RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Fluid accumulation is associated with adverse outcomes in critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Fluid administration in the ICU may be a clinically relevant source of fluid accumulation in ICU patients. However, the extent is unknown, and no standard definition exists. We aim to provide epidemiological data on fluid accumulation, risk factors, use of fluid removal strategies, patient outcomes and describe current fluid administration practices in the ICU. METHODS: We will conduct an international 14-day inception cohort study including a minimum of 1000 acutely admitted adult ICU patients. Data will be collected from medical records and laboratory reports at baseline and daily from ICU admission to discharge with a maximum of 28 days. Follow-up will be performed on day 90 after inclusion. The primary outcome is the number of patients with fluid accumulation. Secondary outcomes include the number of days with fluid accumulation, use of active fluid removal, days alive without life support at day 28, days alive and out of hospital day 90, and all-cause mortality at day 90. Furthermore, we will assess risk factors for fluid accumulation and its association with 90-day mortality and report on the types of fluid administration. CONCLUSION: This international inception cohort study will provide contemporary epidemiological data on fluid administration and fluid accumulation in adult ICU patients.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Increase in day surgery has challenged preoperative anaesthesia with need to identify a few high-risk patients requiring detailed preoperative intervention. We aimed to assess if a nurse-administered Preoperative Patient-centred Anaesthesia System (Pre-PAS) could identify high-risk patients, defined as ASA score III-IV, before surgery and allow triage in standard preanaesthesia care. We hypothesized that Pre-PAS ≥ 1 would identify ASA III-IV patients with high specificity. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study, where twelve preoperative risk factors were recorded before surgery with the Pre-PAS questionnaire along with a score from zero to twelve based on the number of positive criteria. Only patients with a Pre-PAS score ≥ 1 were followed by mandatory preoperative anaesthetists' assessment visit. Medical records were reviewed to ensure accurate ASA score evaluation, surgical cancellations and airway difficulties. Association between Pre-PAS score and ASA score was evaluated by Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: In a total of 487 included patients, 92% of high-risk patients (ASA III-IV) and 54% of low-risk patients (ASA I-II) had Pre-PAS score ≥ 1 (P ≤ .001). Nine out of 12 Pre-PAS criteria were significantly associated with higher frequency in ASA III-IV. Pre-PAS reduced number of preanaesthetic visits by 39%. Pre-PAS ≥ 1 had a sensitivity of 0.92 and a specificity of 0.46 for ASA III-IV. CONCLUSIONS: A patient-centred preoperative triage system had high sensitivity for identifying ASA III-IV, and multiple Pre-PAS variables were associated with ASA III-IV, but the model had low specificity. Pre-PAS may guide triage of relevant patients to preanaesthetic visit.
