Search

Objectives: Intensive care survivors continue to experience significant morbidity following acute hospital discharge, but healthcare costs associated with this ongoing morbidity are poorly described. As the demand for intensive care increases, understanding the magnitude of postacute hospital healthcare costs is of increasing relevance to clinicians and healthcare planners. We undertook a systematic review of the literature reporting major healthcare resource use by intensive care survivors following discharge from the hospital and identified factors associated with increased resource use.Data Sources: Seven electronic databases (1990 to August 2012), conference proceedings, and reference lists were searched.Study Selection: Studies published in English were included that reported postacute hospital discharge healthcare resource use at the individual level for survivors of intensive care.Data Extraction: Two reviewers screened abstracts and one abstracted data using standardized templates. Study quality was assessed using recognized appraisal methods specific to economic evaluation, epidemiological studies, and randomized trials.Data Synthesis: From 4,909 articles, 18 articles representing 14 cohorts fulfilled inclusion criteria. There was substantial variation in methodology, especially the resource categories included in the studies. Following standardization to a common currency and year, variation in cost of resource use was evident (range 2011 US $18,847-$148,454 for year 1 postdischarge). Studies undertaken within the United States reported the highest costs; those in the United Kingdom reported substantially lower costs. Factors associated with increased resource use included increasing age, comorbidities, organ dysfunction score, and previous resource use.Conclusions: Wide variation in methodological approaches limited study comparability and external validity of findings. We found substantial variation in the cost of resource use, especially among countries. Careful description of patient cohorts and healthcare systems is required to maximize generalizability. We give recommendations for a more standardized approach to improve design and reporting of future studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Infection with the severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to a worldwide pandemic with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, overwhelming healthcare systems globally. Preliminary reports suggest a high incidence of infection and mortality with SARS-CoV-2 in patients receiving kidney replacement therapy (KRT). The aims of this study are to report characteristics, rates and outcomes of all patients affected by infection with SARS-CoV-2 undergoing KRT in Scotland.Methods: Study design was an observational cohort study. Data were linked between the Scottish Renal Registry, Health Protection Scotland and the Scottish Intensive Care Society Audit Group national data sets using a unique patient identifier (Community Health Index (CHI)) for each individual by the Public Health and Intelligence unit of Public Health, Scotland. Descriptive statistics and survival analyses were performed.Results: During the period 1st March 2020 to 31st May 2020, 110 patients receiving KRT tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 amounting to 2% of the prevalent KRT population. Of those affected, 86 were receiving haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis and 24 had a renal transplant. Patients who tested positive were older and more likely to reside in more deprived postcodes. Mortality was high at 26.7% in the dialysis patients and 29.2% in the transplant patients.Conclusion: The rate of detected SARS-CoV-2 in people receiving KRT in Scotland was relatively low but with a high mortality for those demonstrating infection. Although impossible to confirm, it appears that the measures taken within dialysis units coupled with the national shielding policy, have been effective in protecting this population from infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People hospitalised for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have elevated incidence of diabetes. However, it is unclear whether this is due to shared risk factors, confounding or stress hyperglycaemia in response to acute illness., Methods: We analysed a multicentre prospective cohort study (PHOSP-COVID) of people ≥18 years discharged from NHS hospitals across the United Kingdom following COVID-19. Individuals were included if they attended at least one research visit with a HbA1c measurement within 14 months of discharge and had no history of diabetes at baseline. The primary outcome was new onset diabetes (any type), as defined by a first glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) measurement ≥6.5% (≥48 mmol/mol). Follow-up was censored at the last HbA1c measurement. Age-standardised incidence rates and incidence rate ratios (adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, length of hospital stay, body mass index, smoking, physical activity, deprivation, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia/hypercholesterolaemia, intensive therapy unit admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, corticosteroid use and C-reactive protein score) were calculated using Poisson regression. Incidence rates were compared with the control groups of published clinical trials in the United Kingdom by applying the same inclusion and exclusion criteria, where possible., Results: Incidence of diabetes was 91.4 per 1000 person-years and was higher in South Asian (incidence rate ratios [IRR] = 3.60; 1.77, 7.32; p < 0.001) and Black ethnic groups (IRR = 2.36; 1.07, 5.21; p = 0.03) compared with White ethnic groups. When restricted to similar characteristics, the incidence rates were similar to those in UK clinical trials data., Conclusion: Diabetes incidence following hospitalisation for COVID-19 is high, but it remains uncertain whether it is disproportionately higher than pre-pandemic levels., (© 2024 The Author(s). Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Identifying women at highest or lowest risk of perinatal intensive care unit (ICU) admission may enable clinicians to risk stratify women antenatally so that enhanced care or elective admission to ICU may be considered or excluded in birthing plans. We aimed to develop a statistical model to predict the risk of maternal ICU admission., Methods: We studied 762,918 pregnancies between 2005 and 2018. Predictive models were constructed using multivariable logistic regression. The primary outcome was ICU admission. Additional analyses were performed to allow inclusion of delivery-related factors. Predictors were selected following expert consultation and reviewing literature, resulting in 13 variables being included in the primary analysis: demographics, prior health status, obstetric history and pregnancy-related factors. A complete case analysis was performed. K -fold cross validation was used to mitigate against overfitting., Results: Complete data were available for 578,310 pregnancies, of whom 1087 were admitted to ICU (0.19%). Model performance was fair (area under the ROC curve = 0.66). A comparatively high cut-point of ⩾0.6% for ICU admission risk resulted in a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.8% (specificity 97.8%) but positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.8% (sensitivity 9.1%). Models including delivery-related factors demonstrated superior discriminative performance., Conclusions: Our model for maternal ICU admission has an acceptable discriminative performance. The low frequency of ICU admission and resulting low PPV indicates that the model would be unlikely to be useful as a 'rule-in' test for pre-emptive consideration of ICU admission. Its potential for improving efficiency in screening as a 'rule-out' test remains uncertain., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Intensive Care Society 2025.)

Objectives: To describe the effect of multimorbidity on adverse patient centred outcomes in people attending emergency department., Design: Population based cohort study., Setting: Emergency departments in NHS Lothian in Scotland, from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2019., Participants: Adults (≥18 years) attending emergency departments., Data Sources: Linked data from emergency departments, hospital discharges, and cancer registries, and national mortality data., Main Outcome Measures: Multimorbidity was defined as at least two conditions from the Elixhauser comorbidity index. Multivariable logistic or linear regression was used to assess associations of multimorbidity with 30 day mortality (primary outcome), hospital admission, reattendance at the emergency department within seven days, and time spent in emergency department (secondary outcomes). Primary analysis was stratified by age (<65  v ≥65 years)., Results: 451 291 people had 1 273 937 attendances to emergency departments during the study period. 43 504 (9.6%) had multimorbidity, and people with multimorbidity were older (median 73 v 43 years), more likely to arrive by emergency ambulance (57.8% v 23.7%), and more likely to be triaged as very urgent (23.5% v 9.2%) than people who do not have multimorbidity. After adjusting for other prognostic covariates, multimorbidity, compared with no multimorbidity, was associated with higher 30 day mortality (8.2% v 1.2%, adjusted odds ratio 1.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.72 to 1.91)), higher rate of hospital admission (60.1% v 20.5%, 1.81 (1.76 to 1.86)), higher reattendance to an emergency department within seven days (7.8% v 3.5%, 1.41 (1.32 to 1.50)), and longer time spent in the department (adjusted coefficient 0.27 h (95% CI 0.26 to 0.27)). The size of associations between multimorbidity and all outcomes were larger in younger patients: for example, the adjusted odds ratio of 30 day mortality was 3.03 (95% CI 2.68 to 3.42) in people younger than 65 years versus 1.61 (95% CI 1.53 to 1.71) in those 65 years or older., Conclusions: Almost one in ten patients presenting to emergency department had multimorbidity using Elixhauser index conditions. Multimorbidity was strongly associated with adverse outcomes and these associations were stronger in younger people. The increasing prevalence of multimorbidity in the population is likely to exacerbate strain on emergency departments unless practice and policy evolve to meet the growing demand., Competing Interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: NL is supported by Wellcome ISSF3 grant (ref. IS3-R1.05 19/20) for the completion of this work; NLM is supported by a Chair Award, Programme Grant, and Research Excellence Award (CH/F/21/90010, RG/20/10/34966, RE/18/5/34216) from the British Heart Foundation. MR is supported by an NHS Research Scotland Career Researcher Clinician award. NLM has also received payment for lectures by Abbott Diagnostics and Siemens Healthineers, has participated on advisory boards for LumiraDx, Roche Diagnostics and Siemens Healthineers, and has received equipment from Siemens Healthineers (not related to this project). All other authors declare no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: An association between deep sedation and adverse short-term outcomes has been demonstrated although this evidence has been inconsistent. The A2B (alpha-2 agonists for sedation in critical care) sedation trial is designed to determine whether the alpha-2 agonists clonidine and dexmedetomidine, compared with usual care, are clinically and cost-effective. The A2B intervention is a complex intervention conducted in 39 intensive care units (ICUs) in the UK. Multicentre organisational factors, variable cultures, perceptions and practices and the involvement of multiple members of the healthcare team add to the complexity of the A2B trial. From our pretrial contextual exploration it was apparent that routine practices such as type and frequency of pain, agitation and delirium assessment, as well as the common sedative agents used, varied widely across the UK. Anticipated challenges in implementing A2B focused on the impact of usual practice, perceptions of risk, ICU culture, structure and the presence of equipoise. Given this complexity, a process evaluation has been embedded in the A2B trial to uncover factors that could impact successful delivery and explore their impact on intervention delivery and interpretation of outcomes., Methods and Analysis: This is a mixed-methods process evaluation guided by the A2B intervention logic model. It includes two phases of data collection conducted during and at the end of trial. Data will be collected using a combination of questionnaires, stakeholder interviews and routinely collected trial data. A framework approach will be used to analyse qualitative data with synthesis of data within and across the phases. The nature of the relationship between delivery of the A2B intervention and the trial