Background Mortality in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is high, therefore, it is essential to evaluate the independent effect of new‐onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) on mortality in patients with COVID‐19. We aimed to determine the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of NOAF in a cohort of critically ill patients with COVID‐19. Methods We conducted a retrospective study on patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with a diagnosis of COVID‐19. NOAF was defined as atrial fibrillation that was detected after diagnosis of COVID‐19 without a prior history. The primary outcome of the study was the effect of NOAF on mortality in critically ill COVID‐19 patients. Results NOAF incidence was 14.9% (n = 37), and 78% of patients (n = 29) were men in NOAF positive group. Median age of the NOAF group was 79.0 (interquartile range, 71.5‐84.0). Hospital mortality was higher in the NOAF group (87% vs 67%, respectively, P = .019). However, in multivariate analysis, NOAF was not an independent risk factor for hospital mortality (OR 1.42, 95% CI 0.40‐5.09, P = .582). Conclusions The incidence of NOAF was 14.9% in critically ill COVID‐19 patients. Hospital mortality was higher in the NOAF group. However, NOAF was not an independent risk factor for hospital mortality in patients with COVID‐19.

Objective Vaccination is the most efficient way to control the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but vaccination rates remain below the target level in most countries. This multicenter study aimed to evaluate the vaccination status of hospitalized patients and compare two different booster vaccine protocols. Setting Inoculation in Turkey began in mid-January 2021. Sinovac was the only available vaccine until April 2021, when BioNTech was added. At the beginning of July 2021, the government offered a third booster dose to healthcare workers and people aged > 50 years who had received the two doses of Sinovac. Of the participants who received a booster, most chose BioNTech as the third dose. Methods We collected data from 25 hospitals in 16 cities. Patients hospitalized between August 1 and 10, 2021, were included and categorized into eight groups according to their vaccination status. Results We identified 1401 patients, of which 529 (37.7%) were admitted to intensive care units. Nearly half (47.8%) of the patients were not vaccinated, and those with two doses of Sinovac formed the second largest group (32.9%). Hospitalizations were lower in the group which received 2 doses of Sinovac and a booster dose of BioNTech than in the group which received 3 doses of Sinovac. Conclusion Effective vaccinations decreased COVID-19-related hospitalizations. The efficacy after two doses of Sinovac may decrease over time; however, it may be enhanced by adding a booster dose. Moreover, unvaccinated patients may be persuaded to undergo vaccination.

Objective: To determine the prevalence of and the risk factors for Potentially Inappropriate Medication (PIM), the drug groups most commonly evaluated as PIMs in elderly patients in the ICUs by using 2019 Beers Criteria, STOPP version 2 (v2) Criteria and EU(7)-PIM List. The relation between mortality rate and length of ICU stay with PIMs was also examined. Methods:This was a cross sectional study conducted on patients aged ≥65 years, treated in ICUs (n = 139) between June 8, 2020, and January 11, 2021. Patients' demographic characteristics, clinical data and laboratory findings about the drugs used were collected prospectively. PIMs were evaluated according to each of the criteria applied. Relationship of dependent and independent variables was evaluated using chi-square analysis, t-test and logistic regression analysis. P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Results:The number of patients with at least 1 PIM according to three criteria was 118 (84.9%) (80.6%, 59.7%, 48.2%, Beers, STOPP/v2 and EU(7)-PIM List, respectively).In the univariate analysis, receiving renal replacement therapy and high number of drugs were the covariates that significantly affected the presence of PIM according to all three criteria (P < .05). Combined use of anxiolytics and opioids in Beers Criteria (58.3%), antipsychotics (26.6%) in STOPP/v2 Criteria, and antiarrhythmics (23.7%) in EU(7)-PIM List were the drugs that caused PIM at most. No relationship was found between the presence of PIM and mortality. The length of ICU stay was determined significantly longer in the presence of PIM according to Beers Criteria (P = .028). Conclusions:In this study, the prevalence of PIM was determined higher in elderly patients in ICU. Our results supported that 2019 Beers Criteria for ICU patients seems to be more directive in detecting PIMs and determining the prognosis. Reducing the number of drugs administered may be the first step to decrease PIMs in elderly patients in ICU and to maintain the treatment safely.

Objectives: To determine the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) in a cohort of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: We conducted a retrospective study on patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with a diagnosis of COVID-19. NOAF was defined as atrial fibrillation that was detected after diagnosis of COVID-19 without a prior history. The primary outcome of the study was the effect of NOAF on mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Results: We enrolled 248 eligible patients. NOAF incidence was 14.9% (n=37), and 78% of patients (n=29) were men in NOAF positive group. Median age of the NOAF group was 79.0 (interquartile range, 71.5-84.0). Hospital mortality was higher in the NOAF group (87% vs 67%, respectively, p=0.019). However, in multivariate analysis, NOAF was not an independent risk factor for hospital mortality (OR 1.42, 95% CI 0.40–5.09, p=0.582) Conclusions: The incidence of NOAF was 14.9% in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Hospital mortality was higher in the NOAF group. However, NOAF was not an independent risk factor for hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19. Keywords: Atrial fibrillation, critical care, intensive care unit, COVID-19, mortality, hospital mortality

Objective: The aim of this study was to discuss the risk factors and frequency associated with pressure ulcer (PU) development in intensive care units (ICU). Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients with PU admitted to the 25-bed ICU on January 1 2016-2017 was carried out. Patients who were in intensive care for more than 48 hours were included in the study. Patients were evaluated in terms of demographic data of pressure ulcers in intensive care unit, number of days in intensive care unit, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, primary diagnoses, days of pressure ulcer development, number of days of mechanical ventilation and wound infections and ulcer pressures. Results: In follow-up with the Norton risk assessment scale, 25 patient of 1625 patients accepted intensive care developed a pressure ulcer (1.5%). Pressure Ulceration day was found to be 16.5 days from hospitalization. Twenty of 25 patients were treated with wet dressing (Phase II). The most common pathogens in PU infections were Acinetobacter baumanii (in 3 patients) and MRSA (in 2 patients). Sacrum and coccyx were the common areas of pressure sores. Conclusion: Pressure ulcers are an important problem for intensive care and elderly patients. In these patients, initial applications should be primarily to prevent the development of PU, because risk assessment and prevention efforts may prevent the formation and progression.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract