Caring for the critically ill patients over 80: a narrative review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
There is currently no international recommendation for the admission or treatment of the critically ill older patients over 80 years of age in the intensive care unit (ICU), and there is no valid prognostic severity score that includes specific geriatric assessments.Main body
In this review, we report recent literature focusing on older critically ill patients in order to help physicians in the multiple-step decision-making process. It is unclear under what conditions older patients may benefit from ICU admission. Consequently, there is a wide variation in triage practices, treatment intensity levels, end-of-life practices, discharge practices and frequency of geriatrician's involvement among institutions and clinicians. In this review, we discuss important steps in caring for critically ill older patients, from the triage to long-term outcome, with a focus on specific conditions in the very old patients.Conclusion
According to previous considerations, we provide an algorithm presented as a guide to aid in the decision-making process for the caring of the critically ill older patients.
SUBMITTER: Guidet B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6261095 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Critical care medicine is far from the first medical field to come to mind when humanitarian action is mentioned, yet both critical care and humanitarian action share a fundamental purpose to save the lives and ease the suffering of people caught in acute crises. Critically ill children and adults will be present regardless of resource limitations and irrespective of geography, regional or cultural contexts, insecurity, or socioeconomic status, and they may be even more prevalent in a humanitarian crisis. Critical care is not limited to the walls of a hospital, and all hospitals will have critically ill patients regardless of designating a specific ward an ICU. Regular and consistent consideration of critical care principles in humanitarian settings provides crucial guidance to intensivists and nonintensivists alike. A multidisciplinary, systematic approach to patient care that encourages critical thinking, checklists that encourage communication among team members, and context-specific critical care rapid response teams are examples of critical care constructs that can provide high-quality critical care in all environments. Promoting critical care principles conveys the message that critical care is an integral part of health care and should be accessible to all, no matter the setting. These principles can be effectively adopted in humanitarian settings by normalizing them to everyday clinical practice. Equally, core humanitarian principles-dignity, accountability, impartiality, neutrality-can be applied to critical care. Applying principles of critical care in a context-specific manner and applying humanitarian principles to critical care can improve the quality of patient care and transcend barriers to resource limitations.
| S-EPMC6677375 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionProne position is known to improve mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The impact of prone position in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) remains to be determined. In this review, we describe the mechanisms of action of prone position, systematically appraise the current experience of prone position in COVID-19 patients, and highlight unique considerations for prone position practices during this pandemic.MethodsFor our systematic review, we searched PubMed, Scopus and EMBASE from January 1, 2020, to April 16, 2020. After completion of our search, we became aware of four relevant publications during article preparation that were published in May and June 2020, and these studies were reviewed for eligibility and inclusion. We included all studies reporting clinical characteristics of patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 disease who received respiratory support with high-flow nasal cannula, or noninvasive or mechanical ventilation and reported the use of prone position. The full text of eligible articles was reviewed, and data regarding study design, patient characteristics, interventions and outcomes were extracted.ResultsWe found seven studies (total 1899 patients) describing prone position in COVID-19. Prone position has been increasingly used in non-intubated patients with COVID-19; studies show high tolerance and improvement in oxygenation and lung recruitment. Published studies lacked a description of important clinical outcomes (e.g., mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation).ConclusionsBased on the findings of our review, we recommend prone position in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 ARDS as per existing guidelines. A trial of prone position should be considered for non-intubated COVID-19 patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure, as long as this does not result in a delay in intubation.
| S-EPMC7575418 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this review is to summarise the latest evidence on efficacy and safety of treatments for new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) in critical illness.ParticipantsCritically ill adult patients who developed NOAF during admission.Primary and secondary outcomesPrimary outcomes were efficacy in achieving rate or rhythm control, as defined in each study. Secondary outcomes included mortality, stroke, bleeding and adverse events.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Knowledge on 11 March 2019 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting treatment efficacy for NOAF in critically ill patients. Data were extracted, and quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and an adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.ResultsOf 1406 studies identified, 16 remained after full-text screening including two RCTs. Study quality was generally low due to a lack of randomisation, absence of blinding and small cohorts. Amiodarone was the most commonly studied agent (10 studies), followed by beta-blockers (8), calcium channel blockers (6) and magnesium (3). Rates of successful rhythm control using amiodarone varied from 30.0% to 95.2%, beta-blockers from 31.8% to 92.3%, calcium channel blockers from 30.0% to 87.1% and magnesium from 55.2% to 77.8%. Adverse effects of treatment were rarely reported (five studies).ConclusionThe reported efficacy of beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, magnesium and amiodarone for achieving rhythm control was highly varied. As there is currently significant variation in how NOAF is managed in critically ill patients, we recommend future research focuses on comparing the efficacy and safety of amiodarone, beta-blockers and magnesium. Further research is needed to inform the decision surrounding anticoagulant use in this patient group.
| S-EPMC7202704 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) is an infection prevention measure for intensive care unit (ICU) patients that was proposed more than 30 years ago, and that is currently considered standard of care in the Netherlands, but only used sporadically in ICUs in other countries. In this narrative review, we first describe the rationale of the individual components of SDD and then review the evidence base for patient-centered outcomes, where we distinguish ICUs with low prevalence of antibiotic resistance from ICUs with moderate-high prevalence of resistance. In settings with low prevalence of antibiotic resistance, SDD has been associated with improved patient outcome in three cluster-randomized studies. These benefits were not confirmed in a large international cluster-randomized study in settings with moderate-to-high prevalence of antibiotic resistance. There is no evidence that SDD increases antibiotic resistance. We end with future directions for research.
| S-EPMC7042187 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Decades-old, common ICU practices including deep sedation, immobilization, and limited family access are being challenged. We endeavoured to evaluate the relationship between ABCDEF bundle performance and patient-centered outcomes in critical care. DESIGN:Prospective, multicenter, cohort study from a national quality improvement collaborative. SETTING:68 academic, community, and federal ICUs collected data during a 20-month period. PATIENTS:15,226 adults with at least one ICU day. INTERVENTIONS:We defined ABCDEF bundle performance (our main exposure) in two ways: 1) complete performance (patient received every eligible bundle element on any given day) and 2) proportional performance (percentage of eligible bundle elements performed on any given day). We explored the association between complete and proportional ABCDEF bundle performance and three sets of outcomes: patient-related (mortality, ICU and hospital discharge), symptom-related (mechanical ventilation, coma, delirium, pain, restraint use), and system-related (ICU readmission, discharge destination). All models were adjusted for a minimum of 18 a priori determined potential confounders. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS:Complete ABCDEF bundle performance was associated with lower likelihood of seven outcomes: hospital death within 7 days (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.32; CI, 0.17-0.62), next-day mechanical ventilation (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.28; CI, 0.22-0.36), coma (AOR, 0.35; CI, 0.22-0.56), delirium (AOR, 0.60; CI, 0.49-0.72), physical restraint use (AOR, 0.37; CI, 0.30-0.46), ICU readmission (AOR, 0.54; CI, 0.37-0.79), and discharge to a facility other than home (AOR, 0.64; CI, 0.51-0.80). There was a consistent dose-response relationship between higher proportional bundle performance and improvements in each of the above-mentioned clinical outcomes (all p < 0.002). Significant pain was more frequently reported as bundle performance proportionally increased (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS:ABCDEF bundle performance showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements in outcomes including survival, mechanical ventilation use, coma, delirium, restraint-free care, ICU readmissions, and post-ICU discharge disposition.
| S-EPMC6298815 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Understanding the physiological and immunological processes underlying the clinical manifestations of COVID-19 is vital for the identification and rational design of effective therapies.AimTo describe the interaction of SARS-CoV-2 with the immune system and the subsequent contribution of hyperinflammation and abnormal immune responses to disease progression together with a complete narrative review of the different immunoadjuvant treatments used so far in COVID-19 and their indication in severe and life-threatening subsets.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was developed. Authors reviewed the selected manuscripts following the PRISMA recommendations for systematic review and meta-analysis documents and selected the most appropriate. Finally, a recommendation of the use of each treatment was established based on the level of evidence of the articles and documents reviewed. This recommendation was made based on the consensus of all the authors.ResultsA brief rationale on the SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis, immune response, and inflammation was developed. The usefulness of 10 different families of treatments related to inflammation and immunopathogenesis of COVID-19 was reviewed and discussed. Finally, based on the level of scientific evidence, a recommendation was established for each of them.ConclusionAlthough several promising therapies exist, only the use of corticosteroids and tocilizumab (or sarilumab in absence of this) have demonstrated evidence enough to recommend its use in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Endotypes including both, clinical and biological characteristics can constitute specific targets for better select certain therapies based on an individualized approach to treatment.
| S-EPMC9305685 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This SuperSeries is composed of the SubSeries listed below.
