Selected article for: "academic emergency department and logistic regression"

Author: Steel, Tessa L.; Giovanni, Shewit P.; Katsandres, Sarah C.; Cohen, Shawn M.; Stephenson, Kevin B.; Murray, Ben; Sobeck, Hillary; Hough, Catherine L.; Bradley, Katharine A.; Williams, Emily C.
Title: Should the CIWA-Ar be the standard monitoring strategy for alcohol withdrawal syndrome in the intensive care unit?
  • Cord-id: yz9d4g35
  • Document date: 2021_3_24
  • ID: yz9d4g35
    Snippet: BACKGROUND: The Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol-Revised (CIWA-Ar) is commonly used in hospitals to titrate medications for alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS), but may be difficult to apply to intensive care unit (ICU) patients who are too sick or otherwise unable to communicate. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the frequency of CIWA-Ar monitoring among ICU patients with AWS and variation in CIWA-Ar monitoring across patient demographic and clinical characteristics. METHODS: The study
    Document: BACKGROUND: The Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol-Revised (CIWA-Ar) is commonly used in hospitals to titrate medications for alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS), but may be difficult to apply to intensive care unit (ICU) patients who are too sick or otherwise unable to communicate. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the frequency of CIWA-Ar monitoring among ICU patients with AWS and variation in CIWA-Ar monitoring across patient demographic and clinical characteristics. METHODS: The study included all adults admitted to an ICU in 2017 after treatment for AWS in the Emergency Department of an academic hospital that standardly uses the CIWA-Ar to assess AWS severity and response to treatment. Demographic and clinical data, including Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) assessments (an alternative measure of agitation/sedation), were obtained via chart review. Associations between patient characteristics and CIWA-Ar monitoring were tested using logistic regression. RESULTS: After treatment for AWS, only 56% (n = 54/97) of ICU patients were evaluated using the CIWA-Ar; 94% of patients had a documented RASS assessment (n = 91/97). Patients were significantly less likely to receive CIWA-Ar monitoring if they were intubated or identified as Black. CONCLUSIONS: CIWA-Ar monitoring was used inconsistently in ICU patients with AWS and completed less often in those who were intubated or identified as Black. These hypothesis-generating findings raise questions about the utility of the CIWA-Ar in ICU settings. Future studies should assess alternative measures for titrating AWS medications in the ICU that do not require verbal responses from patients and further explore the association of race with AWS monitoring.

    Search related documents:
    Co phrase search for related documents
    • absence presence and admission diagnosis: 1, 2, 3, 4
    • absence presence and admission severity: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
    • absence presence and logistic regression: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
    • absence presence and logistic regression model: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
    • absence presence and low likelihood: 1
    • academic hospital and admission diagnosis: 1, 2, 3, 4
    • academic hospital and admission severity: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
    • academic hospital and logistic regression: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
    • academic hospital and logistic regression model: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
    • acute indication and admission severity: 1
    • acute indication and logistic regression: 1
    • addiction associate and logistic regression: 1
    • admission diagnosis and logistic regression: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
    • admission diagnosis and logistic regression model: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
    • admission diagnosis and low likelihood: 1, 2
    • admission severity and logistic regression: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
    • admission severity and logistic regression model: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
    • logistic regression and low likelihood: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10