11 research outputs found

    High Risk of Secondary Infections Following Thrombotic Complications in Patients With COVID-19

    Get PDF
    Background. This study’s primary aim was to evaluate the impact of thrombotic complications on the development of secondary infections. The secondary aim was to compare the etiology of secondary infections in patients with and without thrombotic complications. Methods. This was a cohort study (NCT04318366) of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients hospitalized at IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital between February 25 and June 30, 2020. Incidence rates (IRs) were calculated by univariable Poisson regression as the number of cases per 1000 person-days of follow-up (PDFU) with 95% confidence intervals. The cumulative incidence functions of secondary infections according to thrombotic complications were compared with Gray’s method accounting for competing risk of death. A multivariable Fine-Gray model was applied to assess factors associated with risk of secondary infections. Results. Overall, 109/904 patients had 176 secondary infections (IR, 10.0; 95% CI, 8.8–11.5; per 1000-PDFU). The IRs of secondary infections among patients with or without thrombotic complications were 15.0 (95% CI, 10.7–21.0) and 9.3 (95% CI, 7.9–11.0) per 1000-PDFU, respectively (P = .017). At multivariable analysis, thrombotic complications were associated with the development of secondary infections (subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.788; 95% CI, 1.018–3.140; P = .043). The etiology of secondary infections was similar in patients with and without thrombotic complications. Conclusions. In patients with COVID-19, thrombotic complications were associated with a high risk of secondary infections

    Burrasca #4: Fat/Anorexic

    No full text

    Burrasca #5: 5th World

    No full text

    5 or 10 response categories for the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire: What is better?

    No full text
    Illness representations are important determinants of patients’ coping behaviour and health outcomes, such as treatment adherence. The Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (Brief-IPQ) is the most useful instrument to assess illness perceptions in very ill populations. The scale includes 9 items, has good reliability and validity and patients can complete it in a few minutes. The study is devoted to the examination of two rating scales (5 and 10 response categories) of the Brief-IPQ in patients with cardiovascular disease. The Rasch methodology was used in order to test rating scale assumptions effectively. The study involved 269 patients which responded at the 10 response scale and 251 patients which responded at the 5 response scale.Results showed that the 5-level rating scale was more effective to assess illness perception than the 10-level rating scale. Furthermore, in both groups, items 4 and 7 showed problems to measure “personal control” and “comprehensibility”

    Nonsurgical strategies to reduce mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: An updated consensus process

    Get PDF
    Objective: A careful choice of perioperative care strategies is pivotal to improve survival in cardiac surgery. However, there is no general agreement or particular attention to which nonsurgical interventions can reduce mortality in this setting. The authors sought to address this issue with a consensus-based approach. Design: A systematic review of the literature followed by a consensus-based voting process. Setting: A web-based international consensus conference. Participants: More than 400 physicians from 52 countries participated in this web-based consensus conference. Interventions: The authors identified all studies published in peer-reviewed journals that reported on interventions with a statistically significant effect on mortality in the setting of cardiac surgery through a systematic Medline/PubMed search and contacts with experts. These studies were discussed during a consensus meeting and those considered eligible for inclusion in this study were voted on by clinicians worldwide. Measurements and Main Results: Eleven interventions finally were selected: 10 were shown to reduce mortality (aspirin, glycemic control, high-volume surgeons, prophylactic intra-aortic balloon pump, levosimendan, leuko-depleted red blood cells transfusion, noninvasive ventilation, tranexamic acid, vacuum-assisted closure, and volatile agents), whereas 1 (aprotinin) increased mortality. A significant difference in the percentages of agreement among different countries and a variable gap between agreement and clinical practice were found for most of the interventions. Conclusions: This updated consensus process identified 11 nonsurgical interventions with possible survival implications for patients undergoing cardiac surgery. This list of interventions may help cardiac anesthesiologists and intensivists worldwide in their daily clinical practice and can contribute to direct future research in the field.Orion Pharma ; Abbott Laboratories ; Pall ; Tena

    Prevalence, Characteristics, Risk Factors, and Outcomes of Invasively Ventilated COVID-19 Patients with Acute Kidney Injury and Renal Replacement Therapy

    No full text
    Background: There is no information on acute kidney injury (AKI) and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) among invasively ventilated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients in Western healthcare systems. Objective: To study the prevalence, characteristics, risk factors and outcome of AKI and CRRT among invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients. Methods: Observational study in a tertiary care hospital in Milan, Italy. Results: Among 99 patients, 72 (75.0%) developed AKI and 17 (17.7%) received CRRT. Most of the patients developed stage 1 AKI (33 [45.8%]), while 15 (20.8%) developed stage 2 AKI and 24 (33.4%) a stage 3 AKI. Patients who developed AKI or needed CRRT at latest follow-up were older, and among CRRT treated patients a greater proportion had preexisting CKD. Hospital mortality was 38.9% for AKI and 52.9% for CRRT patients. Conclusions: Among invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients, AKI is very common and CRRT use is common. Both carry a high risk of in-hospital mortality

    Continuous vs Intermittent Meropenem Administration in Critically Ill Patients With Sepsis: The MERCY Randomized Clinical Trial

    No full text
    Importance: Meropenem is a widely prescribed β-lactam antibiotic. Meropenem exhibits maximum pharmacodynamic efficacy when given by continuous infusion to deliver constant drug levels above the minimal inhibitory concentration. Compared with intermittent administration, continuous administration of meropenem may improve clinical outcomes. Objective: To determine whether continuous administration of meropenem reduces a composite of mortality and emergence of pandrug-resistant or extensively drug-resistant bacteria compared with intermittent administration in critically ill patients with sepsis. Design, setting, and participants: A double-blind, randomized clinical trial enrolling critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock who had been prescribed meropenem by their treating clinicians at 31 intensive care units of 26 hospitals in 4 countries (Croatia, Italy, Kazakhstan, and Russia). Patients were enrolled between June 5, 2018, and August 9, 2022, and the final 90-day follow-up was completed in November 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive an equal dose of the antibiotic meropenem by either continuous administration (n = 303) or intermittent administration (n = 304). Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and emergence of pandrug-resistant or extensively drug-resistant bacteria at day 28. There were 4 secondary outcomes, including days alive and free from antibiotics at day 28, days alive and free from the intensive care unit at day 28, and all-cause mortality at day 90. Seizures, allergic reactions, and mortality were recorded as adverse events. Results: All 607 patients (mean age, 64 [SD, 15] years; 203 were women [33%]) were included in the measurement of the 28-day primary outcome and completed the 90-day mortality follow-up. The majority (369 patients, 61%) had septic shock. The median time from hospital admission to randomization was 9 days (IQR, 3-17 days) and the median duration of meropenem therapy was 11 days (IQR, 6-17 days). Only 1 crossover event was recorded. The primary outcome occurred in 142 patients (47%) in the continuous administration group and in 149 patients (49%) in the intermittent administration group (relative risk, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.81-1.13], P = .60). Of the 4 secondary outcomes, none was statistically significant. No adverse events of seizures or allergic reactions related to the study drug were reported. At 90 days, mortality was 42% both in the continuous administration group (127 of 303 patients) and in the intermittent administration group (127 of 304 patients). Conclusions and relevance: In critically ill patients with sepsis, compared with intermittent administration, the continuous administration of meropenem did not improve the composite outcome of mortality and emergence of pandrug-resistant or extensively drug-resistant bacteria at day 28. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03452839
    corecore