RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Echocardiography is recommended as a first-line tool in the assessment of patients with shock. The current provision of echocardiography in critical care is poorly defined. The aims of this work were to evaluate the utilisation of echocardiography in patients presenting to critical care with shock, its impact on decision making, and adherence to governance guidelines. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multi-centre, observational study in 178 critical care units across the United Kingdom (UK) and Crown Dependencies, led by the UK's Trainee Research in Intensive Care Network. Consecutive adult patients (≥ 18 years) admitted with shock were followed up for 72 h to ascertain whether they received an echocardiogram, the nature of any scan performed, and its effect on critical treatment decision making. RESULTS: 1015 patients with shock were included. An echocardiogram was performed on 545 (54%) patients within 72 h and 436 (43%) within 24 h of admission. Most scans were performed by the critical care team (n = 314, 58%). Echocardiography was reported to either reduce diagnostic uncertainty or change management in 291 (54%) cases. Patients with obstructive or cardiogenic shock had their management altered numerically more often by echocardiography (n = 15 [75%] and n = 100 [58%] respectively). Twenty-five percent of echocardiograms performed adhered to current national governance and image storage guidance. CONCLUSION: Use of echocardiography in the assessment of patients with shock remains heterogenous. When echocardiography is used, it improves diagnostic certainty or changes management in most patients. Future research should explore barriers to increasing use of echocardiography in assessing patients presenting with shock.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of consistent, evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with fever after brain injury. The aim was to update previously published consensus recommendations on targeted temperature management after intracerebral haemorrhage, aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage, and acute ischaemic stroke in patients who require admission to critical care. METHODS: A modified Delphi consensus, the Neuroprotective Therapy Consensus Review (NTCR), included 19 international neuro-intensive care experts with a subspecialty interest in the acute management of intracerebral haemorrhage, aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage, and acute ischaemic stroke. An online, anonymised survey was completed ahead of the meeting before the group came together to consolidate consensus and finalise recommendations on targeted temperature management. A threshold of ≥80% for consensus was set for all statements. RESULTS: Recommendations were formulated based on existing evidence, literature review, and consensus. After intracerebral haemorrhage, aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage, and acute ischaemic stroke in patients who require critical care admission, core temperature should ideally be monitored continuously and maintained between 36.0°C and 37.5°C using automated feedback-controlled devices, where possible. Targeted temperature management should be commenced within 1 h of first fever identification with appropriate diagnosis and treatment of infection, maintained for as long as the brain remains at risk of secondary injury, and rewarming should be controlled. Shivering should be monitored and managed to limit risk of secondary injury. Following a single protocol for targeted temperature management across intracerebral haemorrhage, aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage, and acute ischaemic stroke is desirable. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a modified Delphi expert consensus process, these guidelines aim to improve the quality of targeted temperature management for patients after intracerebral haemorrhage, aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage, and acute ischaemic stroke in critical care, highlighting the need for further research to improve clinical guidelines in this setting.
Asunto(s)
Isquemia Encefálica , Hipotermia Inducida , Accidente Cerebrovascular Isquémico , Accidente Cerebrovascular , Hemorragia Subaracnoidea , Humanos , Hemorragia Subaracnoidea/complicaciones , Hemorragia Subaracnoidea/terapia , Accidente Cerebrovascular/complicaciones , Accidente Cerebrovascular/terapia , Isquemia Encefálica/complicaciones , Isquemia Encefálica/terapia , Hemorragia Cerebral/complicaciones , Hipotermia Inducida/métodosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Sepsis is a common cause of morbidity and mortality and is associated with significant costs to the healthcare organizations. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether high or low-dose statin therapy improved mortality in patients with sepsis. METHODS: The trials analyzed in this study were multicenter or single center randomized control studies using statins for sepsis in a hospital setting. The patients included were adults with suspected or confirmed infection. INTERVENTIONS: This study found eight randomized controlled trials where participants were given either a statin or placebo daily for 14-28 days, the duration of their illness, or until their death or discharge, which ever occurred first. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES MEASURED: This meta-analysis measured the effect of statin therapy on in hospital and 28 days mortality. RESULTS: In unselected patients, there was no demonstrable difference in the 28 days mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.88 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-1.12 and P = 0.16). There was also no significant difference between statin versus placebo for in-hospital mortality (RR 0.98 95% CI, 0.85-1.14 P = 0.36). When the studies where divided into low-dose and high-dose groups, there were no statistically significant differences for in-hospital mortality between low-dose statin versus placebo for (RR 0.81 CI 0.44-1.49 P = 0.27) or high-dose statin versus placebo (RR 0.99 95% CI 0.85-1.16, P = 0.28). There was no significant difference in adverse effects between the high- and low-dose groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, we found that the use of statins did not significantly improve either in-hospital mortality or 28-day mortality in patients with sepsis. In the low-dose group, there were fewer quality multicenter studies; hence, conclusions based on the results of this subgroup are limited.
RESUMEN
Tracheostomy is one of the most common procedures undertaken in critically ill patients. It offers many theoretical advantages over translaryngeal intubation. Recent evidence in a heterogeneous group of critically ill patients, however, has not demonstrated a benefit for tracheostomy, in terms of mortality, length of stay in Intensive Care Unit (ICU), or incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. It may be a beneficial intervention in articular subsets of ICU patients. In this article, we will focus on the evidence for the timing of tracheostomy and its effect on various subgroups of patients in critical care.