Anaesthesia and intensive care
-
Anaesth Intensive Care · Sep 2010
Risk factors and outcomes of high-dependency patients requiring intensive care unit admission: a nested case-control study.
Intermediate-care or high-dependency units can provide a level of care that lies between the intensive care unit (ICU) and general ward, but the patients who are most likely to benefit from such level of care remains uncertain. This nested case-control study assessed the incidence and risk factors of high-dependency patients requiring ICU admission and whether these admissions were associated with a worse outcome when compared to other emergency ICU admissions. Seventy-seven consecutive high-dependency patients requiring ICU admission (cases) were compared with 77 patients who did not require ICU admission (controls) and also 928 emergency ICU admissions from other areas. ⋯ High-dependency admissions from the ward (odds ratio 4.46, 95% confidence interval 1.55 to 12.78) or emergency department (odds ratio 4.48, 95% confidence interval 1.54 to 13.0) and a need for concurrent non-invasive ventilation, inotrope infusion and acute kidney injury (odds ratio 14.90, 95% confidence interval 3.79 to 58.3) was associated with a higher risk of ICU admission. Hospital mortality of the high-dependency patients requiring ICU admission was not significantly different from other emergency ICU admissions (odds ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 2.11). In summary, high-dependency patients requiring ICU admission were uncommon unless they had multi-organ failure and their hospital mortality was not significantly different from other emergency ICU admissions.
-
Anaesth Intensive Care · Sep 2010
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative StudyComparison of automated intermittent low volume bolus with continuous infusion for labour epidural analgesia.
Delivery of local anaesthetics via automated intermittent bolus has been shown to improve epidural analgesia compared to delivery via continuous epidural infusion. However the optimal bolus volume has not been investigated. This randomised, double-blind study compared the analgesic efficacy of automated intermittent bolus (volume 2.5 ml every 15 minutes) with that of a continuous epidural infusion (10 ml/hour) for the maintenance of labour epidural analgesia, to determine whether the advantages previously demonstrated for automated intermittent bolus over continuous epidural infusion are retained at this low bolus volume. ⋯ The primary study outcome was the incidence of pain during labour that required management with supplemental epidural analgesia. There were no significant differences between the two regimens in terms of breakthrough pain (automated intermittent bolus 36% [9/25] vs continuous epidural infusion 32% [8/25], P = 0.77). At the doses used in this study, maintenance of labour analgesia using automated intermittent bolus at a bolus volume of 2.5 ml every 15 minutes does not decrease the incidence of breakthrough pain or improve analgesic efficacy compared to continuous epidural infusion.