18 research outputs found

    Recovery of dialysis patients with COVID-19 : health outcomes 3 months after diagnosis in ERACODA

    Get PDF
    Background. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related short-term mortality is high in dialysis patients, but longer-term outcomes are largely unknown. We therefore assessed patient recovery in a large cohort of dialysis patients 3 months after their COVID-19 diagnosis. Methods. We analyzed data on dialysis patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from 1 February 2020 to 31 March 2021 from the European Renal Association COVID-19 Database (ERACODA). The outcomes studied were patient survival, residence and functional and mental health status (estimated by their treating physician) 3 months after COVID-19 diagnosis. Complete follow-up data were available for 854 surviving patients. Patient characteristics associated with recovery were analyzed using logistic regression. Results. In 2449 hemodialysis patients (mean ± SD age 67.5 ± 14.4 years, 62% male), survival probabilities at 3 months after COVID-19 diagnosis were 90% for nonhospitalized patients (n = 1087), 73% for patients admitted to the hospital but not to an intensive care unit (ICU) (n = 1165) and 40% for those admitted to an ICU (n = 197). Patient survival hardly decreased between 28 days and 3 months after COVID-19 diagnosis. At 3 months, 87% functioned at their pre-existent functional and 94% at their pre-existent mental level. Only few of the surviving patients were still admitted to the hospital (0.8-6.3%) or a nursing home (∌5%). A higher age and frailty score at presentation and ICU admission were associated with worse functional outcome. Conclusions. Mortality between 28 days and 3 months after COVID-19 diagnosis was low and the majority of patients who survived COVID-19 recovered to their pre-existent functional and mental health level at 3 months after diagnosis

    Variation in neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury: A survey in 68 centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study

    Get PDF
    Background Neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is challenging, with only low-quality evidence. We aimed to explore differences in neurosurgical strategies for TBI across Europe. Methods A survey was sent to 68 centers participating in the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. The questionnaire contained 21 questions, including the decision when to operate (or not) on traumatic acute subdural hematoma (ASDH) and intracerebral hematoma (ICH), and when to perform a decompressive craniectomy (DC) in raised intracranial pressure (ICP). Results The survey was completed by 68 centers (100%). On average, 10 neurosurgeons work in each trauma center. In all centers, a neurosurgeon was available within 30 min. Forty percent of responders reported a thickness or volume threshold for evacuation of an ASDH. Most responders (78%) decide on a primary DC in evacuating an ASDH during the operation, when swelling is present. For ICH, 3% would perform an evacuation directly to prevent secondary deterioration and 66% only in case of clinical deterioration. Most respondents (91%) reported to consider a DC for refractory high ICP. The reported cut-off ICP for DC in refractory high ICP, however, differed: 60% uses 25 mmHg, 18% 30 mmHg, and 17% 20 mmHg. Treatment strategies varied substantially between regions, specifically for the threshold for ASDH surgery and DC for refractory raised ICP. Also within center variation was present: 31% reported variation within the hospital for inserting an ICP monitor and 43% for evacuating mass lesions. Conclusion Despite a homogeneous organization, considerable practice variation exists of neurosurgical strategies for TBI in Europe. These results provide an incentive for comparative effectiveness research to determine elements of effective neurosurgical care

    Variation in neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury

    Get PDF
    Background: Neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is challenging, with only low-quality evidence. We aimed to explore differences in neurosurgical strategies for TBI across Europe. Methods: A survey was sent to 68 centers participating in the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. The questionnaire contained 21 questions, including the decision when to operate (or not) on traumatic acute subdural hematoma (ASDH) and intracerebral hematoma (ICH), and when to perform a decompressive craniectomy (DC) in raised intracranial pressure (ICP). Results: The survey was completed by 68 centers (100%). On average, 10 neurosurgeons work in each trauma center. In all centers, a neurosurgeon was available within 30 min. Forty percent of responders reported a thickness or volume threshold for evacuation of an ASDH. Most responders (78%) decide on a primary DC in evacuating an ASDH during the operation, when swelling is present. For ICH, 3% would perform an evacuation directly to prevent secondary deterioration and 66% only in case of clinical deterioration. Most respondents (91%) reported to consider a DC for refractory high ICP. The reported cut-off ICP for DC in refractory high ICP, however, differed: 60% uses 25 mmHg, 18% 30 mmHg, and 17% 20 mmHg. Treatment strategies varied substantially between regions, specifically for the threshold for ASDH surgery and DC for refractory raised ICP. Also within center variation was present: 31% reported variation within the hospital for inserting an ICP monitor and 43% for evacuating mass lesions. Conclusion: Despite a homogeneous organization, considerable practice variation exists of neurosurgical strategies for TBI in Europe. These results provide an incentive for comparative effectiveness research to determine elements of effective neurosurgical care

    Traumatic brain injury: integrated approaches to improve prevention, clinical care, and research

    No full text
    traumatic brain injur

    Clinical triage of patients on kidney replacement therapy presenting with COVID-19: An ERACODA registry analysis

    No full text
    Background: Patients on kidney replacement therapy (KRT) are at very high risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The triage pathway for KRT patients presenting to hospitals with varying severity of COVID-19 illness remains ill-defined. We studied the clinical characteristics of patients at initial and subsequent hospital presentations and the impact on patient outcomes. Methods: The European Renal Association COVID-19 Database (ERACODA) was analysed for clinical and laboratory features of 1423 KRT patients with COVID-19 either hospitalized or non-hospitalized at initial triage and those re-presenting a second time. Predictors of outcomes (hospitalization, 28-day mortality) were then determined for all those not hospitalized at initial triage. Results: Among 1423 KRT patients with COVID-19 [haemodialysis (HD), n = 1017; transplant, n = 406), 25% (n = 355) were not hospitalized at first presentation due to mild illness (30% HD, 13% transplant). Of the non-hospitalized patients, only 10% (n = 36) re-presented a second time, with a 5-day median interval between the two presentations (interquartile range 2-7 days). Patients who re-presented had worsening respiratory symptoms, a decrease in oxygen saturation (97% versus 90%) and an increase in C-reactive protein (26 versus 73 mg/L) and were older (72 vs 63 years) compared with those who did not return a second time. The 28-day mortality between early admission (at first presentation) and deferred admission (at second presentation) was not significantly different (29% versus 25%; P = 0.6). Older age, prior smoking history, higher clinical frailty score and self-reported shortness of breath at first presentation were identified as risk predictors of mortality when re-presenting after discharge at initial triage. Conclusions: This study provides evidence that KRT patients with COVID-19 and mild illness can be managed effectively with supported outpatient care and with vigilance of respiratory symptoms, especially in those with risk factors for poor outcomes. Our findings support a risk-stratified clinical approach to admissions and discharges of KRT patients presenting with COVID-19 to aid clinical triage and optimize resource utilization during the ongoing pandemic. © 2021 The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved

    COVID-19-related mortality in kidney transplant and dialysis patients: Results of the ERACODA collaboration

    No full text
    Background. Patients on kidney replacement therapy comprise a vulnerable population and may be at increased risk of death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Currently, only limited data are available on outcomes in this patient population. Methods. We set up the ERACODA (European Renal Association COVID-19 Database) database, which is specifically designed to prospectively collect detailed data on kidney transplant and dialysis patients with COVID-19. For this analysis, patients were included who presented between 1 February and 1 May 2020 and had complete information available on the primary outcome parameter, 28-day mortality. Results. Of the 1073 patients enrolled, 305 (28%) were kidney transplant and 768 (72%) dialysis patients with a mean age of 60 6 13 and 67 6 14 years, respectively. The 28-day probability of death was 21.3% [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 14.3\u201330.2%] in kidney transplant and 25.0% (95% CI 20.2\u201330.0%) in dialysis patients. Mortality was primarily associated with advanced age in kidney transplant patients, and with age and frailty in dialysis patients. After adjusting for sex, age and frailty, in-hospital mortality did not significantly differ between transplant and dialysis patients [hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.59\u20131.10, P \ubc 0.18]. In the subset of dialysis patients who were a candidate for transplantation (n \ubc 148), 8 patients died within 28 days, as compared with 7 deaths in 23 patients who underwent a kidney transplantation <1 year before presentation (HR adjusted for sex, age and frailty 0.20, 95% CI 0.07\u20130.56, P < 0.01). Conclusions. The 28-day case-fatality rate is high in patients on kidney replacement therapy with COVID-19 and is primarily driven by the risk factors age and frailty. Furthermore, in the first year after kidney transplantation, patients may be at increased risk of COVID-19-related mortality as compared with dialysis patients on the waiting list for transplantation. This information is important in guiding clinical decision-making, and for informing the public and healthcare authorities on the COVID-19-related mortality risk in kidney transplant and dialysis patients

