Introduction There is considerable uncertainty about the reproducibility of the various instruments used to measure dyspnea, their ability to reflect changes in symptoms, whether they accurately reflect the patient's experience and if its evolution is similar between acute heart failure syndrome patients and nonacute heart failure syndrome patients.URGENT was a prospective multicenter trial designed to address these issues.Methods Patients were interviewed within 1 hour of first physician evaluation, in the emergency department or acute care setting, with dyspnea assessed by the patient using both a five-point Likert scale and a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) in the sitting (60º) and then supine (20º) position if dyspnea had not been considered severe or very severe by the sitting versus decubitus dyspnea measurement.Results Very good agreements were found between the five-point Likert and VAS at baseline (0.891, P <0.0001) and between changes (from baseline to hour 6) in the five-point Likert and in VAS (0.800, P <0.0001) in acute heart failure (AHF) patients.Lower agreements were found when changes from baseline to H6 measured by Likert or VAS were compared with the seven-point comparative Likert (0.512 and 0.500 respectively) in AHF patients.The worse the dyspnea at admission, the greater the amplitude of improvement in the first 6 hours; this relationship is stronger when dyspnea is measured with VAS (Spearman's rho coefficient = 0.672) than with the five-point Likert (0.272) (both P <0.0001) in AHF patients.By the five-point Likert, only nine patients (3% (1% to 5%)) reported an improvement in their dyspnea, 177 (51% (46% to 57%)) had no change, and 159 (46% (41% to 52%)) reported worse dyspnea supine compared with sitting up in AHF patients.The PDA test with VAS was markedly different between AHF and non-AHF patients.Conclusions Both clinical tools five-point Likert and VAS showed very good agreement at baseline and between changes from baseline to tests performed 6 hours later in AHF patients.The PDA test with VAS was markedly different between AHF and non-AHF patients.Dyspnea is improved within 6 hours in more than threequarters of the patients regardless of the tool used to measure the change in dyspnea.The greater the dyspnea at admission, the greater the amplitude of improvement in the first 6 hours. P2

BACKGROUND:Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a major complication in intensive care units (ICU) but dedicated guidelines on its management are still lacking.OBJECTIVES AND METHODS:This study investigated the effect of a 1-year educational program for the implementation of DVT prophylaxis on the incidence of inferior limb DVT in a mixed-bed ICU that admits high-risk surgical and trauma patients, investigated during a first retrospective phase [126 patients, SAPS II score 42 (28-54)] and a following prospective phase [264 patients, SAPS II score II 41 (27-55)]. The role of baseline and time-dependent DVT risk factors in DVT occurrence was also investigated during the prospective phase.RESULTS:The educational program on implementation of DVT prophylaxis was associated with a significant decrease in DVT incidence from 11.9% to 4.5% (P < 0.01) and in the mean length of ICU stay (P < 0.01). Combined with pharmacological prophylaxis, the use of elastic compressive stockings significantly also increased in the prospective phase (P < 0.01). The duration of mechanical ventilation, vasopressor administration and neuromuscular block were significantly different between DVT-positive and DVT-negative patients (P < 0.01). Multivariate analysis identified neuromuscular block as the strongest independent predictor for DVT incidence.CONCLUSION:One-year ICU-based educational programs on implementation of DVT prophylaxis were associated with a significant decrease in the incidence of DVT and also in the length of stay in ICU.

Critically ill patients have a high risk of deep venous thrombosis (DVT); however, data about prevalence and specific risk factors in the ICU are conflicting and the prophylaxis strategies are still debated. The aim of this study is to evaluate the prevalence and risk factors in an ICU dealing with trauma and major surgery patients.