40 research outputs found
A Metabolomic Endotype of Bioenergetic Dysfunction Predicts Mortality in Critically Ill Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure
Acute respiratory failure (ARF) requiring mechanical ventilation, a complicating factor in sepsis and other disorders, is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Despite its severity and prevalence, treatment options are limited. In light of accumulating evidence that mitochondrial abnormalities are common in ARF, here we applied broad spectrum quantitative and semiquantitative metabolomic analyses of serum from ARF patients to detect bioenergetic dysfunction and determine its association with survival. Plasma samples from surviving and non-surviving patients (N = 15/group) were taken at day 1 and day 3 after admission to the medical intensive care unit and, in survivors, at hospital discharge. Significant differences between survivors and non-survivors (ANOVA, 5% FDR) include bioenergetically relevant intermediates of redox cofactors nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) and NAD phosphate (NADP), increased acyl-carnitines, bile acids, and decreased acyl-glycerophosphocholines. Many metabolites associated with poor outcomes are substrates of NAD(P)-dependent enzymatic processes, while alterations in NAD cofactors rely on bioavailability of dietary B-vitamins thiamine, riboflavin and pyridoxine. Changes in the efficiency of the nicotinamide-derived cofactors\u27 biosynthetic pathways also associate with alterations in glutathione-dependent drug metabolism characterized by substantial differences observed in the acetaminophen metabolome. Based on these findings, a four-feature model developed with semi-quantitative and quantitative metabolomic results predicted patient outcomes with high accuracy (AUROC = 0.91). Collectively, this metabolomic endotype points to a close association between mitochondrial and bioenergetic dysfunction and mortality in human ARF, thus pointing to new pharmacologic targets to reduce mortality in this condition
Design and Rationale of the Fontan Udenafil Exercise Longitudinal (FUEL) Trial
The Fontan operation creates a circulation characterized by elevated central venous pressure and low cardiac output. Over time, these characteristics result in a predictable and persistent decline in exercise performance that is associated with an increase in morbidity and mortality. A medical therapy that targets the abnormalities of the Fontan circulation might, therefore, be associated with improved outcomes. Udenafil, a phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor, has undergone phase I/II testing in adolescents who have had the Fontan operation and has been shown to be safe and well tolerated in the short-term. However, there are no data regarding the long-term efficacy of udenafil in this population. The Fontan Udenafil Exercise Longitudinal (FUEL) Trial is a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled phase III clinical trial being conducted by the Pediatric Heart Network in collaboration with Mezzion Pharma Co., Ltd. This trial is designed to test the hypothesis that treatment with udenafil will lead to an improvement in exercise capacity in adolescents who have undergone the Fontan operation. A safety extension trial, the FUEL Open-Label Extension Trial (FUEL OLE), offers the opportunity for all FUEL subjects to obtain open-label udenafil for an additional 12 months following completion of FUEL, and evaluates the long-term safety and tolerability of this medication. This manuscript describes the rationale and study design for FUEL and FUEL OLE. Together, these trials provide an opportunity to better understand the role of medical management in the care of those who have undergone the Fontan operation
Total Anomalous Pulmonary Venous Connection: Preoperative Anatomy, Physiology, Imaging, and Interventional Management of Postoperative Pulmonary Venous Obstruction
Recommended from our members
ICU Bed Utilization During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic in a Multistate Analysis-March to June 2020.
ObjectivesGiven finite ICU bed capacity, knowledge of ICU bed utilization during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic is critical to ensure future strategies for resource allocation and utilization. We sought to examine ICU census trends in relation to ICU bed capacity during the rapid increase in severe coronavirus disease 2019 cases early during the pandemic.DesignObservational cohort study.SettingThirteen geographically dispersed academic medical centers in the United States.Patients/subjectsWe obtained daily ICU censuses from March 26 to June 30, 2020, as well as prepandemic ICU bed capacities. The primary outcome was daily census of ICU patients stratified by coronavirus disease 2019 and mechanical ventilation status in relation to ICU capacity.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsPrepandemic overall ICU capacity ranged from 62 to 225 beds (median 109). During the study period, the median daily coronavirus disease 2019 ICU census per hospital ranged from 1 to 84 patients, and the daily ICU census exceeded overall ICU capacity for at least 1 day at five institutions. The number of critically ill patients exceeded ICU capacity for a median (interquartile range) of 17 (12-50) of 97 days at these five sites. All 13 institutions experienced decreases in their noncoronavirus disease ICU population, whereas local coronavirus disease 2019 cases increased. Coronavirus disease 2019 patients reached their greatest proportion of ICU capacity on April 12, 2020, when they accounted for 44% of ICU patients across all participating hospitals. Maximum ICU census ranged from 52% to 289% of overall ICU capacity, with three sites less than 80%, four sites 80-100%, five sites 100-128%, and one site 289%.ConclusionsFrom March to June 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic led to ICU censuses greater than ICU bed capacity at fives of 13 institutions evaluated. These findings demonstrate the short-term adaptability of U.S. healthcare institutions in redirecting limited resources to accommodate a public health emergency
Recommended from our members
Adults Hospitalized with COVID-19 —United States, March-June and October-December 2020: Implications for the Potential Effects of COVID-19 Tier-1 Vaccination on Future Hospitalizations and Outcomes
BackgroundBecause of the increased risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) initially prioritized COVID-19 vaccination for persons in long-term care facilities (LTCF), persons aged ≥65 years, and persons aged 16-64 years with high-risk medical conditions when there is limited vaccine supply. We compared characteristics and severe outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States between early and later in the pandemic categorized by groups at higher risk of severe COVID-19.MethodsObservational study of sampled patients aged ≥18 years who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and admitted to one of 14 academic hospitals in the United States during March-June and October-December 2020. Demographic and clinical information were gathered from electronic health record data.ResultsAmong 647 patients, 91% met ≥1 of the following risk factors for severe COVID-19 [91% March-June (n = 434); 90% October-December (n = 213)]; 19% were LTCF residents, 45% were aged ≥65-years, and 84% had ≥1 high-risk condition. The proportion of patients who resided in a LTCF declined significantly (25% vs 6%) from early to later pandemic periods. Compared with patients at lower risk for severe COVID-19, in-hospital mortality was higher among patients at high risk for severe COVID-19 (20% vs 7%); these differences were consistently observed between March-June and October-December.ConclusionsMost adults hospitalized with COVID-19 were those recommended to be prioritized for vaccination based on risk for developing severe COVID-19. These findings highlight the continued urgency to vaccinate patients at high risk for severe COVID-19 and monitor vaccination impact on hospitalizations and outcomes
Recommended from our members
Decline in SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies After Mild Infection Among Frontline Health Care Personnel in a Multistate Hospital Network - 12 States, April-August 2020.
