ABSTRACT
Objectives: To compare the incidence of healthcare-associated infections (HAI) and their outcomes between patients admitted to the ICU with sepsis and those admitted with non-sepsis diagnoses. Materials and methods: We performed a single-center, prospective, observational study of ICU patients at a tertiary level medical-surgical unit from April 2018 to October 2018. All patients admitted to the ICU with a length of stay (LOS) > 48 hours were included. Baseline data including demographics, comorbidities, and severity of illness scores were collected. Index occurrence of HAI in all these patients was noted and data regarding organ support and patient outcomes were recorded. The incidence, complications, ICU LOS, and 30-day mortality of HAI were compared between the patients admitted to ICU originally with sepsis and non-sepsis diagnoses. Results: A total of 271 patients were evaluated in our study (N = 106 for the sepsis group and N = 165 for the non-sepsis group). No significant difference between the groups was found in the incidence of HAI (29.2% in sepsis group vs 24.4% in non-sepsis group; p = 0.07). Complications (acute kidney injury (AKI): 71 vs 45%; p = 0.01, shock: 81 vs 55%; p = 0.05, need for mechanical ventilation (MV): 30 vs 15%; p = 0.04) were more common in sepsis group compared to the non-sepsis group. The ICU LOS (12.2 ± 5.2 days vs 8.8 ± 2.05 days; p = 0.01) was significantly longer in the sepsis group. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality between the groups (45 vs 25%; p = 0.07). Conclusion: The incidence of HAI seems to be similar between patients admitted with sepsis and non-sepsis diagnoses. However, patients admitted with sepsis develop higher rates of organ failure secondary to HAI and have a longer ICU LOS compared to patients admitted with non-sepsis diagnoses. The mortality rate of HAI did not differ between these two groups. How to cite this article: Chintamani A, Prakash B, Abraham BK, Kumar S, Ramakrishnan N, Venkataraman R. Incidence and Impact of Healthcare-associated Infections on Patients Primarily Admitted with Sepsis and Non-sepsis Diagnoses. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(3): 292-295.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Confirmation of correct endotracheal tube placement is essential immediately after intubation for general anaesthesia. In this study, we have compared upper airway ultrasonography (USG) with reference to capnography for rapid confirmation of endotracheal tube placement after general anaesthesia. METHODS: A prospective, single centre, observational study was conducted on 100 patients requiring tracheal intubation for general anaesthesia. Both capnography and upper airway USG were performed immediately after intubation to confirm the endotracheal tube (ETT) placement. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of upper airway USG were determined against capnography as the reference method. Agreement between the methods and time required to determine ETT placement by the two methods were assessed with kappa statistics and Student's t-test. RESULTS: Upper airway USG detected all five cases of oesophageal intubation, but could not detect five patients with correct tracheal intubation. Upper airway USG had a sensitivity of 96.84% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 94.25%-96.84%), specificity of 100% (95% CI: 50.6%-100%), positive predictive value of 100% (95% CI: 97.3%-100%) and negative predictive value of 62.5% (95% CI: 31.6%-62.5%). Kappa value was found to be 0.76, indicating a good agreement between upper airway USG and capnography for confirmation of ETT placement. Time taken for confirmation of ETT by capnography was 8.989 ± 1.043 s vs. 12.0 ± 1.318 s for upper airway USG (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Both capnography and upper airway USG may be used as primary procedures for the confirmation of ETT placement.
