Background There have been few detailed, in-person interviews and examinations to obtain follow-up data on 5-year outcomes among survivors of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods We evaluated 109 survivors of ARDS at 3, 6, and 12 months and at 2, 3, 4, and 5 years after discharge from the intensive care unit. At each visit, patients were interviewed and examined; underwent pulmonary-function tests, the 6-minute walk test, resting and exercise oximetry, chest imaging, and a quality-of-life evaluation; and reported their use of health care services. Results At 5 years, the median 6-minute walk distance was 436 m (76% of predicted distance) and the Physical Component Score on the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey was 41 (mean norm score matched for age and sex, 50). With respect to this score, younger patients had a greater rate of recovery than older patients, but neither group returned to normal predicted levels of physical function at 5 years. Pulmonary function wa...

Functional disability 5 years after acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Background:Millions of patients are discharged from intensive care units annually. These intensive care survivors and their families frequently report a wide range of impairments in their health status which may last for months and years after hospital discharge.Objectives:To report on a 2-day Socie

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.acutept.org/resource/resmgr/imported/Zanni%20and%20Kho%20COMBINED.pdf

Improving long-term outcomes after discharge from intensive care unit: report from a stakeholders' conference.

ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition in the intensive care unit

Critical care and the global burden of critical illness in adults

Background
Sepsis poses a global threat to millions of lives. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the recognition and management of sepsis and its complications.
Methods
We formed a panel of 60 experts from 22 countries and 11 members of the public. The panel prioritized questions that are relevant to the recognition and management of sepsis and septic shock in adults. New questions and sections were addressed, relative to the previous guidelines. These questions were grouped under 6 subgroups (screening and early treatment, infection, hemodynamics, ventilation, additional therapies, and long-term outcomes and goals of care). With input from the panel and methodologists, professional medical librarians performed the search strategy tailored to either specific questions or a group of relevant questions. A dedicated systematic review team performed screening and data abstraction when indicated. For each question, the methodologists, with input from panel members, summarized the evidence assessed and graded the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The panel generated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice statements. When evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation, the panel was surveyed to generate “in our practice” statements.
Results
The SSC panel issued 93 statements: 15 best practice statements, 15 strong recommendations, and 54 weak recommendations and no recommendation was provided for 9 questions. The recommendations address several important clinical areas related to screening tools, acute resuscitation strategies, management of fluids and vasoactive agents, antimicrobials and diagnostic tests and the use of additional therapies, ventilation management, goals of care, and post sepsis care.
Conclusion
The SSC panel issued evidence-based recommendations to help support key stakeholders caring for adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families.

/pdf/surviving-sepsis-campaign-international-guidelines-for-1trp1tl9am.pdf

Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021.

Objectives To test the hypothesis that nurse led follow-up programmes are effective and cost effective in improving quality of life after discharge from intensive care. Design A pragmatic, non-blinded, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Setting Three UK hospitals (two teaching hospitals and one district general hospital). Participants 286 patients aged ≥18 years were recruited after discharge from intensive care between September 2006 and October 2007. Intervention Nurse led intensive care follow-up programmes versus standard care. Main outcome measure(s) Health related quality of life (measured with the SF-36 questionnaire) at 12 months after randomisation. A cost effectiveness analysis was also performed. Results 286 patients were recruited and 192 completed one year follow-up. At 12 months, there was no evidence of a difference in the SF-36 physical component score (mean 42.0 (SD 10.6) v 40.8 (SD 11.9), effect size 1.1 (95% CI −1.9 to 4.2), P=0.46) or the SF-36 mental component score (effect size 0.4 (−3.0 to 3.7), P=0.83). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes or subgroup analyses. Follow-up programmes were significantly more costly than standard care and are unlikely to be considered cost effective. Conclusions A nurse led intensive care follow-up programme showed no evidence of being effective or cost effective in improving patients’ quality of life in the year after discharge from intensive care. Further work should focus on the roles of early physical rehabilitation, delirium, cognitive dysfunction, and relatives in recovery from critical illness. Intensive care units should review their follow-up programmes in light of these results. Trial registration ISRCTN 24294750

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/339/bmj.b3723.full.pdf

The PRaCTICaL study of nurse led, intensive care follow-up programmes for improving long term outcomes from critical illness: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

S Roughton

Papers

The PRaCTICaL study of nurse led, intensive care follow-up programmes for improving long term outcomes from critical illness: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial