<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/rss.css" type="text/css"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
    xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:extra="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
    xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/basic/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
    <channel rdf:about="http://ccforum.com/feeds/mostaccessed/journal?quantity=&amp;format=rss&amp;version=">
        <title>Critical Care - Most accessed articles</title>
        <link>http://ccforum.com/</link>
        <description>The most accessed research articles published by Critical Care</description>
        <dc:date>2009-11-06T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <items>
            <rdf:Seq>
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ccforum.com/content/8/4/R204" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ccforum.com/content/13/5/R148" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ccforum.com/content/13/5/R169" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ccforum.com/content/10/3/R73" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ccforum.com/content/13/5/R167" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ccforum.com/content/4/2/072" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ccforum.com/content/9/6/R636" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ccforum.com/content/13/5/224" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ccforum.com/content/13/6/R175" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://ccforum.com/content/13/6/R177" />
                            </rdf:Seq>
        </items>
        <extra:info rdf:parseType="Literal">
            <html:div style="font:14px Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
                <html:span style="font-weight:bold">
                    This is an RSS newsfeed from BioMed Central
                </html:span>
                <html:br />
                <html:span style="font-size: 12px;">
                    It is intended to be used with an RSS reader. For more information about RSS newsfeeds from BioMed Central, visit
                    <html:br />
                    <html:a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/" style="color:#3333CC; font-size:12px;">
                        http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/
                    </html:a>
                    <html:br />
                </html:span>
            </html:div>
        </extra:info>
        <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </channel>
        <item rdf:about="http://ccforum.com/content/8/4/R204">
        <title>Acute renal failure - definition, outcome measures, animal models, fluid therapy and information technology needs: the Second International Consensus Conference of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) Group</title>
        <description>IntroductionThere is no consensus definition of acute renal failure (ARF) in critically ill patients. More than 30 different definitions have been used in the literature, creating much confusion and making comparisons difficult. Similarly, strong debate exists on the validity and clinical relevance of animal models of ARF; on choices of fluid management and of end-points for trials of new interventions in this field; and on how information technology can be used to assist this process. Accordingly, we sought to review the available evidence, make recommendations and delineate key questions for future studies.
Methods:
We undertook a systematic review of the literature using Medline and PubMed searches. We determined a list of key questions and convened a 2-day consensus conference to develop summary statements via a series of alternating breakout and plenary sessions. In these sessions, we identified supporting evidence and generated recommendations and/or directions for future research.
Results:
We found sufficient consensus on 47 questions to allow the development of recommendations. Importantly, we were able to develop a consensus definition for ARF. In some cases it was also possible to issue useful consensus recommendations for future investigations. We present a summary of the findings. (Full versions of the six workgroups&apos; findings are available on the internet at http://www.ADQI.net)
Conclusion:
Despite limited data, broad areas of consensus exist for the physiological and clinical principles needed to guide the development of consensus recommendations for defining ARF, selection of animal models, methods of monitoring fluid therapy, choice of physiological and clinical end-points for trials, and the possible role of information technology.</description>
        <link>http://ccforum.com/content/8/4/R204</link>
                <dc:creator>Rinaldo Bellomo</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Claudio Ronco</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>John Kellum</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Ravindra Mehta</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Paul Palevski</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Critical Care 2004, 8:R204</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2004-05-24T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/cc2872</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Critical Care</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1364-8535</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>R204</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2004-05-24T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://ccforum.com/content/13/5/R148">
        <title>Intensive care adult patients with severe respiratory failure caused by Influenza A (H1N1)v in Spain</title>
        <description>IntroductionPatients with influenza A (H1N1)v infection have developed rapidly progressive lower respiratory tract disease resulting in respiratory failure. We describe the clinical and epidemiologic characteristics of the first 32 persons reported to be admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) due to influenza A (H1N1)v infection in Spain.
Methods:
We used medical chart reviews to collect data on ICU adult patients reported in a standardized form. Influenza A (H1N1)v infection was confirmed in specimens using real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT PCR) assay.
Results:
Illness onset of the 32 patients occurred between 23 June and 31 July, 2009. The median age was 36 years (IQR = 31 - 52). Ten (31.2%) were obese, 2 (6.3%) pregnant and 16 (50%) had pre-existing medical complications. Twenty-nine (90.6%) had primary viral pneumonitis, 2 (6.3%) exacerbation of structural respiratory disease and 1 (3.1%) secondary bacterial pneumonia. Twenty-four patients (75.0%) developed multiorgan dysfunction, 7 (21.9%) received renal replacement techniques and 24 (75.0%) required mechanical ventilation. Six patients died within 28 days, with two additional late deaths. Oseltamivir administration delay ranged from 2 to 8 days after illness onset, 31.2% received high-dose (300 mg/day), and treatment duration ranged from 5 to 10 days (mean 8.0 &#177; 3.3).
Conclusions:
Over a 5-week period, influenza A (H1N1)v infection led to ICU admission in 32 adult patients, with frequently observed severe hypoxemia and a relatively high case-fatality rate. Clinicians should be aware of pulmonary complications of influenza A (H1N1)v infection, particularly in pregnant and young obese but previously healthy persons.</description>
        <link>http://ccforum.com/content/13/5/R148</link>
                <dc:creator>Jordi Rello</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Alejandro Rodriguez</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Pedro Ibanez</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Lorenzo Socias</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Javier Cebrian</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Asuncion Marques</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jose Guerrero</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Sergio Ruiz-Santana</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Enrique Marquez</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Frutos del Nogal-Saez</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Francisco Alvarez-Lerma</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Sergio Martinez</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Miquel Ferrer</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Manuel Avellanas</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Rosa Granada</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Enrique Maravi-Poma</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Patricia Albert</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Rafael Sierra</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Loreto Vidaur</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Patricia Ortiz</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Isidro Prieto del Portillo</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Beatriz Galvan</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Cristobal Leon-Gil</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>The H1N1 SEMICYUC working group</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Critical Care 2009, 13:R148</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-09-11T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/cc8044</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Critical Care</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1364-8535</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>R148</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-09-11T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://ccforum.com/content/13/5/R169">
        <title>Incidence of propofol-related infusion syndrome in critically ill adults: a prospective, multicenter study</title>
        <description>IntroductionWhile propofol is associated with an infusion syndrome (PRIS) that may cause death, the incidence of PRIS is unknown. Determining the incidence of PRIS and the frequency of PRIS-related clinical manifestations are key steps prior to the completion of any controlled studies investigating PRIS. This prospective, multicenter study sought to determine the incidence of PRIS and PRIS-related clinical manifestations in a large cohort of critically ill adults prescribed propofol.
Methods:
Critically ill adults from 11 academic medical centers administered an infusion of propofol for [&gt;/=] 24 hours were monitored at baseline and then on a daily basis until propofol was discontinued for the presence of 11 different PRIS-associated clinical manifestations and risk factors derived from 83 published case reports of PRIS.
Results:
Among 1017 patients [medical (35%), neurosurgical (25%)], PRIS (defined as metabolic acidosis plus cardiac dysfunction and [&gt;/=] 1 of: rhabdomyolysis, hypertriglyceridemia or renal failure occurring after the start of propofol therapy) developed in 11 (1.1%) patients an average of 3 (1-6) [median (range)] days after the start of propofol. While most (91%) of the patients who developed PRIS were receiving a vasopressor (80% initiated after the start of propofol therapy), few received a propofol dose &gt;83 mcg/kg/min (18%) or died (18%). Compared to the 1006 patients who did not develop PRIS, the APACHE II score (25 +/- 6 vs 20 +/- 7, P = 0.01) was greater in patients with PRIS but both the duration of propofol use (P = 0.43) and ICU length of stay (P = 0.82) were similar.
Conclusions:
Despite using a conservative definition for PRIS, and only considering new-onset PRIS clinical manifestations, the incidence of PRIS slightly exceeds 1%. Future controlled studies focusing on evaluating whether propofol manifests the derangements of critical illness more frequently than other sedatives will need to be large. These studies should also investigate the mechanism(s) and risk factors for PRIS.</description>
        <link>http://ccforum.com/content/13/5/R169</link>
                <dc:creator>Russel Roberts</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jeffrey Barletta</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jeffrey Fong</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Greg Schumaker</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Philip Kuper</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Stella Papadopoulos</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Dinesh Yogaratnam</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Elise Kendall</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Renee Xamplas</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Anthony Gerlach</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Paul Szumita</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Kevin Anger</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Paul Arpino</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Stacey Voils</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Philip Grgurich</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Robin Ruthazer</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>John Devlin</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Critical Care 2009, 13:R169</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-10-29T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/cc8145</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Critical Care</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1364-8535</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>R169</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-10-29T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://ccforum.com/content/10/3/R73">
        <title>RIFLE criteria for acute kidney injury are associated with hospital mortality in critically ill patients: a cohort analysis</title>
        <description>IntroductionThe lack of a standard definition for acute kidney injury has resulted in a large variation in the reported incidence and associated mortality. RIFLE, a newly developed international consensus classification for acute kidney injury, defines three grades of severity &#8211; risk (class R), injury (class I) and failure (class F) &#8211; but has not yet been evaluated in a clinical series.
Methods:
We performed a retrospective cohort study, in seven intensive care units in a single tertiary care academic center, on 5,383 patients admitted during a one year period (1 July 2000&#8211;30 June 2001).
Results:
Acute kidney injury occurred in 67% of intensive care unit admissions, with maximum RIFLE class R, class I and class F in 12%, 27% and 28%, respectively. Of the 1,510 patients (28%) that reached a level of risk, 840 (56%) progressed. Patients with maximum RIFLE class R, class I and class F had hospital mortality rates of 8.8%, 11.4% and 26.3%, respectively, compared with 5.5% for patients without acute kidney injury. Additionally, acute kidney injury (hazard ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.28&#8211;2.13; P &lt; 0.001) and maximum RIFLE class I (hazard ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.02&#8211;1.88; P = 0.037) and class F (hazard ratio, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 2.03&#8211;3.55; P &lt; 0.001) were associated with hospital mortality after adjusting for multiple covariates.
Conclusion:
In this general intensive care unit population, acute kidney &apos;risk, injury, failure&apos;, as defined by the newly developed RIFLE classification, is associated with increased hospital mortality and resource use. Patients with RIFLE class R are indeed at high risk of progression to class I or class F. Patients with RIFLE class I or class F incur a significantly increased length of stay and an increased risk of inhospital mortality compared with those who do not progress past class R or those who never develop acute kidney injury, even after adjusting for baseline severity of illness, case mix, race, gender and age.</description>
        <link>http://ccforum.com/content/10/3/R73</link>
                <dc:creator>Eric Hoste</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Giles Clermont</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Alexander Kersten</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Ramesh Venkataraman</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Derek Angus</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Dirk De Bacquer</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>John Kellum</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Critical Care 2006, 10:R73</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2006-05-12T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/cc4915</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Critical Care</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1364-8535</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>10</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>R73</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2006-05-12T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://ccforum.com/content/13/5/R167">
        <title>One year mortality of patients treated with an emergency department based early goal directed therapy protocol for severe sepsis and septic shock: a before and after study</title>
        <description>IntroductionEarly structured resuscitation of severe sepsis has been suggested to improve short term mortality; however, no previous study has examined the long-term effect of this therapy. We sought to determine one year outcomes associated with implementation of early goal directed therapy (EGDT) in the emergency department (ED) care of sepsis.
Methods:
We performed a longitudinal analysis of a prospective before and after study conducted at a large urban ED. Adult patients were enrolled if they had suspected infection, 2 or more systemic inflammatory response criteria, and either systolic blood pressure (SBP) &lt;90 mmHg after a fluid bolus or lactate &gt;4 mM. Exclusion criteria were: age &lt;18 years, no aggressive care desired, or need for immediate surgery. Clinical and outcomes data were prospectively collected on consecutive eligible patients for 1 year before and 2 years after implementing EGDT. Patients in the pre-implementation phase received non-protocolized care at attending physician discretion. The primary outcome was mortality at one year.
Results:
285 subjects, 79 in the pre- and 206 in the post-implementation phases, were enrolled. Compared to pre-implementation, post-implementation subjects had a significantly lower ED SBP (72 vs. 85 mm Hg, P &lt; 0.001) and higher sequential organ failure assessment score (7 vs. 5, P = 0.0004). The primary outcome of 1 year mortality was observed in 39/79 (49%) pre-implementation subjects and 77/206 (37%) post-implementation subjects (difference 12%; P = 0.04).
