Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Publication year range
1.
Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther ; 56(1): 61-69, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38741445

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Elderly patients pose a significant challenge to intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians. In this study we attempted to characterise the population of patients over 80 years old admitted to ICUs in Poland and identify associations between clinical features and short-term outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study is a post-hoc analysis of the Polish cohort of the VIP2 European prospective observational study enrolling patients > 80 years old admitted to ICUs over a 6-month period. Data including clinical features, clinical frailty scale (CFS), geriatric scales, interventions within the ICU, and outcomes (30-day and ICU mortality and length of stay) were gathered. Univariate analyses comparing frail (CFS > 4) to non-frail patients and survivors to non-survivors were performed. Multivariable models with CFS, activities of daily living score (ADL), and the cognitive decline questionnaire IQCODE as predictors and ICU or 30-day mortality as outcomes were formed. RESULTS: A total of 371 patients from 27 ICUs were enrolled. Frail patients had significantly higher ICU (58% vs. 44.45%, P = 0.03) and 30-day (65.61% vs. 54.14%, P = 0.01) mortality compared to non-frail counterparts. The survivors had significantly lower SOFA score, CFS, ADL, and IQCODE than non-survivors. In multivariable analysis CFS (OR 1.15, 95% CI: 1.00-1.34) and SOFA score (OR 1.29, 95% CI: 1.19-1.41) were identified as significant predictors for ICU mortality; however, CFS was not a predictor for 30-day mortality ( P = 0.07). No statistical significance was found for ADL, IQCODE, polypharmacy, or comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: We found a positive correlation between CFS and ICU mortality, which might point to the value of assessing the score for every patient admitted to the ICU. The older Polish ICU patients were characterised by higher mortality compared to the other European countries.


Subject(s)
Intensive Care Units , Humans , Poland/epidemiology , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Male , Female , Prospective Studies , Aged, 80 and over , Frailty/epidemiology , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Hospital Mortality , Activities of Daily Living , Geriatric Assessment/methods , Frail Elderly/statistics & numerical data , Cohort Studies
3.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33466336

ABSTRACT

Anaphylaxis is a severe, potentially life-threatening systemic hypersensitivity reaction that is still rarely diagnosed. For safety reasons, patients should visit an allergologist to identify potential causes and cofactors of this reaction. This paper presents the analysis of data from the Anaphylaxis Registry gathered over ten years at the Allergy Clinic, Pomeranian Medical University (PMU). A questionnaire-based survey was used for patients visiting the Allergy Clinic to identify potential augmentation factors/comorbidities and/or cofactors of anaphylaxis in patients with a history of moderate to severe anaphylaxis. The registry comprised patients with grade II or higher anaphylaxis. The gathered data concerned chronic comorbidities (cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, and others), recurrence of anaphylaxis, and potential cofactors in anaphylaxis. In the analyzed group, the incidence rate of anaphylaxis was the highest for women aged 19-60 years. Most common comorbidities in patients with moderate to severe anaphylaxis included: cardiovascular diseases, respiratory tract diseases, features of atopy, and thyroid diseases. More than 30% of drug-induced reactions were anaphylactic reactions due to the re-exposure to the same drug, which points to the need for educational initiatives in this area. The incidence rate of anaphylaxis induced by Hymenoptera stings was comparable in patients who had a previous generalized reaction and those who had good tolerance to the previous sting. It is important to take these cofactors into consideration when evaluating patients with anaphylaxis as they may play a role in future anaphylactic reactions.


Subject(s)
Anaphylaxis , Comorbidity , Drug Hypersensitivity/epidemiology , Insect Bites and Stings/epidemiology , Adolescent , Adult , Anaphylaxis/epidemiology , Anaphylaxis/etiology , Animals , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Hymenoptera , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Middle Aged , Poland/epidemiology , Registries , Young Adult
4.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32316622

ABSTRACT

Anaphylaxis is most commonly defined as an acute, severe, potentially life-threatening systemic hypersensitivity reaction. Current expert consensus has defined anaphylaxis as a serious reaction that is rapid in onset and can be fatal, and is a severe, potentially life-threatening systemic hypersensitivity reaction that is still rarely diagnosed. For safety reasons, patients should visit an allergologist to identify potential causes of this reaction. There are no data from other health care centres in Poland presenting characteristics of anaphylactic reactions. Clinical manifestations of anaphylaxis should be analysed, because some patients (10-30%) with anaphylaxis can present without cutaneous findings. This lack of skin/mucosa involvement can lead to misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis of anaphylaxis. Objectives-to gather epidemiological data on anaphylactic reactions, to identify clinical manifestations of anaphylaxis (organ systems involved), to present diagnostic methods useful for the identification of anaphylaxis triggers, and most importantly, to find causes of anaphylaxis. In this retrospective analysis, we used a questionnaire-based survey regarding patients visiting the Clinical Allergology Department, Pomeranian Medical University (PMU) in Szczecin, between 2006 and 2015. The registry comprised patients with grade II (Ring and Messmer classification) or higher anaphylaxis. Patients with grade I anaphylaxis (e.g., urticaria) were not included in the registry. The incidence of anaphylaxis was higher in women. Clinical manifestations included cutaneous and cardiovascular symptoms, but more than 20% of patients did not present with cutaneous symptoms, which may create difficulties for fast and correct diagnosis. Causes of anaphylaxis were identified and confirmed by means of detailed medical interview, skin tests (STs), and measurement of specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) and tryptase levels. In the analysed group, the most common cause of anaphylaxis (allergic and nonallergic) was Hymenoptera stinging (wasp), drugs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, NSAIDs) and foods (peanuts, tree nuts, celery). The incidence of anaphylaxis is low, but because of its nature and potentially life-threatening consequences it requires a detailed approach. Comprehensive management of patients who have had anaphylaxis can be complex, so partnerships between allergy specialists, emergency medicine and primary care providers are necessary. Monitoring its range is very important to monitor changes in allergy development.


Subject(s)
Anaphylaxis , Adult , Anaphylaxis/epidemiology , Anaphylaxis/etiology , Child , Female , Humans , Male , Poland/epidemiology , Registries , Retrospective Studies
6.
Pol Merkur Lekarski ; 14(84): 587-92, 2003 Jun.
Article in Polish | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-14524278

ABSTRACT

Anaphylaxis due to allergic or non-allergic hypersensitivity to drugs is an acute fatal or potentially fatal reaction. The estimate rate of 3.2 cases of drug-associated fatal anaphylaxis per 100.000 inhabitants per year seems to be approximately 10 times greater in hospitalised patients. The most common agents that are responsible for anaphylaxis in hospitalised patients are muscle relaxants, latex, antibiotics, anaesthesia-inducing drugs, plasma expanders followed by local anaesthetics and iodinated radio contrast media, and many others. Antibiotics and non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) are the common cause of anaphylaxis in non-hospitalised patients. Predictive tests for high-risk patients have not been established. However, several procedures for prevention are proposed. These include preoperative screening to detect sensitisation to anaesthetic drugs and latex, or pre-treatment with antihistamines and corticosteroids to prevent anaphylaxis to iodinated contrast media. Challenge tests are useful for the determination of a safe anaesthetic or NSAID. Unfortunately, the causative agents cannot be identified in all cases of anaphylaxis. Subjects at risk for idiopathic anaphylaxis should have epinephrine available for self-administration.


Subject(s)
Anaphylaxis/chemically induced , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/adverse effects , Anaphylaxis/immunology , Humans , Immunoglobulin E/immunology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...