4.5 Article

Long-term recovery following critical illness in an Australian cohort

期刊

JOURNAL OF INTENSIVE CARE
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s40560-018-0276-x

关键词

Critical illness; Long-term outcomes

资金

  1. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Dora Lush Scholarship
  2. Austin Medical Research Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Almost all data on 5-year outcomes for critical care survivors come from North America and Europe. The aim of this study was to investigate long-term mortality, physical function, psychological outcomes and health-related quality of life in a mixed intensive care unit cohort in Australia. Methods: This longitudinal study evaluated 4- to 5-year outcomes. Physical function (six-minute walk test) and health-related quality of life (Short Form 36 Version 2) were compared to 1-year outcomes and population norms. New psychological data (Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression, Impact of Events Scale) was collected at follow-up. Results: Of the 150 participants, 66 (44%) patients were deceased by follow-up. Fifty-six survivors were included with a mean (SD) age of 64 (14.2). Survivors' mean (SD) six-minute walk distance increased between 1 and 4 to 5 years (465.8 m (148.9) vs. 507.5 m (118.2)) (mean difference = -24.5 m, CI -58.3, 9.2, p = 0.15). Depressive symptoms were low: median (IQR) score of 7.0 (1.0-15.0). The mean level of post-traumatic stress symptoms was low-median (IQR) score of 1.0 (0-11.0)-with only 9 (16%) above the threshold for potentially disordered symptoms. Short-Form 36 Physical and Mental Component Scores did not change between 1 and 4 to 5 years (46.4 (7.9) vs. 46.7 (8.1) and 48.8 (13) vs. 48.8 (11.1)) and were within a standard deviation of normal. Conclusions: Outcomes of critical illness are not uniform across nations. Mortality was increased in this cohort; however, survivors achieved a high level of recovery for physical function and health-related quality of life with low psychological morbidity at follow-up.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据