• J Eval Clin Pract · Jun 2009

    Long-term survival of intensive care and hospital patient cohorts compared with the general Australian population: a relative survival approach.

    • Dhaval Ghelani, John L Moran, Andy Sloggett, Richard J Leeson, and Sandra L Peake.
    • Department of Intensive Care Medicine, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville, South Australia, Australia.
    • J Eval Clin Pract. 2009 Jun 1;15(3):425-35.

    RationaleLong-term post-hospital survival of intensive care cohorts has been poorly characterized. The relative survival of septic and non-septic intensive care and general hospital patient cohorts, compared with the Australian population, was determined.MethodsA retrospective cohort study in a tertiary-level adult intensive care. Index intensive care admissions, July 1993 to June 1999, with sepsis and surviving hospital, constituted the intensive care sepsis cohort; residual patients, the intensive care non-sepsis cohort. Hospital cohorts, infected and non-infected, and Charlson Comorbidity Score (CCS) were obtained electronically, from ICD-9 codes. Follow-up was until death, or for a minimum of 4.2 years, to a maximum of 9.6 years. Time-to-death was sourced from the State registry. Relative survival was determined using the Esteve method and excess hazard modelled by covariate adjusted generalized linear models.ResultsThe ICU sepsis (n = 224) and non-sepsis (n = 1798) cohorts were of mean (standard deviation, SD) age of 63.2 (15.6) and 59.8 (18.9) years; with co-morbidity score 1.2 (1.3) and 0.5 (0.9) respectively. Hospitalized infected (n = 8455) and non-infected (n = 51,152) cohorts were of age 56.5 (22.2) and 52.2 (20.9) years; co-morbidity score 0.4 (0.9) and 0.3 (0.9) respectively. Relative survival of all cohorts was less than the Australian population; for the two intensive care cohorts, progressive relative survival decline suggested a perpetuating excess mortality. Both age and CCS increments were associated with progressive increases in excess hazard. There was a reduced hazard for intensive care sepsis versus non-sepsis cohorts; 0.42 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.25-0.71, P = 0.001] and surgical versus medical patients, 0.64 (95% CI: 0.50-0.84, P = 0.001); and an excess hazard for men, 1.38 (95% CI: 1.08-1.74, P = 0.009).ConclusionsAdverse long-term survival of intensive care and hospital patients was demonstrated. For hospital patients there was additional infection-related mortality risk, not evident for ICU patients after case mix control.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.