2022-02-28 | GSE197259 | GEO
Project description:Background:Several studies have highlighted the benefits of empathy in healthcare settings. A correlation between clinicians' empathy and patients' adherence and satisfaction, as well as the ability for the clinician to accurately assess family members' needs, has been found. However, empathy is often seen by clinicians as a risk factor for their wellbeing. This study aims to assess whether the level of empathy of clinicians working in critical care settings may expose them to moral distress, poor job satisfaction, and intention to quit their job. Methods:Italian clinicians who attended the 2016 "Smart Meeting Anesthesia Resuscitation in Intensive Care" completed the Empathy Quotient questionnaire, the Moral Distress Scale-Revised, and two questions assessing job satisfaction and intention to quit the job. Multiple linear and logistic regressions were performed to determine if clinicians' empathy influences moral distress, job satisfaction, and intention to quit. Age, gender, and profession were used as control variables. Results:Out of 927 questionnaires distributed, 216 were returned (23% response rate) and 210 were used in the analyses. Respondents were 56% physicians, 24% nurses, and 20% residents. Over half of the clinicians (58%) were female. Empathy resulted the only significant predictor of job satisfaction (? = 0.193; p < 0.05). None of the variables included in the model predicted moral distress. Conclusion:Empathy determined neither moral distress nor intention to quit. Findings suggest that empathy is not a risk factor for critical care clinicians in developing moral distress and the intention to quit their job. On the contrary, empathy was found to enhance clinicians' job satisfaction.
| S-EPMC6960200 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: COVID19 is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus and has been associated with severe inflammation leading to organ dysfunction and mortality. Our aim was to profile the transcriptome in leukocytes from critically ill ICU patients positive for COVID19 vs. those negative for COVID19 to better understand the COVID19 associated host response. Design: Transcriptome profiling of buffy coat cells via ribonucleic acid sequencing (RNAseq) at the time of admission to the ICU. Setting: Tertiary care ICU and academic laboratory. Subjects: All patients admitted to the ICU suspected of being infected with SARS-CoV-2, using standardized hospital screening methodologies, had blood samples collected at the time of admission to the ICU. Interventions: None. Measurement and Main Results: Age- and sex-matched ICU patients that were either COVID19+ (PCR positive, 2 genes) or COVID19- (PCR negative) were enrolled. Cohorts were well-balanced with the exception that COVID19- patients had significantly higher total white blood cell counts and circulating neutrophils and COVID19+ patients were more likely to suffer bilateral pneumonia compared to COVID19- patients. Further, the mortality rate for this cohort of COVID19+ ICU patients was 29%. Transcriptional analysis revealed that when compared to COVID19- patients, the altered transcriptional responses of leukocytes in critically ill COVID19+ ICU patients appeared to be associated with multiple interrelated outcomes, including but not limited to robust interferon (IFN)-associated transcriptional responses, a marked decrease in the transcriptional activity of genes contributing to protein synthesis and the dysregulated expression of genes that contribute to coagulation, platelet activation, Toll-like receptor activation, neurotrophin signaling, and protein SUMOylation/ubiquitination. Conclusions: COVID19+ patients on day 1 of admission to the ICU display a unique leukocyte transcriptional profile that distinguishes them from COVID19- patients. Identification of this profile provides guidance for future targeted studies exploring novel prognostic/therapeutic aspects of COVID19.
2020-10-01 | GSE154998 | GEO
Project description:The host response in critically ill patients with sepsis, septic shock remains poorly defined. Considerable research has been conducted to accurately distinguish patients with sepsis from those with non-infectious causes of disease. Technological innovations have positioned systems biology at the forefront of biomarker discovery. Analysis of the whole-blood leukocyte transcriptome enables the assessment of thousands of molecular signals beyond simply measuring several proteins in plasma, which for use as biomarkers is important since combinations of biomarkers likely provide more diagnostic accuracy than the measurement of single ones or a few. Evidence suggests that genome-wide transcriptional profiling of blood leukocytes can assist in differentiating between infection and non-infectious causes of severe disease. Of importance, RNA biomarkers have the potential advantage that they can be measured reliably in rapid quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR)-based point of care tests. PAXgene blood RNA was isolated at intensive-care unit (ICU) admission and throughout ICU length-of-stay. Through the use of genome-wide microarrays we aimed to identify molecular features that enbale the adequate discrimination of infectious and non-infectious sources of critical illness. Moreover, biological pathway analysis was used to tease out the most relevant biological units in sepsis and septic shock.
2015-07-06 | E-GEOD-65682 | biostudies-arrayexpress