Critical care : the official journal of the Critical Care Forum
-
Case Reports
Roundtable debate: Controversies in the management of the septic patient--desperately seeking consensus.
Despite continuous advances in technologic and pharmacologic management, the mortality rate from septic shock remains high. Care of patients with sepsis includes measures to support the circulatory system and treat the underlying infection. There is a substantial body of knowledge indicating that fluid resuscitation, vasopressors, and antibiotics accomplish these goals. ⋯ The focus is on management, with emphasis on the criteria by which treatment decisions are made. It is clear from the discussion that there are areas where there is agreement and areas where opinions diverge. This presentation is intended to show how experienced intensivists apply clinical science to their practice of critical care medicine.
-
The Omagh bombing in August 1998 produced many of the problems documented in other major incidents. An initial imbalance between the demand and supply of clinical resources at the local hospital, poor information due to telecommunication problems, the need to triage victims and the need to transport the most severely injured significant distances were the most serious issues. The Royal Group Hospitals Trust (RGHT) received 30 severely injured secondary transfers over a 5-hour period, which stressed the hospital's systems even with the presence of extra staff that arrived voluntarily before the hospital's major incident plan was activated. ⋯ Coordination of the multidisciplinary teams required for many of these procedures was difficult. Although only seven patients required admission to adult general intensive care, no ICU beds were available for other admissions over the following 5 days. A total of 165 days of adult ICU treatment were required for the victims of the bombing.
-
Prognostic models, such as the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II or III, the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II, and the Mortality Probability Models (MPM) II were developed to quantify the severity of illness and the likelihood of hospital survival for a general intensive care unit (ICU) population. Little is known about the performance of these models in specific populations, such as patients with cancer. Recently, specific prognostic models have been developed to predict mortality for cancer patients who are admitted to the ICU. The present analysis reviews the performance of general prognostic models and specific models for cancer patients to predict in-hospital mortality after ICU admission. ⋯ General prognostic models generally underestimate the risk of mortality in critically ill cancer patients. Both general prognostic models and specific oncology models may reliably identify subgroups of patients with a very high risk of mortality.
-
Endothelial damage accounts greatly for the high mortality in septic shock. Higher expression of mediators (IL-6, IL-8, soluble intercellular adhesion molecule 1 [sICAM-1], soluble endothelial-linked adhesion molecule 1 [sELAM-1]) have been described for non-survivors in comparison with survivors. We investigated the predictive value of the mediators IL-6, IL-8, sELAM-1 and sICAM-1 and their time course in intensive care unit patients who developed septic shock with respect to outcome. ⋯ sELAM-1 showed a markedly opposing course after 48 hours of septic shock. This adhesion molecule may be a useful early predictor of disease severity in the course of septic shock after early initial treatment of the patients, and might suggest considering endothelial-restoring therapy.
-
The escalating number of emergency department (ED) visits, length of stay, and hospital overcrowding have been associated with an increasing number of critically ill patients cared for in the ED. Existing physiologic scoring systems have traditionally been used for outcome prediction, clinical research, quality of care analysis, and benchmarking in the intensive care unit (ICU) environment. However, there is limited experience with scoring systems in the ED, while early and aggressive intervention in critically ill patients in the ED is becoming increasingly important. ⋯ A few existing ICU physiologic scoring systems have been applied in the ED, with some success. Other ED specific scoring systems have been developed for various applications: recognition of patients at risk for infection; prediction of mortality after critical care transport; prediction of in-hospital mortality after admission; assessment of prehospital therapeutic efficacy; screening for severe acute respiratory syndrome; and prediction of pediatric hospital admission. Further efforts at developing unique physiologic assessment methodologies for use in the ED will improve quality of patient care, aid in resource allocation, improve prognostic accuracy, and objectively measure the impact of early intervention in the ED.