Risk Scoring System of Mortality and Prediction Model of Hospital Stay for Critically Ill Patients Receiving Parenteral Nutrition.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kim JY
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8303977 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC3064749 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundParenteral nutrition (PN) is needed to avoid the development of malnutrition when enteral nutrition (EN) is not possible. Our main aim was to assess the current use, complications, and nutrition delivery associated with PN administration in adult critically ill patients, especially when used early and as the initial route. We also assessed the differences between patients who received only PN and those in whom EN was initiated after PN (PN-EN).MethodsA multicenter (n = 37) prospective observational study was performed. Patient clinical characteristics, outcomes, and nutrition-related variables were recorded. Statistical differences between subgroups were analyzed accordingly.ResultsFrom the entire population (n = 629), 186 (29.6%) patients received PN as initial nutrition therapy. Of these, 74 patients (11.7%) also received EN during their ICU stay (i.e., PN-EN subgroup). PN was administered early (<48 h) in the majority of patients (75.3%; n = 140) and the mean caloric (19.94 ± 6.72 Kcal/kg/day) and protein (1.01 ± 0.41 g/kg/day) delivery was similar to other contemporary studies. PN showed similar nutritional delivery when compared with the enteral route. No significant complications were associated with the use of PN. Thirty-two patients (43.3%) presented with EN-related complications in the PN-EN subgroup but received a higher mean protein delivery (0.95 ± 0.43 vs 1.17 ± 0.36 g/kg/day; p = 0.03) compared with PN alone. Once adjusted for confounding factors, patients who received PN alone had a lower mean protein intake (hazard ratio (HR): 0.29; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.18-0.47; p = 0.001), shorter ICU stay (HR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.91-0.99; p = 0.008), and fewer days on mechanical ventilation (HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.81-0.89; p = 0.001) compared with the PN-EN subgroup.ConclusionThe parenteral route may be safe, even when administered early, and may provide adequate nutrition delivery. Additional EN, when possible, may optimize protein requirements, especially in more severe patients who received initial PN and are expected to have longer ICU stays. NCT Registry: 03634943.
| S-EPMC10649219 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Nosocomial infections are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in the surgical intensive care unit (SICU). Clinical benefits of glutamine-supplemented parenteral nutrition may occur in hospitalized surgical patients, but efficacy data in different surgical subgroups are lacking. The objective was to determine whether glutamine-supplemented parenteral nutrition differentially affects nosocomial infection rates in selected subgroups of SICU patients. METHODS:This was a double-blind, randomized, controlled study of alanyl-glutamine dipeptide-supplemented parenteral nutrition in SICU patients requiring parenteral nutrition and SICU care after surgery for pancreatic necrosis, cardiac, vascular, or colonic surgery. Subjects (n = 59) received isocaloric/isonitrogenous parenteral nutrition, providing 1.5 g/kg/d standard glutamine-free amino acids (STD-PN) or 1.0 g/kg/d standard amino acids + 0.5 g/kg/d glutamine dipeptide (GLN-PN). Enteral feedings were advanced as tolerated. Nosocomial infections were determined until hospital discharge. RESULTS:Baseline clinical/metabolic data were similar between groups. Plasma glutamine concentrations were low in all groups and were increased by GLN-PN. GLN-PN did not alter infection rates after pancreatic necrosis surgery (17 STD-PN and 15 GLN-PN patients). In nonpancreatic surgery patients (12 STD-PN and 15 GLN-PN), GLN-PN was associated with significantly decreased total nosocomial infections (STD-PN 36 vs GLN-PN 13, P < .030), bloodstream infections (7 vs 0, P < .01), pneumonias (16 vs 6, P < .05), and infections attributed to Staphylococcus aureus (P < .01), fungi, and enteric Gram-negative bacteria (each P < .05). CONCLUSIONS:Glutamine dipeptide-supplemented parenteral nutrition did not alter infection rates following pancreatic necrosis surgery but significantly decreased infections in SICU patients after cardiac, vascular, and colonic surgery.
