36 research outputs found

    Prospective study of urinary tract infection surveillance after kidney transplantation

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Urinary tract infection (UTI) remains one of the main complications after kidney transplantation and it has serious consequences.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Fifty-two patients with kidney transplantation were evaluated for UTI at 3-145 days (mean 40.0 days) after surgery.. Forty-two received a graft from a live donor and 10 from a deceased donor. There were 22 female and 30 male patients, aged 11-47 years. Microscopic examinations, leukocyte esterase stick, and urinary culture were performed every third day and weekly after hospitalization. A positive culture was consider when patients presented bacterial counts up to 10<sup>5</sup> counts.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>UTI developed in 19/52 (37%) patients at 3-75 days (mean 19.5 days after transplantation. Recurrent infection was observed in 7/52 (13.4%) patients at days 17-65. UTI was more frequent in patients who received deceased grafts compared with live grafts (7/10, 70% <it>vs</it>. 12/42, 28%; p < 0.007). Female patients were more susceptible than male (11/22, 50% <it>vs</it>. 8/22, 36.35%; p < 0.042). Five-year survival rate was 94.5% (49/52 patients). Kidney Graft exit update is 47/52 (90.2%), and there were no significant differences between graft rejection and UTI (p = 0.2518). Isolated bacteria were <it>Escherichia coli </it>(31.5%), <it>Candida albicans </it>(21.0%) and <it>Enterococcus </it>spp. (10.5%), followed by <it>Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Morganella </it><it>morganii, Enterobacter cloacae </it>and <it>Micrococcus </it>spp. Secondary infections were produced by (7/19, 36.8%). <it>Enterococcus </it>spp. (57%), <it>E. coli </it>(28%) and <it>Micrococcus </it>spp. (14.2%). Antibiotic resistance was 22% for ciprofloxacin and 33% for ampicillin. Therapeutic alternatives were aztreonam, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, netilmicin and fosfomycin.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Surveillance of UTI for the first 3 months is a good option for improving quality of life of kidney transplantation patients and the exit of graft function especially for female patients and those receiving deceased grafts. Antibiograms provided a good therapeutic alternative to patients who presented with UTIs after receiving a kidney allograft.</p

    Enfrentando los riesgos socionaturales

    Get PDF
    El objetivo del libro es comprender la magnitud de los Riesgos Socionaturales en México y Latinoamérica, para comprender el peligro que existe por algún tipo de desastre, ya sea inundaciones, sismos, remoción en masa, entre otros, además conocer qué medidas preventivas, correctivas y de contingencias existen para estar atentos ante alguna señal que la naturaleza esté enviando y así evitar alguna catástrofe. El libro se enfoca en los aspectos básicos de análisis de los peligros, escenarios de riesgo, vulnerabilidad y resiliencia, importantes para la gestión prospectiva o preventiva

    Why Are Outcomes Different for Registry Patients Enrolled Prospectively and Retrospectively? Insights from the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF).

    Get PDF
    Background: Retrospective and prospective observational studies are designed to reflect real-world evidence on clinical practice, but can yield conflicting results. The GARFIELD-AF Registry includes both methods of enrolment and allows analysis of differences in patient characteristics and outcomes that may result. Methods and Results: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and ≥1 risk factor for stroke at diagnosis of AF were recruited either retrospectively (n = 5069) or prospectively (n = 5501) from 19 countries and then followed prospectively. The retrospectively enrolled cohort comprised patients with established AF (for a least 6, and up to 24 months before enrolment), who were identified retrospectively (and baseline and partial follow-up data were collected from the emedical records) and then followed prospectively between 0-18 months (such that the total time of follow-up was 24 months; data collection Dec-2009 and Oct-2010). In the prospectively enrolled cohort, patients with newly diagnosed AF (≤6 weeks after diagnosis) were recruited between Mar-2010 and Oct-2011 and were followed for 24 months after enrolment. Differences between the cohorts were observed in clinical characteristics, including type of AF, stroke prevention strategies, and event rates. More patients in the retrospectively identified cohort received vitamin K antagonists (62.1% vs. 53.2%) and fewer received non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (1.8% vs . 4.2%). All-cause mortality rates per 100 person-years during the prospective follow-up (starting the first study visit up to 1 year) were significantly lower in the retrospective than prospectively identified cohort (3.04 [95% CI 2.51 to 3.67] vs . 4.05 [95% CI 3.53 to 4.63]; p = 0.016). Conclusions: Interpretations of data from registries that aim to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients with AF must take account of differences in registry design and the impact of recall bias and survivorship bias that is incurred with retrospective enrolment. Clinical Trial Registration: - URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362)

