Dataset Information

Underdetection and Undertreatment of Dyspnea in Critically Ill Patients.

ABSTRACT: Rationale: Dyspnea is a common and distressing physical symptom among patients in the ICU and may be underdetected and undertreated. Objectives: To determine the frequency of dyspnea relative to pain, the accuracy of nurses and personal caregiver dyspnea ratings relative to patient-reported dyspnea, and the relationship between nurse-detected dyspnea and treatment. Methods: This was an observational study of patients (n = 138) hospitalized in a medical ICU (MICU). Nurses and patients' personal caregivers at the bedside reported on their perception of patients' symptoms. Measurements and Main Results: Dyspnea was assessed by patients, caregivers, and nurses with a numerical rating scale. Across all three raters, the frequency of moderate to severe dyspnea was similar or greater than that of pain (P < 0.05 for caregiver and nurse ratings). Personal caregivers' ratings of dyspnea had substantial agreement with patient ratings (κ = 0.65, P < 0.001), but nurses' ratings were not significantly related to patient ratings (κ = 0.19, P = 0.39). Nurse detection of moderate to severe pain was significantly associated with opioid treatment (odds ratio, 2.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-6.60; P = 0.03); however, nurse detection of moderate to severe dyspnea was not significantly associated with any assessed treatment. Conclusions: Dyspnea was reported at least as frequently as pain among the sampled MICU patients. Personal caregivers had good agreement with patient reports of moderate to severe dyspnea. However, even when detected by nurses, dyspnea appeared to be undertreated. These findings suggest the need for improved detection and treatment of dyspnea in the MICU.

SUBMITTER: Gentzler ER

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6543712 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:Objective: It is unclear whether the host response of gram-positive sepsis differs from gram-negative sepsis at a transcriptome level. Using microarray technology, we compared the gene-expression profiles of gram-positive sepsis and gram-negative sepsis in critically ill patients. Design: A prospective cross-sectional study. Setting: A 20-bed general intensive care unit of a tertiary referral hospital. Patients: Seventy-two patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Interventions: Intravenous blood was collected for leukocyte separation and RNA extraction. Microarray experiements were then performed examing the expression level of 19,232 genes in each sample. Measurements and Main Results: There was no difference in the expression profile between gram-positive and gram-negative sepsis. The finding remained unchanged even when genes with lower expression level were included or after statistical stringency was lowered. There were, however, ninety-four genes differentially expressed between sepsis and control patients. These genes included those involved in immune regulation, inflammation and mitochondrial function. Hierarchical cluster analysis confirmed that the difference in gene expression profile existed between sepsis and control patients, but not between gram-positive and gram-negative patients. Conclusion: Gram-positive and gram-negative sepsis share a common host response at a transcriptome level. These findings support the hypothesis that the septic response is non-specific and is designed to provide a more general response that can be elicited by a wide range of different micro-organisms. The study included seventy-two critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of Nepean Hospital, Sydney, Australia. Of these, fifty-five patients were diagnosed to have sepsis, as confirmed by microbiological culture. The remaining seventeen patients did not have sepsis and were therefore used as controls. The study was approved by the hospital ethics committee and informed consent was obtained from all patients or their relatives. Patient Samples. Whole blood was taken from each patient on admission to ICU. Neutrophils were separated from whole blood using density-gradient separation with Ficoll-PaqueP P(Amersham). Subsequent neutrophil RNA extraction was performed using guanidinium thiocyanate (Ambion). Microarray Experiment. The neutrophil RNA was converted to cDNA, fluorescently labeled and hybridized to its complimentary sequences on the microarray (Invitrogen). The fluorescent signals on each micrroarray were captured using the GenePix 4000B laser scanner (Axon Instruments). Expression level of each gene was represented by the intensity of its fluorescent signal. Data Extraction. All signal intensity values were processed using background-subtraction method. Prior to analysis, all values were log-transformed and normalized by fitting a print-tip group Lowess curve. Normalization minimizes bias due to dye chemistry, signal intensity or location of a gene on the array. It ensures the detection of genes that are truly differentially expressed, instead of those caused by experimental artifacts or variation in the hybridization process. After normalization, genes that had more than 50% of data missing were removed. We then selected genes that had at least 80% of the data showing two-fold changes from the geneâs median values. After filtering, 1617 genes were available for further analysis.

Dataset Information

Underdetection and Undertreatment of Dyspnea in Critically Ill Patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets