0
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 50.19.47.197. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Comment & Response |

Management of Critically Ill Patients The Less Intensive the Treatment, the More Vigilance Demanded

Ata Mahmoodpoor, MD1; Samad E. J. Golzari, MD2
[+] Author Affiliations
1Cardiovascular Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
2Medical Philosophy and History Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(3):477. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.13686.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Extract

To the Editor Intensive treatment strategies in critically ill patients have recently been challenged by Kox and Pickkers,1 who state that the chances of unwanted adverse effects and consequent iatrogenic damages are high and conclude that these patients would probably benefit from a more cautious approach; hence the expression, “less is more, not too intensive in ICU [intensive care unit] management.” The idea, at the first glimpse, is remarkable and worthy of further consideration. However, one should not overlook the fact that the nature of ICU is critical, and any reductions in vigilance, monitoring, and treatment intensity might lead to undesirable poorer outcomes. Lower values do not necessarily equate to less intensity in treatment, as decreasing tidal volume in patients with adult respiratory distress syndrome, fluid intake during resuscitation, and the duration of antibiotic therapy and changing sedation approach from continuous to intermittent would be associated with a more appropriate patient outcome, yet require more cautious and rigorous care and monitoring in critically ill patients. Implementing a high-intensity staffing model has been associated with significant improvements in the length of ICU stay and bed utilization of critically ill patients.2 Furthermore, reducing sedation and its associated consciousness might challenge the patient with undesirable thoughts requiring a narrative on the emotions and awareness throughout the ICU stay to avoid any probable posttraumatic stress disorders, often associated with long-term ICU stay.3 As with the critically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation, high-intensity ICU structures have been reported to be of more favorable mechanical ventilatory outcomes and lower mortality rates.4,5 Critically ill patients require intensive treatment and in case any reductions in the treatment course intensity are intended, further vigilance would be inevitable; hence, the less intensive the treatment strategies, the more vigilant the caring system should be.

Topics

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview

Figures

Tables

References

Correspondence

March 1, 2014
Matthijs Kox, PhD; Peter Pickkers, MD, PhD
1Intensive Care Medicine, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands2Department of Anesthesiology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands3Nijmegen Institute for Infection, Inflammation, and Immunity, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
1Intensive Care Medicine, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands3Nijmegen Institute for Infection, Inflammation, and Immunity, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(3):477-478. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.13682.
CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

298 Views
0 Citations
×

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Jobs
brightcove.createExperiences();