Survival following vertebral compression fractures in population over 65 years old

Lower mortality has been demonstrated when vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) are treated surgically (vertebral augmentation) vs. conservatively. To analyze the overall survival in patients over 65 who sufer a VCF, to review the principal causes of death, and to detect which factors are associated with a greater risk of mortality. Patients over 65 years old diagnosed with acute, non-pathologic thoracic or lumbar VCF, treated consecutively from January 2017 to December 2020, were retrospectively selected. Those patients with follow-ups under 2 years or who required arthrodesis were excluded. Overall survival was estimated by the Kaplan–Meier method. Diferences in survival were tested through the log-rank test. Multivariable Cox regression was used to assess the association of covariates and time to death. A total of 492 cases were included. Overall mortality was 36.2%. Survival rate at 1-, 12-, 24-, 48-, and 60-month follow-up was 97.4%, 86.6%, 78.0%, 64.4%, and 59.4%, respectively. Infection was the leading cause of death. The independent factors associated with a higher mortality risk were age, male, oncologic history, non-traumatic mechanism, and comorbidity during hospitalization. No statistical diference was found when comparing the two survival curves by treatment (vertebral augmentation vs. conservative) over time. Overall mortality rate was 36.2% after a median follow-up of 50.5 months (95% CI 48.2; 54.2). Age, male sex, history of oncological disease, non-traumatic mechanism of the fracture, and any comorbidity during hospitalization were identifed as variables independently associated with a higher risk of mortality following a VCF in the elderl

Desarrollo y aplicación de modelos pronósticos en patología lumbar

Tesis doctoral inédita leída en la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Facultad de Medicina, Departamento de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública y Microbiología. Fecha de lectura: 23-05-201

Steroid avoidance or withdrawal for kidney transplant recipients

Background: Steroid-sparing strategies have been attempted in recent decades to avoid morbidity from long-term steroid intake among kidney transplant recipients. Previous systematic reviews of steroid withdrawal after kidney transplantation have shown a significant increase in acute rejection. There are various protocols to withdraw steroids after kidney transplantation and their possible benefits or harms are subject to systematic review. This is an update of a review first published in 2009. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of steroid withdrawal or avoidance for kidney transplant recipients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 15 February 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which steroids were avoided or withdrawn at any time point after kidney transplantation were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Assessment of risk of bias and data extraction was performed by two authors independently and disagreement resolved by discussion. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model and dichotomous outcomes were reported as relative risk (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals. MAIN RESULTS: We included 48 studies (224 reports) that involved 7803 randomised participants. Of these, three studies were conducted in children (346 participants). The 2009 review included 30 studies (94 reports, 5949 participants). Risk of bias was assessed as low for sequence generation in 19 studies and allocation concealment in 14 studies. Incomplete outcome data were adequately addressed in 22 studies and 37 were free of selective reporting.The 48 included studies evaluated three different comparisons: steroid avoidance or withdrawal compared with steroid maintenance, and steroid avoidance compared with steroid withdrawal. For the adult studies there was no significant difference in patient mortality either in studies comparing steroid withdrawal versus steroid maintenance (10 studies, 1913 participants, death at one year post transplantation: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.30) or in studies comparing steroid avoidance versus steroid maintenance (10 studies, 1462 participants, death at one year after transplantation: RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.80). Similarly no significant difference in graft loss was found comparing steroid withdrawal versus steroid maintenance (8 studies, 1817 participants, graft loss excluding death with functioning graft at one year after transplantation: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.92) and comparing steroid avoidance versus steroid maintenance (7 studies, 1211 participants, graft loss excluding death with functioning graft at one year after transplantation: RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.86). The risk of acute rejection significantly increased in patients treated with steroids for less than 14 days after transplantation (7 studies, 835 participants: RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.30) and in patients who were withdrawn from steroids at a later time point after transplantation (10 studies, 1913 participants, RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.61). There was no evidence to suggest a difference in harmful events, such as infection and malignancy, in adult kidney transplant recipients. The effect of steroid withdrawal in children is unclear. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated review increases the evidence that steroid avoidance and withdrawal after kidney transplantation significantly increase the risk of acute rejection. There was no evidence to suggest a difference in patient mortality or graft loss up to five year after transplantation, but long-term consequences of steroid avoidance and withdrawal remain unclear until today, because prospective long-term studies have not been conducted

Tunneled antibiotic-impregnated vs. bolt-connected, non-coated external ventricular drainage: a comparison of complications

External ventricular drainage (EVD) is a common emergency neurosurgical procedure, but it is not free of adverse events. The aim of this study is to compare the complication rate of two frequently used EVD types, namely, tunneled antibiotic-impregnated catheters (Bactiseal©) and bolt-connected non-coated devices (Camino©). All EVDs placed between 1 March 2015 and 31 December 2017 were registered. Procedures performed with any catheter different from Bactiseal© or Camino© EVD with incomplete follow-up and those EVDs placed due to infectious disease were excluded. Demographic and clinical variables, as well as the overall complication rate (infection, hemorrhage, obstruction, malposition of the catheter, and involuntary pull-out of the device) and the need for replacement of the EVD, were collected. A total of 77 EVDs were finally considered for analysis (40 Bactiseal® and 37 Camino®). There was a statistically significant difference in diagnosis and also in the location of the procedure, as more bolt-connected EVD was placed outside the operating room (97.3 vs. 23.5%, p < 0.001) due to emergent pathologies such as vascular diseases and spontaneous hemorrhages. In the univariate analysis, a statistically significantly higher rate of catheter involuntary pull-out (29.7 vs. 7.5%, p = 0.012) and the need for EVD replacement (32.4 vs. 12.5%, p = 0.035) was found in the Camino cohort. However, those differences could not be confirmed with multivariable analysis, which showed no association between the type of catheter and any of the studied complications. Ventriculostomy duration was identified as a risk factor for infection (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02–1.18). No significant differences were observed regarding infection, hemorrhage, obstruction, malposition, involuntary catheter pull-out, and the need for EVD replacement when comparing non-impregnated bolt-connected EVDs (Camino®) with tunneled antibiotic-impregnated catheters (Bactiseal®). The duration of EVD was associated with an increased risk of infection

Steroid avoidance or withdrawal for kidney transplant recipients

Background: Steroid-sparing strategies have been attempted in recent decades to avoid morbidity from long-term steroid intake among kidney transplant recipients. Previous systematic reviews of steroid withdrawal after kidney transplantation have shown a significant increase in acute rejection. There are various protocols to withdraw steroids after kidney transplantation and their possible benefits or harms are subject to systematic review. This is an update of a review first published in 2009. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of steroid withdrawal or avoidance for kidney transplant recipients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 15 February 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which steroids were avoided or withdrawn at any time point after kidney transplantation were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Assessment of risk of bias and data extraction was performed by two authors independently and disagreement resolved by discussion. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model and dichotomous outcomes were reported as relative risk (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals. MAIN RESULTS: We included 48 studies (224 reports) that involved 7803 randomised participants. Of these, three studies were conducted in children (346 participants). The 2009 review included 30 studies (94 reports, 5949 participants). Risk of bias was assessed as low for sequence generation in 19 studies and allocation concealment in 14 studies. Incomplete outcome data were adequately addressed in 22 studies and 37 were free of selective reporting.The 48 included studies evaluated three different comparisons: steroid avoidance or withdrawal compared with steroid maintenance, and steroid avoidance compared with steroid withdrawal. For the adult studies there was no significant difference in patient mortality either in studies comparing steroid withdrawal versus steroid maintenance (10 studies, 1913 participants, death at one year post transplantation: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.30) or in studies comparing steroid avoidance versus steroid maintenance (10 studies, 1462 participants, death at one year after transplantation: RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.80). Similarly no significant difference in graft loss was found comparing steroid withdrawal versus steroid maintenance (8 studies, 1817 participants, graft loss excluding death with functioning graft at one year after transplantation: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.92) and comparing steroid avoidance versus steroid maintenance (7 studies, 1211 participants, graft loss excluding death with functioning graft at one year after transplantation: RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.86). The risk of acute rejection significantly increased in patients treated with steroids for less than 14 days after transplantation (7 studies, 835 participants: RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.30) and in patients who were withdrawn from steroids at a later time point after transplantation (10 studies, 1913 participants, RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.61). There was no evidence to suggest a difference in harmful events, such as infection and malignancy, in adult kidney transplant recipients. The effect of steroid withdrawal in children is unclear. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated review increases the evidence that steroid avoidance and withdrawal after kidney transplantation significantly increase the risk of acute rejection. There was no evidence to suggest a difference in patient mortality or graft loss up to five year after transplantation, but long-term consequences of steroid avoidance and withdrawal remain unclear until today, because prospective long-term studies have not been conducted

To burn-out or not to burn-out: A cross-sectional study in healthcare professionals in Spain during COVID-19 pandemic

Objective To assess the prevalence of burn-out syndrome in healthcare workers working on the front line (FL) in Spain during COVID-19. Design Cross-sectional, online survey-based study. Settings Sampling was performed between 21st April and 3rd May 2020. The survey collected demographic data and questions regarding participants' working position since pandemic outbreak. Participants Spanish healthcare workers working on the FL or usual ward were eligible. A total of 674 healthcare professionals answered the survey. Main outcomes and measures Burn-out syndrome was assessed by the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Medical Personnel. Results Of the 643 eligible responding participants, 408 (63.5%) were physicians, 172 (26.8%) were nurses and 63 (9.8%) other technical occupations. 377 (58.6%) worked on the FL. Most participants were women (472 (73.4%)), aged 31-40 years (163 (25.3%)) and worked in tertiary hospitals (>600 beds) (260 (40.4%)). Prevalence of burn-out syndrome was 43.4% (95% CI 39.5% to 47.2%), higher in COVID-19 FL workers (49.6%, p<0.001) than in non-COVID-19 FL workers (34.6%, p<0.001). Women felt more burn-out (60.8%, p=0.016), were more afraid of self-infection (61.9%, p=0.021) and of their performance and quality of care provided to the patients (75.8%, p=0.015) than men. More burn-out were those between 20 and 30 years old (65.2%, p=0.026) and those with more than 15 years of experience (53.7%, p=0.035). Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that, working on COVID-19 FL (OR 1.93; 95% CI 1.37 to 2.71, p<0.001), being a woman (OR 1.56; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.29, p=0.022), being under 30 years old (OR 1.75; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.89, p=0.028) and being a physician (OR 1.64; 95% CI 1.11 to 2.41, p=0.011) were associated with high risk of burn-out syndrome. Conclusions This survey study of healthcare professionals reported high rates of burn-out syndrome. Interventions to promote mental well-being in healthcare workers exposed to COVID-19 need to be immediately implemented.publishersversionpublishe

