Rylander Christian, Sternley Jesper, Petzold Max, Oras Jonatan
Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University and Uppsala University Hospital, 715 85, Uppsala, Sweden.
School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
J Intensive Care. 2024 Feb 27;12(1):10. doi: 10.1186/s40560-024-00722-6.
Intensive care unit-to-unit transfer due to temporary shortage of beds is increasing in Sweden. Transportation induces practical hazards, and the change of health care provider may prolong the length of stay in intensive care. We previously showed that the risk of death at 90 days did not differ between patients transferred due to a shortage of beds and non-transferred patients with a similar burden of illness in a tertiary intensive care unit. The aim of this study was to widen the analysis to a nation-wide cohort of critically ill patients transferred to another intensive care unit in Sweden due to shortage of intensive care beds.
Retrospective comparison between capacity transferred and non-transferred patients, based on data from the Swedish Intensive Care Registry during a 5-year period before the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients with insufficient data entries or a recurring capacity transfer within 90 days were excluded. To assess the association between capacity transfer and death as well as intensive care stay within 90 days after ICU admission, logistic regression models with step-wise adjustment for SAPS3 score, primary ICD-10 ICU diagnosis and the number of days in the intensive care unit before transfer were applied.
From 161,140 eligible intensive care admissions, 2912 capacity transfers were compared to 135,641 discharges or deaths in the intensive care unit. Ninety days after ICU admission, 28% of transferred and 21% of non-transferred patients were deceased. In the fully adjusted model, capacity transfer was associated with a lower risk of death within 90 days than no transfer; OR (95% CI) 0.71 (0.65-0.69) and the number of days spent in intensive care was longer: 12.4 [95% CI 12.2-12.5] vs 3.3 [3.3-3.3].
Intensive care unit-to-unit transfer due to shortage of bed capacity as compared to no transfer during a 5-year period preceding the COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden was associated with lower risk of death within 90 days but with longer stay in intensive care.
在瑞典,因床位临时短缺而进行的重症监护病房(ICU)之间的转运正在增加。转运会带来实际风险,而且医疗服务提供者的更换可能会延长重症监护的住院时间。我们之前表明,在三级重症监护病房中,因床位短缺而转运的患者与病情负担相似的未转运患者相比,90天的死亡风险并无差异。本研究的目的是将分析范围扩大到瑞典全国范围内因重症监护床位短缺而转至另一重症监护病房的危重症患者队列。
基于新冠疫情大流行前5年期间瑞典重症监护登记处的数据,对转运患者和未转运患者的情况进行回顾性比较。数据录入不完整或在90天内反复进行床位转运的患者被排除。为评估床位转运与死亡以及ICU入院后90天内重症监护住院时间之间的关联,应用了逐步调整SAPS3评分、主要ICD-10 ICU诊断以及转运前在重症监护病房的天数的逻辑回归模型。
在161,140例符合条件的重症监护入院病例中,将2912例床位转运患者与135,641例在重症监护病房出院或死亡的患者进行了比较。ICU入院90天后,28%的转运患者和21%的未转运患者死亡。在完全调整模型中,与未转运相比,床位转运与90天内较低的死亡风险相关;比值比(95%置信区间)为0.71(0.65 - 0.69),且在重症监护病房的住院天数更长:12.4天[95%置信区间12.2 - 12.5] 对比3.3天[3.3 - 3.3]。
在瑞典新冠疫情大流行前的5年期间,因床位容量短缺而进行的重症监护病房之间的转运与未转运相比,90天内死亡风险较低,但在重症监护病房的住院时间更长。