BackgroundIn 2012, the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine proposed a definition for acute gastrointestinal injury (AGI) based on current medical evidence and expert opinion. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the feasibility of using the current AGI grading system and to investigate the association between AGI severity grades with clinical outcome in critically ill patients.MethodsAdult patients at 14 general intensive care units (ICUs) with an expected ICU stay ≥24 h were prospectively studied. The AGI grade was assessed daily on the basis of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, intra-abdominal pressures, and feeding intolerance (FI) in the first week of admission to the ICU.ResultsAmong the 550 patients enrolled, 456 patients (82.9%) received mechanical ventilation, and 470 patients were identified for AGI. The distribution of the global AGI grade was 24.5% with grade I, 49.4% with grade II, 20.6% with grade III, and 5.5% with grade IV. AGI grading was positively correlated with 28- and 60-day mortality (P < 0.0001). Univariate Cox regression analysis showed that age, sepsis, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, the use of vasoactive drugs, serum creatinine and lactate levels, mechanical ventilation, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, and the global AGI grade were significantly (P ≤ 0.02) associated with 60-day mortality. In a multivariate analysis including these variables, diabetes mellitus (HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.03–1.87; P = 0.05), the use of vasoactive drugs (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.12–2.11; P = 0.01), serum lactate (HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.06–1.24; P = 0.03), global AGI grade (HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.28–2.12; P = 0.008), and APACHE II score (HR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02–1.06; P < 0.001) were independently associated with 60-day mortality. In a subgroup analysis of 402 patients with 7-day survival, in addition to clinical predictors and the AGI grade on the first day of ICU stay, FI within the first week of ICU stay had an independent and incremental prognostic value for 60-day mortality (χ2 = 41.9 vs. 52.2, P = 0.007).ConclusionsThe AGI grading scheme is useful for identifying the severity of GI dysfunction and could be used as a predictor of impaired outcomes. In addition, these results support the hypothesis that persistent FI within the first week of ICU stay is an independent determinant for mortality.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry identifier: ChiCTR-OCS-13003824. Registered on 29 September 2013.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-017-1780-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) have recently demonstrated a great potential for pathogen detection. However, few studies have been undertaken to compare these two nucleic acid detection methods for identifying pathogens in patients with bloodstream infections (BSIs). This prospective study was thus conducted to compare these two methods for diagnostic applications in a clinical setting for critically ill patients with suspected BSIs. Upon suspicion of BSIs, whole blood samples were simultaneously drawn for ddPCR covering 20 common isolated pathogens and four antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes, mNGS, and blood culture. Then, a head-to-head comparison was performed between ddPCR and mNGS. A total of 60 episodes of suspected BSIs were investigated in 45 critically ill patients, and ddPCR was positive in 50 (83.3%), mNGS in 41 (68.3%, not including viruses), and blood culture in 10 (16.7%) episodes. Of the 10 positive blood cultures, nine were concordantly identified by both mNGS and ddPCR methods. The head-to-head comparison showed that ddPCR was more rapid (~4 h vs. ~2 days) and sensitive (88 vs. 53 detectable pathogens) than mNGS within the detection range of ddPCR, while mNGS detected a broader range of pathogens (126 vs. 88 detectable pathogens, including viruses) than ddPCR. In addition, a total of 17 AMR genes, including 14 blaKPC and 3 mecA genes, were exclusively identified by ddPCR. Based on their respective limitations and strengths, the ddPCR method is more useful for rapid detection of common isolated pathogens as well as AMR genes in critically ill patients with suspected BSI, whereas mNGS testing is more appropriate for the diagnosis of BSI where classic microbiological or molecular diagnostic approaches fail to identify causative pathogens.
BackgroundThere is limited information on prevalent and incident atrial fibrillation in Chinese. We aimed to investigate the prevalence, incidence, management and risks of atrial fibrillation in an elderly Chinese population.MethodsIn a population—based prospective study in elderly (≥60 years) Chinese, we performed cardiovascular health examinations including a 12-lead electrocardiogram at baseline in 3,922 participants and biennially during follow-up in 2,017 participants. We collected information on vital status during the whole follow-up period.ResultsThe baseline prevalence of atrial fibrillation was 2.0 % (n = 34) in 1718 men and 1.6 % (n = 36) in 2204 women. During a median 3.8 years of follow-up, the incidence rate of atrial fibrillation (n = 34) was 4.9 per 1000 person-years (95 % confidence interval [CI], 3.4–6.9). In univariate analysis, both the prevalence and incidence of atrial fibrillation were higher with age advancing (P < 0.0001) and in the presence of coronary heart disease (P ≤ 0.02). Of the 104 prevalent and incident cases of atrial fibrillation, only 1 (1.0 %) received anticoagulant therapy (warfarin). These patients with atrial fibrillation, compared with those with sinus rhythm, had significantly higher risks of all-cause (n = 261, hazard ratio [HR] 1.87, 95 % CI, 1.09–3.20, P = 0.02), cardiovascular (n = 136, HR 3.78, 95 % CI 2.17–6.58, P < 0.0001) and stroke mortality (n = 44, HR 6.31, 95 % CI 2.81–14.19, P = 0.0003).ConclusionsAtrial fibrillation was relatively frequent in elderly Chinese, poorly managed and associated with higher risks of mortality.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.