Search

Background The Withdrawal Assessment Tool-1 (WAT-1) has been validated for assessing iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome in critically ill children receiving mechanical ventilation, but little is known about this syndrome in critically ill adults. Objective To evaluate the validity and reliability of the WAT-1 in critically ill adults. Methods A prospective, observational, open-cohort pilot study of critically ill adults receiving mechanical ventilation and regular administration of opioids for at least 72 hours. Patients were assessed for withdrawal twice daily on weekdays and once daily on weekends using the WAT-1 after an opioid weaning episode. The presence of iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome was evaluated once daily using modified Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) (DSM-5) criteria. All evaluations were blinded and performed independently. The criterion validity of the WAT-1 and the interrater reliability for WAT-1 and DSM-5 evaluations were determined. Results During 8 months, 52 adults (median age, 51.5 years) were enrolled. Eight patients (15%) had at least 1 positive assessment during their intensive care unit stay using the DSM-5, compared with 19 patients (37%) using the WAT-1. The overall sensitivity of the WAT-1 was 50%, and its specificity was 65.9%. Agreement between WAT-1 and DSM-5 assessments was poor (κ = 0.102). The interrater reliability for the WAT-1 was 89.1% and for the DSM-5 was 90.1%. Conclusion Despite showing reliability, the WAT-1 is not a valid tool for assessing the presence of iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome in adults.

Background After admission to intensive care, women have higher mortality rates than do men. The reasons for the greater mortality in women are not fully understood. Objective To determine if increased mortality in women was due to delays in the recognition of critical illness or to delays in timely admission to intensive care. Methods A total of 241 consecutive admissions to intensive care from medical and surgical units during a 12-month period were analyzed retrospectively. Patients’ demographics, illness severity, and delay between the time the patients would have fulfilled criteria for calling a medical emergency team and consultation with and admission to intensive care were analyzed. Results Delay from fulfillment of criteria for calling a medical emergency team and consultation with intensive care and from consultation to admission to intensive care did not differ between sexes. Despite similar delays in admission to intensive care, women had a higher 30-day mortality than did men (44.9% vs 30.5%; P = .02). The increased mortality was more pronounced in the medical patients (53% vs 34%; P = .02). Multivariate analysis of mortality data yielded a mortality odds ratio of 0.35 (95% CI, 0.16–0.74) for men, significantly different from values for women (P = .006). Conclusion After admission to intensive care from medical or surgical units, women had higher mortality rates than did men, and the difference was more pronounced in medical patients. The difference in mortality between sexes was not explained by delayed recognition of critical illness or delayed admission to intensive care.