4.6 Article

Jaundice in critical illness: promoting factors of a concealed reality

期刊

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 32, 期 2, 页码 267-274

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-005-0023-3

关键词

hepato-splanchnic haemodynamic; ICU jaundice; liver dysfunction; PEEP; sepsis; shock

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective:In critical illness, liver dysfunction (LD) is associated with a poor outcome independently of other organ dysfunctions. Since strategies to support liver function are not available, a timely and accurate identification of factors promoting LD may lead to prevention or attenuation of its consequences. The aim of this study was to assess risk factors for LD in critically ill patients. Design:Prospective, observational study.Setting: A multidisciplinary intensive care unit (ICU) of a university hospital.Patients: All patients consecutively admitted over a 6-month period. Intervention: None. Measurements and results: LD was defined as serum bilirubin levels >= 2 mg/dl and lasting for at least 48 h. Out of 283 patients, 141 matched inclusion criteria. Forty-four patients (31.2%) showed LD (LD group), while 97 (68.8%) were included in control group (C group). A binomial analysis showed that LD occurrence was associated with moderate (odds ratio [OR] 3.11; p = 0.04) and severe shock (OR 3.46; p = 0.05), sepsis (OR 3.03; p = 0.04), PEEP ventilation (OR 4.25; p = 0.006), major surgery (OR 4.03; p = 0.03), and gram-negative infections (OR 3.94; p = 0.002). In stepwise multivariate analysis, the single independent predictive factors of LD resulted in severe shock (p = 0.002), sepsis (p = 0.03), PEEP ventilation (p = 0.04), and major surgery (p = 0.05).Conclusions:In critically ill patients jaundice is common, and severe shock states, sepsis, mechanical ventilation with PEEP and major surgery are critical risk factors for its onset. Since there is no specific treatment, prompt resuscitation, treatment of sepsis and meticulous supportive care will likely reduce its incidence and severity.

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

4.6
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