Relationship between volume and survival in closed intensive care units is weak and apparent only in mechanically ventilated patients.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have found an association between increased volume and increased intensive care unit (ICU) survival; however, this association might not hold true in ICUs with permanent intensivist coverage. Our objective was to determine whether ICU volume correlates with survival in the Spanish healthcare system. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of a prospective study of all patients admitted to 29 ICUs during 3 months. At ICU discharge, the authors recorded demographic variables, severity score, and specific ICU treatments. Follow-up variables included ICU readmission and hospital mortality. Statistics include logistic multivariate analyses for hospital mortality according to quartiles of volume of patients. RESULTS: The authors studied 4,001 patients with a mean predicted risk of death of 23% (range at hospital level: 14-46%). Observed hospital mortality was 19% (range at hospital level: 11-35%), resulting in a standardized mortality ratio of 0.81 (range: 0.5-1.3). Among the 1,923 patients needing mechanical ventilation, the predicted risk of death was 32% (14-60%) and observed hospital mortality was 30% (12-61%), resulting in a standardized mortality ratio of 0.96 (0.5-1.7). The authors found no correlation between standardized mortality ratio and ICU volume in the entire population or in mechanically ventilated patients. Only mechanically ventilated patients in very low-volume ICUs had slightly worse outcome. CONCLUSION: In the currently studied healthcare system characterized by 24/7 intensivist coverage, the authors found wide variability in outcome among ICUs even after adjusting for severity of illness but no relationship between ICU volume and outcome. Only mechanically ventilated patients in very low-volume centers had slightly worse outcomes.

Intensive care unit discharge to the ward with a tracheostomy cannula as a risk factor for mortality: a prospective, multicenter propensity analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the impact of decannulation before intensive care unit discharge on ward survival in nonexperimental conditions. DESIGN: Prospective, observational survey. SETTING: Thirty-one intensive care units throughout Spain. PATIENTS: All patients admitted from March 1, 2008 to May 31, 2008. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: At intensive care unit discharge, we recorded demographic variables, severity score, and intensive care unit treatments, with special attention to tracheostomy. After intensive care unit discharge, we recorded intensive care unit readmission and hospital survival. STATISTICS: Multivariate analyses for ward mortality, with Cox proportional hazard ratio adjusted for propensity score for intensive care unit decannulation. We included 4,132 patients, 1,996 of whom needed mechanical ventilation. Of these, 260 (13%) were tracheostomized and 59 (23%) died in the intensive care unit. Of the 201 intensive care unit tracheostomized survivors, 60 were decannulated in the intensive care unit and 141 were discharged to the ward with cannulae in place. Variables associated with intensive care unit decannulation (non-neurologic disease [85% vs. 64%], vasoactive drugs [90% vs. 76%], parenteral nutrition [55% vs. 33%], acute renal failure [37% vs. 23%], and good prognosis at intensive care unit discharge [40% vs. 18%]) were included in a propensity score model for decannulation. Crude ward mortality was similar in decannulated and nondecannulated patients (22% vs. 23%); however, after adjustment for the propensity score and Sabadell Score, the presence of a tracheostomy cannula was not associated with any survival disadvantage with an odds ratio of 0.6 [0.3-1.2] (p=.1). CONCLUSION: In our multicenter setting, intensive care unit discharge before decannulation is not a risk factor.