Dataset Information

Chest radiography practice in critically ill patients: a postal survey in the Netherlands.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: To ascertain current chest radiography practice in intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands. METHODS: Postal survey: a questionnaire was sent to all ICUs with > 5 beds suitable for mechanical ventilation; pediatric ICUs were excluded. When an ICU performed daily-routine chest radiographs in any group of patients it was considered to be a "daily-routine chest radiography" ICU. RESULTS: From the number of ICUs responding, 63% practice a daily-routine strategy, in which chest radiographs are obtained on a daily basis without any specific reason. A daily-routine chest radiography strategy is practiced less frequently in university-affiliated ICUs (50%) as compared to other ICUs (68%), as well as in larger ICUs (> 20 beds, 50%) as compared to smaller ICUs (< 20 beds, 65%) (P > 0.05). Remarkably, physicians that practice a daily-routine strategy consider daily-routine radiographs helpful in guiding daily practice in less than 30% of all performed radiographs. Chest radiographs are considered essential for verification of the position of invasive devices (81%) and for diagnosing pneumothorax, pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome (82%, 74% and 69%, respectively). On demand chest radiographs are obtained after introduction of thoracic drains, central venous lines and endotracheal tubes in 98%, 84% and 75% of responding ICUs, respectively. Chest films are also obtained in case of ventilatory deterioration (49% of responding ICUs), and after cardiopulmonary resuscitation (59%), tracheotomy (58%) and mini-tracheotomy (23%). CONCLUSION: There is notable lack of consensus on chest radiography practice in the Netherlands. This survey suggests that a large number of intensivists may doubt the value of daily-routine chest radiography, but still practice a daily-routine strategy.

SUBMITTER: Graat ME

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1557847 | biostudies-other | 2006

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Chest radiography practice in critically ill patients: a postal survey in the Netherlands.

Graat Marleen E ME Hendrikse Karin A KA Spronk Peter E PE Korevaar Johanna C JC Stoker Jaap J Schultz Marcus J MJ

BMC medical imaging 20060718

<h4>Background</h4>To ascertain current chest radiography practice in intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands.<h4>Methods</h4>Postal survey: a questionnaire was sent to all ICUs with > 5 beds suitable for mechanical ventilation; pediatric ICUs were excluded. When an ICU performed daily-routine chest radiographs in any group of patients it was considered to be a "daily-routine chest radiography" ICU.<h4>Results</h4>From the number of ICUs responding, 63% practice a daily-routine strategy, ...[more]

PMID: 16848892

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRespiratory pathology is a major driver of mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU), even in the absence of a primary respiratory diagnosis. Prior work has demonstrated that a visual scoring system applied to chest radiographs (CXR) is associated with adverse outcomes in ICU patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). We hypothesized that a simple, semi-quantitative CXR score would be associated with clinical outcomes for the general ICU population, regardless of underlying diagnosis.MethodsAll individuals enrolled in the Registry of Critical Illness at Brigham and Women's Hospital between June 2008 and August 2018 who had a CXR within 24 h of admission were included. Each patient's CXR was assigned an opacification score of 0-4 in each of four quadrants with the total score being the sum of all four quadrants. Multivariable negative binomial, logistic, and Cox regression, adjusted for age, sex, race, immunosuppression, a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a history of congestive heart failure, and APACHE II scores, were used to assess the total score's association with ICU length of stay (LOS), duration of mechanical ventilation, in-hospital mortality, 60-day mortality, and overall mortality, respectively.ResultsA total of 560 patients were included. Higher CXR scores were associated with increased mortality; for every one-point increase in score, in-hospital mortality increased 10% (OR 1.10, CI 1.05-1.16, p < 0.001) and 60-day mortality increased by 12% (OR 1.12, CI 1.07-1.17, p < 0.001). CXR scores were also independently associated with both ICU length of stay (rate ratio 1.06, CI 1.04-1.07, p < 0.001) and duration of mechanical ventilation (rate ratio 1.05, CI 1.02-1.07, p < 0.001).ConclusionsHigher values on a simple visual score of a patient's CXR on admission to the medical ICU are associated with increased in-hospital mortality, 60-day mortality, overall mortality, length of ICU stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the accuracy of bedside ultrasound for confirmation of central venous catheter position and exclusion of pneumothorax compared with chest radiography. DATA SOURCES:PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, reference lists, conference proceedings and ClinicalTrials.gov. STUDY SELECTION:Articles and abstracts describing the diagnostic accuracy of bedside ultrasound compared with chest radiography for confirmation of central venous catheters in sufficient detail to reconstruct 2?×?2 contingency tables were reviewed. Primary outcomes included the accuracy of confirming catheter positioning and detecting a pneumothorax. Secondary outcomes included feasibility, interrater reliability, and efficiency to complete bedside ultrasound confirmation of central venous catheter position. DATA EXTRACTION:Investigators abstracted study details including research design and sonographic imaging technique to detect catheter malposition and procedure-related pneumothorax. Diagnostic accuracy measures included pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio. DATA SYNTHESIS:Fifteen studies with 1,553 central venous catheter placements were identified with a pooled sensitivity and specificity of catheter malposition by ultrasound of 0.82 (0.77-0.86) and 0.98 (0.97-0.99), respectively. The pooled positive and negative likelihood ratios of catheter malposition by ultrasound were 31.12 (14.72-65.78) and 0.25 (0.13-0.47). The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound for pneumothorax detection was nearly 100% in the participating studies. Bedside ultrasound reduced mean central venous catheter confirmation time by 58.3 minutes. Risk of bias and clinical heterogeneity in the studies were high. CONCLUSIONS:Bedside ultrasound is faster than radiography at identifying pneumothorax after central venous catheter insertion. When a central venous catheter malposition exists, bedside ultrasound will identify four out of every five earlier than chest radiography.

Project description:BACKGROUND:ICU patients frequently undergo chest radiographs (CXRs). The diagnostic and therapeutic efficacy of routine CXRs are now known to be low, but the discussion regarding specific indications for CXRs in critically ill patients and the safety of abandoning routine CXRs is still ongoing. We performed a survey of Dutch intensivists on the current practice of chest radiography in their departments. METHODS:Web-based questionnaires, containing questions regarding ICU characteristics, ICU patients, daily CXR strategies, indications for routine CXRs and the practice of radiologic evaluation, were sent to the medical directors of all adult ICUs in the Netherlands. CXR strategies were compared between all academic and non-academic hospitals and between ICUs of different sizes. A comparison was made between the survey results obtained in 2006 and 2013. RESULTS:Of the 83 ICUs that were contacted, 69 (83%) responded to the survey. Only 7% of responding ICUs were currently performing daily routine CXRs for all patients, and 61% of the responding ICUs were said never to perform CXRs on a routine basis. A daily meeting with a radiologist is an established practice in 72% of the responding ICUs and is judged to be important or even essential by those ICUs. The therapeutic efficacy of routine CXRs was assumed by intensivists to be lower than 10% or to be between 10 and 20%. The efficacy of 'on-demand' CXRs was assumed to be between 10 and 60%. There is a consensus between intensivists to perform a routine CXR after endotracheal intubation, chest tube placement or central venous catheterization. CONCLUSION:The strategy of daily routine CXRs for critically ill and mechanically ventilated patients has turned from being a common practice in 2006 to a rare current practice. Other routine strategies and an 'on-demand only' strategy have become more popular. Intensivists still assume the value of CXRs to be higher than the efficacy that is reported in the literature.

Project description:BackgroundOver the last decade, multiple large randomized controlled trials have studied alternative transfusion strategies in critically ill patients, demonstrating the safety of restrictive transfusion strategies. Due to the lack of international guidelines specific for the intensive care unit (ICU), we hypothesized that a large heterogeneity in transfusion practice in this patient population exists. The aims of this study were to describe the current transfusion practices and identify the knowledge gaps.MethodsAn online, anonymous, worldwide survey among ICU physicians was performed evaluating red blood cell, platelet and plasma transfusion practices. Furthermore, the presence of a hospital- or ICU-specific transfusion guideline was asked. Only completed surveys were analysed.ResultsNine hundred forty-seven respondents filled in the survey of which 725 could be analysed. Hospital transfusion protocol available in their ICU was reported by 53% of the respondents. Only 29% of respondents used an ICU-specific transfusion guideline. The reported haemoglobin (Hb) threshold for the general ICU population was 7 g/dL (7-7). The highest reported variation in transfusion threshold was in patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or with brain injury (8 g/dL (7.0-9.0)). Platelets were transfused at a median count of 20 × 109 cells/L IQR (10-25) in asymptomatic patients, but at a higher count prior to invasive procedures (p < 0.001). In patients with an international normalized ratio (INR) > 3, 43% and 57% of the respondents would consider plasma transfusion without any upcoming procedures or prior to a planned invasive procedure, respectively. Finally, doctors with base specialty in anaesthesiology transfused critically ill patients more liberally compared to internal medicine physicians.ConclusionRed blood cell transfusion practice for the general ICU population is restrictive, while for different subpopulations, higher Hb thresholds are applied. Furthermore, practice in plasma and platelet transfusion is heterogeneous, and local transfusion guidelines are lacking in the majority of the ICUs.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may need hospitalization for supplemental oxygen, and some need intensive care unit (ICU) admission for escalation of care. Practice of adjunctive and supportive treatments remain uncertain and may vary widely between countries, within countries between hospitals, and possibly even within ICUs. We aim to investigate practice of adjunctive and supportive treatments, and their associations with outcome, in critically ill COVID-19 patients.MethodsThe 'PRactice of Adjunctive Treatments in Intensive Care Unit Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019' (PRoAcT-COVID) study is a national, observational study to be undertaken in a large set of ICUs in The Netherlands. The PRoAcT-COVID includes consecutive ICU patients, admitted because of COVID-19 to one of the participating ICUs during a 3-month period. Daily follow-up lasts 28 days. The primary endpoint is a combination of adjunctive treatments, including types of oxygen support, ventilation, rescue therapies for hypoxemia refractory to supplementary oxygen or during invasive ventilation, other adjunctive and supportive treatments, and experimental therapies. We will also collect tracheostomy rate, duration of invasive ventilation and ventilator-free days and alive at day 28 (VFD-28), ICU and hospital length of stay, and the mortality rates in the ICU, hospital and at day 90.DiscussionThe PRoAcT-COVID study is an observational study combining high density treatment data with relevant clinical outcomes. Information on treatment practices, and their associations with outcomes in COVID-19 patients in highly and urgently needed. The results of the PRoAcT-COVID study will be rapidly available, and circulated through online presentations, such as webinars and electronic conferences, and publications in peer-reviewed journals-findings will also be presented at a dedicated website. At request, and after agreement of the PRoAcT-COVID steering committee, source data will be made available through local, regional and national anonymized datasets.Trial registrationThe PRoAcT-COVID study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (study identifier NCT04719182).

Dataset Information

Chest radiography practice in critically ill patients: a postal survey in the Netherlands.

Publications

Chest radiography practice in critically ill patients: a postal survey in the Netherlands.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets