Proactive management of extreme prematurity: disagreement between obstetricians and neonatologists

Objective: To verify, in extremely preterm infants, if disagreement between obstetricians and neonatologists regarding proactive management is associated with early death. Study Design: Prospective cohort of 484 infants with 23(0/7) to 26(6/7) weeks, without malformations, born from January 2006 to December 2009 in eight Brazilian hospitals. Pro-active management was defined as indication of >= 1 dose of antenatal steroid or cesarean section (obstetrician) and resuscitation at birth according to the international guidelines (neonatologist). Main outcome was neonatal death in the first 24 h of life. Result: Obstetricians and neonatologists disagreed in 115 (24%) patients: only neonatologists were proactive in 107 of them. Disagreement between professionals increased 2.39 times the chance of death in the first day (95% confidence interval 1.40 to 4.09), adjusted for center and maternal/neonatal clinical conditions. Conclusion: In infants with 23 to 26 weeks of gestation, disagreement between obstetricians and neonatologists, translated as lack of antenatal steroids and/or vaginal delivery, despite resuscitation procedures, increases the odds of death in the first day. Journal of Perinatology (2012) 32, 913-919; doi:10.1038/jp.2012.28; published online 29 March 20123212913919Ministry of Health of Brazil [MS/VIGISUS 1755/2000, MS/FNS 274, FIOCRUZ/PDTSP

Proactive management of extreme prematurity: Disagreement between obstetricians and neonatologists

Objective: To verify, in extremely preterm infants, if disagreement between obstetricians and neonatologists regarding proactive management is associated with early death.Study Design: Prospective cohort of 484 infants with 23 0/7 to 266/7 weeks, without malformations, born from January 2006 to December 2009 in eight Brazilian hospitals. Pro-active management was defined as indication of ≥1 dose of antenatal steroid or cesarean section (obstetrician) and resuscitation at birth according to the international guidelines (neonatologist). Main outcome was neonatal death in the first 24 h of life.Result: Obstetricians and neonatologists disagreed in 115 (24%) patients: only neonatologists were proactive in 107 of them. Disagreement between professionals increased 2.39 times the chance of death in the first day (95% confidence interval 1.40 to 4.09), adjusted for center and maternal/neonatal clinical conditions.Conclusion: In infants with 23 to 26 weeks of gestation, disagreement between obstetricians and neonatologists, translated as lack of antenatal steroids and/or vaginal delivery, despite resuscitation procedures, increases the odds of death in the first day. © 2012 Nature America, Inc

ABC-SPH risk score for in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients : development, external validation and comparison with other available scores

The majority of available scores to assess mortality risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients in the emergency department have high risk of bias. Therefore, this cohort aimed to develop and validate a score at hospital admission for predicting in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients and to compare this score with other existing ones. Consecutive patients (≥ 18 years) with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the participating hospitals were included. Logistic regression analysis was performed to develop a prediction model for in-hospital mortality, based on the 3978 patients admitted between March-July, 2020. The model was validated in the 1054 patients admitted during August-September, as well as in an external cohort of 474 Spanish patients. Median (25-75th percentile) age of the model-derivation cohort was 60 (48-72) years, and in-hospital mortality was 20.3%. The validation cohorts had similar age distribution and in-hospital mortality. Seven significant variables were included in the risk score: age, blood urea nitrogen, number of comorbidities, C-reactive protein, SpO/FiO ratio, platelet count, and heart rate. The model had high discriminatory value (AUROC 0.844, 95% CI 0.829-0.859), which was confirmed in the Brazilian (0.859 [95% CI 0.833-0.885]) and Spanish (0.894 [95% CI 0.870-0.919]) validation cohorts, and displayed better discrimination ability than other existing scores. It is implemented in a freely available online risk calculator (https://abc2sph.com/). An easy-to-use rapid scoring system based on characteristics of COVID-19 patients commonly available at hospital presentation was designed and validated for early stratification of in-hospital mortality risk of patients with COVID-19

ABC₂-SPH risk score for in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients

Objectives: The majority of available scores to assess mortality risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients in the emergency department have high risk of bias. Therefore, this cohort aimed to develop and validate a score at hospital admission for predicting in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients and to compare this score with other existing ones. Methods: Consecutive patients (≥ 18 years) with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the participating hospitals were included. Logistic regression analysis was performed to develop a prediction model for in-hospital mortality, based on the 3978 patients admitted between March–July, 2020. The model was validated in the 1054 patients admitted during August–September, as well as in an external cohort of 474 Spanish patients. Results: Median (25–75th percentile) age of the model-derivation cohort was 60 (48–72) years, and in-hospital mortality was 20.3%. The validation cohorts had similar age distribution and in-hospital mortality. Seven significant variables were included in the risk score: age, blood urea nitrogen, number of comorbidities, C-reactive protein, SpO2/FiO2 ratio, platelet count, and heart rate. The model had high discriminatory value (AUROC 0.844, 95% CI 0.829–0.859), which was confirmed in the Brazilian (0.859 [95% CI 0.833–0.885]) and Spanish (0.894 [95% CI 0.870–0.919]) validation cohorts, and displayed better discrimination ability than other existing scores. It is implemented in a freely available online risk calculator (https://abc2sph.com/). Conclusions: An easy-to-use rapid scoring system based on characteristics of COVID-19 patients commonly available at hospital presentation was designed and validated for early stratification of in-hospital mortality risk of patients with COVID-19.</p