BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence indicates the potential benefits of restricted fluid management in critically ill patients. Evidence lacks on the optimal fluid management strategy for invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients. We hypothesized that the cumulative fluid balance would affect the successful liberation of invasive ventilation in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).METHODS: We analyzed data from the multicenter observational 'PRactice of VENTilation in COVID-19 patients' study. Patients with confirmed COVID-19 and ARDS who required invasive ventilation during the first 3 months of the international outbreak (March 1, 2020, to June 2020) across 22 hospitals in the Netherlands were included. The primary outcome was successful liberation of invasive ventilation, modeled as a function of day 3 cumulative fluid balance using Cox proportional hazards models, using the crude and the adjusted association. Sensitivity analyses without missing data and modeling ARDS severity were performed.RESULTS: Among 650 patients, three groups were identified. Patients in the higher, intermediate, and lower groups had a median cumulative fluid balance of 1.98 L (1.27-7.72 L), 0.78 L (0.26-1.27 L), and - 0.35 L (- 6.52-0.26 L), respectively. Higher day 3 cumulative fluid balance was significantly associated with a lower probability of successful ventilation liberation (adjusted hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.77-0.95, P = 0.0047). Sensitivity analyses showed similar results.CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 and ARDS, a higher cumulative fluid balance was associated with a longer ventilation duration, indicating that restricted fluid management in these patients may be beneficial. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT04346342 ); Date of registration: April 15, 2020.
BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that an increase in baccalaureate-educated registered nurses (BRNs) leads to better quality of care in hospitals. For geriatric long-term care facilities such as nursing homes, this relationship is less clear. Most studies assessing the relationship between nurse staffing and quality of care in long-term care facilities are US-based, and only a few have focused on the unique contribution of registered nurses. In this study, we focus on BRNs, as they are expected to serve as role models and change agents, while little is known about their unique contribution to quality of care in long-term care facilities. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study among 282 wards and 6,145 residents from 95 Dutch long-term care facilities. The relationship between the presence of BRNs in wards and quality of care was assessed, controlling for background characteristics, i.e. ward size, and residents' age, gender, length of stay, comorbidities, and care dependency status. Multilevel logistic regression analyses, using a generalized estimating equation approach, were performed. RESULTS: 57% of the wards employed BRNs. In these wards, the BRNs delivered on average 4.8 min of care per resident per day. Among residents living in somatic wards that employed BRNs, the probability of experiencing a fall (odds ratio 1.44; 95% CI 1.06-1.96) and receiving antipsychotic drugs (odds ratio 2.15; 95% CI 1.66-2.78) was higher, whereas the probability of having an indwelling urinary catheter was lower (odds ratio 0.70; 95% CI 0.53-0.91). Among residents living in psychogeriatric wards that employed BRNs, the probability of experiencing a medication incident was lower (odds ratio 0.68; 95% CI 0.49-0.95). For residents from both ward types, the probability of suffering from nosocomial pressure ulcers did not significantly differ for residents in wards employing BRNs. CONCLUSIONS: In wards that employed BRNs, their mean amount of time spent per resident was low, while quality of care on most wards was acceptable. No consistent evidence was found for a relationship between the presence of BRNs in wards and quality of care outcomes, controlling for background characteristics. Future studies should consider the mediating and moderating role of staffing-related work processes and ward environment characteristics on quality of care.
Objective: This study aims to assess the comparative effectiveness of a conventional splitting needle or a peelable cannula vs. the modified Seldinger technique (MST) by utilizing a dedicated micro-insertion kit across various clinically significant metrics, including insertion success, complications, and catheter-related infections. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study using an anonymized data set spanning 3 years (2017-2019) in a large tertiary-level neonatal intensive care unit in Qatar. Results: A total of 1,445 peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) insertion procedures were included in the analysis, of which 1,285 (89%) were successful. The primary indication for insertion was mainly determined by the planned therapy duration, with the saphenous vein being the most frequently selected blood vessel. The patients exposed to MST were generally younger (7 ± 15 days vs. 11 ± 26 days), but exhibited similar mean weights and gestational ages. Although not statistically significant, the MST demonstrated slightly higher overall and first-attempt insertion success rates compared to conventional methods (91 vs. 88%). However, patients undergoing conventional insertion techniques experienced a greater incidence of catheter-related complications (p < 0.001). There were 39 cases of catheter-related bloodstream infections (CLABSI) in the conventional group (3.45/1,000 catheter days) and eight cases in the MST group (1.06/1,000 catheter days), indicating a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001). Throughout the study period, there was a noticeable shift toward the utilization of the MST kit for PICC insertions. Conclusion: The study underscores the viability of MST facilitated by an all-in-one micro kit for neonatal PICC insertion. Utilized by adept and trained inserters, this approach is associated with improved first-attempt success rates, decreased catheter-related complications, and fewer incidences of CLABSI. However, while these findings are promising, it is imperative to recognize potential confounding factors. Therefore, additional prospective multicenter studies are recommended to substantiate these results and ascertain the comprehensive benefits of employing the all-in-one kit.
LINK
