| 1. |
- Gualandro, Danielle M. M., et al.
(författare)
-
Acute heart failure after non-cardiac surgery: incidence, phenotypes, determinants and outcomes
- 2023
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Heart Failure. - : WILEY. - 1388-9842 .- 1879-0844. ; 25:3, s. 347-357
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims Primary acute heart failure (AHF) is a common cause of hospitalization. AHF may also develop postoperatively (pAHF). The aim of this study was to assess the incidence, phenotypes, determinants and outcomes of pAHF following non-cardiac surgery.Methods and results A total of 9164 consecutive high-risk patients undergoing 11 262 non-cardiac inpatient surgeries were prospectively included. The incidence, phenotypes, determinants and outcome of pAHF, centrally adjudicated by independent cardiologists, were determined. The incidence of pAHF was 2.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.2-2.8%); 51% of pAHF occurred in patients without known heart failure (de novo pAHF), and 49% in patients with chronic heart failure. Among patients with chronic heart failure, 10% developed pAHF, and among patients without a history of heart failure, 1.5% developed pAHF. Chronic heart failure, diabetes, urgent/emergent surgery, atrial fibrillation, cardiac troponin elevations above the 99th percentile, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, anaemia, peripheral artery disease, coronary artery disease, and age, were independent predictors of pAHF in the logistic regression model. Patients with pAHF had significantly higher all-cause mortality (44% vs. 11%, p < 0.001) and AHF readmission (15% vs. 2%, p < 0.001) within 1 year than patients without pAHF. After Cox regression analysis, pAHF was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.7 [95% CI 1.3-2.2]; p < 0.001) and AHF readmission (aHR 2.3 [95% CI 1.5-3.7]; p < 0.001). Findings were confirmed in an external validation cohort using a prospective multicentre cohort of 1250 patients (incidence of pAHF 2.4% [95% CI 1.6-3.3%]).Conclusions Postoperative AHF frequently developed following non-cardiac surgery, being de novo in half of cases, and associated with a very high mortality.
|
|
| 2. |
- Huijben, Jilske A., et al.
(författare)
-
Development of a quality indicator set to measure and improve quality of ICU care for patients with traumatic brain injury
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Critical Care. - : BioMed Central. - 1364-8535 .- 1466-609X. ; 23
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: We aimed to develop a set of quality indicators for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) in intensive care units (ICUs) across Europe and to explore barriers and facilitators for implementation of these quality indicators.Methods: A preliminary list of 66 quality indicators was developed, based on current guidelines, existing practice variation, and clinical expertise in TBI management at the ICU. Eight TBI experts of the Advisory Committee preselected the quality indicators during a first Delphi round. A larger Europe-wide expert panel was recruited for the next two Delphi rounds. Quality indicator definitions were evaluated on four criteria: validity (better performance on the indicator reflects better processes of care and leads to better patient outcome), feasibility (data are available or easy to obtain), discriminability (variability in clinical practice), and actionability (professionals can act based on the indicator). Experts scored indicators on a 5-point Likert scale delivered by an electronic survey tool.Results. The expert panel consisted of 50 experts from 18 countries across Europe, mostly intensivists (N=24, 48%) and neurosurgeons (N=7, 14%). Experts agreed on a final set of 42 indicators to assess quality of ICU care: 17 structure indicators, 16 process indicators, and 9 outcome indicators. Experts are motivated to implement this finally proposed set (N=49, 98%) and indicated routine measurement in registries (N=41, 82%), benchmarking (N=42, 84%), and quality improvement programs (N=41, 82%) as future steps. Administrative burden was indicated as the most important barrier for implementation of the indicator set (N=48, 98%).Conclusions: This Delphi consensus study gives insight in which quality indicators have the potential to improve quality of TBI care at European ICUs. The proposed quality indicator set is recommended to be used across Europe for registry purposes to gain insight in current ICU practices and outcomes of patients with TBI. This indicator set may become an important tool to support benchmarking and quality improvement programs for patients with TBI in the future.
|
|
| 3. |
- Amgarth-Duff, Ingrid, et al.
(författare)
-
Reporting essentials for DElirium bioMarker studies (REDEEMS) : explanation and elaboration
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Delirium Communications. - : European Delirium Association. - 2959-104X.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Despite many studies of potential delirium biomarkers, delirium pathophysiology remains unclear. Evidence shows that the quality of reporting delirium biomarker studies is sub-optimal. Better reporting of delirium biomarker studies is needed to understand delirium pathophysiology better. To improve robustness, transparency and uniformity of delirium biomarker study reports, the REDEEMS (Reporting Essentials for DElirium bioMarker Studies) guideline was developed by an international group of delirium researchers through a three-stage process, including a systematic review, a three-round Delphi study, and a follow-up consensus meeting. This process resulted in a 9-item guideline to inform delirium fluid biomarker studies. To enhance implementation of the REDEEMS guideline, this Explanation and Elaboration paper provides a detailed explanation of each item. We anticipate that the REDEEMS guideline will help to accelerate our understanding of delirium pathophysiology by improving the reporting of delirium biomarker research and, consequently the capacity to synthesise results across studies.
|
|
