Patients with psychogenic non-epileptic attacks (PNEA) sometimes receive aggressive treatment leading to endotracheal intubation. We sought to identify the frequency, risk factors, and impact on outcome of intubation for PNEA. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all PNEA patients admitted via the emergency department (ED) who had an episode of PNEA documented by continuous video electroencephalography (vEEG) at Henry Ford Hospital between January 2012 and October 2017. Patients with comorbid epilepsy were excluded. Clinical features, treatments, and vEEG reports were compared between intubated and non-intubated patients. Results: Of 80 patients who were admitted via the ED and had PNEA documented by vEEG, 12 (15%) were intubated. Compared with non-intubated PNEA patients, intubated patients had longer duration of convulsive symptoms vs 2 [IQR 1-9] minutes, P = 0.01), were less likely to have a normal Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15 (33% vs 94%, P < 0.001), received higher doses of benzodiazepines (30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45) vs 10 [IQR 5-20] mg of diazepam equivalents, P = 0.004), and were treated with more antiepileptic drugs (AEDs, 2 [IQR 1-3] vs 1 [IQR 1-2], P = 0.01). Hospital length of stay was longer (3)(4)(5) vs 2 [IQR 2-3], P = 0.001), and the rate of complications (25% vs 4%, P = 0.04) and re-hospitalization from a recurrent episode of PNEA within 30 days was higher among intubated PNEA patients (17% vs 0%, P = 0.02). Conclusion: Fifteen percent of patients hospitalized for vEEG-documented PNEA were intubated. Intubated patients had longer length of stay, more in-hospital complications, and a high rate of re-hospitalization from recurrent PNEA symptoms. Prolonged duration of convulsive symptoms, depressed level of consciousness, and aggressive treatment with benzodiazepines were associated with intubation for PNEA.
Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a potentially life-threatening complication among critically ill patients. Neurocritical care patients are presumed to be at high risk for VTE; however, data regarding risk factors in this population are limited. We designed this study to evaluate the frequency, risk factors, and clinical impact of VTE in neurocritical care patients. Methods: We obtained data from the electronic medical record of all adult patients admitted to neurological intensive care unit (NICU) at Henry Ford Hospital between January 2015 and March 2018. Venous thromboembolism was defined as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or both diagnosed by Doppler, chest computed tomography (CT) angiography or ventilation–perfusion scan >24 hours after admission. Patients with ICU length of stay <24 hours or who received therapeutic anticoagulants or were diagnosed with VTE within 24 hours of admission were excluded. Results: Among 2188 consecutive NICU patients, 63 (2.9%) developed VTE. Prophylactic anticoagulant use was similar in patients with and without VTE (95% vs 92%; P = .482). Venous thromboembolism was associated with higher mortality (24% vs 13%, P = .019), and longer ICU (12 [interquartile range, IQR 5-23] vs 3 [IQR 2-8] days, P < .001) and hospital (22 [IQR 15-36] vs 8 [IQR 5-15] days, P < .001) length of stay. In a multivariable analysis, potentially modifiable predictors of VTE included central venous catheterization (odds ratio [OR] 3.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.69-5.38; P < .001) and longer duration of immobilization (Braden activity score <3, OR 1.07 per day; 95% CI, 1.05-1.09; P < .001). Nonmodifiable predictors included higher International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) scores (which accounts for age >60, prior VTE, cancer and thrombophilia; OR 1.66; 95% CI, 1.40-1.97; P < .001) and body mass index (OR 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08; P = .007). Conclusions: Despite chemoprophylaxis, VTE still occurred in 2.9% of neurocritical care patients. Longer duration of immobilization and central venous catheterization are potentially modifiable risk factors for VTE in critically ill neurological patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.