RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Differentiating sepsis from the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) in critical care patients is challenging, especially before serious organ damage is evident, and with variable clinical presentations of patients and variable training and experience of attending physicians. Our objective was to describe and quantify physician agreement in diagnosing SIRS or sepsis in critical care patients as a function of available clinical information, infection site, and hospital setting. METHODS: We conducted a post hoc analysis of previously collected data from a prospective, observational trial (N = 249 subjects) in intensive care units at seven US hospitals, in which physicians at different stages of patient care were asked to make diagnostic calls of either SIRS, sepsis, or indeterminate, based on varying amounts of available clinical information (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02127502). The overall percent agreement and the free-marginal, inter-observer agreement statistic kappa (κ free) were used to quantify agreement between evaluators (attending physicians, site investigators, external expert panelists). Logistic regression and machine learning techniques were used to search for significant variables that could explain heterogeneity within the indeterminate and SIRS patient subgroups. RESULTS: Free-marginal kappa decreased between the initial impression of the attending physician and (1) the initial impression of the site investigator (κ free 0.68), (2) the consensus discharge diagnosis of the site investigators (κ free 0.62), and (3) the consensus diagnosis of the external expert panel (κ free 0.58). In contrast, agreement was greatest between the consensus discharge impression of site investigators and the consensus diagnosis of the external expert panel (κ free 0.79). When stratified by infection site, κ free for agreement between initial and later diagnoses had a mean value + 0.24 (range - 0.29 to + 0.39) for respiratory infections, compared to + 0.70 (range + 0.42 to + 0.88) for abdominal + urinary + other infections. Bioinformatics analysis failed to clearly resolve the indeterminate diagnoses and also failed to explain why 60% of SIRS patients were treated with antibiotics. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable uncertainty surrounds the differential clinical diagnosis of sepsis vs. SIRS, especially before organ damage has become highly evident, and for patients presenting with respiratory clinical signs. Our findings underscore the need to provide physicians with accurate, timely diagnostic information in evaluating possible sepsis.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To summarize the evidence for early mobilization programs in critically ill pediatric and adult patients with respiratory failure. This paper describes our review of the literature and outlines the morbidities associated with immobility, mechanical ventilation and sedation.The clinical management of acutely ill pediatric patients with respiratory failure traditionally consists of mechanical ventilation, sedation and prolonged immobilization. Although the most severely ill patients require these therapies for survival, each therapy comes with adverse consequences. Early mobilization may reduce complications and confer benefit for children with respiratory failure or those who require prolonged mechanical ventilator support. DESIGN: Systematic review of the literature pertaining to early mobilization in pediatric and adult patients with respiratory failure. We searched Medline, PubMed, CINAHL and Cochrane database of controlled trials. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational cohort studies, case control studies and population-based analysis were considered for inclusion. Two reviewers (MM and EH) independently selected pertinent studies. RESULTS: No studies of early mobilization in pediatric populations were found. Five adult studies were identified for review; two randomized controlled trials and three observational studies. All studies suggested an improvement in morbidity and economic benefit with implementation of early mobilization. CONCLUSIONS: Early mobilization in critically ill adult patients with respiratory failure is associated with a decrease in duration of sedatives, ventilator dependant days, ICU and hospital length of stay. The paucity of studies of early mobilization suggest that implementation of early mobilization is not widely practiced. Studies of early mobilization therapy in the adult patient requiring prolonged mechanical ventilator support are reviewed, and the physiologic rational and observed obstacles to integration of an early mobilization program are discussed. The adult data and scientific evidence are combined to support an opinion about the possible benefits of early mobilization programs. The generalizability of the findings and the feasibility of implementing early mobilization in critically ill children who require prolonged mechanical ventilator support are also considered.
