9 research outputs found

    Treatment of cardiac sarcoidosis: A comparative study of steroids and steroids plus immunosuppressive drugs

    No full text
    International audienceBACKGROUND:We aimed to compare the efficacy of steroids alone or associated with immunosuppressive drugs for the prevention of relapse in cardiac sarcoidosis (CS).METHODS:In this monocentric multidisciplinary retrospective single center study, all consecutive patients with histologically proven sarcoidosis hospitalized from January 2012 to December 2016 were considered. All patients with symptomatic CS were studied. Patients received steroids or steroids plus immunosuppressive drugs (IS) for CS treatment at diagnosis. The efficacy of each treatment strategy (steroids vs steroids + IS) was assessed by the cardiac relapse rate over follow up.RESULTS:326 consecutive patients with histologically proven sarcoidosis were screened. Among them, 36 (11%) had symptomatic CS (20 (55.5%) men, median age at diagnosis 48.5 [22.8-76]). Twenty-four patients received steroids and 12 received steroids + IS (azathioprine n = 5, methotrexate n = 5, cyclophosphamide n = 2) at CS diagnosis. Over a median follow up of 3.6 [1-15.2] years, 13 (36.1%) patients suffered a cardiac relapse including reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, n = 4), third degree heart block (n = 2), atrio-ventricular (n = 1) or ventricular (n = 1) tachycardia and sudden cardiac death (n = 1). Except for a higher frequency of black patients in patients receiving IS, CS features at diagnosis and median time to relapse did not significantly differ between patients who did or did not receive IS. Relapse rate was 45.8% in the steroids group versus 16.7% in the steroids + IS group (p = 0.048).CONCLUSIONS:In cardiac sarcoidosis, the combination of steroids with immunosuppressive drugs might reduce the risk of cardiac relapse, as compared to steroids alone

    Impact of direct ICU admission of pneumococcal meningitis in France: a retrospective analysis of a French medico-administrative (PMSI) database

    No full text
    International audienceBackground Current guidelines for adult patients with pneumococcal meningitis (PM) recommend initial management in intermediate or intensive care units (ICU), but evidence to support these recommendations is limited. We aimed to describe ICU admission practices of patients with PM. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of the French medico administrative database of consecutive adult patients with PM and sepsis criteria hospitalized between 2011 and 2020. We defined two groups, "Direct ICU" corresponding to a direct ICU admission and "Delayed ICU" corresponding to a secondary ICU admission. Results We identified 4052 patients hospitalized for a first episode of PM, including 2006 "Direct ICU" patients (50%) and 2046 "delayed ICU" patients (50%). The patients were mainly males [n = 2260 (56%)] with median age of 61 years [IQR 50-71] and a median Charlson index of 1 [0-3]. Among them, median SAPS II on admission was 46 [33-62], 2173 (54%) had a neurological failure on admission with 2133 (53%) in coma, 654 (16%) with brainstem failure, 488 (12%) with seizures and 779 (19%) with focal signs without coma. PM was frequently associated with pneumonia [n = 1411 (35%)], and less frequently with endocarditis [n = 317 (8%)]. The median ICU length of stay and hospital length of stay were 6 days [2-14] and 21 days [13-38], respectively. In-hospital mortality was 27% (n = 1100) and 640 (16%) patients were secondarily transferred to rehabilitation care unit. Direct ICU group was significantly more severe but after adjustment for age, sex, comorbidities, organ failures on admission and admission from home, direct ICU admission was significantly associated with a lower mortality (Odds ratio 0.67 [0.56-0.80], p < 0.01). This corresponded to one death avoided for 11 PM directly admitted in ICU. Conclusions Among patients with PM and sepsis, direct ICU admission was associated with lower mortality rates when compared to delayed admission

    External validation of prognostic scores for COVID-19: a multicenter cohort study of patients hospitalized in Greater Paris University Hospitals

    No full text
    International audiencePurposeThe Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to an unparalleled influx of patients. Prognostic scores could help optimizing healthcare delivery, but most of them have not been comprehensively validated. We aim to externally validate existing prognostic scores for COVID-19.MethodsWe used “COVID-19 Evidence Alerts” (McMaster University) to retrieve high-quality prognostic scores predicting death or intensive care unit (ICU) transfer from routinely collected data. We studied their accuracy in a retrospective multicenter cohort of adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from January 2020 to April 2021 in the Greater Paris University Hospitals. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were computed for the prediction of the original outcome, 30-day in-hospital mortality and the composite of 30-day in-hospital mortality or ICU transfer.ResultsWe included 14,343 consecutive patients, 2583 (18%) died and 5067 (35%) died or were transferred to the ICU. We examined 274 studies and found 32 scores meeting the inclusion criteria: 19 had a significantly lower AUC in our cohort than in previously published validation studies for the original outcome; 25 performed better to predict in-hospital mortality than the composite of in-hospital mortality or ICU transfer; 7 had an AUC > 0.75 to predict in-hospital mortality; 2 had an AUC > 0.70 to predict the composite outcome.ConclusionSeven prognostic scores were fairly accurate to predict death in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The 4C Mortality Score and the ABCS stand out because they performed as well in our cohort and their initial validation cohort, during the first epidemic wave and subsequent waves, and in younger and older patients
    corecore