Search

Objectives: To determine if current clinical use of iodine contrast media (ICM) for computerised tomography (CT) increases the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) and long-term decline in renal function in patients treated in intensive care., Methods: A retrospective bi-centre cohort study was performed with critically ill subjects undergoing either ICM-enhanced or unenhanced CT. AKI was defined and staged based on the Kidney Disease Improve Global Outcome AKI criteria, using both creatinine and urine output criteria. Follow-up plasma creatinine was recorded three to six months after CT to assess any long-term effects of ICM on renal function., Results: In total, 611 patients were included in the final analysis, median age was 65.0 years (48.0-73.0, quartile 1-quartile 3 (IQR)) and 62.5% were male. Renal replacement therapy was used post-CT in 12.9% and 180-day mortality was 31.2%. Plasma creatinine level on day of CT was 100.0 µmol/L (66.0-166.5, IQR) for non-ICM group and 77.0 µmol/L (59.0-109.0, IQR) for the ICM group. The adjusted odds ratio for developing AKI if the patient received ICM was 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.64-1.66, p = 0.90). No significant association between ICM and increase in plasma creatinine at long-term follow-up was found, with an adjusted effect size of 2.92 (95% confidence interval - 6.52-12.36, p = 0.543)., Conclusions: The results of this study do not indicate an increased risk of AKI or long-term decline in renal function when ICM is used for enhanced CT in patients treated at intensive care units., Clinical Relevance Statement: Patients treated in intensive care units had no increased risk of acute kidney injury or persistent decline in renal function after contrast-enhanced CT. This information underlines the need for a proper risk-reward assessment before denying patients a contrast-enhanced CT., Key Points: • Iodine contrast media is considered a risk factor for the development of acute kidney injury. • Patients receiving iodine contrast media did not have an increased incidence of acute kidney injury or persistent decline in renal function. • A more clearly defined risk of iodine contrast media helps guide clinical decisions whether to perform contrast-enhanced CTs or not., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic makes proper resource allocation and prioritisation important. Frailty increases the risk of adverse outcomes and can be quantified using the Clinical frailty scale. The aim of this study was to determine the role of the Clinical frailty scale, in patients ≥65 years of age with coronavirus disease 2019, as a risk factor either for critical coronavirus disease 2019 measured as intensive care unit admission or death or as a risk factor for death., Methods: This was a retrospective observational study on patients ≥65 years hospitalised with coronavirus disease 2019 verified by polymerase chain reaction between 5 March 5 and 5 July 2020. The association between Clinical frailty scale and the composite primary outcome intensive care unit admission or death within 30 days post hospitalisation and the secondary outcome death within 30 days post hospitalisation was analysed using multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for gender, age, body mass index, hypertension, and diabetes. Clinical frailty scale was used as a categorical variable (fit score 1-4, frail score 5-6, and severely frail score 7-9)., Results: In total, 169 patients were included (47.3% women, mean age 79.2 ± 7.8 years). In the fully adjusted model, adjusted odds ratio for intensive care unit admission or death was 1.84 (95%-confidence interval 0.67-5.03, p  = .234) for frail and 6.08 (1.70-21.81, p  = .006) for severely frail compared to fit patients. For death, adjusted odds ratio was 2.81 (0.89-8.88, p  = .079) for frail and 9.82 (2.53-38.10, p  = .001) for severely frail compared to fit patients., Conclusions: A high Clinical frailty scale score was an independent risk factor for the composite outcome intensive care unit admission or death and for the secondary outcome death.

Background: Transfers from one intensive care unit (ICU) to another ICU are associated with increased length of intensive care and hospital stay. Inter-hospital ICU transfers are carried out for three main reasons: clinical transfers, capacity transfers and repatriations. The aim of the study was to show that different ICU transfers differ in risk-adjusted mortality rate with repatriations having the least risk., Results: Observational cohort study of adult patients transferred between Swedish ICUs during 3 years (2016-2018) with follow-up ending September 2019. Primary and secondary end-points were survival to 30 days and 180 days after discharge from the first ICU. Data from 75 ICUs in the Swedish Intensive Care Register, a nationwide intensive care register, were used for analysis (89% of all Swedish ICUs), covering local community hospitals, district general hospitals and tertiary care hospitals. We included adult patients (16 years or older) admitted to ICU and subsequently discharged by transfer to another ICU. Only the first admission was used. Exposure was discharge to any other ICU (ICU-to-ICU transfer), whether in the same or in another hospital. Transfers were grouped into three predefined categories: clinical transfer, capacity transfer, and repatriation. We identified 15,588 transfers among 112,860 admissions (14.8%) and analysed 11,176 after excluding 4112 repeat transfer of the same individual and 300 with missing risk adjustment. The majority were clinical transfers (62.7%), followed by repatriations (21.5%) and capacity transfers (15.8%). Unadjusted 30-day mortality was 25.0% among capacity transfers compared to 14.5% and 16.2% for clinical transfers and repatriations, respectively. Adjusted odds ratio (OR) for 30-day mortality were 1.25 (95% CI 1.06-1.49 p = 0.01) for capacity transfers and 1.17 (95% CI 1.02-1.36 p = 0.03) for clinical transfers using repatriation as reference. The differences remained 180 days post-discharge., Conclusions: There was a large proportion of ICU-to-ICU transfers and an increased odds of dying for those transferred due to other reasons than repatriation., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Discharge from an intensive care unit (ICU) during the night is an independent risk factor for adverse outcomes. A quality improvement project was conducted with the aim of reducing the incidence and the associated mortality after night-time discharge., Materials and Methods: ICUs that submitted data to the Swedish Intensive Care Registry (SIR) agreed to appoint night-time discharge as a national quality indicator with detailed public display on the internet of various discharge proportions and outcomes. The registry was then examined for trends during a 10-year period with use of multilevel mixed-effects models., Results: We analysed 163,371 patients who were discharged alive from 70 ICUs to a general ward within the same hospital during 2006-2015. The prevalence of night-time discharge fell from 7.0% (95% CI: 5.2 to 8.7%) in 2006 to 4.9% (95% CI: 4.3 to 5.5%) in 2015 (P = .035 for trend). The original increased risk of death within 30 days after night-time discharge in 2006-2010, OR 1.20 (95% CI: 1.01 to 1.42), disappeared in 2011-2015, OR 1.06 (95% CI: 0.96 to 1.17)., Conclusions: During the 10-year period of the quality improvement project, the annual prevalence and risk of death within 30-days after night-time discharge were reduced. The public display and feedback of audit data could have helped in achieving this., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)