• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

应用全球触发工具确定入住普通及新冠肺炎重症监护病房的成年患者药物不良反应的发生率。

Application of global trigger tool to determine the prevalence of adverse drug reactions in adult patients admitted to general and COVID-19 intensive care units.

作者信息

de Souza Rafael Nogueira, Visacri Marília Berlofa, Trotta Fabiana Bragança Albanese, Ventura Deise de Souza, Perroud Mauricio Wesley, Moriel Patrícia

机构信息

School of Medical Sciences (FCM), Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.

Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences (FCF), Universidade de São Paulo (USP), Sao Paulo, Brazil.

出版信息

Front Pharmacol. 2025 May 20;16:1514942. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2025.1514942. eCollection 2025.

DOI:10.3389/fphar.2025.1514942
PMID:40463907
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12129966/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The primary aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in adult patients admitted to a general adult intensive care unit (G-ICU) and a COVID-19 adult intensive care unit (C19-ICU). The secondary aims were to characterize patients in both ICUs; identify factors associated with the occurrence of ADRs; assess the performance of triggers in detecting ADRs; describe ADRs in terms of severity, mechanism, causality, and suspected drugs; and compare the trigger tool methodology with spontaneous reporting.

METHODS

This was a descriptive and retrospective study involving the application of triggers adapted from the Global Trigger Tool to identify ADRs through the analysis of physical and electronic medical records, medical prescriptions, and laboratory test results of adult patients admitted to the G-ICU and C19-ICU of a tertiary hospital in Sumaré (HES), São Paulo, Brazil, from January 2020 to December 2020. The patients were characterized by sex, age, length of stay, clinical outcome (discharge or death), and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores. The performance of triggers in detecting ADRs was determined by calculating positive predictive value (PPV). ADRs were characterized by severity, mechanism, causality, and suspected drugs. The 2020 spontaneous reporting database at the HES was analyzed, and ADRs from the ICUs were identified.

RESULTS

The study evaluated 135 patients (56.3% from the G-ICU and 43.7% from the C19-ICU), with a predominance of males (54.8%) and a mean age of 61.0 ± 15.1 years. The mean hospital stay was 13.0 ± 11.0 days, the average SOFA score throughout hospitalization was 8.4 ± 3.8, and the ICU mortality rate was 69.6%. Of the 135 admitted patients, 55 (40.7%) presented with at least one ADR, of which 31 (52.5%) were admitted to the C19-ICU. The length of hospitalization was associated with the presence of ADR in both ICUs studied and age only in the C19-ICU. Additionally, patients admitted to the C19-ICU had a 2.4 times higher risk of developing ADRs. A total of 85 ADRs were identified, 65 (76.5%) of which occurred through triggers. The triggers with the best performance in detecting ADRs, with a PPV of 100%, were "Partial Thromboplastin Time >50," "Skin Rash," "Protamine," and "Hydroxyzine." Most ADRs were moderate (56.5%), Type A (96.5%), and classified as possible (64.7%). Insulin was the drug most frequently associated with ADRs, with 22 occurrences. Only five ADRs in ICU patients were spontaneously reported in 2020.

CONCLUSION

Of all the patients, 40.7% experienced at least one ADR during hospitalization. The number of ADRs identified by the trigger tool was significantly higher than those reported spontaneously. This demonstrates that using triggers to investigate ADRs is an effective method to significantly enhance an institution's pharmacovigilance actions.

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fe8f/12129966/d4ba5a7a6111/fphar-16-1514942-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fe8f/12129966/d4ba5a7a6111/fphar-16-1514942-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fe8f/12129966/d4ba5a7a6111/fphar-16-1514942-g001.jpg
摘要

目的

本研究的主要目的是确定入住成人综合重症监护病房(G-ICU)和新冠成人重症监护病房(C19-ICU)的成年患者中药物不良反应(ADR)的发生率。次要目的是对两个重症监护病房的患者进行特征描述;确定与ADR发生相关的因素;评估触发因素在检测ADR方面的性能;从严重程度、机制、因果关系和可疑药物方面描述ADR;并将触发工具方法与自发报告进行比较。

方法

这是一项描述性回顾性研究,涉及应用从全球触发工具改编而来的触发因素,通过分析巴西圣保罗苏马雷市一家三级医院(HES)2020年1月至2020年12月入住G-ICU和C19-ICU的成年患者的纸质和电子病历、医疗处方及实验室检查结果来识别ADR。患者的特征包括性别、年龄、住院时间、临床结局(出院或死亡)以及序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)评分。通过计算阳性预测值(PPV)来确定触发因素在检测ADR方面的性能。ADR按严重程度、机制、因果关系和可疑药物进行特征描述。对HES 2020年的自发报告数据库进行分析,并识别重症监护病房的ADR。

结果

该研究评估了135例患者(56.3%来自G-ICU,43.7%来自C19-ICU),男性占多数(54.8%),平均年龄为61.0±15.1岁。平均住院时间为13.0±11.0天,住院期间平均SOFA评分为8.4±3.8,重症监护病房死亡率为69.6%。在135例入院患者中,55例(40.7%)出现至少一种ADR,其中31例(52.5%)入住C19-ICU。住院时间与两个研究的重症监护病房中ADR的存在相关,而年龄仅与C19-ICU中的ADR相关。此外,入住C19-ICU的患者发生ADR的风险高2.4倍。共识别出85例ADR,其中65例(76.5%)通过触发因素发现。在检测ADR方面性能最佳、PPV为100%的触发因素是“部分凝血活酶时间>50”、“皮疹 ”、“鱼精蛋白”和“羟嗪”。大多数ADR为中度(56.5%)、A型(96.5%),并归类为可能(64.7%)。胰岛素是与ADR最常相关的药物,出现22次。2020年重症监护病房患者中仅自发报告了5例ADR。

结论

在所有患者中,40.7%在住院期间经历了至少一种ADR。触发工具识别出的ADR数量明显高于自发报告的数量。这表明使用触发因素调查ADR是显著加强机构药物警戒行动的有效方法。

相似文献

1
Application of global trigger tool to determine the prevalence of adverse drug reactions in adult patients admitted to general and COVID-19 intensive care units.应用全球触发工具确定入住普通及新冠肺炎重症监护病房的成年患者药物不良反应的发生率。
Front Pharmacol. 2025 May 20;16:1514942. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2025.1514942. eCollection 2025.
2
Prediction of adverse drug reactions in geriatric patients admitted to intensive care units.预测老年患者入住重症监护病房的药物不良反应。
Farm Hosp. 2024 Nov-Dec;48(6):286-289. doi: 10.1016/j.farma.2024.03.004. Epub 2024 May 1.
3
Performance of a trigger tool for detecting adverse drug reactions in patients with polypharmacy acutely admitted to the geriatric ward.用于检测老年病房急性住院多药治疗患者药物不良反应的触发工具的性能。
Eur Geriatr Med. 2022 Aug;13(4):837-847. doi: 10.1007/s41999-022-00649-x. Epub 2022 May 30.
4
Global Trigger Tool: Proficient Adverse Drug Reaction Autodetection Method in Critical Care Patient Units.全球触发工具:重症监护病房中熟练的药物不良反应自动检测方法
Indian J Crit Care Med. 2020 Mar;24(3):172-178. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-23367.
5
An evaluation of trigger tool method for adverse drug reaction monitoring at a tertiary care teaching hospital.一家三级护理教学医院对用于药物不良反应监测的触发工具方法的评估。
Indian J Pharmacol. 2022 Jan-Feb;54(1):19-23. doi: 10.4103/ijp.ijp_764_20.
6
Incidence and Severity of Adverse Drug Reactions in Medical Intensive Care Unit.医疗重症监护病房药物不良反应的发生率和严重程度。
Curr Drug Saf. 2024;19(3):332-341. doi: 10.2174/1574886318666230816090606.
7
Frequency, types, severity, preventability and costs of Adverse Drug Reactions at a tertiary care hospital.一家三级护理医院的药品不良反应的发生率、类型、严重程度、可预防性及成本
J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods. 2016 Sep-Oct;81:323-34. doi: 10.1016/j.vascn.2016.04.011. Epub 2016 Apr 20.
8
A Retrospective Observational Study of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) Reported to ADR Monitoring Centre from 2010 to 2020.一项关于2010年至2020年向药品不良反应监测中心报告的药品不良反应(ADR)的回顾性观察研究。
Curr Drug Saf. 2025;20(3):349-360. doi: 10.2174/0115748863317987241015034413.
9
Use of Text Searching for Trigger Words in Medical Records to Identify Adverse Drug Reactions within an Intensive Care Unit Discharge Summary.利用文本搜索重症监护病房出院小结中的触发词来识别药物不良反应
Appl Clin Inform. 2016 Jul 13;7(3):660-71. doi: 10.4338/ACI-2016-03-RA-0031.
10
Adverse Drug Reactions in Corona Virus Disease Patients Admitted to Intensive Care Unit: An Observational Study.《重症监护病房收治的新型冠状病毒病患者的药物不良反应:一项观察性研究》。
Curr Drug Saf. 2023;18(2):202-206. doi: 10.2174/1574886317666220513095618.

本文引用的文献

1
Assessing glycemic variability in critically ill patients: A prospective cohort study comparing insulin infusion therapy with insulin sliding scale.评估危重症患者的血糖变异性:一项比较胰岛素输注治疗与胰岛素滴注疗法的前瞻性队列研究。
Sci Rep. 2024 May 2;14(1):10128. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-57403-5.
2
Validity of the total SOFA score in patients ≥ 80 years old acutely admitted to intensive care units: a post-hoc analysis of the VIP2 prospective, international cohort study.入住重症监护病房的80岁及以上急性入院患者中序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)总分的有效性:VIP2前瞻性国际队列研究的事后分析
Ann Intensive Care. 2023 Oct 5;13(1):98. doi: 10.1186/s13613-023-01191-0.
3
Prospective evaluation of bleeding risk among thrombocytopenic patients admitted in intensive care unit.
血小板减少症患者入住重症监护病房的出血风险前瞻性评估。
J Crit Care. 2024 Feb;79:154405. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2023.154405. Epub 2023 Aug 31.
4
Clinical and economic impact of adverse drug reactions in hospitalised patients: prospective matched nested case-control study in Ethiopia.在院患者药物不良反应的临床和经济影响:埃塞俄比亚前瞻性匹配巢式病例对照研究。
BMJ Open. 2023 Jun 6;13(6):e073777. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073777.
5
Factors Associated with Underreporting of Adverse Drug Reactions by Health Care Professionals: A Systematic Review Update.与医疗保健专业人员报告药物不良反应不足相关的因素:系统评价更新。
Drug Saf. 2023 Jul;46(7):625-636. doi: 10.1007/s40264-023-01302-7. Epub 2023 Jun 6.
6
Insulin therapy associated relative hypoglycemia during critical illness.危重病患者胰岛素治疗相关的相对性低血糖症。
J Crit Care. 2022 Aug;70:154018. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2022.154018. Epub 2022 Apr 5.
7
Hypoglycemia and mortality in sepsis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.脓毒症患者低血糖与死亡率:系统评价与荟萃分析。
Heart Lung. 2021 Nov-Dec;50(6):933-940. doi: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2021.07.017. Epub 2021 Aug 22.
8
Adverse drug reactions in patients with COVID-19 in Brazil: analysis of spontaneous notifications of the Brazilian pharmacovigilance system.巴西 COVID-19 患者的药物不良反应:巴西药物警戒系统自发报告分析。
Cad Saude Publica. 2021 Jan 22;37(1):e00245820. doi: 10.1590/0102-311X00245820. eCollection 2021.
9
Thrombocytopenia in intensive care unit patients: A scoping review.重症监护病房患者血小板减少症:范围综述。
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2021 Jan;65(1):2-14. doi: 10.1111/aas.13699. Epub 2020 Sep 28.
10
Global Trigger Tool: Proficient Adverse Drug Reaction Autodetection Method in Critical Care Patient Units.全球触发工具:重症监护病房中熟练的药物不良反应自动检测方法
Indian J Crit Care Med. 2020 Mar;24(3):172-178. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-23367.