    COVID-19-related mortality in kidney transplant and dialysis patients: Results of the ERACODA collaboration

    No full text
    Background. Patients on kidney replacement therapy comprise a vulnerable population and may be at increased risk of death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Currently, only limited data are available on outcomes in this patient population. Methods. We set up the ERACODA (European Renal Association COVID-19 Database) database, which is specifically designed to prospectively collect detailed data on kidney transplant and dialysis patients with COVID-19. For this analysis, patients were included who presented between 1 February and 1 May 2020 and had complete information available on the primary outcome parameter, 28-day mortality. Results. Of the 1073 patients enrolled, 305 (28%) were kidney transplant and 768 (72%) dialysis patients with a mean age of 60 6 13 and 67 6 14 years, respectively. The 28-day probability of death was 21.3% [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 14.3–30.2%] in kidney transplant and 25.0% (95% CI 20.2–30.0%) in dialysis patients. Mortality was primarily associated with advanced age in kidney transplant patients, and with age and frailty in dialysis patients. After adjusting for sex, age and frailty, in-hospital mortality did not significantly differ between transplant and dialysis patients [hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.59–1.10, P ÂŒ 0.18]. In the subset of dialysis patients who were a candidate for transplantation (n ÂŒ 148), 8 patients died within 28 days, as compared with 7 deaths in 23 patients who underwent a kidney transplantation <1 year before presentation (HR adjusted for sex, age and frailty 0.20, 95% CI 0.07–0.56, P < 0.01). Conclusions. The 28-day case-fatality rate is high in patients on kidney replacement therapy with COVID-19 and is primarily driven by the risk factors age and frailty. Furthermore, in the first year after kidney transplantation, patients may be at increased risk of COVID-19-related mortality as compared with dialysis patients on the waiting list for transplantation. This information is important in guiding clinical decision-making, and for informing the public and healthcare authorities on the COVID-19-related mortality risk in kidney transplant and dialysis patients. © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved

    Sex differences in COVID-19 mortality risk in patients on kidney function replacement therapy

    No full text

    Association of obesity with 3-month mortality in kidney failure patients with COVID-19

    No full text
    Background: In the general population with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), obesity is associated with an increased risk of mortality. Given the typically observed obesity paradox among patients on kidney function replacement therapy (KFRT), especially dialysis patients, we examined the association of obesity with mortality among dialysis patients or living with a kidney transplant with COVID-19. Methods: Data from the European Renal Association COVID-19 Database (ERACODA) were used. KFRT patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between 1 February 2020 and 31 January 2021 were included. The association of Quetelet's body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2), divided into: <18.5 (lean), 18.5-24.9 (normal weight), 25-29.9 (overweight), 30-34.9 (obese I) and ≄35 (obese II/III), with 3-month mortality was investigated using Cox proportional-hazards regression analyses. Results: In 3160 patients on KFRT (mean age: 65 years, male: 61%), 99 patients were lean, 1151 normal weight (reference), 1160 overweight, 525 obese I and 225 obese II/III. During follow-up of 3 months, 28, 20, 21, 23 and 27% of patients died in these categories, respectively. In the fully adjusted model, the hazard ratios (HRs) for 3-month mortality were 1.65 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.10, 2.47], 1 (ref.), 1.07 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.28), 1.17 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.46) and 1.71 (95% CI: 1.27, 2.30), respectively. Results were similar among dialysis patients (N = 2343) and among those living with a kidney transplant (N = 817) (Pinteraction = 0.99), but differed by sex (Pinteraction = 0.019). In males, the HRs for the association of aforementioned BMI categories with 3-month mortality were 2.07 (95% CI: 1.22, 3.52), 1 (ref.), 0.97 (95% CI: 0.78. 1.21), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.74, 1.33) and 1.22 (95% CI: 0.78, 1.91), respectively, and in females corresponding HRs were 1.34 (95% CI: 0.70, 2.57), 1 (ref.), 1.31 (95% CI: 0.94, 1.85), 1.54 (95% CI: 1.05, 2.26) and 2.49 (95% CI: 1.62, 3.84), respectively. Conclusion: In KFRT patients with COVID-19, on dialysis or a kidney transplant, obesity is associated with an increased risk of mortality at 3 months. This is in contrast to the obesity paradox generally observed in dialysis patients. Additional studies are required to corroborate the sex difference in the association of obesity with mortality
    corecore