Schell Carl Otto, Kayambankadzanja Raphael Kazidule, Beane Abi, Wellhagen Andreas, Kodippily Chamira, Hvarfner Anna, Banda Grace, Jegathesan Nalayini, Hintze Christoffer, Wijesiriwardana Wageesha, Gerdin Wärnberg Martin, Sujeewa Jayasingha Arachchilage, Kachingwe Mtisunge, Bjurling-Sjöberg Petronella, Mbingwani Isaac, Kalibwe Mkandawire Annie, Sjöstedt Hampus, Kumwenda-Mwafulirwa Wezzie, Rajendra Surenthirakumaran, Dzinjalamala Odala Kamandani, Lundborg Cecilia Stalsby, Mndolo Kwazizira Samson, Lipcsey Miklós, Haniffa Rashan, Kurland Lisa, Castegren Markus, Baker Tim
Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
Centre for Clinical Research Sörmland, Uppsala University, Eskilstuna, Sweden.
BMJ Glob Health. 2025 Mar 25;10(3):e017119. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2024-017119.
The burden of critical illness may have been underestimated. Previous analyses have used data from intensive care units (ICUs) only, and there is a lack of evidence about where in hospitals critically ill patients receive care. This study aims to determine the burden of critical illness among adult inpatients across hospitals in different global settings.
We performed a prospective, observational, hospital-based, point prevalence and cohort study in countries of different socioeconomic levels: Malawi, Sri Lanka and Sweden. On specific days, all adult in-patients in the eight study hospitals were examined by the study team for the presence of critical illness and followed up for hospital mortality. Patients with at least one severely deranged vital sign were classified as critically ill. The primary outcomes were the presence of critical illness and 30-day hospital mortality. In addition, we determined where the critically ill patients were being cared for and the association between critical illness and 30-day hospital mortality.
Among 3652 hospitalised patients, we found a point prevalence of critical illness of 12.0% (95% CI 11.0 to 13.1), with a hospital mortality of 18.7% (95% CI 15.3 to 22.6). The crude OR of death of critically ill patients compared with non-critically ill patients was 7.5 (95% CI 5.4 to 10.2). Of the critically ill patients, 96.1% (95% CI 93.9 to 97.6) were cared for in the general wards outside ICUs.
The study has revealed a substantial burden of critical illness in hospitals from different global settings. One in eight hospital in-patients was critically ill, 19% of the critically ill died in hospital, and 96% of the critically ill patients were cared for outside of ICUs. Implementing the most feasible and low-cost critical care in general wards throughout hospitals would impact a large number of high-risk patients and has the potential to improve outcomes across all acute care specialties.
危重病的负担可能被低估了。以往的分析仅使用了重症监护病房(ICU)的数据,而且缺乏关于危重病患者在医院何处接受治疗的证据。本研究旨在确定不同全球环境下各医院成年住院患者中危重病的负担。
我们在不同社会经济水平的国家(马拉维、斯里兰卡和瑞典)开展了一项前瞻性、观察性、基于医院的现患率和队列研究。在特定日期,研究团队对八家研究医院的所有成年住院患者进行检查,以确定是否存在危重病,并对医院死亡率进行随访。至少有一项生命体征严重紊乱的患者被归类为危重病患者。主要结局是危重病的存在情况和30天医院死亡率。此外,我们还确定了危重病患者的治疗地点以及危重病与30天医院死亡率之间的关联。
在3652名住院患者中,我们发现危重病的现患率为12.0%(95%可信区间11.0至13.1),医院死亡率为18.7%(95%可信区间15.3至22.6)。与非危重病患者相比,危重病患者的粗死亡比值比为7.5(95%可信区间5.4至10.2)。在危重病患者中,96.1%(95%可信区间93.9至97.6)在ICU以外的普通病房接受治疗。
该研究揭示了不同全球环境下医院中危重病的巨大负担。八分之一的住院患者患有危重病,19%的危重病患者在医院死亡,96%的危重病患者在ICU以外接受治疗。在医院的普通病房实施最可行且低成本的重症监护将影响大量高危患者,并有可能改善所有急性护理专科的治疗效果。