Cargando…

Low Risk Monitoring in Neurocritical Care

Background/Rationale: Patients are admitted to Intensive care units (ICUs) either because they need close monitoring despite a low risk of hospital mortality (LRM group) or to receive ICU specific active treatments (AT group). The characteristics and differential outcomes of LRM patients vs. AT pati...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Becker, Christian D., Bowers, Christian, Chandy, Dipak, Cole, Chad, Schmidt, Meic H., Scurlock, Corey
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6232310/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30459706
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2018.00938
_version_ 1783370384488267776
author Becker, Christian D.
Bowers, Christian
Chandy, Dipak
Cole, Chad
Schmidt, Meic H.
Scurlock, Corey
author_facet Becker, Christian D.
Bowers, Christian
Chandy, Dipak
Cole, Chad
Schmidt, Meic H.
Scurlock, Corey
author_sort Becker, Christian D.
collection PubMed
description Background/Rationale: Patients are admitted to Intensive care units (ICUs) either because they need close monitoring despite a low risk of hospital mortality (LRM group) or to receive ICU specific active treatments (AT group). The characteristics and differential outcomes of LRM patients vs. AT patients in Neurocritical Care Units are poorly understood. Methods: We classified 1,702 patients admitted to our tertiary and quaternary care center Neuroscience-ICU in 2016 and 2017 into LRM vs. AT groups. We compared demographics, admission diagnosis, goal of care status, readmission rates and managing attending specialty extracted from the medical record between groups. Acute Physiology, Age and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IVa risk predictive modeling was used to assess comparative risks for ICU and hospital mortality and length of stay between groups. Results: 56.9% of patients admitted to our Neuroscience-ICU in 2016 and 2017 were classified as LRM, whereas 43.1% of patients were classified as AT. While demographically similar, the groups differed significantly in all risk predictive outcome measures [APACHE IVa scores, actual and predicted ICU and hospital mortality (p < 0.0001 for all metrics)]. The most common admitting diagnosis overall, cerebrovascular accident/stroke, was represented in the LRM and AT groups with similar frequency [24.3 vs. 21.3%, respectively (p = 0.15)], illustrating that further differentiating factors like symptom duration, neurologic status and its dynamic changes and neuro-imaging characteristics determine the indication for active treatment vs. observation. Patients with intracranial hemorrhage/hematoma were significantly more likely to receive active treatments as opposed to having a primary focus on monitoring [13.6 vs. 9.8%, respectively (p = 0.017)]. Conclusion: The majority of patients admitted to our Neuroscience ICU (56.9%) had <10% hospital mortality risk and a focus on monitoring, whereas the remaining 43.1% of patients received active treatments in their first ICU day. LRM Patients exhibited significantly lower APACHE IVa scores, ICU and hospital mortality rates compared to AT patients. Observed-over-expected ICU and hospital mortality ratios were better than predicted by APACHE IVa for low risk monitored patients and close to prediction for actively treated patients, suggesting that at least a subset of LRM patients may safely and more cost effectively be cared for in intermediate level care settings.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6232310
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62323102018-11-20 Low Risk Monitoring in Neurocritical Care Becker, Christian D. Bowers, Christian Chandy, Dipak Cole, Chad Schmidt, Meic H. Scurlock, Corey Front Neurol Neurology Background/Rationale: Patients are admitted to Intensive care units (ICUs) either because they need close monitoring despite a low risk of hospital mortality (LRM group) or to receive ICU specific active treatments (AT group). The characteristics and differential outcomes of LRM patients vs. AT patients in Neurocritical Care Units are poorly understood. Methods: We classified 1,702 patients admitted to our tertiary and quaternary care center Neuroscience-ICU in 2016 and 2017 into LRM vs. AT groups. We compared demographics, admission diagnosis, goal of care status, readmission rates and managing attending specialty extracted from the medical record between groups. Acute Physiology, Age and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IVa risk predictive modeling was used to assess comparative risks for ICU and hospital mortality and length of stay between groups. Results: 56.9% of patients admitted to our Neuroscience-ICU in 2016 and 2017 were classified as LRM, whereas 43.1% of patients were classified as AT. While demographically similar, the groups differed significantly in all risk predictive outcome measures [APACHE IVa scores, actual and predicted ICU and hospital mortality (p < 0.0001 for all metrics)]. The most common admitting diagnosis overall, cerebrovascular accident/stroke, was represented in the LRM and AT groups with similar frequency [24.3 vs. 21.3%, respectively (p = 0.15)], illustrating that further differentiating factors like symptom duration, neurologic status and its dynamic changes and neuro-imaging characteristics determine the indication for active treatment vs. observation. Patients with intracranial hemorrhage/hematoma were significantly more likely to receive active treatments as opposed to having a primary focus on monitoring [13.6 vs. 9.8%, respectively (p = 0.017)]. Conclusion: The majority of patients admitted to our Neuroscience ICU (56.9%) had <10% hospital mortality risk and a focus on monitoring, whereas the remaining 43.1% of patients received active treatments in their first ICU day. LRM Patients exhibited significantly lower APACHE IVa scores, ICU and hospital mortality rates compared to AT patients. Observed-over-expected ICU and hospital mortality ratios were better than predicted by APACHE IVa for low risk monitored patients and close to prediction for actively treated patients, suggesting that at least a subset of LRM patients may safely and more cost effectively be cared for in intermediate level care settings. Frontiers Media S.A. 2018-11-06 /pmc/articles/PMC6232310/ /pubmed/30459706 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2018.00938 Text en Copyright © 2018 Becker, Bowers, Chandy, Cole, Schmidt and Scurlock. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neurology
Becker, Christian D.
Bowers, Christian
Chandy, Dipak
Cole, Chad
Schmidt, Meic H.
Scurlock, Corey
Low Risk Monitoring in Neurocritical Care
title Low Risk Monitoring in Neurocritical Care
title_full Low Risk Monitoring in Neurocritical Care
title_fullStr Low Risk Monitoring in Neurocritical Care
title_full_unstemmed Low Risk Monitoring in Neurocritical Care
title_short Low Risk Monitoring in Neurocritical Care
title_sort low risk monitoring in neurocritical care
topic Neurology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6232310/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30459706
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2018.00938
work_keys_str_mv AT beckerchristiand lowriskmonitoringinneurocriticalcare
AT bowerschristian lowriskmonitoringinneurocriticalcare
AT chandydipak lowriskmonitoringinneurocriticalcare
AT colechad lowriskmonitoringinneurocriticalcare
AT schmidtmeich lowriskmonitoringinneurocriticalcare
AT scurlockcorey lowriskmonitoringinneurocriticalcare