RESUMO
The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines 2021 recommends that adult patients with sepsis requiring intensive care should be admitted to the ICU within 6 hours of their emergency department (ED) visits. However, there is limited evidence on whether 6 hours is the best target time for compliance with the sepsis bundle. We aimed to investigate the association between time from ED visits to ICU admission (i.e., ED length of stay [ED-LOS]) and mortality and identify the optimal ED-LOS for patients with sepsis. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: The Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care Emergency Department and Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV databases. PATIENTS: Adult patients (≥ 18 yr old) who were transferred from the ED to the ICU and subsequently diagnosed with sepsis based on the Sepsis-3 criteria within 24 hours of ICU admission. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 1,849 patients with sepsis, we found a disproportionally higher mortality rate in patients immediately admitted to the ICU (e.g., < 2 hr). When using ED-LOS as a continuous variable, ED-LOS was not significantly associated with 28-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR] per hour increase, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.96-1.13; p = 0.3) after an adjustment for potential confounders (e.g., demographics, triage vital signs, and laboratory results) in the multivariable analysis. However, when we categorized all patients into time quartiles (ED-LOS: < 3.3 hr, 3.3-4.5 hr, 4.6-6.1 hr, and > 6.1 hr), patients in the higher time quartiles (e.g., 3.3-4.5 hr) had higher 28-day mortality compared with those in the lowest time quartile (< 3.3 hr) (e.g., adjusted OR for patients in the second time quartile [3.3-4.5 hr] 1.59; 95% CI, 1.03-2.46; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Earlier admission to the ICU (e.g., within 3.3 hr of ED visits) was associated with lower 28-day mortality in patients with sepsis. Our findings suggest patients with sepsis who require intensive care may benefit from a more immediate ICU admission than 6 hours.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the contribution of a preextubation chest X-ray (CXR) to identify the risk of extubation failure in mechanically ventilated patients. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: ICUs in a tertiary center (the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV database). PATIENTS: Patients greater than or equal to 18 years old who were mechanically ventilated and extubated after a spontaneous breathing trial. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 1,066 mechanically ventilated patients, 132 patients (12%) experienced extubation failure, defined as reintubation or death within 48 hours of extubation. To predict extubation failure, we developed the following models based on deep learning (EfficientNet) and machine learning (LightGBM) with the training data: 1) model using only the rapid-shallow breathing index (RSBI), 2) model using RSBI and CXR, 3) model using all candidate clinical predictors (i.e., patient demographics, vital signs, laboratory values, and ventilator settings) other than CXR, and 4) model using all candidate clinical predictors with CXR. We compared the predictive abilities between models with the test data to investigate the predictive contribution of CXR. The predictive ability of the model using CXR as well as RSBI was not significantly higher than that of the model using only RSBI (c-statistics, 0.56 vs 0.56; p = 0.95). The predictive ability of the model using clinical predictors with CXR was not significantly higher than that of the model using all clinical predictors other than CXR (c-statistics, 0.71 vs 0.70; p = 0.12). Based on SHapley Additive exPlanations values to interpret the model using all clinical predictors with CXR, CXR was less likely to contribute to the predictive ability than other predictors (e.g., duration of mechanical ventilation, inability to follow commands, and heart rate). CONCLUSIONS: Adding CXR to a set of other clinical predictors in our prediction model did not significantly improve the predictive ability of extubation failure in mechanically ventilated patients.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: For patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with sepsis, mobilization therapy during ICU stay can improve their outcomes during and after the ICU stay. However, little is known about the optimal timing of introducing mobilization therapy. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study using data from a tertiary medical center in Japan during 2013-2017. We included patients aged ≥ 18 years who were admitted to the ICU with sepsis based on the Sepsis-3 criteria. We defined early mobilization (EM) as the rehabilitation at the level of sitting on the edge of the bed or more within the first 3 days of the patients' ICU stay. Patients were divided into the EM and non-EM groups. The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and ambulatory dependence at hospital discharge. We estimated the effects of EM by stabilized inverse probability weighting (sIPW). We then tested alternative definitions of EM by changing the cutoff in days to mobilization by 1-day increments from 2 to 7 days to investigate the optimal timing of mobilization. RESULTS: Our study sample consisted of a total of 296 septic patients, including 96 patients in the EM group and 200 patients in the non-EM group. In the sIPW model, the adjusted OR for in-hospital mortality in the EM group compared to the non-EM group was 0.22 [95% CI 0.06-0.88], and the adjusted OR for ambulatory dependence at the hospital discharge was 0.24 [95% CI 0.09-0.61]. When alternative definitions of EM were tested, patients who achieved mobilization within the first 2-4 days of their ICU stays had better outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Achieving mobilization within the first 3 days of ICU stay was significantly associated with better outcomes. Patients with sepsis might benefit most from achieving mobilization within 2-4 days. Further studies are warranted to validate the findings.
