A retrospective, multicenter study of the efficacy of lapatinib plus trastuzumab in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients previously treated with trastuzumab, lapatinib, or both: the Trastyvere study

[Purpose]: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lapatinib (L) and trastuzumab (T) combination in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients previously treated with T and/or L.[Materials and methods]: We conducted a retrospective, post-authorized, multicenter study including patients with HER2-positive MBC or locally advanced breast cancer (ABC) treated with the combination of L–T. Concomitant endocrine therapy, as well as brain metastasis and/or prior exposure to L, were allowed.[Results]: One hundred and fifteen patients from 14 institutions were included. The median age was 59.8 years. The median number of prior T regimens in the advanced setting was 3 and 73 patients had received a prior L regimen. The clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 34.8% (95% CI 26.1–43.5). Among other efficacy endpoints, the overall response rate was 21.7%, and median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were 3.9 and 21.6 months, respectively. Heavily pretreated and ≥ 3 metastatic organ patients showed lower CBR and PFS than patients with a low number of previous regimens and < 3 metastatic organs. Moreover, CBR did not significantly change in L-pretreated compared with L-naïve patients (31.5% versus 40.5% for L-pretreated versus L-naïve). Grade 3/4 adverse events were reported in 19 patients (16.5%).[Conclusion]: The combination of L–T is an effective and well-tolerated regimen in heavily pretreated patients and remains active among patients progressing on prior L-based therapy. Our study suggests that the L–T regimen is a safe and active chemotherapy-free option for MBC patients previously treated with T and/or L.This work was supported by GlaxoSmithKline plc (GSK) through a contract with Medica Scientia Innovation Research (MedSIR), an academic research organization focused on independent clinical research development

Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, ventilation management, and outcomes in invasively ventilated intensive care unit patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a pooled analysis of four observational studies

Background: Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, the practice of ventilation, and outcome in invasively ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain unexplored. In this analysis we aim to address these gaps using individual patient data of four large observational studies. Methods: In this pooled analysis we harmonised individual patient data from the ERICC, LUNG SAFE, PRoVENT, and PRoVENT-iMiC prospective observational studies, which were conducted from June, 2011, to December, 2018, in 534 ICUs in 54 countries. We used the 2016 World Bank classification to define two geoeconomic regions: middle-income countries (MICs) and high-income countries (HICs). ARDS was defined according to the Berlin criteria. Descriptive statistics were used to compare patients in MICs versus HICs. The primary outcome was the use of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) for the first 3 days of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were key ventilation parameters (tidal volume size, positive end-expiratory pressure, fraction of inspired oxygen, peak pressure, plateau pressure, driving pressure, and respiratory rate), patient characteristics, the risk for and actual development of acute respiratory distress syndrome after the first day of ventilation, duration of ventilation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality. Findings: Of the 7608 patients included in the original studies, this analysis included 3852 patients without ARDS, of whom 2345 were from MICs and 1507 were from HICs. Patients in MICs were younger, shorter and with a slightly lower body-mass index, more often had diabetes and active cancer, but less often chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure than patients from HICs. Sequential organ failure assessment scores were similar in MICs and HICs. Use of LTVV in MICs and HICs was comparable (42\ub74% vs 44\ub72%; absolute difference \u20131\ub769 [\u20139\ub758 to 6\ub711] p=0\ub767; data available in 3174 [82%] of 3852 patients). The median applied positive end expiratory pressure was lower in MICs than in HICs (5 [IQR 5\u20138] vs 6 [5\u20138] cm H2O; p=0\ub70011). ICU mortality was higher in MICs than in HICs (30\ub75% vs 19\ub79%; p=0\ub70004; adjusted effect 16\ub741% [95% CI 9\ub752\u201323\ub752]; p&lt;0\ub70001) and was inversely associated with gross domestic product (adjusted odds ratio for a US$10 000 increase per capita 0\ub780 [95% CI 0\ub775\u20130\ub786]; p&lt;0\ub70001). Interpretation: Despite similar disease severity and ventilation management, ICU mortality in patients without ARDS is higher in MICs than in HICs, with a strong association with country-level economic status. Funding: No funding

Spontaneous Breathing in Early Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Insights From the Large Observational Study to UNderstand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory FailurE Study

OBJECTIVES: To describe the characteristics and outcomes of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome with or without spontaneous breathing and to investigate whether the effects of spontaneous breathing on outcome depend on acute respiratory distress syndrome severity. DESIGN: Planned secondary analysis of a prospective, observational, multicentre cohort study. SETTING: International sample of 459 ICUs from 50 countries. PATIENTS: Patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and at least 2 days of invasive mechanical ventilation and available data for the mode of mechanical ventilation and respiratory rate for the 2 first days. INTERVENTIONS: Analysis of patients with and without spontaneous breathing, defined by the mode of mechanical ventilation and by actual respiratory rate compared with set respiratory rate during the first 48 hours of mechanical ventilation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Spontaneous breathing was present in 67% of patients with mild acute respiratory distress syndrome, 58% of patients with moderate acute respiratory distress syndrome, and 46% of patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Patients with spontaneous breathing were older and had lower acute respiratory distress syndrome severity, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores, ICU and hospital mortality, and were less likely to be diagnosed with acute respiratory distress syndrome by clinicians. In adjusted analysis, spontaneous breathing during the first 2 days was not associated with an effect on ICU or hospital mortality (33% vs 37%; odds ratio, 1.18 [0.92-1.51]; p = 0.19 and 37% vs 41%; odds ratio, 1.18 [0.93-1.50]; p = 0.196, respectively ). Spontaneous breathing was associated with increased ventilator-free days (13 [0-22] vs 8 [0-20]; p = 0.014) and shorter duration of ICU stay (11 [6-20] vs 12 [7-22]; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Spontaneous breathing is common in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome during the first 48 hours of mechanical ventilation. Spontaneous breathing is not associated with worse outcomes and may hasten liberation from the ventilator and from ICU. Although these results support the use of spontaneous breathing in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome independent of acute respiratory distress syndrome severity, the use of controlled ventilation indicates a bias toward use in patients with higher disease severity. In addition, because the lack of reliable data on inspiratory effort in our study, prospective studies incorporating the magnitude of inspiratory effort and adjusting for all potential severity confounders are required

Identifying associations between diabetes and acute respiratory distress syndrome in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: an analysis of the LUNG SAFE database

Background: Diabetes mellitus is a common co-existing disease in the critically ill. Diabetes mellitus may reduce the risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but data from previous studies are conflicting. The objective of this study was to evaluate associations between pre-existing diabetes mellitus and ARDS in critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). Methods: An ancillary analysis of a global, multi-centre prospective observational study (LUNG SAFE) was undertaken. LUNG SAFE evaluated all patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) over a 4-week period, that required mechanical ventilation and met AHRF criteria. Patients who had their AHRF fully explained by cardiac failure were excluded. Important clinical characteristics were included in a stepwise selection approach (forward and backward selection combined with a significance level of 0.05) to identify a set of independent variables associated with having ARDS at any time, developing ARDS (defined as ARDS occurring after day 2 from meeting AHRF criteria) and with hospital mortality. Furthermore, propensity score analysis was undertaken to account for the differences in baseline characteristics between patients with and without diabetes mellitus, and the association between diabetes mellitus and outcomes of interest was assessed on matched samples. Results: Of the 4107 patients with AHRF included in this study, 3022 (73.6%) patients fulfilled ARDS criteria at admission or developed ARDS during their ICU stay. Diabetes mellitus was a pre-existing co-morbidity in 913 patients (22.2% of patients with AHRF). In multivariable analysis, there was no association between diabetes mellitus and having ARDS (OR 0.93 (0.78-1.11); p = 0.39), developing ARDS late (OR 0.79 (0.54-1.15); p = 0.22), or hospital mortality in patients with ARDS (1.15 (0.93-1.42); p = 0.19). In a matched sample of patients, there was no association between diabetes mellitus and outcomes of interest. Conclusions: In a large, global observational study of patients with AHRF, no association was found between diabetes mellitus and having ARDS, developing ARDS, or outcomes from ARDS. Trial registration: NCT02010073. Registered on 12 December 2013

Epidemiology and patterns of tracheostomy practice in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in ICUs across 50 countries

