PURPOSE: Clinical examination is often the first step to diagnose shock and estimate cardiac index. In the Simple Intensive Care Studies-I, we assessed the association and diagnostic performance of clinical signs for estimation of cardiac index in critically ill patients.METHODS: In this prospective, single-centre cohort study, we included all acutely ill patients admitted to the ICU and expected to stay > 24 h. We conducted a protocolised clinical examination of 19 clinical signs followed by critical care ultrasonography for cardiac index measurement. Clinical signs were associated with cardiac index and a low cardiac index (< 2.2 L min-1 m2) in multivariable analyses. Diagnostic test accuracies were also assessed.RESULTS: We included 1075 patients, of whom 783 (73%) had a validated cardiac index measurement. In multivariable regression, respiratory rate, heart rate and rhythm, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, central-to-peripheral temperature difference, and capillary refill time were statistically independently associated with cardiac index, with an overall R2 of 0.30 (98.5% CI 0.25-0.35). A low cardiac index was observed in 280 (36%) patients. Sensitivities and positive and negative predictive values were below 90% for all signs. Specificities above 90% were observed only for 110/280 patients, who had atrial fibrillation, systolic blood pressures < 90 mmHg, altered consciousness, capillary refill times > 4.5 s, or skin mottling over the knee.CONCLUSIONS: Seven out of 19 clinical examination findings were independently associated with cardiac index. For estimation of cardiac index, clinical examination was found to be insufficient in multivariable analyses and in diagnostic accuracy tests. Additional measurements such as critical care ultrasonography remain necessary.
BACKGROUND: Prognostic assessments of the mortality of critically ill patients are frequently performed in daily clinical practice and provide prognostic guidance in treatment decisions. In contrast to several sophisticated tools, prognostic estimations made by healthcare providers are always available and accessible, are performed daily, and might have an additive value to guide clinical decision-making. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of students', nurses', and physicians' estimations and the association of their combined estimations with in-hospital mortality and 6-month follow-up.METHODS: The Simple Observational Critical Care Studies is a prospective observational single-center study in a tertiary teaching hospital in the Netherlands. All patients acutely admitted to the intensive care unit were included. Within 3 h of admission to the intensive care unit, a medical or nursing student, a nurse, and a physician independently predicted in-hospital and 6-month mortality. Logistic regression was used to assess the associations between predictions and the actual outcome; the area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) was calculated to estimate the discriminative accuracy of the students, nurses, and physicians.RESULTS: In 827 out of 1,010 patients, in-hospital mortality rates were predicted to be 11%, 15%, and 17% by medical students, nurses, and physicians, respectively. The estimations of students, nurses, and physicians were all associated with in-hospital mortality (OR 5.8, 95% CI [3.7, 9.2], OR 4.7, 95% CI [3.0, 7.3], and OR 7.7 95% CI [4.7, 12.8], respectively). Discriminative accuracy was moderate for all students, nurses, and physicians (between 0.58 and 0.68). When more estimations were of non-survival, the odds of non-survival increased (OR 2.4 95% CI [1.9, 3.1]) per additional estimate, AUROC 0.70 (0.65, 0.76). For 6-month mortality predictions, similar results were observed.CONCLUSIONS: Based on the initial examination, students, nurses, and physicians can only moderately predict in-hospital and 6-month mortality in critically ill patients. Combined estimations led to more accurate predictions and may serve as an example of the benefit of multidisciplinary clinical care and future research efforts.
Background: To prevent deterioration after admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), and to improve rehabilitation, the ICU team should use digital technologies to provide comprehensive and practical information alongside personalised support for survivors and their family members. However, a knowledge gap exists on the users’ preferences for such an e-health platform in ICU follow-up services. Objectives: This study aims to explore the opinions and priorities for an e-health platform, including choices in digital elements, according to survivors of critical illness and their family members. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was used among members and other interested individuals of the Dutch volunteer organisation ‘Foundation Family- and Patient-Centred Intensive Care’. An investigator-developed questionnaire was disseminated through the newsletter and social media channels of the Foundation Family- and Patient-Centred Intensive Care. The results of this member consultation were analysed and reported as descriptive statistics on demographic variables and outcome measures in opinions and priorities of the participants. Results: Most of the 227 participants were female (76%), aged 46–55 years (33%), and completed higher education (70%). The participants reported high confidence in advice delivered through an e-health platform (72%). They prioritised the provision of a guide including relevant professionals who may support them during their recovery when using an e-health platform. Conclusions: ICU survivors prioritised the provision of relevant professionals who may support them during their recovery when using an e-health platform; however, selection bias means the population studied is likely to be more digitally connected than the general ICU population. Digital solutions could cater to their information and support needs. For family members, the highest priority reported was receiving help in managing their emotional distress. The development of an e-health platform considering the opinions and priorities of this target group could contribute to a personalised recovery trajectory promoting self-management while including digital elements addressing relevant ICU follow-up services.
MULTIFILE
10/31/2024