| S-EPMC3062504 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Clinical practice guidelines recommend enteral over parenteral nutrition in critical illness and do not recommend early initiation. Few data are available on parenteral nutrition use or timing of initiation in the ICU or how this use may have changed over time.We used the Project IMPACT database to evaluate temporal trends in parenteral nutrition use (total and partial parenteral nutrition and lipid supplementation) and timing of initiation in adult ICU admissions from 2001 to 2008. We used χ2 tests and analysis of variance to examine characteristics of patients receiving parenteral nutrition and multilevel multivariate logistic regression models to assess parenteral nutrition use over time, in all patients and in specific subgroups.Of 337,442 patients, 20,913 (6.2%) received parenteral nutrition. Adjusting for patient characteristics, the use of parenteral nutrition decreased modestly over time (adjusted probability, 7.2% in 2001-2002 vs 5.5% in 2007-2008, P<.001). Enteral nutrition use increased simultaneously (adjusted probability, 11.5% in 2001-2002 vs 15.3% in 2007-2008, P<.001). Use of parenteral nutrition declined most rapidly in emergent surgical patients, patients with moderate illness severity, patients in the surgical ICU, and patients admitted to an academic facility (P≤.01 for all interactions with year). When used, parenteral nutrition was initiated a median of 2 days (interquartile range, 1-3), after ICU admission and >90% of patients had parenteral nutrition initiated within 7 days; timing of initiation of parenteral nutrition did not change from 2001 to 2008.Use of parenteral nutrition in US ICUs declined from 2001 through 2008 in all patients and in all examined subgroups, with the majority of parenteral nutrition initiated within the first 7 days in ICU; enteral nutrition use coincidently increased over the same time period.
| S-EPMC3941247 | biostudies-other
Project description:Phosphate concentrations change continuously throughout hospitalization; however, it is unclear which available phosphate measures are most clinically important for predicting hospital mortality. Therefore, we investigated phosphate concentrations in association with hospital mortality following admission to the intensive care unit. We retrospectively enrolled all adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Phosphate concentrations were divided into three categories: initially measured phosphate (iP); maximum-minimum phosphate values (ΔP); and phosphate arithmetic average (Pmean). In total, 175 patients were enrolled. The hospital mortality rate was 32.6%, and the most common primary diagnosis was respiratory failure. In multivariable logistic regression analyses, the odds ratios for hospital mortality in association with ΔP and Pmean values were 1.56 and 2.13, respectively (p < 0.0001). According to the obtained receiver operating characteristic curve, ΔP (0.75) and Pmean (0.72) each showed a fair predictive power for hospital mortality. In evaluating relative risks, we found that higher concentrations of Pmean and ΔP were each associated with a higher hospital mortality. ΔP and Pmean values were significantly associated with hospital mortality in critically ill patients, compared to iP. These findings showed that throughout hospitalization, it is important to reduce phosphate level fluctuations and maintain appropriate phosphate concentrations through consistent monitoring and corrections.
| S-EPMC8999466 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesRapid and early severity-of-illness assessment appears to be important for critically ill patients with novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the rapid scoring system on admission of these patients.MethodsA total of 138 medical records of critically ill patients with COVID-19 were included in the study. Demographic and clinical characteristics on admission used for calculating Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) and Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) and outcomes (survival or death) were collected for each case and extracted for analysis. All patients were divided into two age subgroups (<65 years and ≥65 years). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were performed for overall patients and both subgroups.ResultsThe median [25th quartile, 75th quartile] of MEWS of survivors versus nonsurvivors were 1 [1, 2] and 2 [1, 3] and those of REMS were 5 [2, 6] and 7 [6, 10], respectively. In overall analysis, the area under the ROC curve for the REMS in predicting mortality was 0.833 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.737 to 0.928), higher than that of MEWS (0.677, 95% CI = 0.541 to 0.813). An optimal cutoff of REMS (≥6) had a sensitivity of 89.5%, a specificity of 69.8%, a positive predictive value of 39.5%, and a negative predictive value of 96.8%. In the analysis of subgroup of patients aged <65 years, the area under the ROC curve for the REMS in predicting mortality was 0.863 (95% CI = 0.743 to 0.941), higher than that of MEWS (0.603, 95% CI = 0.462 to 0.732).ConclusionTo our knowledge, this study was the first exploration on rapid scoring systems for critically ill patients with COVID-19. The REMS could provide emergency clinicians with an effective adjunct risk stratification tool for critically ill patients with COVID-19, especially for the patients aged <65 years. The effectiveness of REMS for screening these patients is attributed to its high negative predictive value.
| S-EPMC7264631 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveSeveral observational studies have demonstrated that increased nutritional delivery by supplemental parenteral nutrition (SPN) plus enteral nutrition (EN) reduces the rate of all-cause mortality in critically ill patients. Therefore, we aimed to compare and evaluate the effect of SPN plus EN on all-cause mortality in critically ill adults.MethodsRandomized controlled trials were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and Sinomed (up to May 2021). Adults with severe illness treated with SPN plus EN or with EN alone were enrolled. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and a meta-analysis was conducted using Stata software. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality and was evaluated by pooled odds ratio (OR) with the fixed-effects model. Required information size was also calculated using trial sequential analysis.ResultsWe identified 10 randomized controlled trials, with a total of 6,908 patients. No significant differences in rate of all-cause mortality (OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.84-1.09, P = 0.518), intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (OR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.75-1.07, P = 0.229), and hospital mortality (OR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.82-1.10, P = 0.482) were found between the SPN plus EN and EN alone groups. SPN plus EN support was associated with a significantly decreased risk of infection (OR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.74-0.93, P = 0.001), although the duration of mechanical ventilation [standardized mean difference (SMD) = - 0.20], length of hospital stay (SMD = 0.12), and ICU stay (SMD = - 0.57) were similar between the two groups (all P > 0.05). Meta-regression analyses showed no significant correlations between all-cause mortality and baseline clinical factors, including patients' age, the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, time of SPN initiation, and follow-up duration (all P > 0.05). Subgroup analysis showed that SPN plus EN support was associated with a trend toward decreased rate of all-cause mortality in studies with follow-up < 30 days (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.36-1.02, P = 0.058). Trial sequence analysis showed that the required information size for all-cause mortality was 16,972, and the cumulative Z-curve indicated no significant differences in the risk of all-cause mortality between the two groups (P > 0.05).ConclusionSPN plus EN support can significantly reduce the risk of infection, although it has no significant effect on all-cause mortality among critically ill patients. More studies are warranted to confirm these findings.
| S-EPMC9441914 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMultiple scoring systems have been developed for both the intensive care unit (ICU) and the emergency department (ED) to risk stratify patients and predict mortality. However, it remains unclear whether the additional data needed to compute ICU scores improves mortality prediction for critically ill patients compared to the simpler ED scores.MethodsWe studied a prospective observational cohort of 227 critically ill patients admitted to the ICU directly from the ED at an academic, tertiary care medical center. We compared Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, APACHE III, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II, Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS), Prince of Wales Emergency Department Score (PEDS), and a pre-hospital critical illness prediction score developed by Seymour et al. (JAMA 2010, 304(7):747-754). The primary endpoint was 60-day mortality. We compared the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of the different scores and their calibration using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test and visual assessment.ResultsThe ICU scores outperformed the ED scores with higher area under the curve (AUC) values (p = 0.01). There were no differences in discrimination among the ED-based scoring systems (AUC 0.698 to 0.742; p = 0.45) or among the ICU-based scoring systems (AUC 0.779 to 0.799; p = 0.60). With the exception of the Seymour score, the ED-based scoring systems did not discriminate as well as the best-performing ICU-based scoring system, APACHE III (p = 0.005 to 0.01 for comparison of ED scores to APACHE III). The Seymour score had a superior AUC to other ED scores and, despite a lower AUC than all the ICU scores, was not significantly different than APACHE III (p = 0.09). When data from the first 24 h in the ICU was used to calculate the ED scores, the AUC for the ED scores improved numerically, but this improvement was not statistically significant. All scores had acceptable calibration.ConclusionsIn contrast to prior studies of patients based in the emergency department, ICU scores outperformed ED scores in critically ill patients admitted from the emergency department. This difference in performance seemed to be primarily due to the complexity of the scores rather than the time window from which the data was derived.
