Airway management procedures in Swedish emergency department patients - a national retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: With the on-going debate about which specialty should be responsible for intubations in the emergency department in mind, the aim of this study was to describe the prevalence of endotracheal intubation and other airway management procedures in emergency department patients in Sweden. METHODS: All patients registered in the Swedish Intensive Care Registry with admission date from January 1 2013 until June 7 2018 and reported admission type "from the emergency department" or "emergency department" reported in the SAPS3 scoring were included. All patients missing codes for procedures were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 110,072 admissions from an emergency department to an ICU were registered during the study period. Of these, 41,619 admissions (37.8%) were excluded due to lack of codes for medical procedures. The remaining 68,453 admissions (62.2%) were included, and 31,888 emergency airway procedures (within 3 h from admission time to the intensive care unit) were registered. Invasive emergency airway procedures were the most common type of airway procedure (n = 23,446), followed by non-invasive airway procedures (n = 8377) and high-flow nasal cannula (n = 880). In 2017 a total of 4720 invasive emergency airway management procedures were registered. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of invasive airway management procedures in Swedish EDs is low. With approximately 1.9 million adult ED visits per year, this gives an estimated incidence of 2.4 invasive airway management procedures per thousand ED visits in 2017. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Emergency department admissions to the intensive care unit - a national retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency departments (EDs) see a rising number of patients, but only a small fraction of ED patients need immediate intensive care. The characteristics of these patients are mostly unknown and there is reason to believe that there are large inter-hospital differences in thresholds for intensive care admissions from the ED. The purpose of this study was to give a nationwide overview of ED admissions directly to intensive care units. METHODS: We used the Swedish Intensive care Registry to identify all patients admitted to intensive care from the ED (January 1, 2013 until June 7, 2018). The primary outcome was discharge diagnosis after intensive care (primary ICU diagnosis code). ICU mortality and" ICU admission due to only observation" were analyzed as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: 110,072 ICU admissions were included, representing 94,546 unique patients. Intoxication, trauma and neurological conditions were the most common causes for intensive care, but large variations according to age, sex and hospital type were seen. Intoxication was the most prevalent diagnosis in young adults (46.8% of admissions in 18-29 years old), whereas infectious diseases predominated in the elderly (17.0% in 65-79 years old). Overall, ICU mortality was 7.2%, but varied substantially with age, sex, type of hospital and medical condition. Cardiac conditions had the highest mortality rates, reaching 32.9%. The mortality was higher in academic centers compared to rural hospitals (9.3% vs 5.0%). It was more common to be admitted to ICU for only observation in rural hospitals than in academic centers (20.1% vs 7.8%). Being admitted to ICU only for observation was most common in patients with intoxication (30.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, intoxication was the most common cause for ICU admission from the ED. However, causes of ED ICU admissions differ substantially according to age, sex and hospital type. Being admitted to the ICU only for observation was most common in intoxicated patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable (no interventions).

Causes of late mortality among ICU-treated patients with sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with sepsis may have an increased risk of late mortality, but the causes of late death are unclear. This retrospective matched cohort study aimed to determine the causes of late death (≥1 year) among patients with sepsis compared to patients without sepsis. METHODS: 8760 patients with severe sepsis or septic shock (2001 consensus criteria) registered in the Swedish Intensive Care Registry (2008-2013) were compared with a 1:1 matched (gender, age, SAPS3 probability for death, ICU length of stay) control group consisting of non-septic ICU patients. Causes of death (International Classification of Diseases codes) were obtained from the Swedish Cause of Death Register (2008-2014). RESULTS: During 2008-2014, 903 patients with sepsis died at ≥365 days after their initial septic event, compared to 884 patients in the control group. Median time of follow-up was 313 days (sepsis group, interquartile range 11-838 days) vs 288 days (control group, 9-836 days). The most common causes of death were heart diseases (sepsis: 50.2%, non-septic: 48.6%) and cancer (sepsis: 33.7%, non-septic: 31.7%). Infectious diseases were significantly more common cause of death in the sepsis group (24.3% vs 19.6%, respectively; P < .05). Pneumonia was a common infectious cause of death in both groups, whereas sepsis was more common in the sepsis group. CONCLUSIONS: The most common causes of late death after ICU admission among patients with and without sepsis were heart diseases and cancer. However, patients with sepsis more frequently had infectious diseases as a cause of late death, compared to non-septic patients.

Assessment of incidence of severe sepsis in Sweden using different ways of abstracting International Classification of Diseases codes: difficulties with methods and interpretation of results.

OBJECTIVE: To compare three International Classification of Diseases code abstraction strategies that have previously been reported to mirror severe sepsis by examining retrospective Swedish national data from 1987 to 2005 inclusive. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Swedish hospital discharge database. PATIENTS: All hospital admissions during the period 1987 to 2005 were extracted and these patients were screened for severe sepsis using the three International Classification of Diseases code abstraction strategies, which were adapted for the Swedish version of the International Classification of Diseases. Two code abstraction strategies included both International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes, whereas one included International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes alone. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The three International Classification of Diseases code abstraction strategies identified 37,990, 27,655, and 12,512 patients, respectively, with severe sepsis. The incidence increased over the years, reaching 0.35 per 1000, 0.43 per 1000, and 0.13 per 1000 inhabitants, respectively. During the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision period, we found 17,096 unique patients and of these, only 2789 patients (16%) met two of the code abstraction strategy lists and 14,307 (84%) met one list. The International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision period included 46,979 unique patients, of whom 8% met the criteria of all three International Classification of Diseases code abstraction strategies, 7% met two, and 84% met one only. CONCLUSIONS: The three different International Classification of Diseases code abstraction strategies generated three almost separate cohorts of patients with severe sepsis. Thus, the International Classification of Diseases code abstraction strategies for recording severe sepsis in use today provides an unsatisfactory way of estimating the true incidence of severe sepsis. Further studies relating International Classification of Diseases code abstraction strategies to the American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine scores are needed.