Comparing Risk Profiles in Critical Care Patients With Stage 2 and Deep Tissue Pressure Injuries: Exploratory Retrospective Cohort Study
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Understanding hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPrI) etiology is essential for developing effective preventive interventions. Pressure injuries are classified based on the degree of visible tissue damage; the two most commonly identified HAPrI stages in critical care patients are stage 2 and deep tissue injury (DTI). Some experts speculate that stage 2 and DTI have different etiologies, with stage 2 injuries formed from the “outside in” as a result of tissue deformation, decreased perfusion, and subsequent ischemia caused by external pressure and/or shear forces, whereas DTI emerges from the “inside out” due to inadequate perfusion to the deeper tissues causing tissue ischemia. Objective The purpose of this study was to compare risk profiles of intensive care unit (ICU) patients who developed stage 2 injuries versus DTIs. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study to compare the risk profiles of patients in the ICU with stage 2 injuries and DTIs using electronic health record data. Eligible patients were admitted to the surgical or cardiovascular ICU at an academic medical center in the United States between 2014 and 2018. Anatomic locations were examined, and differences in anatomic patterns were compared using the χ2 test. Risk profile variables included demographic characteristics, Braden Scale scores, vasopressor infusions, hypotension, surgical factors, length of stay, BMI, laboratory values, diabetes, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and the levels of sedation or agitation. The distributions of potential risk variables between patients with stage 2 injuries and DTIs were summarized and compared. A logistic regression model with the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator method was developed to identify the critical risk factors for distinguishing stage 2 and DTI patients. Results A total of 244 patients developed a stage 2 injury or DTI during the study period. Of those, 38 patients with medical device–related pressure injury were excluded. The final study sample consisted of 206 patients (n=146 stage 2 and n=60 DTI). Compared with DTIs, stage 2 HAPrIs were more likely to be located on a bony prominence (n=206, χ21=8.43, P=.03). The multivariate model showed that patients who developed stage 2 HAPrIs had a longer length of stay in the ICU than those with DTIs (odds ratio [OR] 1.001, 95% CI 1-1.002, P=.03) but were less likely than patients with DTIs to experience a diastolic blood pressure <50 mmHg (OR 0.179, 95% CI 0.072-0.416, P<.001) or receive an epinephrine infusion (OR 0.316, 95% CI 0.079-0.525, P=.008). Conclusions Stage 2 injuries and DTIs have different risk factors and different anatomic patterns. Patients who developed DTIs were more likely to experience low diastolic blood pressure and receive epinephrine, a potent vasopressor. Stage 2 injuries were more likely to occur on the bony prominences, whereas DTIs commonly occurred on the fleshy parts of the body such as the buttock.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle