Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Lee ZY, Noor Airini I, Barakatun-Nisak MY
    Clin Nutr, 2018 08;37(4):1264-1270.
    PMID: 28599979 DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2017.05.013
    BACKGROUND & AIMS: The effect of provision of full feeding or permissive underfeeding on mortality in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is still controversial. This study investigated the relationship of energy and protein intakes with 60-day mortality, and the extent to which ICU length of stay and nutritional risk status influenced this relationship.

    METHODS: This is a prospective observational study conducted among critically ill patients aged ≥18 years, intubated and mechanically ventilated within 48 h of ICU admission and stayed in the ICU for at least 72 h. Information on baseline characteristics and nutritional risk status (the modified Nutrition Risk in Critically ill [NUTRIC] score) was collected on day 1. Nutritional intake was recorded daily until death, discharge, or until the twelfth evaluable days. Mortality status was assessed on day 60 based on the patient's hospital record. Patients were divided into 3 groups a) received <2/3 of prescribed energy and protein (both <2/3), b) received ≥2/3 of prescribed energy and protein (both ≥2/3) and c) either energy or protein received were ≥2/3 of prescribed (either ≥2/3). The relationship between the three groups with 60-day mortality was examined by using logistic regression with adjustment for potential confounders. Sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the influence of ICU length of stay (≥7 days) and nutritional risk status.

    RESULTS: Data were collected from 154 mechanically ventilated patients (age, 51.3 ± 15.7 years; body mass index, 26.5 ± 6.7 kg/m2; 54% male). The mean modified NUTRIC score was 5.7 ± 1.9, with 56% of the patients at high nutritional risk. The patients received 64.5 ± 21.6% of the amount of energy and 56.4 ± 20.6% of the amount of protein prescribed. Provision of energy and protein at ≥2/3 compared with <2/3 of the prescribed amounts was associated with a trend towards increased 60-day mortality (Adjusted odds ratio [Adj OR] 2.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-5.38; p = 0.074). No difference in mortality status was found between energy and protein provision at either ≥2/3 compared with <2/3 of the prescribed amounts (Adj OR 1.61, 95% CI, 0.58-4.45; p = 0.357). Nutritional risk status, not ICU length of stay, influenced the relationship between nutritional adequacy and 60-day mortality.

    CONCLUSIONS: Energy and protein adequacy of ≥2/3 of the prescribed amounts were associated with a trend towards increased 60-day mortality among mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. However, neither energy nor protein adequacy alone at ≥ or <2/3 adequacy affect 60-day mortality. Increased mortality was associated with provision of energy and protein at ≥2/3 of the prescribed amounts, which only affected patients with low nutritional risk.

    Matched MeSH terms: Respiration, Artificial/mortality*
  2. Lum LC, Abdel-Latif ME, de Bruyne JA, Nathan AM, Gan CS
    Pediatr Crit Care Med, 2011 Jan;12(1):e7-13.
    PMID: 20190672 DOI: 10.1097/PCC.0b013e3181d505f4
    To determine the factors that predict outcome of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in critically ill children.
    Matched MeSH terms: Respiration, Artificial/mortality
  3. Shehabi Y, Bellomo R, Kadiman S, Ti LK, Howe B, Reade MC, et al.
    Crit Care Med, 2018 06;46(6):850-859.
    PMID: 29498938 DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003071
    OBJECTIVES: In the absence of a universal definition of light or deep sedation, the level of sedation that conveys favorable outcomes is unknown. We quantified the relationship between escalating intensity of sedation in the first 48 hours of mechanical ventilation and 180-day survival, time to extubation, and delirium.

    DESIGN: Harmonized data from prospective multicenter international longitudinal cohort studies SETTING:: Diverse mix of ICUs.

    PATIENTS: Critically ill patients expected to be ventilated for longer than 24 hours.

    INTERVENTIONS: Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale and pain were assessed every 4 hours. Delirium and mobilization were assessed daily using the Confusion Assessment Method of ICU and a standardized mobility assessment, respectively.

    MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sedation intensity was assessed using a Sedation Index, calculated as the sum of negative Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale measurements divided by the total number of assessments. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazard models to adjust for relevant covariates. We performed subgroup and sensitivity analysis accounting for immortal time bias using the same variables within 120 and 168 hours. The main outcome was 180-day survival. We assessed 703 patients in 42 ICUs with a mean (SD) Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 22.2 (8.5) with 180-day mortality of 32.3% (227). The median (interquartile range) ventilation time was 4.54 days (2.47-8.43 d). Delirium occurred in 273 (38.8%) of patients. Sedation intensity, in an escalating dose-dependent relationship, independently predicted increased risk of death (hazard ratio [95% CI], 1.29 [1.15-1.46]; p < 0.001, delirium hazard ratio [95% CI], 1.25 [1.10-1.43]), p value equals to 0.001 and reduced chance of early extubation hazard ratio (95% CI) 0.80 (0.73-0.87), p value of less than 0.001. Agitation level independently predicted subsequent delirium hazard ratio [95% CI], of 1.25 (1.04-1.49), p value equals to 0.02. Delirium or mobilization episodes within 168 hours, adjusted for sedation intensity, were not associated with survival.

    CONCLUSIONS: Sedation intensity independently, in an ascending relationship, predicted increased risk of death, delirium, and delayed time to extubation. These observations suggest that keeping sedation level equivalent to a Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale 0 is a clinically desirable goal.

    Matched MeSH terms: Respiration, Artificial/mortality*
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator ([email protected])

External Links