Yoshida Takuo, Shimizu Sayuri, Fushimi Kiyohide, Mihara Takahiro
Department of Health Data Science, Graduate School of Data Science, Yokohama City University, 22-2 Seto, Yokohama, Kanazawa, 236-0027, Japan.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Jikei University School of Medicine, Minato-Ku, 105-8471, Japan.
J Intensive Care. 2024 Dec 19;12(1):52. doi: 10.1186/s40560-024-00766-8.
Patients with severe respiratory failure have high mortality and need various interventions. However, the impact of intensivists on treatment choices, patient outcomes, and optimal intensivist staffing patterns is unknown. In this study, we aimed to evaluate treatments and clinical outcomes for patients at board-certified intensive care training facilities compared with those at non-certified facilities.
This retrospective cohort study used Japan's nationwide in-patient database from 2016 to 2019 and included patients with non-operative severe respiratory failure who required mechanical ventilation for over 4 days. Treatments and in-hospital mortality were compared between board-certified intensive care facilities requiring at least one intensivist and non-certified facilities using propensity score matching.
Of the 66,905 patients in this study, 30,588 were treated at board-certified facilities, and 36,317 were not. The following differed between board-certified and non-certified facilities: propofol (35% vs. 18%), dexmedetomidine (37% vs. 19%), fentanyl (50% vs. 20%), rocuronium (8.5% vs. 2.6%), vecuronium (1.9% vs. 0.6%), noradrenaline (35% vs. 19%), arginine vasopressin (8.1% vs. 2.0%), adrenaline (2.3% vs. 1.0%), dobutamine (8.7% vs. 4.8%), phosphodiesterase inhibitors (1.0% vs. 0.3%), early enteral nutrition (29% vs. 14%), early rehabilitation (34% vs. 30%), renal replace therapy (15% vs. 6.7%), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (1.6% vs. 0.3%), critical care unit admission (74% vs. 30%), dopamine (9.0% vs. 15%), sivelestat (4.1% vs. 7.0%), and high-dose methylprednisolone (13% vs. 15%). After 1:1 propensity score matching, the board-certified group had lower in-hospital mortality than the non-certified group (31% vs. 38%; odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.77; P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses showed greater benefits in the board-certified group for older patients, those who required vasopressors on the first day of mechanical ventilation, and those treated in critical care units.
Board-certified intensive care training facilities implemented several different adjunctive treatments for severe respiratory failure compared to non-board-certified facilities, and board-certified facilities were associated with lower in-hospital mortality. Because various factors may contribute to the outcome, the causal relationship remains uncertain. Further research is warranted to determine how best to strengthen patient outcomes in the critical care system through the certification of intensive care training facilities.
严重呼吸衰竭患者死亡率高,需要多种干预措施。然而,重症医学专家对治疗选择、患者预后以及最佳重症医学专家人员配置模式的影响尚不清楚。在本研究中,我们旨在评估获得委员会认证的重症监护培训机构与未获认证机构中患者的治疗情况和临床结局。
这项回顾性队列研究使用了日本2016年至2019年的全国住院患者数据库,纳入了需要机械通气超过4天的非手术性严重呼吸衰竭患者。使用倾向评分匹配法比较了至少有一名重症医学专家的获得委员会认证的重症监护机构与未获认证机构之间的治疗情况和院内死亡率。
本研究的66905例患者中,30588例在获得委员会认证的机构接受治疗,36317例未在这类机构接受治疗。获得委员会认证与未获认证的机构之间存在以下差异:丙泊酚(35%对18%)、右美托咪定(37%对19%)、芬太尼(50%对20%)、罗库溴铵(8.5%对2.6%)、维库溴铵(1.9%对0.6%)、去甲肾上腺素(35%对19%)、精氨酸加压素(8.1%对2.0%)、肾上腺素(2.3%对1.0%)、多巴酚丁胺(8.7%对4.8%)、磷酸二酯酶抑制剂(1.0%对0.3%)、早期肠内营养(29%对14%)、早期康复(34%对30%)、肾脏替代治疗(15%对6.7%)、体外膜肺氧合(1.6%对0.3%)、重症监护病房入住率(74%对30%)、多巴胺(9.0%对15%)、西维来司他(4.1%对7.0%)以及大剂量甲泼尼龙(13%对15%)。在1:1倾向评分匹配后,获得委员会认证的组院内死亡率低于未获认证的组(31%对38%;比值比,0.75;95%置信区间,0.72 - 0.77;P < 0.001)。亚组分析显示,在老年患者、机械通气第一天需要血管升压药的患者以及在重症监护病房接受治疗的患者中,获得委员会认证的组获益更大。
与未获得委员会认证的机构相比,获得委员会认证的重症监护培训机构对严重呼吸衰竭实施了几种不同的辅助治疗,且获得委员会认证的机构与较低的院内死亡率相关。由于多种因素可能导致这一结果,因果关系仍不确定。有必要进一步研究如何通过重症监护培训机构的认证来最好地改善重症监护系统中的患者结局。