ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Multiple risk assessment scales are available for predicting the development of pressure injuries (PIs) in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Most PI risk assessment tools have been validated at the time of admission; however, another time point during treatment could better reflect clinical changes and therefore, the risk of PIs. AIMS: The study aimed to examine the predictive validity of PI risk assessment scale designed for ICU patients, the conscious level, mobility, haemodynamic, oxygenation and nutrition (COMHON) index, at several time points or intervals during ICU stay. STUDY DESIGN: This was an observational prospective study undertaken over a period of 1 year (July 2021-June 2022). Patients admitted to ICU for >3 days were included. The number, location and degree of the PIs were recorded. The level of risk for developing PIs during the stay was determined by calculating the COMHON scores at admission, and 72 h, as well as the highest and mean score. Predictive validity was studied using accuracy parameters and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The best cutoff point was also determined and used to compare risk between categories. RESULTS: Of the 286 patients included in the study, 160 (59%) were male. The level of severity evaluated using the APACHE II scale was 18.4 ± 5.8 points. Invasive mechanical ventilation was used in 32.1% (n = 92) of the patients and 20.6% (n = 59) received high flow oxygen therapy. The incidence of PI was 15.4% (n = 44), with sacral location in 47.7% (n = 21) and grade II in 75% (n = 33) of the patients. The AUC was 0.907 (0.872-0.942); 0.881 (0.842-0.920); 0.877 (0.835-0.920) and 0.749 (0.667-0.831) at the mean, the highest, 72 h and ICU admission scores, respectively. The best cutoff point was 13 in all patients. The risk of developing a PI was 6.4 times higher in the high-risk group (>13 points). CONCLUSIONS: The best predictive capacity for the COMHON index risk assessment was the mean and highest scores. The predictive accuracy was higher on the third day of the patient's stay than on admission, and this was attributed to the clinical changes observed in some patients over the course of their critical illness. RELEVANCE FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: Patients in ICU are at high risk of developing PIs, therefore, preventive measures should be maximized. Risk assessment should be carried out sequentially owing to the changes that patients present throughout their ICU stay and preventive measures should be used according to the risk level.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The measurement of blood glucose in critically ill patients is still performed in many ICUs with glucose meters and capillary samples. Several prevalent factors in these patients affect the accuracy of the results and should be interpreted with caution. A weak recommendation from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) suggests the use of arterial blood rather than capillary blood for point of care testing using glucose meters. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To analyse the agreement between arterial, central venous, and capillary blood samples of glucose values measured by glucose meter in critically ill patients and study potential confounding factors. DESIGN: Prospective cross-sectional study in a general intensive care unit (ICU). Patients needing insulin treatment (subcutaneous or intravenous) and blood glucose control were included. METHODS: Standardized collection of blood samples and measurement of glucose values with a glucometer. Agreement was studied by the Bland-Altman method and stratified analysis of disagreement-survival plots was used to study the influence of haematocrit, pH range, SOFA score, capillary refilling time, intravenous insulin infusion, and lactic acid. RESULTS: A total of 297 measurements from 54 patients were included. The mean arterial blood glucose was 150.42 (range 31-345 mg/dL). In the graphical analysis, there is a poor agreement both in capillary and venous central to arterial samples, but in opposite direction (underestimation of capillary and overestimation of central venous). Factors associated with a reduction in the agreement between arterial and capillary samples were elevated lactate, poor capillary refilling, and hemodynamic failure. Patients without hemodynamic compromise have an acceptable agreement with values for absolute differences of 16 mg/dL for a disagreement of 10%. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients, the measurement of blood glucose with a glucose meter should be performed with arterial samples whenever possible. Capillary samples do not accurately estimate arterial blood glucose values in patients with shock and/or vasoactive drugs and underestimate the values in the range of hypoglycemia. Venous samples are subject to error because of potential contamination. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study adds support to the recommendation of using arterial blood rather than capillary or venous blood when using glucose meters in critically ill patients, especially in those with hemodynamic failure.
