ObjectiveTo explore the prognostic risk factors for patients with gram positive coccus bloodstream infections. MethodsBy retrospective analysis, 93 patients with gram positive coccus bloodstream infections were recruited from the China-Japan Friendship Hospital during January 2013 to April 2015.According to the 28-day survival situation, the patients were divided into a survival group and a death group.The clinical data including basic diseases and invasive operation were collected.Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the risk factors for predicting prognosis. ResultsThe albumin concentration in the death group was lower than that in the survival group (P < 0.05).The D-Dimer concentration, APACHEⅡscores, the percentage of patients with mechanical ventilation, and the percentage of patients with deep venous cannels in the death group were all higher than those in the survival group (P < 0.05).The percentages with diabetes mellitus, surgery, tumor, renal failure in the patients with enterococcus bloodstream infections were much higher than those patients with other gram positive coccus bloodstream infections (P < 0.05), but were not different with those patients with Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection (P > 0.05).The APACHEⅡscore and albumin concentration had statistical significance for predicting the 28-day and 90-day mortality.The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.768 and 0.775.If using APACHEⅡscore > 22.5 as cut off value for predicting death in 28 days, the sensitivity was 70.0%, and the specificity was 81.2%.If Using albumin concentration < 32.5 g/L as a cutoff value for predicting death in 28 days, the sensitivity was 55.3%, and the specificity was 86.7%. The logistic multifactor analysis revealed only the lower albumin concentration was an independent prognostic factor for 28-day mortality of the patients with gram positive coccus bloodstream infections (P < 0.05). ConclusionsThe patients with diabetes mellitus, surgery, tumor, and renal failure need to be cautious of enterococcus bloodstream infection.The low albumin concentration suggests a poor prognosis in patients with gram positive coccus bloodstream infections.
ObjectiveTo investigate and analyze the strategies for choosing venous access devices for critically ill patients. MethodsThe medical staffs in ICU were required to fulfill a questionnaire on the knowledge and application of venous access devices in critically ill patients in May 2015.A descriptive statistical analysis was carried out on the answers generated from the questionnaire using SPSS 19.0 software. ResultsA total of 50 questionnaires were distributed randomly and 46 valid questionnaires were recovered.The effective response rate was 92.0%.The proportion of junior, intermediate and senior medical staffs was 80.4%, 13.0% and 6.6%, respectively.The proportion of doctors and nurses was 39.1% and 60.9%, respectively.The average seniority was (5.7±4.9)years.The proportion of ICU medical staffs who were acquainted with PIV, ACVC, PICC, TCVC, PORT and Midline was 100.0%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 69.6%, 43.5% and 13.0%, respectively.The proportion of ICU medicial staffs who would take the styles of drug, the time of treatment, the patients' condition and the costs into consideration when choosing venous access devices was 100.0%, 100.0%, 64.0% and 18.0%, respectively.91.3% and 39.1% of ICU medical staffs would choose PIV and ACVC respectively if the time of treatment was less than 1 week.56.5%, 69.6% and 26.1% of ICU medical staffs would choose PIV, ACVC and PICC respectively if the time of treatment was between 1 and 4 weeks.30.4%, 39.1%, 82.6% and 32.6% of ICU medical staffs would choose PIV, ACVC, PICC and PORT respectively if the time of treatment was more than 4 weeks.52.2% of ICU medical staffs were acquaint with the styles and the indication of antibiotic coating central venous catheter.The main reasons for infusion failure were poor vascular condition (91.3%), old age (52.2%), skin lesions (39.1%) and pipeline plugging (26.1%).The main reasons for choosing the peripheral vein were lower risk of infection (87.0%), short-term treatment (82.6%), common transfusion (78.3%) and antibiotic treatment (47.8%).The main reasons for choosing central venous infusion were irritant drugs (82.6%), peripheral vascular puncture difficulty (69.6%), long-term infusion (65.2%) and hemodynamic monitor (56.5%). ConclusionsIt is difficult to establish a vascular access for critically ill patients.The ICU medical staffs are experienced to PIV, ACVC and PICC but not to Midline, TCVC and PORT.A comprehensive evaluation is essential to choose a suitable and reliable venous access device for critically ill patients.