    Educación ambiental y sociedad. Saberes locales para el desarrollo y la sustentabilidad

    Get PDF
    EL LIBRO PERMITE REFLEXIONAR SOBRE LA IMPORTANCIA DE FOMENTAL LA EDUCACIÓN AMBIENTAL PARA RESOLVER LA PROBLEMÁTICA AMBIENTALEL LIBRO PRESENTA DIFERENTES TRABAJOS QUE ESTUDIAN EL TEMA D ELA SUSTENTABILIDAD, ENFATIZANDO LA IMPORTANCIA DE LA EDUCACIÓN AMBIENTAL Y LA TRANSDISCIPLINANINGUN

    Risk profiles and one-year outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation in India: Insights from the GARFIELD-AF Registry.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: The Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF) is an ongoing prospective noninterventional registry, which is providing important information on the baseline characteristics, treatment patterns, and 1-year outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This report describes data from Indian patients recruited in this registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 52,014 patients with newly diagnosed AF were enrolled globally; of these, 1388 patients were recruited from 26 sites within India (2012-2016). In India, the mean age was 65.8 years at diagnosis of NVAF. Hypertension was the most prevalent risk factor for AF, present in 68.5% of patients from India and in 76.3% of patients globally (P < 0.001). Diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD) were prevalent in 36.2% and 28.1% of patients as compared with global prevalence of 22.2% and 21.6%, respectively (P < 0.001 for both). Antiplatelet therapy was the most common antithrombotic treatment in India. With increasing stroke risk, however, patients were more likely to receive oral anticoagulant therapy [mainly vitamin K antagonist (VKA)], but average international normalized ratio (INR) was lower among Indian patients [median INR value 1.6 (interquartile range {IQR}: 1.3-2.3) versus 2.3 (IQR 1.8-2.8) (P < 0.001)]. Compared with other countries, patients from India had markedly higher rates of all-cause mortality [7.68 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval 6.32-9.35) vs 4.34 (4.16-4.53), P < 0.0001], while rates of stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding were lower after 1 year of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Compared to previously published registries from India, the GARFIELD-AF registry describes clinical profiles and outcomes in Indian patients with AF of a different etiology. The registry data show that compared to the rest of the world, Indian AF patients are younger in age and have more diabetes and CAD. Patients with a higher stroke risk are more likely to receive anticoagulation therapy with VKA but are underdosed compared with the global average in the GARFIELD-AF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01090362

    The STARMEN trial indicates that alternating treatment with corticosteroids and cyclophosphamide is superior to sequential treatment with tacrolimus and rituximab in primary membranous nephropathy

    No full text
    A cyclical corticosteroid-cyclophosphamide regimen is recommended for patients with primary membranous nephropathy at high risk of progression. We hypothesized that sequential therapy with tacrolimus and rituximab is superior to cyclical alternating treatment with corticosteroids and cyclophosphamide in inducing persistent remission in these patients. This was tested in a randomized, open-label controlled trial of 86 patients with primary membranous nephropathy and persistent nephrotic syndrome after six-months observation and assigned 43 each to receive six-month cyclical treatment with corticosteroid and cyclophosphamide or sequential treatment with tacrolimus (full-dose for six months and tapering for another three months) and rituximab (one gram at month six). The primary outcome was complete or partial remission of nephrotic syndrome at 24 months. This composite outcome occurred in 36 patients (83.7%) in the corticosteroid-cyclophosphamide group and in 25 patients (58.1%) in the tacrolimus-rituximab group (relative risk 1.44; 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.92). Complete remission at 24 months occurred in 26 patients (60%) in the corticosteroid-cyclophosphamide group and in 11 patients (26%) in the tacrolimus-rituximab group (2.36; 1.34 to 4.16). Anti-PLA2R titers showed a significant decrease in both groups but the proportion of anti-PLA2R-positive patients who achieved immunological response (depletion of anti-PLA2R antibodies) was significantly higher at three and six months in the corticosteroid-cyclophosphamide group (77% and 92%, respectively), as compared to the tacrolimus-rituximab group (45% and 70%, respectively). Relapses occurred in one patient in the corticosteroid-cyclophosphamide group, and three patients in the tacrolimus-rituximab group. Serious adverse events were similar in both groups. Thus, treatment with corticosteroid-cyclophosphamide induced remission in a significantly greater number of patients with primary membranous nephropathy than tacrolimus-rituximab

    Effects of pre-operative isolation on postoperative pulmonary complications after elective surgery: an international prospective cohort study

    No full text

    Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

    No full text
    Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health
    corecore