Background: To better understand the epidemiology and patterns of tracheostomy practice for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), we investigated the current usage of tracheostomy in patients with ARDS recruited into the Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG-SAFE) study. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of LUNG-SAFE, an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients receiving invasive or noninvasive ventilation in 50 countries spanning 5 continents. The study was carried out over 4 weeks consecutively in the winter of 2014, and 459 ICUs participated. We evaluated the clinical characteristics, management and outcomes of patients that received tracheostomy, in the cohort of patients that developed ARDS on day 1-2 of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, and in a subsequent propensity-matched cohort. Results: Of the 2377 patients with ARDS that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 309 (13.0%) underwent tracheostomy during their ICU stay. Patients from high-income European countries (n = 198/1263) more frequently underwent tracheostomy compared to patients from non-European high-income countries (n = 63/649) or patients from middle-income countries (n = 48/465). Only 86/309 (27.8%) underwent tracheostomy on or before day 7, while the median timing of tracheostomy was 14 (Q1-Q3, 7-21) days after onset of ARDS. In the subsample matched by propensity score, ICU and hospital stay were longer in patients with tracheostomy. While patients with tracheostomy had the highest survival probability, there was no difference in 60-day or 90-day mortality in either the patient subgroup that survived for at least 5 days in ICU, or in the propensity-matched subsample. Conclusions: Most patients that receive tracheostomy do so after the first week of critical illness. Tracheostomy may prolong patient survival but does not reduce 60-day or 90-day mortality. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02010073. Registered on 12 December 2013

New insights into the genetic etiology of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias

Characterization of the genetic landscape of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias (ADD) provides a unique opportunity for a better understanding of the associated pathophysiological processes. We performed a two-stage genome-wide association study totaling 111,326 clinically diagnosed/'proxy' AD cases and 677,663 controls. We found 75 risk loci, of which 42 were new at the time of analysis. Pathway enrichment analyses confirmed the involvement of amyloid/tau pathways and highlighted microglia implication. Gene prioritization in the new loci identified 31 genes that were suggestive of new genetically associated processes, including the tumor necrosis factor alpha pathway through the linear ubiquitin chain assembly complex. We also built a new genetic risk score associated with the risk of future AD/dementia or progression from mild cognitive impairment to AD/dementia. The improvement in prediction led to a 1.6- to 1.9-fold increase in AD risk from the lowest to the highest decile, in addition to effects of age and the APOE ε4 allele

Hyperoxemia and excess oxygen use in early acute respiratory distress syndrome : Insights from the LUNG SAFE study

Publisher Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s). Copyright: Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.Background: Concerns exist regarding the prevalence and impact of unnecessary oxygen use in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We examined this issue in patients with ARDS enrolled in the Large observational study to UNderstand the Global impact of Severe Acute respiratory FailurE (LUNG SAFE) study. Methods: In this secondary analysis of the LUNG SAFE study, we wished to determine the prevalence and the outcomes associated with hyperoxemia on day 1, sustained hyperoxemia, and excessive oxygen use in patients with early ARDS. Patients who fulfilled criteria of ARDS on day 1 and day 2 of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure were categorized based on the presence of hyperoxemia (PaO2 > 100 mmHg) on day 1, sustained (i.e., present on day 1 and day 2) hyperoxemia, or excessive oxygen use (FIO2 ≥ 0.60 during hyperoxemia). Results: Of 2005 patients that met the inclusion criteria, 131 (6.5%) were hypoxemic (PaO2 < 55 mmHg), 607 (30%) had hyperoxemia on day 1, and 250 (12%) had sustained hyperoxemia. Excess FIO2 use occurred in 400 (66%) out of 607 patients with hyperoxemia. Excess FIO2 use decreased from day 1 to day 2 of ARDS, with most hyperoxemic patients on day 2 receiving relatively low FIO2. Multivariate analyses found no independent relationship between day 1 hyperoxemia, sustained hyperoxemia, or excess FIO2 use and adverse clinical outcomes. Mortality was 42% in patients with excess FIO2 use, compared to 39% in a propensity-matched sample of normoxemic (PaO2 55-100 mmHg) patients (P = 0.47). Conclusions: Hyperoxemia and excess oxygen use are both prevalent in early ARDS but are most often non-sustained. No relationship was found between hyperoxemia or excessive oxygen use and patient outcome in this cohort. Trial registration: LUNG-SAFE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02010073publishersversionPeer reviewe

XLVIII Coloquio Argentino de Estadística. VI Jornada de Educación Estadística Martha Aliaga Modalidad virtual

Esta publicación es una compilación de las actividades realizadas en el marco del XLVIII Coloquio Argentino de Estadística y la VI Jornada de Educación Estadística Martha Aliaga organizada por la Sociedad Argentina de Estadística y la Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Se presenta un resumen para cada uno de los talleres, cursos realizados, ponencias y poster presentados. Para los dos últimos se dispone de un hipervínculo que direcciona a la presentación del trabajo. Ellos obedecen a distintas temáticas de la estadística con una sesión especial destinada a la aplicación de modelos y análisis de datos sobre COVID-19.Fil: Saino, Martín. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Stimolo, María Inés. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Ortiz, Pablo. Universidad Nacional de córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Guardiola, Mariana. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Aguirre, Alberto Frank Lázaro. Universidade Federal de Alfenas. Departamento de Estatística. Instituto de Ciências Exatas; Brasil.Fil: Alves Nogueira, Denismar. Universidade Federal de Alfenas. Departamento de Estatística. Instituto de Ciências Exatas; Brasil.Fil: Beijo, Luiz Alberto. Universidade Federal de Alfenas. Departamento de Estatística. Instituto de Ciências Exatas; Brasil.Fil: Solis, Juan Manuel. Universidad Nacional de Jujuy. Centro de Estudios en Bioestadística, Bioinformática y Agromática; Argentina.Fil: Alabar, Fabio. Universidad Nacional de Jujuy. Centro de Estudios en Bioestadística, Bioinformática y Agromática; Argentina.Fil: Ruiz, Sebastián León. Universidad Nacional de Jujuy. Centro de Estudios en Bioestadística, Bioinformática y Agromática; Argentina.Fil: Hurtado, Rafael. Universidad Nacional de Jujuy; Argentina.Fil: Alegría Jiménez, Alfredo. Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María. Departamento de Matemática; Chile.Fil: Emery, Xavier. Universidad de Chile. Departamento de Ingeniería en Minas; Chile.Fil: Emery, Xavier. Universidad de Chile. Advanced Mining Technology Center; Chile.Fil: Álvarez-Vaz, Ramón. Universidad de la República. Instituto de Estadística. Departamento de Métodos Cuantitativos; Uruguay.Fil: Massa, Fernando. Universidad de la República. Instituto de Estadística. Departamento de Métodos Cuantitativos; Uruguay.Fil: Vernazza, Elena. Universidad de la República. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y de Administración. Instituto de Estadística; Uruguay.Fil: Lezcano, Mikaela. Universidad de la República. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y de Administración. Instituto de Estadística; Uruguay.Fil: Urruticoechea, Alar. Universidad Católica del Uruguay. Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud. Departamento de Neurocognición; Uruguay.Fil: del Callejo Canal, Diana. Universidad Veracruzana. Instituto de Investigación de Estudios Superiores, Económicos y Sociales; México.Fil: Canal Martínez, Margarita. Universidad Veracruzana. Instituto de Investigación de Estudios Superiores, Económicos y Sociales; México.Fil: Ruggia, Ornela. CONICET; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias. Departamento de desarrollo rural; Argentina.Fil: Tolosa, Leticia Eva. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba; Argentina. Universidad Católica de Córdoba; Argentina.Fil: Rojo, María Paula. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba; Argentina.Fil: Nicolas, María Claudia. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba; Argentina. Universidad Católica de Córdoba; Argentina.Fil: Barbaroy, Tomás. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba; Argentina.Fil: Villarreal, Fernanda. CONICET, Universidad Nacional del Sur. Instituto de Matemática de Bahía Blanca (INMABB); Argentina.Fil: Pisani, María Virginia. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Matemática; Argentina.Fil: Quintana, Alicia. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Matemática; Argentina.Fil: Elorza, María Eugenia. CONICET. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales del Sur; Argentina.Fil: Peretti, Gianluca. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Buzzi, Sergio Martín. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Departamento de Estadística y Matemática; Argentina.Fil: Settecase, Eugenia. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadísticas. Instituto de Investigaciones Teóricas y Aplicadas en Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Settecase, Eugenia. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. Leslie Research Facility; Australia.Fil: Paccapelo, María Valeria. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. Leslie Research Facility; Australia.Fil: Cuesta, Cristina. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadísticas. Instituto de Investigaciones Teóricas y Aplicadas en Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Saenz, José Luis. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina.Fil: Luna, Silvia. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina.Fil: Paredes, Paula. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina.Fil: Maglione, Dora. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina.Fil: Rosas, Juan E. Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA); Uruguay.Fil: Pérez de Vida, Fernando. Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA); Uruguay.Fil: Marella, Muzio. Sociedad Anónima Molinos Arroceros Nacionales (SAMAN); Uruguay.Fil: Berberian, Natalia. Universidad de la República. Facultad de Agronomía; Uruguay.Fil: Ponce, Daniela. Universidad Estadual Paulista. Facultad de Medicina; Brasil.Fil: Silveira, Liciana Vaz de A. Universidad Estadual Paulista; Brasil.Fil: Freitas Galletti, Agda Jessica de. Universidad Estadual Paulista; Brasil.Fil: Bellassai, Juan Carlos. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Centro de Investigación y Estudios de Matemáticas (CIEM-Conicet); Argentina.Fil: Pappaterra, María Lucía. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Centro de Investigación y Estudios de Matemáticas (CIEM-Conicet); Argentina.Fil: Ojeda, Silvia María. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Matemática, Astronomía, Física y Computación; Argentina.Fil: Ascua, Melina Belén. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Roldán, Dana Agustina. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Rodi, Ayrton Luis. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Ventre, Giuliana. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: González, Agustina. Universidad Nacional de Rio Cuarto. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físico-Químicas y Naturales. Departamento de Matemática; Argentina.Fil: Palacio, Gabriela. Universidad Nacional de Rio Cuarto. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físico-Químicas y Naturales. Departamento de Matemática; Argentina.Fil: Bigolin, Sabina. Universidad Nacional de Rio Cuarto. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físico-Químicas y Naturales. Departamento de Matemática; Argentina.Fil: Ferrero, Susana. Universidad Nacional de Rio Cuarto. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físico-Químicas y Naturales. Departamento de Matemática; Argentina.Fil: Del Medico, Ana Paula. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Agrarias de Rosario (IICAR); Argentina.Fil: Pratta, Guillermo. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Agrarias de Rosario (IICAR); Argentina.Fil: Tenaglia, Gerardo. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Instituto de Investigación y Desarrollo Tecnológico para la Agricultura Familiar; Argentina.Fil: Lavalle, Andrea. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Departamento de Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Demaio, Alejo. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Hernández, Paz. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Di Palma, Fabricio. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Calizaya, Pablo. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Avalis, Francisca. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Caro, Norma Patricia. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Caro, Norma Patricia. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Fernícola, Marcela. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica; Argentina.Fil: Nuñez, Myriam. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica; Argentina.Fil: Dundray, , Fabián. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica; Argentina.Fil: Calviño, Amalia. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Química y Metabolismo del Fármaco. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Farfán Machaca, Yheni. Universidad Nacional de San Antonio Abad del Cusco. Departamento Académico de Matemáticas y Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Paucar, Guillermo. Universidad Nacional de San Antonio Abad del Cusco. Departamento Académico de Matemáticas y Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Coaquira, Frida. Universidad Nacional de San Antonio Abad del Cusco. Escuela de posgrado UNSAAC; Argentina.Fil: Ferreri, Noemí M. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Ingeniería y Agrimensura; Argentina.Fil: Pascaner, Melina. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Ingeniería y Agrimensura; Argentina.Fil: Martinez, Facundo. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Ingeniería y Agrimensura; Argentina.Fil: Bossolasco, María Luisa. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo; Argentina.Fil: Bortolotto, Eugenia B. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Centro de Estudios Fotosintéticos y Bioquímicos (CEFOBI); Argentina.Fil: Bortolotto, Eugenia B. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Faviere, Gabriela S. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Centro de Estudios Fotosintéticos y Bioquímicos (CEFOBI); Argentina.Fil: Faviere, Gabriela S. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Angelini, Julia. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Centro de Estudios Fotosintéticos y Bioquímicos (CEFOBI); Argentina.Fil: Angelini, Julia. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Cervigni, Gerardo. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Centro de Estudios Fotosintéticos y Bioquímicos (CEFOBI); Argentina.Fil: Cervigni, Gerardo. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Valentini, Gabriel. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria INTA San Pedro; Argentina.Fil: Chiapella, Luciana C.. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Bioquímicas y Farmacéuticas; Argentina.Fil: Chiapella, Luciana C. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET); Argentina.Fil: Grendas, Leandro. Universidad Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Farmacología; Argentina.Fil: Daray, Federico. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET); Argentina.Fil: Daray, Federico. Universidad Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Farmacología; Argentina.Fil: Leal, Danilo. Universidad Andrés Bello. Facultad de Ingeniería; Chile.Fil: Nicolis, Orietta. Universidad Andrés Bello. Facultad de Ingeniería; Chile.Fil: Bonadies, María Eugenia. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica; Argentina.Fil: Ponteville, Christiane. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica; Argentina.Fil: Catalano, Mara. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Ingeniería y Agrimensura; Argentina.Fil: Catalano, Mara. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Ingeniería y Agrimensura; Argentina.Fil: Dillon, Justina. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Ingeniería y Agrimensura; Argentina.Fil: Carnevali, Graciela H. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Ingeniería y Agrimensura; Argentina.Fil: Justo, Claudio Eduardo. Universidad Nacional de la Plata. Facultad de Ingeniería. Departamento de Agrimensura. Grupo de Aplicaciones Matemáticas y Estadísticas (UIDET); Argentina.Fil: Iglesias, Maximiliano. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Instituto de Estadística y Demografía; Argentina.Fil: Gómez, Pablo Sebastián. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Sociales. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Real, Ariel Hernán. Universidad Nacional de Luján. Departamento de Ciencias Básicas; Argentina.Fil: Vargas, Silvia Lorena. Universidad Nacional de Luján. Departamento de Ciencias Básicas; Argentina.Fil: López Calcagno, Yanil. Universidad Nacional de Luján. Departamento de Ciencias Básicas; Argentina.Fil: Batto, Mabel. Universidad Nacional de Luján. Departamento de Ciencias Básicas; Argentina.Fil: Sampaolesi, Edgardo. Universidad Nacional de Luján. Departamento de Ciencias Básicas; Argentina.Fil: Tealdi, Juan Manuel. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Buzzi, Sergio Martín. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Departamento de Estadística y Matemática; Argentina.Fil: García Bazán, Gaspar. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Monroy Caicedo, Xiomara Alejandra. Universidad Nacional de Rosario; Argentina.Fil: Bermúdez Rubio, Dagoberto. Universidad Santo Tomás. Facultad de Estadística; Colombia.Fil: Ricci, Lila. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Centro Marplatense de Investigaciones Matemáticas; Argentina.Fil: Kelmansky, Diana Mabel. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Cálculo; Argentina.Fil: Rapelli, Cecilia. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadística. Escuela de Estadística. Instituto de Investigaciones Teóricas y Aplicadas de la Escuela de Estadística; Argentina.Fil: García, María del Carmen. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadística. Escuela de Estadística. Instituto de Investigaciones Teóricas y Aplicadas de la Escuela de Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Bussi, Javier. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadística. Instituto de Investigaciones Teóricas y Aplicadas de la Escuela de Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Méndez, Fernanda. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadística. Instituto de Investigaciones Teóricas y Aplicadas de la Escuela de Estadística (IITAE); Argentina.Fil: García Mata, Luis Ángel. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Facultad de Estudios Superiores Acatlán; México.Fil: Ramírez González, Marco Antonio. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Facultad de Estudios Superiores Acatlán; México.Fil: Rossi, Laura. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Vicente, Gonzalo. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina. Universidad Pública de Navarra. Departamento de Estadística, Informática y Matemáticas; España.Fil: Scavino, Marco. Universidad de la República. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y de Administración. Instituto de Estadística; Uruguay.Fil: Estragó, Virginia. Presidencia de la República. Comisión Honoraria para la Salud Cardiovascular; Uruguay.Fil: Muñoz, Matías. Presidencia de la República. Comisión Honoraria para la Salud Cardiovascular; Uruguay.Fil: Castrillejo, Andrés. Universidad de la República. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y de Administración. Instituto de Estadística; Uruguay.Fil: Da Rocha, Naila Camila. Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho- UNESP. Departamento de Bioestadística; BrasilFil: Macola Pacheco Barbosa, Abner. Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho- UNESP; Brasil.Fil: Corrente, José Eduardo. Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho – UNESP. Instituto de Biociencias. Departamento de Bioestadística; Brasil.Fil: Spataro, Javier. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Departamento de Economía; Argentina.Fil: Salvatierra, Luca Mauricio. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Nahas, Estefanía. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Márquez, Viviana. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Boggio, Gabriela. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadística. Instituto de Investigaciones Teóricas y Aplicadas de la Escuela de Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Arnesi, Nora. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadística. Instituto de Investigaciones Teóricas y Aplicadas de la Escuela de Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Harvey, Guillermina. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadística. Instituto de Investigaciones Teóricas y Aplicadas de la Escuela de Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Settecase, Eugenia. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadística. Instituto de Investigaciones Teóricas y Aplicadas de la Escuela de Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Wojdyla, Daniel. Duke University. Duke Clinical Research Institute; Estados Unidos.Fil: Blasco, Manuel. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Instituto de Economía y Finanzas; Argentina.Fil: Stanecka, Nancy. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Instituto de Estadística y Demografía; Argentina.Fil: Caro, Valentina. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Instituto de Estadística y Demografía; Argentina.Fil: Sigal, Facundo. Universidad Austral. Facultad de Ciencias Empresariales. Departamento de Economía; Argentina.Fil: Blacona, María Teresa. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadística. Escuela de Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Rodriguez, Norberto Vicente. Universidad Nacional de Tres de Febrero; Argentina.Fil: Loiacono, Karina Valeria. Universidad Nacional de Tres de Febrero; Argentina.Fil: García, Gregorio. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos. Dirección Nacional de Metodología Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Ciardullo, Emanuel. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos. Dirección Nacional de Metodología Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Ciardullo, Emanuel. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos. Dirección Nacional de Metodología Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Funkner, Sofía. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales; Argentina.Fil: Dieser, María Paula. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales; Argentina.Fil: Martín, María Cristina. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales; Argentina.Fil: Martín, María Cristina. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Matemática; Argentina.Fil: Peitton, Lucas. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadística; Argentina. Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries; Australia.Fil: Borgognone, María Gabriela. Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries; Australia.Fil: Terreno, Dante D. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Departamento de Contabilidad; Argentina.Fil: Castro González, Enrique L. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Departamento de Contabilidad; Argentina.Fil: Roldán, Janina Micaela. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales; Argentina.Fil: González, Gisela Paula. CONICET. Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales del Sur; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur; Argentina.Fil: De Santis, Mariana. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Geri, Milva. CONICET. Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales del Sur; Argentina.Fil: Geri, Milva. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Economía; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Matemática; Argentina.Fil: Marfia, Martín. Universidad Nacional de la Plata. Facultad de Ingeniería. Departamento de Ciencias Básicas; Argentina.Fil: Kudraszow, Nadia L. Universidad Nacional de la Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas. Centro de Matemática de La Plata; Argentina.Fil: Closas, Humberto. Universidad Tecnológica Nacional; Argentina.Fil: Amarilla, Mariela. Universidad Tecnológica Nacional; Argentina.Fil: Jovanovich, Carina. Universidad Tecnológica Nacional; Argentina.Fil: de Castro, Idalia. Universidad Nacional del Nordeste; Argentina.Fil: Franchini, Noelia. Universidad Nacional del Nordeste; Argentina.Fil: Cruz, Rosa. Universidad Nacional del Nordeste; Argentina.Fil: Dusicka, Alicia. Universidad Nacional del Nordeste; Argentina.Fil: Quaglino, Marta. Universidad Nacional de Rosario; Argentina.Fil: Kalauz, Roberto José Andrés. Investigador Independiente; Argentina.Fil: González, Mariana Verónica. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Departamento de Estadística y Matemáticas; Argentina.Fil: Lescano, Maira Celeste.

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat