Limitación del ingreso en unidades de cuidados intensivos desde los servicios de urgencias y las plantas de hospitalización / Limiting ICU admission from emergency services and wards

Introducción: Las decisiones de no ingresar a un paciente en las unidades de cuidados intensivos (UCI) como forma de limitación de un tratamiento de soporte vital (LTSV) es una práctica que puede afectar al funcionamiento de los servicios de urgencias y a la forma en que los pacientes mueren.MétodosAnálisis post hoc del estudio ADENI-UCI. La principal variable analizada fue el motivo de negación de ingreso en UCI como medida de LTSV. Para el presente análisis post hoc se dividió a los enfermos registrados en 2 grupos: los enfermos consultados al servicio de medicina intensiva desde el área de urgencias y los pacientes consultados desde las áreas de hospitalización convencionales. En la estadística comparativa se utilizó la t de Student cuando se compararon los valores medios de las subcohortes de pacientes. Las variables categóricas se compararon con las pruebas de la χ2.ResultadosEl estudio ADENI-UCI incluía 2284 decisiones de no ingreso en UCI como medida de LTSV. La pobre calidad de vida estimada (p=0,0158), la presencia de enfermedad crónica grave (p=0,0169) y la futilidad de los tratamientos (p=0,0006) fueron decisiones porcentualmente con más peso dentro de la población de pacientes hospitalizados. El porcentaje de desacuerdo entre el médico consultor y el intensivista fue menor de forma significativa en los enfermos valorados desde los servicios de urgencias (p=0,0021).ConclusionesExisten diferencias apreciables en los motivos de consulta, así como en los de rechazo de ingreso en una UCI entre las consultas realizadas desde un servicio de urgencias y una planta de hospitalización convencional. (AU)

Introduction: Decisions not to admit a patient to intensive care units (ICU) as a way of limiting life support treatment (LLST) is a practice that can affect the operation of the emergency services and the way in which patients die.MethodsPost hoc analysis of the ADENI-UCI study. The main variable analysed was the reason for refusal of admission to the ICU as a measure of LLST. For the present post hoc analysis, the registered patients were divided into 2 groups: the patients assessed in the intensive medicine services from the emergency department and the patients assessed from the conventional hospitalization areas. Student t was used in the comparative statistics when the mean values of the patient sub-cohorts were compared. Categorical variables were compared with the χ2 tests.ResultsThe ADENI-ICU study included 2,284 decisions not to admit to the ICU as a measure of LLST. Estimated poor quality of life (p=.0158), the presence of severe chronic disease (P=.0169) and futility of treatment (P=.0006) were percentage decisions with greater weight within the population of hospitalized patients. The percentage of disagreement between the consulting physician and the intensivist was significantly lower in patients assessed from the emergency services (P=.0021).ConclusionsThere are appreciable differences in the reasons for consultation, as well as in those for refusal of admission to an ICU between the consultations made from an emergency department and a conventional hospitalization facility. (AU)

[Limiting ICU admission from emergency services and wards]. / Limitación del ingreso en unidades de cuidados intensivos desde los servicios de urgencias y las plantas de hospitalización.

INTRODUCTION: Decisions not to admit a patient to intensive care units (ICU) as a way of limiting life support treatment (LLST) is a practice that can affect the operation of the emergency services and the way in which patients die. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of the ADENI-UCI study. The main variable analysed was the reason for refusal of admission to the ICU as a measure of LLST. For the present post hoc analysis, the registered patients were divided into 2 groups: the patients assessed in the intensive medicine services from the emergency department and the patients assessed from the conventional hospitalization areas. Student t was used in the comparative statistics when the mean values of the patient sub-cohorts were compared. Categorical variables were compared with the χ2 tests. RESULTS: The ADENI-ICU study included 2,284 decisions not to admit to the ICU as a measure of LLST. Estimated poor quality of life (p=.0158), the presence of severe chronic disease (P=.0169) and futility of treatment (P=.0006) were percentage decisions with greater weight within the population of hospitalized patients. The percentage of disagreement between the consulting physician and the intensivist was significantly lower in patients assessed from the emergency services (P=.0021). CONCLUSIONS: There are appreciable differences in the reasons for consultation, as well as in those for refusal of admission to an ICU between the consultations made from an emergency department and a conventional hospitalization facility.

Reconnection to mechanical ventilation for 1 h after a successful spontaneous breathing trial reduces reintubation in critically ill patients: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Spontaneous breathing trials (SBT) can be exhausting, but the preventive role of rest has never been studied. This study aimed to evaluate whether reconnection to mechanical ventilation (MV) for 1 h after the effort of a successful SBT could reduce the need for reintubation in critically ill patients. METHODS: Randomized multicenter trial conducted in 17 Spanish medical-surgical intensive care units (Oct 2013-Jan 2015). Patients under MV for longer than 12 h who fulfilled criteria for planned extubation were randomly allocated after a successful SBT to direct extubation (control group) or reconnection to the ventilator for a 1-h rest before extubation (rest group). The primary outcome was reintubation within 48 h. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: We recruited 243 patients randomized to the control group and 227 to the rest group. Median time from intubation to SBT did not differ between groups [5.5 (2.7, 9.6) days in the control group vs. 5.7 (2.7, 10.6) in the rest group; p = 0.85]. Reintubation within 48 h after extubation was more common in the control than in the rest group [35 (14%) vs. 12 (5%) patients; OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.16-0.65; p < 0.001]. A multivariable regression model demonstrated that the variables independently associated with reintubation were rest [OR 0.34 (95%CI 0.17-0.68)], APACHE II [OR 1.04 (1.002-1.077)], and days of MV before SBT [OR 1.04 (1.001-1.073)], whereas age, reason for admission, and type and duration of SBT were not. CONCLUSION: One-hour rest after a successful SBT reduced the rates of reintubation within 48 h after extubation in critically ill patients. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01915563.

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.