Performance of the SHARPEN Score and the Charlson Comorbidity Index for In-Hospital and Post-Discharge Mortality Prediction in Infective Endocarditis. / Desempenho do Escore SHARPEN e do Índice de Comorbidade de Charlson para Predição de Mortalidade durante a Internação Hospitalar e após a Alta na Endocardite Infecciosa.

BACKGROUND: Central Illustration : Performance of the SHARPEN Score and the Charlson Comorbidity Index for In-Hospital and Post-Discharge Mortality Prediction in Infective Endocarditis. BACKGROUND: SHARPEN was the first dedicated score for in-hospital mortality prediction in infective endocarditis (IE) regardless of cardiac surgery. OBJECTIVES: To analyze the ability of the SHARPEN score to predict in-hospital and post-discharge mortality and compare it with that of the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI). METHODS: Retrospective cohort study including definite IE (Duke modified criteria) admissions from 2000 to 2016. The area under the ROC curve (AUC-ROC) was calculated to assess predictive ability. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression was performed. P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: We studied 179 hospital admissions. In-hospital mortality was 22.3%; 68 (38.0%) had cardiac surgery. Median (interquartile range, IQR) SHARPEN and CCI scores were 9(7-11) and 3(2-6), respectively. SHARPEN had better in-hospital mortality prediction than CCI in non-operated patients (AUC-ROC 0.77 vs. 0.62, p = 0.003); there was no difference in overall (p = 0.26) and in operated patients (p = 0.41). SHARPEN > 10 at admission was associated with decreased in-hospital survival in the overall (HR 3.87; p < 0.001), in non-operated (HR 3.46; p = 0.006) and operated (HR 6.86; p < 0.001) patients. CCI > 3 at admission was associated with worse in-hospital survival in the overall (HR 3.0; p = 0.002), and in operated patients (HR 5.57; p = 0.005), but not in non-operated patients (HR 2.13; p = 0.119). Post-discharge survival was worse in patients with SHARPEN > 10 (HR 3.11; p < 0.001) and CCI > 3 (HR 2.63; p < 0.001) at admission; however, there was no difference in predictive ability between these groups. CONCLUSION: SHARPEN was superior to CCI in predicting in-hospital mortality in non-operated patients. There was no difference between the scores regarding post-discharge mortality.

Desempenho do Escore SHARPEN e do Índice de Comorbidade de Charlson para Predição de Mortalidade durante a Internação Hospitalar e após a Alta na Endocardite Infecciosa / Performance of the SHARPEN Score and the Charlson Comorbidity Index for In-Hospital and Post-Discharge Mortality Prediction in Infective Endocarditis

Resumo Fundamento O SHARPEN foi o primeiro escore desenvolvido especificamente para a predição de mortalidade hospitalar em pacientes com endocardite infecciosa (EI), independentemente da realização de cirurgia cardíaca. Objetivos Analisar a capacidade do escore SHARPEN na predição de mortalidade hospitalar e mortalidade após a alta e compará-la à do Índice de Comorbidade de Charlson (ICC). Métodos Estudo retrospectivo do tipo coorte incluindo internações por EI (segundo os critérios de Duke modificados) entre 2000 e 2016. A área sob a curva ROC (AUC-ROC) foi calculada para avaliar a capacidade preditiva. Curvas de Kaplan-Meier e regressão de Cox foram realizadas. Um valor de p < 0,05 foi considerado estatisticamente significativo. Resultados Estudamos 179 internações hospitalares. A mortalidade hospitalar foi 22,3%; 68 (38,0%) foram submetidos à cirurgia cardíaca. Os escores SHARPEN e ICC (mediana e intervalo interquartil) foram, respectivamente, 9(7-11) e 3(2-6). O escore SHARPEN mostrou melhor predição de mortalidade hospitalar em comparação ao ICC nos pacientes não operados (AUC-ROC 0,77 vs. 0,62, p = 0,003); não foi observada diferença no grupo total (p=0,26) ou nos pacientes operados (p=0,41). Escore SHARPEN >10 na admissão foi associado a uma menor sobrevida hospitalar no grupo total (HR 3,87; p < 0,001), nos pacientes não operados (HR 3,46; p = 0,006) e de pacientes operados (HR 6,86; p < 0,001) patients. ICC > 3 na admissão foi associada a pior sobrevida hospitalar nos grupos total (HR 3,0; p = 0,002), de pacientes operados (HR 5,57; p = 0,005), mas não nos pacientes não operados (HR 2,13; p = 0,119). A sobrevida após a alta foi pior nos pacientes com SHARPEN > 10 (HR 3,11; p < 0,001) e ICC > 3 (HR 2,63; p < 0,001) na internação; contudo, não houve diferença na capacidade preditiva entre esses grupos. Conclusão O SHARPEN escore foi superior ao ICC na predição de mortalidade hospitalar nos pacientes não operados. Não houve diferença entre os escores quanto à mortalidade após a alta.

