Prospective study of percutaneous tracheostomy: Role of bronchoscopy and surgical technique.

OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous tracheostomy is a common procedure but varies considerably in approach. The aim of our study was to evaluate the need for intraoperative bronchoscopy and to compare various surgical techniques. METHODS: During 1 year all percutaneous tracheostomies in three intensive care units were prospectively documented according to a unified protocol. In one unit, bronchoscopy was used routinely and in others only during the study. RESULTS: A total of 111 subjects (77 males) with median age 64 (range, 18-86) years and body mass index 25.4 (range, 15.9-50.7) were included. In unit A, tracheal wall was directly exposed; in unit B, limited dissection to enable tracheal palpation was made. In both units, bronchoscopy was used to check the location of an already inserted guiding needle; needle position required correction in 8% and 12% of cases, respectively. In unit C, in tracheostomies without pretracheal tissue dissection, bronchoscopy was used to guide needle insertion; needle position required correction in 66% of cases. Median duration of operations performed by thoracic surgeons and residents was 10 (range, 3-37) min and by intensive care doctors and residents was 16.5 (range, 3-63) min (p < 0.001). Time from the beginning of preparations for tracheostomy until the end of the whole procedure was median 32 min for bedside tracheostomies and 64 min for operations in the operating theatre (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Limited pretracheal tissue dissection enabled proper guiding needle insertion and bronchoscopy was rarely needed. Percutaneous tracheostomies performed by thoracic surgeons took less time, and duration of the whole procedure was remarkably shorter when performed at bedside.

Genome-wide association study of survival from sepsis due to pneumonia: an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis continues to be a major cause of death, disability, and health-care expenditure worldwide. Despite evidence suggesting that host genetics can influence sepsis outcomes, no specific loci have yet been convincingly replicated. The aim of this study was to identify genetic variants that influence sepsis survival. METHODS: We did a genome-wide association study in three independent cohorts of white adult patients admitted to intensive care units with sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock (as defined by the International Consensus Criteria) due to pneumonia or intra-abdominal infection (cohorts 1-3, n=2534 patients). The primary outcome was 28 day survival. Results for the cohort of patients with sepsis due to pneumonia were combined in a meta-analysis of 1553 patients from all three cohorts, of whom 359 died within 28 days of admission to the intensive-care unit. The most significantly associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were genotyped in a further 538 white patients with sepsis due to pneumonia (cohort 4), of whom 106 died. FINDINGS: In the genome-wide meta-analysis of three independent pneumonia cohorts (cohorts 1-3), common variants in the FER gene were strongly associated with survival (p=9·7 × 10(-8)). Further genotyping of the top associated SNP (rs4957796) in the additional cohort (cohort 4) resulted in a combined p value of 5·6 × 10(-8) (odds ratio 0·56, 95% CI 0·45-0·69). In a time-to-event analysis, each allele reduced the mortality over 28 days by 44% (hazard ratio for death 0·56, 95% CI 0·45-0·69; likelihood ratio test p=3·4 × 10(-9), after adjustment for age and stratification by cohort). Mortality was 9·5% in patients carrying the CC genotype, 15·2% in those carrying the TC genotype, and 25·3% in those carrying the TT genotype. No significant genetic associations were identified when patients with sepsis due to pneumonia and intra-abdominal infection were combined. INTERPRETATION: We have identified common variants in the FER gene that associate with a reduced risk of death from sepsis due to pneumonia. The FER gene and associated molecular pathways are potential novel targets for therapy or prevention and candidates for the development of biomarkers for risk stratification. FUNDING: European Commission and the Wellcome Trust.

Expanded measurements of intra-abdominal pressure do not increase the detection rate of intra-abdominal hypertension: a single-center observational study.

OBJECTIVE: Intra-abdominal hypertension may contribute to a poor outcome. Whether limiting intra-abdominal pressure measurements to preselected at-risk patients allows for sufficient detection of intra-abdominal hypertension is unclear. We aimed to clarify whether expanded intra-abdominal pressure monitoring results in an increased detection rate of intra-abdominal hypertension. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: General ICU of University Hospital. PATIENTS: Consecutive adult ICU patients from 2004 to 2011. INTERVENTIONS: Intra-abdominal pressure measurements in predefined at-risk patients. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Prospectively collected data of 2,696 admissions were divided into three subgroups according to the intra-abdominal pressure measurement policy in different years: 1) 2004-2005, mechanically ventilated patients with at least one additional risk factor for intra-abdominal hypertension (multiple trauma, abdominal surgery, pancreatitis, post-cardiopulmonary resuscitation, fluid resuscitation > 5 L/24 hr, vasoactive or inotropic support, and renal replacement therapy); 2) 2006-2009, all mechanically ventilated patients expected to stay for more than or equal to 24 hours; and 3) 2010-2011, mechanically ventilated patients with a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m, positive end-expiratory pressure more than 10 cm H2O, PaO2/FIO2 less than 300, use of vasopressors/inotropes, pancreatitis, hepatic failure/cirrhosis with ascites, gastrointestinal bleeding, or postlaparotomy. In all, 2,696 patients were studied, and 1,241 patients (46.0%) underwent intra-abdominal pressure monitoring. The intra-abdominal pressure was measured in 31.7%, 55.6%, and 41.1% of patients during the first, second, and third time periods (p < 0.001), and intra-abdominal hypertension (intra-abdominal pressure ≥ 12 mm Hg) occurred in 19.9%, 20.3%, and 20.1% of patients, respectively (p = 0.972). The mean intra-abdominal pressure at admission day was an independent predictor of mortality in patients with intra-abdominal pressure measurements started within the first 24 hours (odds ratio, 1.046 [95% CI, 1.019-1.072]). The mortality of patients with intra-abdominal hypertension was 29.8% versus 18.6% in those without intra-abdominal hypertension (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Expanding the measurement of intra-abdominal pressure to more than 50% of intensive care admissions does not increase the detection rate of intra-abdominal hypertension. In patients with intra-abdominal pressure monitoring, the mean intra-abdominal pressure on the admission day is an independent predictor of mortality.