| S-EPMC4424730 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Previous studies have suggested that prediction models for mortality should be adjusted for additional risk factors beyond the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) score. Our objective was to identify risk factors independent of APACHE II score and construct a prediction model to improve the predictive accuracy for hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. METHODS:We used data from a multicenter randomized controlled trial (PROTECT, Prophylaxis for Thromboembolism in Critical Care Trial) to build a new prediction model for hospital and ICU mortality. Our primary outcome was all-cause 60-day hospital mortality, and the secondary outcome was all-cause 60-day ICU mortality. RESULTS:We included 3746 critically ill non-trauma medical-surgical patients receiving heparin thromboprophylaxis (43.3 % females) in this study. The new model predicting 60-day hospital mortality incorporated APACHE II score (main effect: hazard ratio (HR) = 0.97 for per-point increase), body mass index (BMI) (main effect: HR = 0.92 for per-point increase), medical admission versus surgical (HR = 1.67), use of inotropes or vasopressors (HR = 1.34), acetylsalicylic acid or clopidogrel (HR = 1.27) and the interaction term between APACHE II score and BMI (HR = 1.002 for per-point increase). This model had a good fit to the data and was well calibrated and internally validated. However, the discriminative ability of the prediction model was unsatisfactory (C index < 0.65). Sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of these findings. Similar results were observed in the new prediction model for 60-day ICU mortality which included APACHE II score, BMI, medical admission and invasive mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSION:Compared with the APACHE II score alone, the new prediction model increases data collection, is more complex but does not substantially improve discriminative ability. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00182143.
| S-EPMC4769241 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:In the critically ill, energy delivery from enteral nutrition (EN) is often less than the estimated energy requirement. Parenteral nutrition (PN) as a supplement to EN may increase energy delivery. We aimed to determine if an individually titrated supplemental PN strategy commenced 48-72 hours following ICU admission and continued for up to 7 days would increase energy delivery to critically ill adults compared to usual care EN delivery. METHODS:This study was a prospective, parallel group, phase II pilot trial conducted in six intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand. Mechanically ventilated adults with at least one organ failure and EN delivery below 80% of estimated energy requirement in the previous 24 hours received either a supplemental PN strategy (intervention group) or usual care EN delivery. EN in the usual care group could be supplemented with PN if EN remained insufficient after usual methods to optimise delivery were attempted. RESULTS:There were 100 patients included in the study and 99 analysed. Overall, 71% of the study population were male, with a mean (SD) age of 59 (17) years, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 18.2 (6.7) and body mass index of 29.6 (5.8) kg/m2. Significantly greater energy (mean (SD) 1712 (511) calories vs. 1130 (601) calories, p?<?0.0001) and proportion of estimated energy requirement (mean (SD) 83 (25) % vs. 53 (29) %, p?<?0.0001) from EN and/or PN was delivered to the intervention group compared to usual care. Delivery of protein and proportion of estimated protein requirements were also greater in the intervention group (mean (SD) 86 (25) g, 86 (23) %) compared to usual care (mean (SD) 53 (29) g, 51 (25) %, p?<?0.0001). Antibiotic use, ICU and hospital length of stay, mortality and functional outcomes were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS:This individually titrated supplemental PN strategy applied over 7 days significantly increased energy delivery when compared to usual care delivery. Clinical and functional outcomes were similar between the two patient groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinical Trial registry details: NCT01847534 (First registered 22 April 2013, last updated 31 July 2016).
| S-EPMC5781264 | biostudies-literature