RNCohortInternational journal of nursing sciences2021

Risk factors for prolonged intensive care unit stays in patients after cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass: A retrospective observational study.

Xueying Zhang, Wenxia Zhang, Hongyu Lou and 5 others

PMID 34631988

WHAT IT FOUND

137 of 395 patients stayed longer than 72 hours after heart surgery with bypass.

Oxygenation index within 6 hours, arrhythmias, prolonged mechanical ventilation, and non-invasive assisted ventilation were linked to longer ICU stays.

Key findings

01137 of 395 patients (34.7%) had a prolonged ICU stay longer than 72 hours.

02Non-invasive assisted ventilation use had the strongest reported association with prolonged ICU stay.

03Prolonged mechanical ventilation, oxygenation index within 6 hours after surgery, postoperative atrial arrhythmia, and postoperative ventricular arrhythmia were also independently associated with prolonged ICU stay.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

This was retrospective, so it cannot prove that any factor caused a longer ICU stay. It was done in a single urban tertiary hospital in China, so other settings may differ. Patients who died within 72 hours were excluded, so early deaths are not represented. Only coronary bypass and valve surgery were included, not other cardiac surgeries with cardiopulmonary bypass. The authors note potential omitted risk factors and a relatively small sample.

Declared interests

Funded by the Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province, China, grant number 20160910. The authors declared no conflict of interest.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read these factors as proof that changing ventilation, oxygenation, or rhythm management will shorten ICU stays. This was a single-centre retrospective study, so it shows associations, not cause and effect.

Read it on PubMed →