35 research outputs found

    Prognostic factors in left-sided endocarditis: results from the andalusian multicenter cohort

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite medical advances, mortality in infective endocarditis (IE) is still very high. Previous studies on prognosis in IE have observed conflicting results. The aim of this study was to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality in a large multicenter cohort of left-sided IE.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>An observational multicenter study was conducted from January 1984 to December 2006 in seven hospitals in Andalusia, Spain. Seven hundred and five left-side IE patients were included. The main outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Several prognostic factors were analysed by univariate tests and then by multilogistic regression model.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The overall mortality was 29.5% (25.5% from 1984 to 1995 and 31.9% from 1996 to 2006; Odds Ratio 1.25; 95% Confidence Interval: 0.97-1.60; p = 0.07). In univariate analysis, age, comorbidity, especially chronic liver disease, prosthetic valve, virulent microorganism such as <it>Staphylococcus aureus</it>, <it>Streptococcus agalactiae </it>and fungi, and complications (septic shock, severe heart failure, renal insufficiency, neurologic manifestations and perivalvular extension) were related with higher mortality. Independent factors for mortality in multivariate analysis were: Charlson comorbidity score (OR: 1.2; 95% CI: 1.1-1.3), prosthetic endocarditis (OR: 1.9; CI: 1.2-3.1), <it>Staphylococcus aureus </it>aetiology (OR: 2.1; CI: 1.3-3.5), severe heart failure (OR: 5.4; CI: 3.3-8.8), neurologic manifestations (OR: 1.9; CI: 1.2-2.9), septic shock (OR: 4.2; CI: 2.3-7.7), perivalvular extension (OR: 2.4; CI: 1.3-4.5) and acute renal failure (OR: 1.69; CI: 1.0-2.6). Conversely, <it>Streptococcus viridans </it>group etiology (OR: 0.4; CI: 0.2-0.7) and surgical treatment (OR: 0.5; CI: 0.3-0.8) were protective factors.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Several characteristics of left-sided endocarditis enable selection of a patient group at higher risk of mortality. This group may benefit from more specialised attention in referral centers and should help to identify those patients who might benefit from more aggressive diagnostic and/or therapeutic procedures.</p

    The management of acute venous thromboembolism in clinical practice. Results from the European PREFER in VTE Registry

    Get PDF
    Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in Europe. Data from real-world registries are necessary, as clinical trials do not represent the full spectrum of VTE patients seen in clinical practice. We aimed to document the epidemiology, management and outcomes of VTE using data from a large, observational database. PREFER in VTE was an international, non-interventional disease registry conducted between January 2013 and July 2015 in primary and secondary care across seven European countries. Consecutive patients with acute VTE were documented and followed up over 12 months. PREFER in VTE included 3,455 patients with a mean age of 60.8 ± 17.0 years. Overall, 53.0 % were male. The majority of patients were assessed in the hospital setting as inpatients or outpatients (78.5 %). The diagnosis was deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) in 59.5 % and pulmonary embolism (PE) in 40.5 %. The most common comorbidities were the various types of cardiovascular disease (excluding hypertension; 45.5 %), hypertension (42.3 %) and dyslipidaemia (21.1 %). Following the index VTE, a large proportion of patients received initial therapy with heparin (73.2 %), almost half received a vitamin K antagonist (48.7 %) and nearly a quarter received a DOAC (24.5 %). Almost a quarter of all presentations were for recurrent VTE, with &gt;80 % of previous episodes having occurred more than 12 months prior to baseline. In conclusion, PREFER in VTE has provided contemporary insights into VTE patients and their real-world management, including their baseline characteristics, risk factors, disease history, symptoms and signs, initial therapy and outcomes

    A predictive assessment of genetic correlations between traits in chickens using markers

