Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Division, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6021, USA.
N Engl J Med. 2013 Jun 6;368(23):2201-9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1302854. Epub 2013 May 20.
Increasing numbers of intensive care units (ICUs) are adopting the practice of nighttime intensivist staffing despite the lack of experimental evidence of its effectiveness.
We conducted a 1-year randomized trial in an academic medical ICU of the effects of nighttime staffing with in-hospital intensivists (intervention) as compared with nighttime coverage by daytime intensivists who were available for consultation by telephone (control). We randomly assigned blocks of 7 consecutive nights to the intervention or the control strategy. The primary outcome was patients' length of stay in the ICU. Secondary outcomes were patients' length of stay in the hospital, ICU and in-hospital mortality, discharge disposition, and rates of readmission to the ICU. For length-of-stay outcomes, we performed time-to-event analyses, with data censored at the time of a patient's death or transfer to another ICU.
A total of 1598 patients were included in the analyses. The median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) III score (in which scores range from 0 to 299, with higher scores indicating more severe illness) was 67 (interquartile range, 47 to 91), the median length of stay in the ICU was 52.7 hours (interquartile range, 29.0 to 113.4), and mortality in the ICU was 18%. Patients who were admitted on intervention days were exposed to nighttime intensivists on more nights than were patients admitted on control days (median, 100% of nights [interquartile range, 67 to 100] vs. median, 0% [interquartile range, 0 to 33]; P<0.001). Nonetheless, intensivist staffing on the night of admission did not have a significant effect on the length of stay in the ICU (rate ratio for the time to ICU discharge, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88 to 1.09; P=0.72), ICU mortality (relative risk, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.28), or any other end point. Analyses restricted to patients who were admitted at night showed similar results, as did sensitivity analyses that used different definitions of exposure and outcome.
In an academic medical ICU in the United States, nighttime in-hospital intensivist staffing did not improve patient outcomes. (Funded by University of Pennsylvania Health System and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01434823.).
尽管缺乏其实验证据,越来越多的重症监护病房(ICU)开始采用夜间主治医生配备的做法。
我们在一家学术医疗 ICU 进行了为期 1 年的随机试验,比较了夜间配备院内主治医生(干预组)与夜间由日间主治医生提供电话咨询(对照组)的效果。我们将连续 7 个夜间的患者随机分配到干预组或对照组。主要结局是患者在 ICU 中的停留时间。次要结局是患者在医院、ICU 和院内的死亡率、出院去向以及 ICU 再入院率。对于停留时间的结果,我们进行了时间事件分析,数据在患者死亡或转至另一家 ICU 时进行了删失。
共有 1598 名患者纳入分析。急性生理学和慢性健康评估(APACHE)III 评分中位数(范围为 0 至 299,分数越高表示病情越严重)为 67(四分位距为 47 至 91),ICU 停留时间中位数为 52.7 小时(四分位距为 29.0 至 113.4),ICU 死亡率为 18%。在干预日入院的患者在夜间接受主治医生治疗的天数多于在对照日入院的患者(中位数为 100%[四分位距为 67 至 100]vs. 中位数为 0%[四分位距为 0 至 33];P<0.001)。尽管如此,主治医生在入院当晚的配备对 ICU 停留时间(ICU 出院时间比,0.98;95%置信区间[CI],0.88 至 1.09;P=0.72)、ICU 死亡率(相对风险,1.07;95%CI,0.90 至 1.28)或任何其他终点均无显著影响。对夜间入院患者的分析结果相似,对暴露和结局采用不同定义的敏感性分析结果也相似。
在美国的一家学术医疗 ICU 中,夜间院内主治医生配备并未改善患者结局。(由宾夕法尼亚大学卫生系统及其他机构资助;ClinicalTrials.gov 注册号:NCT01434823。)