Critical care : the official journal of the Critical Care Forum
-
To evaluate the impact of recent evidence-based treatments for severe sepsis in routine clinical care requires an understanding of the underlying epidemiology, particularly with regard to trends over time. We interrogated a high quality clinical database to examine trends in the incidence and mortality of severe sepsis over a nine-year period. ⋯ The population incidence of critical care admission with severe sepsis during the first 24 hours and associated hospital deaths are increasing. These baseline data provide essential information to those wishing to evaluate the introduction of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign care bundles in UK hospitals.
-
We summarize all original research in the field of respiratory intensive care medicine published in 2005 in Critical Care. Twenty-seven articles were grouped into the following categories and subcategories to facilitate rapid overview: mechanical ventilation (physiology, spontaneous breathing during mechanical ventilation, high frequency oscillatory ventilation, side effects of mechanical ventilation, sedation, and prone positioning); infection (pneumonia and sepsis); monitoring (ventilatory monitoring, pulmonary artery catheter and pulse oxymeter); and education (training and health outcome).
-
Karakitsos and coworkers, in this journal, reported further compelling evidence on the value of ultrasound in guiding internal jugular vein catheterization. In a large, prospective, randomized study of 900 patients, comparisons were made between patients in whom the procedure was performed using landmark-based techniques and those assigned to ultrasound guidance. The key benefits from use of ultrasound included reduction in needle puncture time, increased overall success rate (100% versus 94%), reduction in carotid puncture (1% versus 11%), reduction in carotid haematoma (0.4% versus 8.4%), reduction in haemothorax (0% versus 1.7%), decreased pneumothorax (0% versus 2.4%) and reduction in catheter-related infection (10% versus 16%). The implications of these findings are discussed, and a compelling case for routine use of ultrasound to guide central venous access is made.