implemented on 86 ASA I-II grade female patients, 18-40 years of age that underwent IVF procedure. This study was performed in the Department of Anesthesiology and Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey between November 2006 to August 2008. Group R1 received 0.1 mcg/kg/min while Group R2 received 0.15 mcg/kg/min infusion dose remifentanil. Side effects, total doses of remifentanil and propofol administered, heart rate (HR), systolic arterial pressure and diastolic arterial pressure values have been recorded. Fertilization, cleavage, and pregnancy rates together with prognosis of pregnancies were compared. RESULTS: Groups did not show statistically significant differences for hemodynamic parameters of HR and MAP (p = 0.281). Comparison of the satisfaction levels of 2 groups showed that anesthesiologist satisfaction was superior in R1 (p = 0.009) whereas surgeon satisfaction was superior in R2 (p = 0.01). Both groups reported good patient satisfaction levels (p = 0.31). There were no differences between the groups in terms of fertilization, cleavage, pregnancy rates and prognosis of pregnancies (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Both doses of remifentanil provided stable hemodynamics along with fast and uncomplicated recovery.