Department of Intensive Care, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; School of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Department of Intensive Care, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Resuscitation. 2018 Dec;133:167-172. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2018.10.012. Epub 2018 Oct 11.
Common blood tests can help identify patients at risk of death, unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admission, or rapid response team (RRT) call. We aimed to test whether early ICU-team review triggered by such laboratory tests (lab alert) is feasible, safe, and can alter physiological variables, clinical management, and clinical outcomes.
In prospective pilot randomized controlled trial in surgical wards of a tertiary hospital, we studied patients admitted for >24 h. We applied a previously validated risk assessment tool to each set of common laboratory tests to identify patients at risk and generate a "lab-alert". We randomly allocated such lab-alert patients to receive early ICU-team review (intervention) or usual care (control).
We studied 205 patients (males 54.1%; average age 79 years; 103 randomized to intervention and 102 to usual care). Intervention patients were more likely to trigger RRT activation during their first lab-alert (10.7 vs. 2.0%; P < 0.001) but less likely to receive an allied health referral (18.0% vs. 24.5%; p = 0.007). They were less likely to trigger RRT activation in the 24-h before subsequent alerts (18.4 vs. 22.4%; p = 0.008) and less likely to generate further alerts (204 vs. 320; p < 0.001), but more likely to receive a not for resuscitation or endotracheal intubation status in the 24-h before subsequent alerts (26.6 vs. 17.3%; p = 0.05). Mortality at 24 h was 1.9% for the intervention group vs. 2.9% in the control group (p = 0.63). Finally, overall mortality was 19.4% for intervention patients vs. 23.5% for control patients (p = 0.50).
Among surgical patients, lab alerts identify patients with a high mortality. Lab alert-triggered interventions are associated with more first alert-associated RRT activations; more changes in resuscitation status toward a more conservative approach; fewer subsequent alert-associated RRT activations; fewer subsequent alerts, and decreased allied health interventions (ANZCTRN12615000146594).
常规血液检测有助于识别有死亡风险、计划外入住重症监护病房(ICU)或需要快速反应小组(RRT)的患者。我们旨在检验由这些实验室检测(实验室警报)触发的早期 ICU 团队审查是否可行、安全,并能改变生理变量、临床管理和临床结局。
在一家三级医院的外科病房进行的前瞻性试点随机对照试验中,我们研究了入住超过 24 小时的患者。我们应用了一种经过验证的风险评估工具来评估每一组常规实验室检测,以识别有风险的患者并生成“实验室警报”。我们将这些实验室警报患者随机分配到接受早期 ICU 团队审查(干预组)或常规护理(对照组)。
我们研究了 205 名患者(男性占 54.1%;平均年龄 79 岁;103 名随机分配到干预组,102 名分到对照组)。干预组患者在首次实验室警报期间更有可能触发 RRT 激活(10.7%比 2.0%;P<0.001),但不太可能接受辅助医疗转介(18.0%比 24.5%;p=0.007)。他们在随后的警报前 24 小时内不太可能触发 RRT 激活(18.4%比 22.4%;p=0.008),也不太可能产生更多的警报(204 比 320;p<0.001),但在随后的警报前 24 小时内更有可能获得不复苏或气管插管状态(26.6%比 17.3%;p=0.05)。干预组在 24 小时内的死亡率为 1.9%,对照组为 2.9%(p=0.63)。最后,干预组的总死亡率为 19.4%,对照组为 23.5%(p=0.50)。
在外科患者中,实验室警报可识别出死亡率较高的患者。实验室警报触发的干预措施与更多首次警报相关的 RRT 激活相关;复苏状态向更保守的方法转变的变化更多;随后的警报相关的 RRT 激活减少;随后的警报减少,辅助医疗干预减少(ANZCTRN12615000146594)。