    Get PDF
    International audienceAbstractBackgroundGenomic selection has been successfully implemented in plant and animal breeding programs to shorten generation intervals and accelerate genetic progress per unit of time. In practice, genomic selection can be used to improve several correlated traits simultaneously via multiple-trait prediction, which exploits correlations between traits. However, few studies have explored multiple-trait genomic selection. Our aim was to infer genetic correlations between three traits measured in broiler chickens by exploring kinship matrices based on a linear combination of measures of pedigree and marker-based relatedness. A predictive assessment was used to gauge genetic correlations.MethodsA multivariate genomic best linear unbiased prediction model was designed to combine information from pedigree and genome-wide markers in order to assess genetic correlations between three complex traits in chickens, i.e. body weight at 35 days of age (BW), ultrasound area of breast meat (BM) and hen-house egg production (HHP). A dataset with 1351 birds that were genotyped with the 600 K Affymetrix platform was used. A kinship kernel (K) was constructed as K = λG + (1 − λ)A, where A is the numerator relationship matrix, measuring pedigree-based relatedness, and G is a genomic relationship matrix. The weight (λ) assigned to each source of information varied over the grid λ = (0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1). Maximum likelihood estimates of heritability and genetic correlations were obtained at each λ, and the “optimum” λ was determined using cross-validation.ResultsEstimates of genetic correlations were affected by the weight placed on the source of information used to build K. For example, the genetic correlation between BW–HHP and BM–HHP changed markedly when λ varied from 0 (only A used for measuring relatedness) to 1 (only genomic information used). As λ increased, predictive correlations (correlation between observed phenotypes and predicted breeding values) increased and mean-squared predictive error decreased. However, the improvement in predictive ability was not monotonic, with an optimum found at some 0 < λ < 1, i.e., when both sources of information were used together.ConclusionsOur findings indicate that multiple-trait prediction may benefit from combining pedigree and marker information. Also, it appeared that expected correlated responses to selection computed from standard theory may differ from realized responses. The predictive assessment provided a metric for performance evaluation as well as a means for expressing uncertainty of outcomes of multiple-trait selection

    Tourists’ city trip activity program planning:a personalized stated choice experiment

    No full text
    New digital technologies support personalized recommender systems that can assist a tourist who wants to make a city tour. To develop a smart system that can give tourists an optimized complete activity program for their trip, it is not only important to know the preferences and interests of tourists but also whether they like combinations of activities/points of interest (POIs) or not. The aim of this study is to measure and predict tourists’ preferences for combinations of activities in planning a program during a city trip. A personalized stated choice experiment is developed and presented in a survey to a random sample of 238 respondents. Binary mixed logit models are estimated on the choice data collected. An advantage of this approach is that it allows estimation of covariances between city trip activities indicating whether they would act as complements or substitutes for a specific tourist in his/her city trip activity program. The model parameters provide information on combinations of activities and themes that tourists prefer during their city trip and that the recommender system can use to further fine-tune the recommendations of city trip programs and optimize the tourist experience

    Low-molecular-weight or Unfractionated Heparin in Venous Thromboembolism: The Influence of Renal Function

    No full text
    BACKGROUND: In patients with acute venous thromboembolism and renal insufficiency, initial therapy with unfractionated heparin may have some advantages over low-molecular-weight heparin. METHODS: We used the Registro Informatizado de la Enfermedad TromboEmbĂłlica (RIETE) Registry data to evaluate the 15-day outcome in 38,531 recruited patients. We used propensity score matching to compare patients treated with unfractionated heparin with those treated with low-molecular-weight heparin in 3 groups stratified by creatinine clearance levels at baseline: >60 mL/min, 30 to 60 mL/min, or <30 mL/min. RESULTS: Patients initially receiving unfractionated heparin therapy (n = 2167) more likely had underlying diseases than those receiving low-molecular-weight heparin (n = 34,665). Propensity score-matched groups of patients with creatinine clearance levels >60 mL/min (n = 1598 matched pairs), 30 to 60 mL/min (n = 277 matched pairs), and <30 mL/min (n = 210 matched pairs) showed an increased 15-day mortality for unfractionated heparin compared with low-molecular-weight heparin (4.5% vs 2.4% [P = .001], 5.4% vs 5.8% [P = not significant], and 15% vs 8.1% [P = .02], respectively), an increased rate of fatal pulmonary embolism (2.8% vs 1.2% [P = .001], 3.2% vs 2.5% [P = not significant], and 5.7% vs 2.4% [P = .02], respectively), and a similar rate of fatal bleeding (0.3% vs 0.3%, 0.7% vs 0.7%, and 0.5% vs 0.0%, respectively). Multivariate analysis confirmed that patients treated with unfractionated heparin were at increased risk for all-cause death (odds ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-2.4) and fatal pulmonary embolism (odds ratio, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-3.6). CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with low-molecular-weight heparin, initial therapy with unfractionated heparin was associated with a higher mortality and higher rate of fatal pulmonary embolism in patients with creatinine clearance levels >60 mL/min or <30 mL/min, but not in those with levels between 30 and 60 mL/min
    corecore