11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Thirty years of critical care medicine

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Critical care medicine is a relatively young but rapidly evolving specialty. On the occasion of the 30th International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine, we put together some thoughts from a few of the leaders in critical care who have been actively involved in this field over the years. Looking back over the last 30 years, we reflect on areas in which, despite large amounts of research and technological and scientific advances, no major therapeutic breakthroughs have been made. We then look at the process of care and realize that, here, huge progress has been made. Lastly, we suggest how critical care medicine will continue to evolve for the better over the next 30 years.

          Related collections

          Most cited references6

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A protocol of no sedation for critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation: a randomised trial.

          Standard treatment of critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation is continuous sedation. Daily interruption of sedation has a beneficial effect, and in the general intesive care unit of Odense University Hospital, Denmark, standard practice is a protocol of no sedation. We aimed to establish whether duration of mechanical ventilation could be reduced with a protocol of no sedation versus daily interruption of sedation. Of 428 patients assessed for eligibility, we enrolled 140 critically ill adult patients who were undergoing mechanical ventilation and were expected to need ventilation for more than 24 h. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio (unblinded) to receive: no sedation (n=70 patients); or sedation (20 mg/mL propofol for 48 h, 1 mg/mL midazolam thereafter) with daily interruption until awake (n=70, control group). Both groups were treated with bolus doses of morphine (2.5 or 5 mg). The primary outcome was the number of days without mechanical ventilation in a 28-day period, and we also recorded the length of stay in the intensive care unit (from admission to 28 days) and in hospital (from admission to 90 days). Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00466492. 27 patients died or were successfully extubated within 48 h, and, as per our study design, were excluded from the study and statistical analysis. Patients receiving no sedation had significantly more days without ventilation (n=55; mean 13.8 days, SD 11.0) than did those receiving interrupted sedation (n=58; mean 9.6 days, SD 10.0; mean difference 4.2 days, 95% CI 0.3-8.1; p=0.0191). No sedation was also associated with a shorter stay in the intensive care unit (HR 1.86, 95% CI 1.05-3.23; p=0.0316), and, for the first 30 days studied, in hospital (3.57, 1.52-9.09; p=0.0039), than was interrupted sedation. No difference was recorded in the occurrences of accidental extubations, the need for CT or MRI brain scans, or ventilator-associated pneumonia. Agitated delirium was more frequent in the intervention group than in the control group (n=11, 20%vs n=4, 7%; p=0.0400). No sedation of critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation is associated with an increase in days without ventilation. A multicentre study is needed to establish whether this effect can be reproduced in other facilities. Danish Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, the Fund of Danielsen, the Fund of Kirsten Jensa la Cour, and the Fund of Holger og Ruth Hess. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Give your patient a fast hug (at least) once a day.

            To introduce the Fast Hug mnemonic (Feeding, Analgesia, Sedation, Thromboembolic prophylaxis, Head-of-bed elevation, stress Ulcer prevention, and Glucose control) as a means of identifying and checking some of the key aspects in the general care of all critically ill patients. Not applicable. Any intensive care unit at any time. All intensive care unit patients. Dependent on the results of applying the Fast Hug. Not applicable. Application of this simple strategy encourages teamwork and may help improve the quality of care received by our intensive care unit patients.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Multicenter, randomized, controlled trials evaluating mortality in intensive care: doomed to fail?

              To determine how many multicenter, randomized controlled trials have been published that assess mortality as a primary outcome in the adult intensive care unit population, and to evaluate their methodologic quality. A sensitive search strategy for randomized controlled trials was conducted in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and in MedLine using the PubMed interface. All publications of adult, multicenter randomized controlled trials carried out in the intensive care unit, with mortality as a primary outcome, and including >50 patients were selected. Seventy-two randomized controlled trials were retrieved and were classified according to their effect on mortality: beneficial, detrimental, or neutral. Ten of the studies reported a positive impact of the studied intervention on mortality, seven studies reported a detrimental effect of the intervention, and 55 studies showed no effect on mortality. This literature search demonstrates that relatively few of the randomized controlled trials conducted in intensive care units and using mortality as a primary outcome show a beneficial impact of the intervention on the survival of critically ill patients. Methodological limitations of some of the randomized controlled trials may have prevented positive results. Other forms of evidence and end points other than mortality need to be considered when evaluating interventions in critically ill patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Crit Care
                Critical Care
                BioMed Central
                1364-8535
                1466-609X
                2010
                27 May 2010
                27 May 2011
                : 14
                : 3
                : 311
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Intensive Care, Erasme Hospital, Université libre de Bruxelles, Route de Lennik 808, 1070 Bruxelles, Belgium
                [2 ]Department of Intensive Care, University College London, Cruciform Building, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK
                [3 ]Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Regions Hospital, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis/St. Paul, 640 Jackson Street, St. Paul, MN 55101, USA
                [4 ]Department of Intensive Care, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Central, E.P.E., Alameda de Santo António dos Capuchos, 1169-050 Lisbon, Portugal
                [5 ]Division of Pulmonary, Sleep and Critical Care Medicine, Rhode Island Hospital/Brown University, 593 Eddy Street, Providence, RI 02903, USA
                [6 ]Cardiovascular Research Institute and Departments of Medicine and Anesthesia, University of California at San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave., San Francisco, CA 94143-0624, USA
                [7 ]Department of Critical Care Medicine, 606 Scaife Hall, 3550 Terrace Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA
                [8 ]Department of Intensive Care Medicine, St George's Healthcare NHS Trust, Blackshaw Road, London, SW17 0QT, UK
                [9 ]Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, and Department of Medicine, Division of Respirology, University Health Network and Mt Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, 600 University Avenue, Suite 18-206, Toronto, ON, M5G 1X5, Canada
                [10 ]Unit of Critical Care, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College, London, UK, and Adult Intensive Care Unit, Royal Brompton Hospital, Sydney Street, London, SW6 NP, UK
                [11 ]Service de Réanimation Polyvalente de l'hôpital Raymond Poincaré, 104 bd Raymond Poincaré, 92380 Garches, France
                [12 ]Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Chicago Hospitals, 5841 S. Maryland Avenue, MC 6026, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
                Article
                cc8979
                10.1186/cc8979
                2911692
                20550727
                82c5db84-5928-455e-827f-278e2c0785e6
                Copyright ©2010 BioMed Central Ltd
                History
                Categories
                Viewpoint

                Emergency medicine & Trauma
                Emergency medicine & Trauma

                Comments

                Comment on this article