Stage 3 AKI is significantly associated with lower long-term survival after operation for AAAD. Patient follow-up after discharge that focuses on cardiovascular issues may benefit patients who survive AKI after AAAD operation.
BackgroundTo compare the efficacy of three antiseptic solutions [0.5%, and 1.0% alcohol/chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG), and 10% aqueous povidone-iodine (PVI)] for the prevention of intravascular catheter colonization, we conducted a randomized controlled trial in patients from 16 intensive care units in Japan.MethodsAdult patients undergoing central venous or arterial catheter insertions were randomized to have one of three antiseptic solutions applied during catheter insertion and dressing changes. The primary endpoint was the incidence of catheter colonization, and the secondary endpoint was the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI).ResultsOf 1132 catheters randomized, 796 (70%) were included in the full analysis set. Catheter-tip colonization incidence was 3.7, 3.9, and 10.5 events per 1000 catheter-days in 0.5% CHG, 1% CHG, and PVI groups, respectively (p = 0.03). Pairwise comparisons of catheter colonization between groups showed a significantly higher catheter colonization risk in the PVI group (0.5% CHG vs. PVI: hazard ratio, HR 0.33 [95% confidence interval, CI 0.12–0.95], p = 0.04; 1.0% CHG vs. PVI: HR 0.35 [95% CI 0.13–0.93], p = 0.04). Sensitivity analyses including all patients by multiple imputations showed consistent quantitative conclusions (0.5% CHG vs. PVI: HR 0.34, p = 0.03; 1.0% CHG vs. PVI: HR 0.35, p = 0.04). No significant differences were observed in the incidence of CRBSI between groups.ConclusionsBoth 0.5% and 1.0% alcohol CHG are superior to 10% aqueous PVI for the prevention of intravascular catheter colonization.Trial registrationJapanese Primary Registries Network; No.: UMIN000008725 Registered on 1 September 2012Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-017-1890-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
BackgroundInterruption of enteral nutrition (EN) in the intensive care unit (ICU) occurs frequently for various reasons including feeding intolerance and the conduct of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. However, few studies have investigated the details of EN interruption practices including reasons for and duration of interruptions. There is no standard protocol to minimize EN interruptions.MethodsThis is a retrospective review of 100 patients in the ICU staying more than 72 h and receiving EN in a 12-bed, medical/surgical ICU in a tertiary care center in 2013. Data collected include total time designated for EN; the number of EN interruption episodes; reason for each interruption categorized as diagnostic study, therapeutic intervention, or gastrointestinal (GI) event, and their individual subcategories; duration of each interruption; and the presence of written orders for interruptions.ResultsOne hundred patients staying in the ICU for at least 72 h and receiving EN were included. There were 567 episodes of EN interruption over a median ICU length of stay of 17.1 (interquartile range 8.0–22.0) days. There were a median of three EN interruption episodes per patient. EN interruption was performed for undetermined reasons (166 episodes, 29%), airway manipulation (103 episodes, 18%), GI events (78 episodes, 14%), and intermittent dialysis (71 episodes, 13%). Median duration of EN interruption in all patients was 5.5 (3.0–10.0) h. The cumulative interruption time corresponds to 19% of the total time designated for EN. Duration of EN interruption varied according to reason, including airway manipulation (9.0 [5.0–21.0] h), tracheostomy (9.5 [7.5–14.0] h), and GI events (6.5 [3.0–14.0] h). The average calorie deficits due to interruptions were 11.5% of daily target calories. Only 60 episodes (12%) had clear written orders for interruption.ConclusionsBased on this single-center retrospective chart review, interruption of EN in the ICU is frequent, reasons for and duration of interruption varied, and airway procedures are associated with a relatively longer duration of interruption. Documentation and orders were frequently missing. These results warrant development of a protocol for EN interruption.
Little evidence exists regarding the need for a reduction in postoperative heart rate after repair of type A acute aortic dissection. This single-center retrospective study was conducted to determine if lower heart rate during the early postoperative phase is associated with improved long-term outcomes after surgery for patients with type A acute aortic dissection. We reviewed 434 patients who underwent aortic repair between 1990 and 2011. Based on the average heart rate on postoperative days 1, 3, 5, and 7, 434 patients were divided into four groups, less than 70, 70–79, 80–89, and greater than 90 beats per minute. The mean age was 63.3 ± 12.1 years. During a median follow-up of 52 months (range 16–102), 10-year survival in all groups was 67 %, and the 10-year aortic event-free rate was 79 %. The probability of survival and being aortic event-free using Kaplan–Meier estimates reveal that there is no significant difference when stratified by heart rate. Cox proportional regression analysis for 10-year mortality shows that significant predictors of mortality are age [Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.04; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.07–1.06; p = 0.001] and perioperative stroke (HR 2.30; 95 % CI 1.18–4.50; p = 0.024). Neither stratified heart rate around the time of surgery nor beta-blocker use at the time of discharge was significant. There is no association between stratified heart rate in the perioperative period with long-term outcomes after repair of type A acute aortic dissection. These findings need clarification with further clinical trials.
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.