Steroid avoidance or withdrawal for pancreas and pancreas with kidney transplant recipients

Background Pancreas or kidney‐pancreas transplantation improves survival and quality of life for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus and kidney failure. Immunosuppression after transplantation is associated with complications. Steroids have adverse effects on cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, hyperglycaemia or hyperlipidaemia, increase risk of infection, obesity, cataracts, myopathy, bone metabolism alterations, dermatologic problems and cushingoid appearance. Whether avoiding steroids changes outcomes is unclear. Objectives We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of steroid early withdrawal (treatment for less than 14 days after transplantation), late withdrawal (after 14 days after transplantation) or steroid avoidance in patients receiving a pancreas (including a vascularized organ) alone (PTA), simultaneous with a kidney (SPK) or after kidney transplantation (PAK). Search methods We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register (to 18 June 2014) through contact with the Trials' Search Co‐ordinator. We handsearched: reference lists of nephrology textbooks, relevant studies, recent publications and clinical practice guidelines; abstracts from international transplantation society scientific meetings; and sent emails and letters seeking information about unpublished or incomplete studies to known investigators. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies of steroid avoidance (including early withdrawal) versus steroid maintenance or versus late withdrawal in pancreas or pancreas with kidney transplant recipients. We defined steroid avoidance as complete avoidance of steroid immunosuppression, early steroid withdrawal as steroid treatment for less than 14 days after transplantation and late withdrawal as steroid withdrawal after 14 days after transplantation. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently assessed the retrieved titles and abstracts, and where necessary the full text reports to determine which studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Authors of included studies were contacted to obtain missing information. Statistical analyses were performed using random effects models and results expressed as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Cohort studies were not meta‐analysed, but their findings summarised descriptively. Main results Three RCTs enrolling 144 participants met our inclusion criteria. Two compared steroid avoidance versus late steroid withdrawal and one compared late steroid withdrawal versus steroid maintenance. All studies included SPK and only one also included PTA. All studies had an overall moderate risk of bias and presented only short‐term results (six to 12 months). Two studies (89 participants) compared steroid avoidance or early steroid withdrawal versus late steroid withdrawal. There was no clear evidence of an impact on mortality (2 studies, 89 participants: RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.21 to 12.75), risk of kidney loss censored for death (2 studies, 89 participants: RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.09), risk of pancreas loss censored for death (2 studies, 89 participants: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.04), or acute kidney rejection (1 study, 49 participants: RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.20 to 21.50), however results were uncertain and consistent with no difference or important benefit or harm of steroid avoidance/early steroid withdrawal. The study that compared late steroid withdrawal versus steroid maintenance observed no deaths, no graft loss or acute kidney rejection at six months in either group and reported uncertain effects on acute pancreas rejection (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.35). Of the possible adverse effects only infection was reported by one study. There were significantly more UTIs reported in the late withdrawal group compared to the steroid avoidance group (1 study, 25 patients: RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.66). We also identified 13 cohort studies and one RCT which randomised tacrolimus versus cyclosporin. These studies in general showed that steroid‐sparing and withdrawal strategies had benefits in lowering HbAc1 and risk of infections (BK virus and CMV disease) and improved blood pressure control without increasing the risk of rejection. However, two studies found an increased incidence of acute pancreas rejection (HR 2.8, 95% CI 0.89 to 8.81, P = 0.066 in one study and 43.3% in the steroid withdrawal group versus 9.3% in the steroid maintenance, P < 0.05 at three years in the other) and one study found an increased incidence of acute kidney rejection (18.7% in the steroid withdrawal group versus 2.8% in the steroid maintenance, P < 0.05) at three years. Authors' conclusions There is currently insufficient evidence for the benefits and harms of steroid withdrawal in pancreas transplantation in the three RCTs (144 patients) identified. The results showed uncertain results for short‐term risk of rejection, mortality, or graft survival in steroid‐sparing strategies in a very small number of patients over a short period of follow‐up. Overall the data was sparse, so no firm conclusions are possible. Moreover, the 13 observational studies findings generally concur with the evidence found in the RCTs