ObjectiveTo explore the applicability of early goal-directed sedation (EGDS) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with mechanical ventilation.MethodsAn prospective double blind study was conducted. ICU patients with mechanical ventilation in the First Affiliated Hospital of Jinzhou Medical University were recruited as research objects by chester sampling from September 2015 to September 2017, and divided into an experimental group and a control group by stratified randomization. Two groups were sedated on the basis of adequate analgesia. The experimental group adopted the EGDS strategy that dexmedetomidin was the first choice to be infused at the rate of 1 μg·kg–1·h–1. And the patients were given Richmond agitation-sedation score (RASS) on the interval of 4 hours: used additionally propofol and midazolam if RASS>2, or reduced right metomomidin at the speed of 0.2 μg·kg–1·h–1 per 30 min if RASS<–3, and stopped sedation until RASS of –2 to 0. The control group adopted routine sedation strategy that propofol was the first choice to be infused and combined with dexmedetomidine and midazolam until RASS score in –2 to –3. The doses of sedative drugs, mechanical ventilation time, ICU-stayed time, total hospitalization time and the incidence of adverse events such as delirium, accidental extubation, and ICU death were compared between two groups.ResultsSixty-sis cases were selected in the experimental group and 71 in the control group. The baseline data such as gender, age, acute physiology chronic health evaluation Ⅱ (APACHEⅡ), or basic diseases in two groups had no significant differences. Compared with the control group, the per capita total doses of dexmedetomidine, propofol and midazolam in the experimental group were significantly less [right metopromicine (μg): 154.45±27.86 vs. 378.85±39.76; propofol (mg): 4 490.03±479.88 vs. 7 349.76±814.31; midazolam (mg): 255.38±46.24 vs. 562.79±97.26; all P<0.01], mechanical ventilation time, ICU-stayed time, total hospitalization time were significantly lower [mechanical ventilation time (d): 7.7±3.3vs. 11.7±3.6; ICU-stayed time (d): 10.2±3.9 vs. 19.2±4.1, total hospitalization time (d): 29.9±4.6 vs. 50.4±9.1; all P<0.01]. The Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed that the incidence of delirium in the experimental group was significantly lower than that in the control group (log-rankχ2=5.481, P<0.05). The accidental extubation rate and accidental fatality rate in two groups had no significant differences (log-rankχ2=0.078, 0.999, P>0.05).ConclusionEGDS can not only reduce the dose of sedative drugs, shorten the mechanical ventilation time, the ICU-stayed time and the total hospitalization time, but also reduce the incidence of delirium, so it has a positive impact in ICU patients with mechanical ventilation.
ObjectiveTo investigate the risk factors, prognostic factors and prognosis of Multidrug-Resistant Acinetobacter Baumannii (MDR-AB) infection of lower respiratory tract in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University. MethodsUsing retrospective analysis, we reviewed and compared clinical data of 77 AB infections in lower respiratory tract cases in ICU from January 2013 to March 2015. According to the resistance, patients were divided into a MDR-AB group and a NMDR-AB group. Then the risk factors, prognostic factors and prognosis of MDR-AB infection were analyzed. ResultsA total of 58 cases in the MDR-AB group, 19 cases in the NMDR-AB group were included. The result showed that, the MDR-AB infection in lower respiratory tract could significantly prolong the length of ICU stay (18.5±16.0 vs. 10.6±9.3 days, P<0.05) and increase the mortality (44.8% vs. 11.1%, P<0.01). Logistic regression analysis showed that the independent risk factors for MDR-AB infection in lower respiratory tract included Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation Ⅱ (Apache Ⅱ) score >15 (OR=0.138, 95%CI 0.03 to 0.625, P=0.01) and use of carbapenems (OR=0.066, 95%CI 0.012 to 0.0346, P=0.001). The independent prognostic factors included placement of drainage tube (OR=8.743, 95%CI 1.528 to 50.018, P=0.015) and use of vasoactive drugs (OR=12.227, 95%CI 2.817 to 53.074, P=0.001). ConclusionThe MDR-AB infection in lower respiratory tract can significantly prolong the length of ICU stay and increase the mortality. The Apache Ⅱ score >15 and use of carbapenems are the risk factors, and the placement of drainage tube and use of vasoactive drugs can increase the mortality of MDR-AB infection of lower respiratory tract in ICU.
ObjectiveTo provide recommendations for the management of intensive care unit patients without novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsWe set up a focus group urgently and identified five key clinical issues through discussion. Total 23 databases or websites including PubMed, National Guideline Clearing-House, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention and so on were searched from construction of the library until February 28, 2020. After group discussion and collecting information, we used GRADE system to classify the evidence and give recommendations. Then we apply the recommendations to manage pediatric intensive care unit in the department of critical care medicine in our hospital. ResultsWe searched 13 321 articles and finally identified 21 liteteratures. We discussed twice, and five recommendations were proposed: (1) Patients should wear medical surgical masks; (2) Family members are not allowed to visit the ward and video visitation are used; (3) It doesn’t need to increase the frequency of environmental disinfection; (4) We should provide proper health education about the disease to non-medical staff (workers, cleaners); (5) Medical staff do not need wear protective clothing. We used these recommendations in intensive care unit management for 35 days and there was no novel coronavirus infection in patients, medical staff or non-medical staff. ConclusionThe use of evidence-based medicine for emergency recommendation is helpful for the scientific and efficient management of wards, and is also suitable for the management of general intensive care units in emergent public health events.
Objective To evaluate the sedative and analgesic efficacy and adverse effect of dexmedetomidine versus propofol on the postoperative patients in intensive care unit (ICU). Methods The relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PubMed, SCI, SpringerLinker, ScinceDirect, CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data and CBM from the date of their establishment to November 2011. The quality of the included studies was evaluated after the data were extracted by two reviewers independently, and then the meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.1. Results Ten RCTs involoving 793 cases were included. The qualitative analysis results showed: within a certain range of dosage as dexmedetomidine: 0.2-2.5 μg/(kg·h), and propofol: 0.8-4 mg/(kg·h), dexmedetomidine was similar to propofol in sedative effect, but dexmedetomidine group needed smaller dosage of supplemental analgesics during the period of sedative therapy. The results of meta-analysis showed: the percentage of patients needing supplemental analgesics in dexmedetomidine group was less than that in propofol group during the period of sedative therapy (OR=0.24, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.68, P=0.008). Compared with the propofol group, the duration of ICU stay was significantly shorter in the dexmedetomidine group (WMD= –1.10, 95%CI –1.88 to –0.32, P=0.006), but the mechanical ventilated time was comparable between the two groups (WMD=0.89, 95%CI –1.15 to 2.93, P=0.39); the incidence of adverse effects had no significant difference between two groups (bradycardia: OR=3.57, 95%CI 0.86 to 14.75, P=0.08; hypotension: OR=1.00, 95%CI 0.30 to 3.32, P=1.00); respiratory depression seemed to be more frequently in propofol group, which however needed further study. Mortalities were similar in both groups after the sedative therapy (OR=1.03, 95%CI 0.54 to 1.99, P=0.92). Conclusion Within an exact range of dosage, dexmedetomidine is comparable with propofol in sedative effect. Besides, it has analgesic effect, fewer adverse effects and fewer occurrences of respiratory depression, and it can save the extra dosage of analgesics and shorten ICU stay. Still, more larger-sample, multi-center RCTs are needed to provide more evidence to support this outcome.
Objective To investigate the species distribution and antibiotic resistance of pathogens fromcatheter-related bloodstream infections ( CRBSI) in intensive care unit( ICU) , to provide evidence for the guidance of clinical rational administration.Methods A retrospective analysis was performed to review the microbiological and susceptibility test data of all CRBSI patients in ICU from January 2009 to December 2011. The patterns of antibiotic resistance among the top seven bacteria were compared. Results 67 cases of CRBSI were detected with 81 strains, including 40 Gram-positive ( G+ ) bacteria( 49.4% ) , 38 Gram-negative( G- ) bacteria ( 46.9% ) , and 3 fungi ( 3.7% ) . The main pathogens causing CRBSI were coagulase negative Staphylococci ( 27 strains, 33.3%) , Acinetobacter baumannii ( 12 strains, 14.8% ) , Klebsiella pneumoniae( 9 strains, 11. 1% ) , Staphylococcus aureus ( 8 strains, 9. 9% ) , Pseudomonas aeruginosa ( 7 strains, 8. 6% ) , Escherichia coli ( 6 strains, 7.4% ) , suggesting that Staphylococcus epidermidis was predominant pathogenic G+ bacteria, and Acinetobacter baumannii was predominant G- bacteria. The antibiotic resistance tests demonstrated that isolated G- bacillus was highly sensitive to carbopenem, while vancomycin-resistant G+ bacteria were not found. Conclusions Within the latest 3 years, the predominant pathogens of CRBSI in ICU are Staphylococcus epidermidis and Acinetobacter baumannii. Acinetobacter baumannii exhibited high drug resistance to all antibiotics.
ObjectiveTo explore the effect of early enteral nutrition (EEN) on immune status of patients in intenseive care unit (ICU). MethodsA prospective control study was conducted from July 2011 to December 2012, and 80 patients after trauma and surgery were admitted to ICU. The Patients were divided into EEN group and normal enteral nutrition (NEN) group randomly. Enteral nutrition in EEN group began within 24 hours after admitted to ICU, while within 48 hours in NEN group. ResultsIn 80 patients, 78(37 in EEN group and 41 in NEN group) completed the end point. The baseline in two groups was consistent (P>0.05). The indicators of lymphocyte, IgA, IgG, IgM and CD4+, CD8+, natural kill cell and pre-albumin values in EEN group were higher than those in NEN group (P<0.05). The incidence of diarrhea (8.1%, 26.8%) and infection of wound (2.7%, 17.1%) in EEN were less than those in NEN group. The hospitalization duration in ICU in EEN group[(7.94±3.72) days] was also shorter than that in NEN group[(10.62±3.14) days]. ConclusionEarly enteral nutrition improves immune function and nutrition status in ICU patients; it also protects gut barrier function and reduces the ICU hospitalization duration.