primary and secondary outcomes will be explored., Ethics and Dissemination: All elements of the A2B trial, including the process evaluation, are approved by Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (Ref. 18/SS/0085). Dissemination will be via publications, presentations and media engagement., Trial Registration Number: NCT03653832., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Identify prevalence of self-reported swallow, communication, voice and cognitive compromise following hospitalisation for COVID-19., Design: Multicentre prospective observational cohort study using questionnaire data at visit 1 (2-7 months post discharge) and visit 2 (10-14 months post discharge) from hospitalised patients in the UK. Lasso logistic regression analysis was undertaken to identify associations., Setting: 64 UK acute hospital Trusts., Participants: Adults aged >18 years, discharged from an admissions unit or ward at a UK hospital with COVID-19., Main Outcome Measures: Self-reported swallow, communication, voice and cognitive compromise., Results: Compromised swallowing post intensive care unit (post-ICU) admission was reported in 20% (188/955); 60% with swallow problems received invasive mechanical ventilation and were more likely to have undergone proning (p=0.039). Voice problems were reported in 34% (319/946) post-ICU admission who were more likely to have received invasive (p<0.001) or non-invasive ventilation (p=0.001) and to have been proned (p<0.001). Communication compromise was reported in 23% (527/2275) univariable analysis identified associations with younger age (p<0.001), female sex (p<0.001), social deprivation (p<0.001) and being a healthcare worker (p=0.010). Cognitive issues were reported by 70% (1598/2275), consistent at both visits, at visit 1 respondents were more likely to have higher baseline comorbidities and at visit 2 were associated with greater social deprivation (p<0.001)., Conclusion: Swallow, communication, voice and cognitive problems were prevalent post hospitalisation for COVID-19, alongside whole system compromise including reduced mobility and overall health scores. Research and testing of rehabilitation interventions are required at pace to explore these issues., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CEB has a UKRI PHOSP grant through NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre for support to conduct the PHOSP study, and Nottingham Hospital Trust Charity donations to support her research. JC has grants/contracts with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Insmed, Gilead Sciences, Grifols and has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Insmed, Gilead Sciences, Grifols, Pfizer, Zambon, Antabio, Janssen. LVW holds a UK Research and Innovation GSK/Asthma + Lung UK National Institute of Health Research Grant and Orion Pharma GSK Genentech AstraZeneca research funding and has received consulting fees from Galapagos Boehringer Ingelheim and travel fees from Greentech, is on the advisory board for Galapagos and is the Associate Editor for European Respiratory Journal. MR has received consulting fees from Galapagos Boehringer Ingelheim. ASi received joint funding UKRI & NIHR grant references: MR/V027859/1 and COV031. CB has received UKRI/DHSC PHOSP-COVID grant via NIHR Leicester BRC, grants from GSK, AZ, Sanofi, BI, Chiesi, Novartis, Roche, Genentech, Mologic, 4DPharma, consultancy paid to institution from GSK, AZ, Sanofi, BI, Chiesi, Novartis, Roche, Genentech, Mologic, 4DPharma, TEVA. RAE has received NIHR/UKRI/Wolfson Foundation grants, consulting fees from AstraZeneca for long COVID, honoraria payment from Boeringher, support from Chiesi to attend BTS, and is ERS Group 01.02 Pulmonary Rehabilitation Secretary. JKQ is on the Thorax editorial board., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Spontaneous pneumothoraces occur in individuals who have not experienced antecedent thoracic trauma. Primary spontaneous pneumothorax occurs in otherwise healthy individuals with no clinically apparent lung disease, whereas secondary pneumothorax is a consequence of an underlying lung disease. This review focuses on their management in the acute medical setting. The specific issues of simple aspiration versus intercostal tube drainage, who can be discharged home safely, and when to refer to a respiratory physician are addressed. In addition, recent developments in the management of pneumothorax are presented.

A pleural effusion is the accumulation of fluid in the pleural space. It is a relatively common finding in clinical practice. The diagnostic approach to the patient presenting with a pleural effusion is aimed at defining the effusion as a transudate or an exudate. This review summarises the initial assessment and investigation of pleural effusions diagnosed during the acute medical take, and who should be referred for specialist advice. In addition, recent developments, including the measurement of NT-proBNP levels and diagnostic markers for mesothelioma, are presented.