A922 Sequential measurement of 1 hour creatinine clearance (1-CRCL) in critically ill patients at risk of acute kidney injury (AKI)

Meeting abstrac

Amenable mortality revisited: the AMIEHS study

AbstractObjectivesThere is a renewed interest in health system indicators. In 1976 a measure of quality of healthcare, amenable mortality, was introduced by Rutstein. This indicator is based on the concept that deaths from certain causes should not occur in the presence of timely and effective healthcare. In the project “Amenable mortality in the European Union: toward better indicators for the effectiveness of health systems” (AMIEHS), we introduce a new approach to the selection of indicators of amenable mortality.MethodsBased on predefined selection criteria and a broad review of the literature on the effectiveness of medical interventions, a first set of potential indicators of amenable mortality (causes of death) was selected. The timing of the introduction of medical innovations was established through reviews and questionnaires sent to national experts from seven participating European countries. The preselected indicators were then validated by a trend analysis that identified associations between the timing of innovations and cause-specific mortality trends and by a Delphi-procedure.ResultsAfter a short review of previous lists of amenable mortality indicators and a detailed description of the innovative procedure in the AMIEHS project we present a list of 14 causes of death that passed our selection criteria. We illustrate our empirical validation of these indicators using the examples of peptic ulcer and renal failure.ConclusionsThe innovation developed in the AMIEHS study is a rigorous new approach to the concept of amenable mortality that includes empirical validation. Only validated indicators can be successfully used to assess the quality of healthcare systems in international comparisons

Amenable mortality revisited : the AMIEHS study

ObjectivesThere is a renewed interest in health system indicators. In 1976 a measure of quality of healthcare, amenable mortality, was introduced by Rutstein. This indicator is based on the concept that deaths from certain causes should not occur in the presence of timely and effective healthcare. In the project “Amenable mortality in the European Union: toward better indicators for the effectiveness of health systems” (AMIEHS), we introduce a new approach to the selection of indicators of amenable mortality.MethodsBased on predefined selection criteria and a broad review of the literature on the effectiveness of medical interventions, a first set of potential indicators of amenable mortality (causes of death) was selected. The timing of the introduction of medical innovations was established through reviews and questionnaires sent to national experts from seven participating European countries. The preselected indicators were then validated by a trend analysis that identified associations between the timing of innovations and cause-specific mortality trends and by a Delphi-procedure.ResultsAfter a short review of previous lists of amenable mortality indicators and a detailed description of the innovative procedure in the AMIEHS project we present a list of 14 causes of death that passed our selection criteria. We illustrate our empirical validation of these indicators using the examples of peptic ulcer and renal failure.ConclusionsThe innovation developed in the AMIEHS study is a rigorous new approach to the concept of amenable mortality that includes empirical validation. Only validated indicators can be successfully used to assess the quality of healthcare systems in international comparisons.</p

Heterogeneous impact of Sighs on mortality in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: insights from the PROTECTION study

Abstract Background Sigh breaths may impact outcomes in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) during assisted mechanical ventilation. We investigated whether sigh breaths may impact mortality in predefined subgroups of patients enrolled in the PROTECTION multicenter clinical trial according to: 1.the physiological response in oxygenation to Sigh (responders versus non-responders) and 2.the set levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) (High vs. Low-PEEP). If mortality differed between Sigh and No Sigh, we explored physiological daily differences at 7-days. Results Patients were randomized to pressure support ventilation (PSV) with Sigh (Sigh group) versus PSV with no sigh (No Sigh group). (1) Sighs were not associated with differences in 28-day mortality in responders to baseline sigh-test. Contrarily-in non-responders-56 patients were randomized to Sigh (55%) and 28-day mortality was lower with sighs (17%vs.36%, log-rank p = 0.031). (2) In patients with PEEP > 8cmH2O no difference in mortality was observed with sighs. With Low-PEEP, 54 patients were randomized to Sigh (48%). Mortality at 28-day was reduced in patients randomised to sighs (13%vs.31%, log-rank p = 0.021). These findings were robust to multivariable adjustments. Tidal volume, respiratory rate and ventilatory ratio decreased with Sigh as compared with No Sigh at 7-days. Ventilatory ratio was associated with mortality and successful extubation in both non-responders and Low-PEEP. Conclusions Addition of Sigh to PSV could reduce mortality in AHRF non-responder to Sigh and exposed to Low-PEEP. Results in non-responders were not expected. Findings in the low PEEP group may indicate that insufficient PEEP was used or that Low PEEP may be used with Sigh. Sigh may reduce mortality by decreasing physiologic dead space and ventilation intensity and/or optimizing ventilation/perfusion mismatch. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov; Identifier: NCT03201263

ESICM LIVES 2016: part two : Milan, Italy. 1-5 October 2016.

Meeting abstrac