Dataset Information

Chinesisation, adaptation and validation of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool in critically ill patients: a cross-sectional observational study.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To translate and adapt the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool (CPAx) into Chinese version ('CPAx-Chi'), test the reliability and validity of CPAx-Chi, and verify the cut-off point for the diagnosis of intensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICU-AW).

Study design

Cross-sectional observational study.

Methods

Forward and back translation, cross-cultural adaptation and pretesting of CPAx into CPAx-Chi were based on the Brislin model. Participants were recruited from the general ICU of five third-grade class-A hospitals in western China. Two hundred critically ill adult patients (median age: 53 years; 64% men) with duration of ICU stay ≥48 hours and Glasgow Coma Scale ≥11 were included in this study. Two researchers simultaneously and independently assessed eligible patients using the Medical Research Council Muscle Score (MRC-Score) and CPAx-Chi.

Results

The content validity index of items was 0.889. The content validity index of scale was 0.955. Taking the MRC-Score scale as standard, the criterion validity of CPAx-Chi was r=0.758 (p<0.001) for researcher A, and r=0.65 (p<0.001) for researcher B. Cronbach's α was 0.939. The inter-rater reliability was 0.902 (p<0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of CPAx-Chi for diagnosing ICU-AW based on MRC-Score ≤48 were 0.899 (95% CI 0.862 to 1.025) and 0.874 (95% CI 0.824 to 0.925) for researcher B. The best cut-off point for CPAx-Chi for the diagnosis of ICU-AW was 31.5. The sensitivity was 87% and specificity was 77% for researcher A, whereas it was 0.621, 31.5, 75% and 87% for researcher B, respectively. The consistency was high when taking CPAx-Chi ≤31 and MRC-Score ≤48 as the cut-off points for the diagnosis of ICU-AW. Cohen's kappa=0.845 (p=0.02) in researcher A and 0.839 (p=0.04) for researcher B.

Conclusions

CPAx-Chi demonstrated content validity, criterion-related validity and reliability. CPAx-Chi showed the best accuracy in assessment of patients at risk of ICU-AW with good sensitivity and specificity at a recommended cut-off of 31.

SUBMITTER: Zhang Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8042994 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionIntensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICU-AW) is common in survivors of critical illness, resulting in global weakness and functional deficit. Although ICU-AW is well described subjectively in the literature, the value of objective measures has yet to be established. This project aimed to evaluate the construct validity of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment tool (CPAx) by analyzing the association between CPAx scores and hospital-discharge location, as a measure of functional outcome.MethodsThe CPAx was integrated into practice as a service-improvement initiative in an 11-bed intensive care unit (ICU). For patients admitted for more than 48 hours, between 10 May 2010 and 13 November 2013, the last CPAx score within 24 hours of step down from the ICU or death was recorded (n?=?499). At hospital discharge, patients were separated into seven categories, based on continued rehabilitation and care needs. Descriptive statistics were used to explore the association between ICU discharge CPAx score and hospital-discharge location.ResultsOf the 499 patients, 171 (34.3%) returned home with no ongoing rehabilitation or care input; 131 (26.2%) required community support; 28 (5.6%) went to inpatient rehabilitation for <6 weeks; and 25 (5.0%) went to inpatient rehabilitation for >6 weeks; 27 (5.4%) required nursing home level of care; 80 (16.0%) died in the ICU, and 37 (7.4%) died in hospital. A significant difference was found in the median CPAx score between groups (P?<?0.0001). Four patients (0.8%) scored full marks (50) on the CPAx, all of whom went home with no ongoing needs; 16 patients (3.2%) scored 0 on the CPAx, all of whom died within 24 hours. A 0.8% ceiling effect and a 3.2% floor effect of the CPAx is found in the ICU. Compliance with completion of the CPAx stabilized at 78% of all ICU admissions.ConclusionThe CPAx score at ICU discharge has displayed construct validity by crudely discriminating between groups with different functional needs at hospital discharge. The CPAx has a limited floor and ceiling effect in survivors of critical illness. A significant proportion of patients had a requirement for postdischarge care and rehabilitation.

Project description:ImportanceThe Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) uses the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score to grade organ dysfunction in adult patients with suspected infection. However, the SOFA score is not adjusted for age and therefore not suitable for children.ObjectivesTo adapt and validate a pediatric version of the SOFA score (pSOFA) in critically ill children and to evaluate the Sepsis-3 definitions in patients with confirmed or suspected infection.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective observational cohort study included all critically ill children 21 years or younger admitted to a 20-bed, multidisciplinary, tertiary pediatric intensive care unit between January 1, 2009 and August 1, 2016. Data on these children were obtained from an electronic health record database. The pSOFA score was developed by adapting the original SOFA score with age-adjusted cutoffs for the cardiovascular and renal systems and by expanding the respiratory criteria to include noninvasive surrogates of lung injury. Daily pSOFA scores were calculated from admission until day 28 of hospitalization, discharge, or death (whichever came first). Three additional pediatric organ dysfunction scores were calculated for comparison.ExposuresOrgan dysfunction measured by the pSOFA score, and sepsis and septic shock according to the Sepsis-3 definitions.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The daily pSOFA scores and additional pediatric organ dysfunction scores were compared. Performance was evaluated using the area under the curve. The pSOFA score was then used to assess the Sepsis-3 definitions in the subgroup of children with confirmed or suspected infection.ResultsIn all, 6303 patients with 8711 encounters met inclusion criteria. Each encounter was treated independently. Of the 8482 survivors of hospital encounters, 4644 (54.7%) were male and the median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 69 (17-156) months. Among the 229 nonsurvivors, 127 (55.4%) were male with a median (IQR) age of 43 (8-144) months. In-hospital mortality was 2.6%. The maximum pSOFA score had excellent discrimination for in-hospital mortality, with an area under the curve of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.95). The pSOFA score had a similar or better performance than other pediatric organ dysfunction scores. According to the Sepsis-3 definitions, 1231 patients (14.1%) were classified as having sepsis and had a mortality rate of 12.1%, and 347 (4.0%) had septic shock and a mortality rate of 32.3%. Patients with sepsis were more likely to die than patients with confirmed or suspected infection but no sepsis (odds ratio, 18; 95% CI, 11-28). Of the 229 patients who died during their hospitalization, 149 (65.0%) had sepsis or septic shock during their course.Conclusions and relevanceThe pSOFA score was adapted and validated with age-adjusted variables in critically ill children. Using the pSOFA score, the Sepsis-3 definitions were assessed in children with confirmed or suspected infection. This study is the first assessment, to date, of the Sepsis-3 definitions in critically ill children. Use of these definitions in children is feasible and shows promising results.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Critically ill patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) may suffer from different painful stimuli, but the assessment of pain is difficult because most of them are almost sedated and unable to self-report. Thus, it is important to optimize evaluation of pain in these patients. The main aim of this study was to compare two commonly used scales for pain evaluation: Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) and Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS), in both conscious and unconscious patients. Secondary aims were (1) to identifying the most relevant parameters to determine pain scales changes during nursing procedures, (2) to compare both pain scales with visual analog scale (VAS), and (3) to identify the best combination of scales for evaluation of pain in patients unable to communicate. METHODS:In this observational study, 101 patients were evaluated for a total of 303 consecutive observations during 3 days after ICU admission. Measurements with both scales were obtained 1 min before, during, and 20 min after nursing procedures in both conscious (n.41) and unconscious (n.60) patients; furthermore, VAS was recorded when possible in conscious patients only. We calculated criterion and discriminant validity to both scales (Wilcoxon, Spearman rank correlation coefficients). The accuracy of individual scales was evaluated. The sensitivity and the specificity of CPOT and BPS scores were assessed. Kappa coefficients with the quadratic weight were used to reflect agreement between the two scales, and we calculated the effect size to identify the strength of a phenomenon. RESULTS:CPOT and BPS showed a good criterion and discriminant validity (p?<?0.0001). BPS was found to be more specific (91.7 %) than CPOT (70.8 %), but less sensitive (BPS 62.7 %, CPOT 76.5 %). COPT and BPS scores were significantly correlated with VAS (p?<?0.0001). The combination of BPS and CPOT resulted in better sensitivity 80.4 %. Facial expression was the main parameter to determine pain scales changes effect size?=?1.4. CONCLUSIONS:In critically ill mechanically ventilated patients, both CPOT and BPS can be used for assessment of pain intensity with different sensitivity and specificity. The combination of both BPS and CPOT might result in improved accuracy to detect pain compared to scales alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT01669486.

Project description:Background: Liver injury commonly occurs in patients with COVID-19. There is limited data describing the course of liver injury occurrence in patients with different disease severity, and the causes and risk factors are unknown. We aim to investigate the incidence, characteristics, risk factors, and clinical outcomes of liver injury in patients with COVID-19. Methods: This retrospective observational study was conducted in three hospitals (Zhejiang, China). From January 19, 2020 to February 20, 2020, patients confirmed with COVID-19 (≥18 years) and without liver injury were enrolled and divided into non-critically ill and critically ill groups. The incidence and characteristics of liver injury were compared between the two groups. Demographics, clinical characteristics, treatments, and treatment outcomes between patients with or without liver injury were compared within each group. The multivariable logistic regression model was used to explore the risk factors for liver injury. Results: The mean age of 131 enrolled patients was 51.2 years (standard deviation [SD]: 16.1 years), and 70 (53.4%) patients were male. A total of 76 patients developed liver injury (mild, 40.5%; moderate, 15.3%; severe, 2.3%) with a median occurrence time of 10.0 days. Critically ill patients had higher and earlier occurrence (81.5 vs. 51.9%, 12.0 vs. 5.0 days; p < 0.001), greater injury severity (p < 0.001), and slower recovery (50.0 vs. 61.1%) of liver function than non-critically ill patients. Multivariable regression showed that the number of concomitant medications (odds ratio [OR]: 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.21) and the combination treatment of lopinavir/ritonavir and arbidol (OR: 3.58, 95% CI: 1.44-9.52) were risk factors for liver injury in non-critically ill patients. The metabolism of arbidol can be significantly inhibited by lopinavir/ritonavir in vitro (p < 0.005), which may be the underlying cause of drug-related liver injury. Liver injury was related to increased length of hospital stay (mean difference [MD]: 3.2, 95% CI: 1.3-5.2) and viral shedding duration (MD: 3.0, 95% CI: 1.0-4.9). Conclusions: Critically ill patients with COVID-19 suffered earlier occurrence, greater injury severity, and slower recovery from liver injury than non-critically ill patients. Drug factors were related to liver injury in non-critically ill patients. Liver injury was related to prolonged hospital stay and viral shedding duration in patients with COVID-19. Clinical Trial Registration: World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ChiCTR2000030593. Registered March 8, 2020.