scholarly journals Does delaying discharge from intensive care until after tracheostomy removal affect 30-day mortality? Propensity score matched cohort study

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e037762
Author(s):  
Sarah Vollam ◽  
David A Harrison ◽  
J Duncan Young ◽  
Peter J Watkinson

ObjectiveTo investigate the short-term mortality effect of discharge from an intensive care unit (ICU) with a tracheostomy in place in comparison to delaying discharge until after tracheostomy removal.DesignA propensity score matched cohort study using data from the TracMan study.SettingSeventy-two UK ICUs taking part in the TracMan study, a randomised controlled trial comparing early tracheostomy (within 4 days of critical care admission) with deferred tracheostomy (after 10 days if still indicated).Participants622 patients who underwent a tracheostomy while in the TracMan study between November 2004 and November 2008. 144 patients left ICU with a tracheostomy. 999 days of observation from 294 patients were included in the control pool.InterventionsWe matched patients discharged with a tracheostomy in place 1:1 with patients who remained in an ICU until either their tracheostomy was removed or they died with the tracheostomy in place. Propensity models were developed according to discharge destination, accounting for likely confounding factors.Primary outcome measureThe primary outcome was 30-day mortality from the matching day. For the ‘discharged with a tracheostomy’ group, this was death within 30 days after the discharge day. For the ‘remained in ICU’ group, this was death within 30 days after the matched day.Results22 (15.3%) patients who left ICU with a tracheostomy died within 30 days compared with 26 (18.1%) who remained in ICU (relative risk 0.98, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.23).ConclusionKeeping patients on an ICU to provide tracheostomy care was not found to affect mortality. Tracheostomy presence may indicate a higher risk of mortality due to underlying diseases and conditions rather than posing a risk in itself.The TracMan trial was registered on the ISRCTN database (ISRCTN28588190).

2017 ◽  
Vol 211 (2) ◽  
pp. 95-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia Cooney ◽  
Catherine Jackman ◽  
David Coyle ◽  
Gary O'Reilly

BackgroundDespite the evidence base for computer-assisted cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) in the general population, it has not yet been adapted for use with adults who have an intellectual disability.AimsTo evaluate the utility of a CBT computer game for adults who have an intellectual disability.MethodA 2 × 3 (group × time) randomised controlled trial design was used. Fifty-two adults with mild to moderate intellectual disability and anxiety or depression were randomly allocated to two groups: computerised CBT (cCBT) or psychiatric treatment as usual (TAU), and assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment and 3-month follow-up. Forty-nine participants were included in the final analysis.ResultsA significant group x time interaction was observed on the primary outcome measure of anxiety (Glasgow Anxiety Scale for people with an Intellectual Disability), favouring cCBT over TAU, but not on the primary outcome measure of depression (Glasgow Depression Scale for people with a Learning Disability). A medium effect size for anxiety symptoms was observed at post-treatment and a large effect size was observed after follow-up. Reliability of Change Indices indicated that the intervention produced clinically significant change in the cCBT group in comparison with TAU.ConclusionsAs the first application of cCBT for adults with intellectual disability, this intervention appears to be a useful treatment option to reduce anxiety symptoms in this population.


2021 ◽  
Vol 93 (6) ◽  
pp. AB291-AB292
Author(s):  
Siddharth Agarwal ◽  
Mohammad Alshelleh ◽  
Jamie Scott ◽  
Lovekirat Dhaliwal ◽  
Don C. Codipilly ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document