Conclusions:
Implementation of EGDT for the treatment of ED patients with severe sepsis and septic shock was associated with significantly lower mortality at one year.</description>
        <link>http://ccforum.com/content/13/5/R167</link>
                <dc:creator>Michael Puskarich</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Michael Marchick</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jeffrey Kline</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Michael Steuerwald</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Alan Jones</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Critical Care 2009, 13:R167</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-10-21T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/cc8138</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Critical Care</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1364-8535</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>R167</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-10-21T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://ccforum.com/content/4/2/072">
        <title>Weaning from mechanical ventilation</title>
        <description>Practice guidelines on weaning should be based on the results of			 several well-designed randomized studies performed over the last decade. One of			 those studies demonstrated that immediate extubation after successful trials of			 spontaneous breathing expedites weaning and reduces the duration of mechanical			 ventilation as compared with a more gradual discontinuation of ventilatory			 support. Two other studies showed that the ability to breathe spontaneously can			 be adequately tested by performing a trial with either T-tube or pressure			 support of 7 cmH2O lasting either 30 or 120 min. In patients with			 unsuccessful weaning trials, a gradual withdrawal for mechanical ventilation			 can be attempted while factors responsible for the ventilatory dependence are			 corrected. Two randomized studies found that, in difficult-to-wean patients,			 synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV) is the most effective			 method of weaning.</description>
        <link>http://ccforum.com/content/4/2/072</link>
                <dc:creator>Inmaculada Alía</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Andrés Esteban</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Critical Care 2000, 4:72</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2000-02-18T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/cc660</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Critical Care</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1364-8535</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>4</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>72</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2000-02-18T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://ccforum.com/content/9/6/R636">
        <title>Elevated troponin and myocardial infarction in the intensive care unit: a prospective study</title>
        <description>IntroductionElevated troponin levels indicate myocardial injury but may occur in critically ill patients without evidence of myocardial ischemia. An elevated troponin alone cannot establish a diagnosis of myocardial infarction (MI), yet the optimal methods for diagnosing MI in the intensive care unit (ICU) are not established. The study objective was to estimate the frequency of MI using troponin T measurements, 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs) and echocardiography, and to examine the association of elevated troponin and MI with ICU and hospital mortality and length of stay.MethodIn this 2-month single centre prospective cohort study, all consecutive patients admitted to our medical-surgical ICU were classified in duplicate by two investigators as having MI or no MI based on troponin, ECGs and echocardiograms obtained during the ICU stay. The diagnosis of MI was based on an adaptation of the joint European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology definition: a typical rise or fall of an elevated troponin measurement, in addition to ischemic symptoms, ischemic ECG changes, a coronary artery intervention, or a new cardiac wall motion abnormality.
Results:
We screened 117 ICU admissions and enrolled 115 predominantly medical patients. Of these, 93 (80.9%) had at least one ECG and one troponin; 44 of these 93 (47.3%) had at least one elevated troponin and 24 (25.8%) had an MI. Patients with MI had significantly higher mortality in the ICU (37.5% versus 17.6%; P = 0.050) and hospital (50.0% versus 22.0%; P = 0.010) than those without MI. After adjusting for Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score and need for inotropes or vasopressors, MI was an independent predictor of hospital mortality (odds ratio 3.22, 95% confidence interval 1.04&#8211;9.96). The presence of an elevated troponin (among those patients in whom troponin was measured) was not independently predictive of ICU or hospital mortality.
Conclusion:
In this study, 47% of critically ill patients had an elevated troponin but only 26% of these met criteria for MI. An elevated troponin without ischemic ECG changes was not associated with adverse outcomes; however, MI in the ICU setting was an independent predictor of hospital mortality.</description>
        <link>http://ccforum.com/content/9/6/R636</link>
                <dc:creator>Wendy Lim</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Ismael Qushmaq</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Deborah Cook</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Mark Crowther</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Diane Heels-Ansdell</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>P. Devereaux</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Critical Care 2005, 9:R636</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2005-09-28T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/cc3816</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Critical Care</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1364-8535</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>9</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>R636</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2005-09-28T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://ccforum.com/content/13/5/224">
        <title>Year in review in critical care: sepsis research findings in 2008</title>
        <description>The present report highlights the most important papers appearing in Critical Care and other major journals about severe sepsis, the systemic inflammatory response and multiorgan dysfunction over the past year. A number of these clinical and laboratory studies will have a considerable impact on the sepsis research agenda for years to come. The steroid controversy, the debate over tight glycemic control, the colloid versus crystalloid issue, the value of selective decontamination of the digestive tract, the enlarging role of biomarkers, the value of genomics and rapid diagnostic techniques have all been prominently featured in recent publications. Basic research into novel predictive assays, genetic polymorphisms, and new molecular methods to risk-stratify and to determine treatment options for sepsis have occupied much of the Critical Care publications relating to sepsis pathophysiology in 2008. We will attempt to briefly summarize what we consider to be the most significant contributions to the sepsis literature over the last year, and their likely ramifications in the future, for critical care clinicians, clinical investigators and basic researchers alike.</description>
        <link>http://ccforum.com/content/13/5/224</link>
                <dc:creator>Steven Opal</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Critical Care 2009, 13:224</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-10-21T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/cc7945</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Critical Care</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1364-8535</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>224</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-10-21T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://ccforum.com/content/13/6/R175">
        <title>Correlation between parameters at initiation of renal replacement therapy and outcome in patients with acute kidney injury</title>
        <description>IntroductionRenal replacement therapy (RRT) is a fully established treatment for critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI), but there are no scientifically established criteria when to initiate it. Our objectives were to describe the epidemiology of critically ill patients with AKI receiving RRT and to evaluate the relationship between biochemical, physiological and comorbid factors at time of RRT and ICU mortality.