Most persons infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), develop virus-specific antibodies within several weeks, but antibody titers might decline over time. Understanding the timeline of antibody decline is important for interpreting SARS-CoV-2 serology results. Serum specimens were collected from a convenience sample of frontline health care personnel at 13 hospitals and tested for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 during April 3-June 19, 2020, and again approximately 60 days later to assess this timeline. The percentage of participants who experienced seroreversion, defined as an antibody signal-to-threshold ratio >1.0 at baseline and <1.0 at the follow-up visit, was assessed. Overall, 194 (6.0%) of 3,248 participants had detectable antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 at baseline (1). Upon repeat testing approximately 60 days later (range = 50-91 days), 146 (93.6%) of 156 participants experienced a decline in antibody response indicated by a lower signal-to-threshold ratio at the follow-up visit, compared with the baseline visit, and 44 (28.2%) experienced seroreversion. Participants with higher initial antibody responses were more likely to have antibodies detected at the follow-up test than were those who had a lower initial antibody response. Whether decay in these antibodies increases risk for reinfection and disease remains unanswered. However, these results suggest that serology testing at a single time point is likely to underestimate the number of persons with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and a negative serologic test result might not reliably exclude prior infection
Recommended from our members
Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Among Frontline Health Care Personnel in a Multistate Hospital Network - 13 Academic Medical Centers, April-June 2020.
Health care personnel (HCP) caring for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) might be at high risk for contracting SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Understanding the prevalence of and factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection among frontline HCP who care for COVID-19 patients are important for protecting both HCP and their patients. During April 3-June 19, 2020, serum specimens were collected from a convenience sample of frontline HCP who worked with COVID-19 patients at 13 geographically diverse academic medical centers in the United States, and specimens were tested for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Participants were asked about potential symptoms of COVID-19 experienced since February 1, 2020, previous testing for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, and their use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the past week. Among 3,248 participants, 194 (6.0%) had positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Seroprevalence by hospital ranged from 0.8% to 31.2% (median = 3.6%). Among the 194 seropositive participants, 56 (29%) reported no symptoms since February 1, 2020, 86 (44%) did not believe that they previously had COVID-19, and 133 (69%) did not report a previous COVID-19 diagnosis. Seroprevalence was lower among personnel who reported always wearing a face covering (defined in this study as a surgical mask, N95 respirator, or powered air purifying respirator [PAPR]) while caring for patients (5.6%), compared with that among those who did not (9.0%) (p = 0.012). Consistent with persons in the general population with SARS-CoV-2 infection, many frontline HCP with SARS-CoV-2 infection might be asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic during infection, and infection might be unrecognized. Enhanced screening, including frequent testing of frontline HCP, and universal use of face coverings in hospitals are two strategies that could reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission
Recommended from our members
Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Among Frontline Health Care Personnel in a Multistate Hospital Network - 13 Academic Medical Centers, April-June 2020.
Health care personnel (HCP) caring for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) might be at high risk for contracting SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Understanding the prevalence of and factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection among frontline HCP who care for COVID-19 patients are important for protecting both HCP and their patients. During April 3-June 19, 2020, serum specimens were collected from a convenience sample of frontline HCP who worked with COVID-19 patients at 13 geographically diverse academic medical centers in the United States, and specimens were tested for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Participants were asked about potential symptoms of COVID-19 experienced since February 1, 2020, previous testing for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, and their use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the past week. Among 3,248 participants, 194 (6.0%) had positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Seroprevalence by hospital ranged from 0.8% to 31.2% (median = 3.6%). Among the 194 seropositive participants, 56 (29%) reported no symptoms since February 1, 2020, 86 (44%) did not believe that they previously had COVID-19, and 133 (69%) did not report a previous COVID-19 diagnosis. Seroprevalence was lower among personnel who reported always wearing a face covering (defined in this study as a surgical mask, N95 respirator, or powered air purifying respirator [PAPR]) while caring for patients (5.6%), compared with that among those who did not (9.0%) (p = 0.012). Consistent with persons in the general population with SARS-CoV-2 infection, many frontline HCP with SARS-CoV-2 infection might be asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic during infection, and infection might be unrecognized. Enhanced screening, including frequent testing of frontline HCP, and universal use of face coverings in hospitals are two strategies that could reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission