Development and External Validation of a Prediction Model for Quality of Life of ICU Survivors: A Subanalysis of the MONITOR-IC Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and externally validate a prediction model for ICU survivors' change in quality of life 1 year after ICU admission that can support ICU physicians in preparing patients for life after ICU and managing their expectations. DESIGN: Data from a prospective multicenter cohort study (MONITOR-IC) were used. SETTING: Seven hospitals in the Netherlands. PATIENTS: ICU survivors greater than or equal to 16 years old. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Outcome was defined as change in quality of life, measured using the EuroQol 5D questionnaire. The developed model was based on data from an academic hospital, using multivariable linear regression analysis. To assist usability, variables were selected using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator method. External validation was executed using data of six nonacademic hospitals. Of 1,804 patients included in analysis, 1,057 patients (58.6%) were admitted to the academic hospital, and 747 patients (41.4%) were admitted to a nonacademic hospital. Forty-nine variables were entered into a linear regression model, resulting in an explained variance ( R2 ) of 56.6%. Only three variables, baseline quality of life, admission type, and Glasgow Coma Scale, were selected for the final model ( R2 = 52.5%). External validation showed good predictive power ( R2 = 53.2%). CONCLUSIONS: This study developed and externally validated a prediction model for change in quality of life 1 year after ICU admission. Due to the small number of predictors, the model is appealing for use in clinical practice, where it can be implemented to prepare patients for life after ICU. The next step is to evaluate the impact of this prediction model on outcomes and experiences of patients.

Respiratory and hemodynamic perioperative adverse events in intravenous versus inhalational induction in pediatric anesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Perioperative respiratory and hemodynamic adverse events are still a cause of morbidity and mortality in pediatric anesthesia. It has been suggested that volatile agents might be associated with more respiratory adverse events compared to intravenous agents (eg, propofol), which have been associated with a higher risk of bradycardia compared to volatile agents. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the risk of perioperative hemodynamic and respiratory adverse events, comparing intravenous induction with inhalational induction in pediatric anesthesia. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Medline up to February 12, 2020. Randomized controlled trials were included. A quality assessment was carried out using a modified version of the "Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials." Of the 1602 applicable publications, four were included in the final review. Two studies found no significant differences in perioperative respiratory or hemodynamic adverse events. Two studies found a higher risk of respiratory perioperative adverse events in inhalation versus intravenous induction, with a relative risk varying from 1.64 to 3.83. Data were heterogenous, and pooled estimates may not be reliable. The present systematic review and meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in the occurrence of perioperative respiratory adverse events between inhalation and intravenous induction. More respiratory adverse events during and after inhalation induction were found, in particular in children with multiple risk factors for respiratory adverse events. This did not reach significance. Future research should include a large randomized controlled trial comparing inhalation and intravenous induction with respiratory and hemodynamic adverse events as primary outcome and adequately blinded outcome assessors.