Abstract Background SHARPEN was the first dedicated score for in-hospital mortality prediction in infective endocarditis (IE) regardless of cardiac surgery. Objectives To analyze the ability of the SHARPEN score to predict in-hospital and post-discharge mortality and compare it with that of the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI). Methods Retrospective cohort study including definite IE (Duke modified criteria) admissions from 2000 to 2016. The area under the ROC curve (AUC-ROC) was calculated to assess predictive ability. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression was performed. P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results We studied 179 hospital admissions. In-hospital mortality was 22.3%; 68 (38.0%) had cardiac surgery. Median (interquartile range, IQR) SHARPEN and CCI scores were 9(7-11) and 3(2-6), respectively. SHARPEN had better in-hospital mortality prediction than CCI in non-operated patients (AUC-ROC 0.77 vs. 0.62, p = 0.003); there was no difference in overall (p = 0.26) and in operated patients (p = 0.41). SHARPEN > 10 at admission was associated with decreased in-hospital survival in the overall (HR 3.87; p < 0.001), in non-operated (HR 3.46; p = 0.006) and operated (HR 6.86; p < 0.001) patients. CCI > 3 at admission was associated with worse in-hospital survival in the overall (HR 3.0; p = 0.002), and in operated patients (HR 5.57; p = 0.005), but not in non-operated patients (HR 2.13; p = 0.119). Post-discharge survival was worse in patients with SHARPEN > 10 (HR 3.11; p < 0.001) and CCI > 3 (HR 2.63; p < 0.001) at admission; however, there was no difference in predictive ability between these groups. Conclusion SHARPEN was superior to CCI in predicting in-hospital mortality in non-operated patients. There was no difference between the scores regarding post-discharge mortality.

Effect of adding hydrochlorothiazide to usual treatment of patients with acute decompensated heart failure: a randomized clinical trial.

Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is the leading cause of hospitalization in patients aged 65 years or older, and most of them present with congestion. The use of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) may increase the response to loop diuretics. To evaluate the effect of adding HCTZ to furosemide on congestion and symptoms in patients with ADHF. This randomized clinical trial compared HCTZ 50 mg versus placebo for 3 days in patients with ADHF and signs of congestion. The primary outcome of the study was daily weight reduction. Secondary outcomes were change in creatinine, need for vasoactive drugs, change in natriuretic peptides, congestion score, dyspnea, thirst, and length of stay. Fifty-one patients were randomized-26 to the HCTZ group and 25 to the placebo group. There was an increment of 0.73 kg/day towards additional weight reduction in the HCTZ group (HCTZ: - 1.78 ± 1.08 kg/day vs placebo: - 1.05 ± 1.51 kg/day; p = 0.062). In post hoc analysis, the HCTZ group demonstrated significant weight reduction for every 40 mg of intravenous furosemide (HCTZ: - 0.74 ± 0.47 kg/40 mg vs placebo: - 0.33 ± 0.80 kg/40 mg; p = 0.032). There was a trend to increase in creatinine in the HCTZ group (HCTZ: 0.50 ± 0.37 vs placebo: 0.27 ± 0.40; p = 0.05) but no significant difference in onset of acute renal failure (HCTZ: 58% vs placebo: 41%; p = 0.38). No differences were found in the remaining outcomes. Adding hydrochlorothiazide to usual treatment of patients with acute decompensated heart failure did not cause significant difference in daily body weight reduction compared to placebo. In analysis adjusted to the dose of intravenous furosemide, adding HCTZ 50 mg to furosemide resulted in a significant synergistic effect on weight loss.Trial registration: The Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (ReBEC), a publically accessible primary register that participates in the World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform; number RBR-5qkn8h. Registered in 23/07/2019 (retrospectively), http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-5qkn8h/ .

A Three-Arm Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing the Efficacy of a Mindfulness-Based Intervention with an Active Comparison Group and Fluoxetine Treatment for Adults with Generalized Anxiety Disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Mindfulness-based interventions have been studied as an alternative treatment for anxiety disorders, but there are only a few studies comparing these with established treatments. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of a Body in Mind Training (BMT) program for adults with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), an active comparison protocol called Quality of Life and Psychoeducation (QoL), and treatment with fluoxetine (FLX). METHODS: This study comprises a 3-arm parallel-group, randomized clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03072264). Adults with a primary diagnosis of GAD and no current treatment were recruited from the community and randomized in a ratio 1:1:1. The primary outcomes were assessed by means of the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) and the Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ) at week 8. Data were analyzed using a superiority analysis (BMT vs. QoL) and a noninferiority analysis (BMT vs. FLX). RESULTS: A total of 249 participants were included and 223 were analyzed (76 BMT, 79 FLX, and 68 QoL). All groups improved after intervention. However, BMT was not superior to QoL at week 8 (mean difference = -1.36; p = 0.47), nor was it noninferior to FLX as assessed with theHAM-A (mean difference = 3.5; 95% CI -0.06 to 7.06; noninferiority margin = -2.43; p = 0.054). QoL (mean difference = 3.54; p = 0.04) and FLX (mean difference = -7.72; 95% CI -10.89 to -4.56; noninferiority margin = -2.09; p < 0.001) were superior to BMT in reducing PSWQ score. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that BMT, in its current format, cannot be considered an effective mindfulness protocol to improve GAD.