Methods:
Retrospective analysis of demographic and physiologic data of 1,847 patients who received RRT for AKI in 22 ICUs in UK and Germany between 1989 - 1999.
Results:
54.1% of RRT patients died in the ICU. ICU survivors were younger, had a lower APACHE II score and fewer failed organ systems on admission to ICU compared to non-survivors. Multivariate analysis showed that at time of initiation of RRT, independent risk factors for ICU mortality were mechanical ventilation [odds ratio (OR) 6.03], neurological failure (OR 2.48), liver failure (OR 2.44), gastrointestinal failure (OR 2.04), pre-existing chronic illnesses (OR 1.74), haematological failure (OR 1.74), respiratory failure (OR 1.62), oligoanuria (OR 1.6), age (OR 1.03), serum urea (OR 1.004) and cardiovascular failure (OR 1.3). A higher pH at initiation of RRT was independently associated with a better outcome. Failure to correct acidosis and development of more organ failure within 48 hours after initiation of RRT were also associated with an increased risk of dying in ICU.
Conclusions:
Oligoanuria, acidosis and concomitant dysfunction of other organs at time of RRT were associated with poor survival. In contrast, serum creatinine and urea levels only had a poor correlation with outcome after RRT.</description>
        <link>http://ccforum.com/content/13/6/R175</link>
                <dc:creator>Marlies Ostermann</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Rene Chang</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Critical Care 2009, 13:R175</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-11-04T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/cc8154</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Critical Care</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1364-8535</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>R175</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-11-04T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://ccforum.com/content/13/6/R177">
        <title>Multidisciplinary care for tracheostomy patients:  a systematic review</title>
        <description>IntroductionAppropriate care for patients with tracheostomies in hospital settings is an important issue. Each year more than 7000 patients receive tracheostomies in Australia and New Zealand alone. Many of these tracheostomy patients commence their care in the intensive care unit (ICU) and once stabilised are then transferred to a general ward. Insufficient skills and experience of staff caring for tracheostomy patients may lead to sub-optimal care and increased morbidity. The purpose of this review was to identify whether multidisciplinary tracheostomy outreach teams enable the reduction in time to decannulation and length of stay in acute and sub-acute settings, improve quality of care or decrease adverse events for patients with a tracheostomy.
Methods:
We included all relevant trials published in English. We searched Medline, CINAHL, All EBM and EMBASE in June 2009. Studies were selected and appraised by two reviewers in consultation with colleagues, using inclusion, exclusion and appraisal criteria established a priori.
Results:
Three studies were identified which met the study selection criteria. All were cohort studies with historical controls. All studies included adult patients with tracheostomies. One study was conducted in the UK and the other two in Australia. Risk of bias was moderate to high in all studies. All papers concluded that the introduction of multidisciplinary care reduces the average time to decannulation for tracheostomy patients discharged from the ICU. Two papers also reported that multidisciplinary care reduced the overall length of stay in hospital as well as the length of stay following ICU discharge.
Conclusions:
In the papers we appraised, patients with a tracheostomy tube in situ discharged from an ICU to a general ward who received care from a dedicated multidisciplinary team as compared with standard care showed reductions in time to decannulation, length of stay and adverse events. Impacts on quality of care were not reported. These results should be interpreted with caution due to the methodological weaknesses in the historical control studies.</description>
        <link>http://ccforum.com/content/13/6/R177</link>
                <dc:creator>Marie Garrubba</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Tari Turner</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Clare Grieveson</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Critical Care 2009, 13:R177</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-11-06T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/cc8159</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Critical Care</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1364-8535</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>R177</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-11-06T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>PDF</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <cc:License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks" />
    </cc:License>
</rdf:RDF>
