RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Patients at risk of adverse effects related to positive fluid balance could benefit from fluid intake optimization. Less attention is paid to nonresuscitation fluids. We aim to evaluate the heterogeneity of fluid intake at the initial phase of resuscitation. DESIGN: Prospective multicenter cohort study. SETTING: Thirty ICUs across France and one in Spain. PATIENTS: Patients requiring vasopressors and/or invasive mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: All fluids administered by vascular or enteral lines were recorded over 24 hours following admission and were classified in four main groups according to their predefined indication: fluids having a well-documented homeostasis goal (resuscitation fluids, rehydration, blood products, and nutrition), drug carriers, maintenance fluids, and fluids for technical needs. Models of regression were constructed to determine fluid intake predicted by patient characteristics. Centers were classified according to tertiles of fluid intake. The cohort included 296 patients. The median total volume of fluids was 3546 mL (interquartile range, 2441-4955 mL), with fluids indisputably required for body fluid homeostasis representing 36% of this total. Saline, glucose-containing high chloride crystalloids, and balanced crystalloids represented 43%, 27%, and 16% of total volume, respectively. Whatever the class of fluids, center of inclusion was the strongest factor associated with volumes. Compared with the first tertile, the difference between the volume predicted by patient characteristics and the volume given was +1.2 ± 2.0 L in tertile 2 and +3.0 ± 2.8 L in tertile 3. CONCLUSIONS: Fluids indisputably required for body fluid homeostasis represent the minority of fluid intake during the 24 hours after ICU admission. Center effect is the strongest factor associated with the volume of fluids. Heterogeneity in practices suggests that optimal strategies for volume and goals of common fluids administration need to be developed.
Assuntos
Estado Terminal , Hidratação , Humanos , Estudos Prospectivos , Estado Terminal/terapia , Estudos de Coortes , Hidratação/efeitos adversos , Soluções Cristaloides , RessuscitaçãoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Physical restraint is frequently used in intensive care units to prevent patients' life-threatening removal of indwelling devices. In France, their use is poorly studied. Therefore, to evaluate the need for physical restraint, we have designed and implemented a decision support tool. AIMS: Besides describing the prevalence of physical restraint use, this study aimed to assess whether the implementation of a nursing decision support tool had an impact on restraint use and to identify the factors associated with this use. STUDY DESIGN: A large observational, multicentre study with a repeated one-day point prevalence design was conducted. All adult patients hospitalized in intensive care units were eligible for this study. Two study periods were planned: before (control period) and after (intervention period) the deployment of the decision support tool and staff training. A multilevel model was performed to consider the centre effect. RESULTS: During the control period, 786 patients were included, and 510 were in the intervention period. The prevalence of physical restraint was 28% (95% CI: 25.1%-31.4%) and 25% (95% CI: 21.5%-29.1%) respectively (χ2 = 1.35; p = .24). Restraint was applied by the nurse and/or nurse assistant in 96% of cases in both periods, mainly to wrists (89% vs. 83%, p = .14). The patient-to-nurse ratio was significantly lower in the intervention period (1:3.0 ± 1 vs. 1:2.7 ± 0.7, p < .001). In multivariable analysis, mechanical ventilation was associated with physical restraint (aOR [95% CI] = 6.0 [3.5-10.2]). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of physical restraint use in France was lower than expected. In our study, the decision support tool did not substantially impact physical restraint use. Hence, the decision support tool would deserve to be assessed in a randomized controlled trial. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The decision to physically restrain a patient could be protocolised and managed by critical care nurses. A regular evaluation of the level of sedation could allow the most deeply sedated patients to be exempted from physical restraint.
RESUMO
CONTEXT: In ICUs, many patients are intubated. UE is an indicator of the quality of care.Isolation associated with "air" precautions may increase the number of UEs in mechanically ventilated (MV) COVID patients.The main aim of the study was to compare the rate of UE between a COVID-19 period and a control period. The secondary aims were to identify UE risk factors and to study the experience of caregivers during the COVID-19 period. METHOD: The method of choice was a retrospective single center case-control study. MV patients aged ≥ 18 years were eligible in two periods: the control period from 01/02/2020 to 29/02/2020, and the COVID-19 period from 01/03/2020 to 31/03/2020. An anonymous survey was given to ICU caregivers in Vannes Hospital. RESULTS: The UE rate was 17% (n=7) vs. 20% (n=9) control period vs. COVID-19 period (p=0.58), with nocturnal preponderance (75%). A quarter (n=4) of patients fulfill MV weaning criteria at the time of UE. A 71% (n=49) survey response rate was obtained. The COVID-19 period had a higher estimated UE risk for 76% (n=37) of caregivers, who felt that they had a greater workload, difficulties with monitoring, and decreased regular visits to patients' rooms. CONCLUSION: Contrary to the caregiver experience, we reported a similar UE rate over both the COVID-19 period and the control period.
Assuntos
Extubação , COVID-19 , Extubação/efeitos adversos , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Estudos de Casos e Controles , Humanos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Pandemias , Respiração Artificial , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
CONTEXT: In ICUs, many patients are intubated. UE is an indicator of the quality of care.Isolation associated with "air" precautions may increase the number of UEs in mechanically ventilated (MV) COVID patients.The main aim of the study was to compare the rate of UE between a COVID-19 period and a control period. The secondary aims were to identify UE risk factors and to study the experience of caregivers during the COVID-19 period. METHOD: The method of choice was a retrospective single center case-control study. MV patients aged ≥ 18 years were eligible in two periods: the control period from 01/02/2020 to 29/02/2020, and the COVID-19 period from 01/03/2020 to 31/03/2020. An anonymous survey was given to ICU caregivers in Vannes Hospital. RESULTS: The UE rate was 17% (n=7) vs. 20% (n=9) control period vs. COVID-19 period (p=0.58), with nocturnal preponderance (75%). A quarter (n=4) of patients fulfill MV weaning criteria at the time of UE. A 71% (n=49) survey response rate was obtained. The COVID-19 period had a higher estimated UE risk for 76% (n=37) of caregivers, who felt that they had a greater workload, difficulties with monitoring, and decreased regular visits to patients' rooms. CONCLUSION: Contrary to the caregiver experience, we reported a similar UE rate over both the COVID-19 period and the control period.
