Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros








Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Clin Med ; 11(11)2022 May 25.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35683384

RESUMO

Background. Intrarenal resistive index (RI) ≥ 0.80 predicts renal outcomes in proteinuric chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, this evidence in non-proteinuric patients with CKD of unknown etiology is lacking. In this study, we assessed the effect of intrarenal RI on renal function and all-cause mortality in non-proteinuric patients with CKD of unknown etiology despite an extensive diagnostic work-up. Methods. Non-proteinuric CKD patients were evaluated in a retrospective longitudinal study. Progression of renal disease was investigated by checking serum creatinine levels at 1, 3, and 5 years and defined by a creatinine level increase of at least 0.5 mg/dL. The discrimination performance of intrarenal RI in predicting the 5-year progression of renal disease was assessed by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Results. One-hundred-thirty-one patients (76 ± 9 years, 56% males) were included. The median follow-up was 7.5 years (interquartile range 4.3−10.5) with a cumulative mortality of 53%, and 5-year renal disease progression occurred in 25%. Patients with intrarenal RI ≥ 0.80 had a faster increase of serum creatinine levels compared to those with RI < 0.80 (+0.06 mg/dL each year, 95% CI 0.02−0.10, p < 0.010). Each 0.1-unit increment of intrarenal RI was an independent determinant of 5-year renal disease progression (odds ratio 4.13, 95% CI 1.45−12.9, p = 0.010) and predictor of mortality (hazards ratio 1.80, 95% CI 1.05−3.09, p = 0.034). AUROCs of intrarenal RI for predicting 5-year renal disease progression and mortality were 0.66 (95% CI 0.57−0.76) and 0.67 (95% CI 0.58−0.74), respectively. Conclusions. In non-proteinuric patients with CKD of unknown etiology, increased intrarenal RI predicted both a faster decline in renal function and higher long-term mortality, but as a single marker, it showed poor discrimination performance.

2.
Thromb J ; 20(1): 34, 2022 Jun 20.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35725464

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary embolism (PE) without overt deep vein thrombosis (DVT) was common in hospitalized coronavirus-induced disease (COVID)-19 patients and represented a diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic challenge. The aim of this study was to analyze the prognostic role of PE on mortality and the preventive effect of heparin on PE and mortality in unvaccinated COVID-19 patients without overt DVT. METHODS: Data from 401 unvaccinated patients (age 68 ± 13 years, 33% females) consecutively admitted to the intensive care unit or the medical ward were included in a retrospective longitudinal study. PE was documented by computed tomography scan and DVT by compressive venous ultrasound. The effect of PE diagnosis and any heparin use on in-hospital death (primary outcome) was analyzed by a classical survival model. The preventive effect of heparin on either PE diagnosis or in-hospital death (secondary outcome) was analyzed by a multi-state model after having reclassified patients who started heparin after PE diagnosis as not treated. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 8 days (range 1-40 days). PE cumulative incidence and in-hospital mortality were 27% and 20%, respectively. PE was predicted by increased D-dimer levels and COVID-19 severity. Independent predictors of in-hospital death were age (hazards ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.08, p < 0.001), body mass index (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89-0.98, p = 0.004), COVID-19 severity (severe versus mild/moderate HR 3.67, 95% CI 1.30-10.4, p = 0.014, critical versus mild/moderate HR 12.1, 95% CI 4.57-32.2, p < 0.001), active neoplasia (HR 2.58, 95% CI 1.48-4.50, p < 0.001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR 2.47; 95% CI 1.15-5.27, p = 0.020), respiratory rate (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.11, p = 0.008), heart rate (HR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.04, p < 0.001), and any heparin treatment (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18-0.67, p = 0.001). In the multi-state model, preventive heparin at prophylactic or intermediate/therapeutic dose, compared with no treatment, reduced PE risk and in-hospital death, but it did not influence mortality of patients with a PE diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: PE was common during the first waves pandemic in unvaccinated patients, but it was not a negative prognostic factor for in-hospital death. Heparin treatment at any dose prevented mortality independently of PE diagnosis, D-dimer levels, and disease severity.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA