Comparison of lactate/albumin ratio and established scoring systems for predicting mortality in critically ill cirrhotic patients.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill cirrhotic patients may present a serious clinical condition defined as acute-on-chronic liver failure with high mortality. While established scoring systems like Child-Pugh and Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) offer prognostic insights, their limitations warrant exploration of alternative markers. The lactate/albumin ratio (LAR) serves as a potential prognostic indicator in critical care settings, yet its utility in cirrhotic patients remains underexplored. METHODS: We assessed 175 critically ill cirrhotic patients in this retrospective cohort study. Clinical severity scores, including Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), and chronic liver failure-organ failure score (CLIF-OF), were compared with LAR along with traditional liver failure scoring systems. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis were used to evaluate prognostic performance. RESULTS: Intensive care unit (ICU) nonsurvivors had significantly higher scores in all liver failure and clinical severity scores compared to survivors (p<0.001). Median LAR was significantly higher in nonsurvivors (p<0.001). ROC analysis revealed comparable prognostic accuracy between LAR, APACHE II, SOFA, and CLIF-OF scores in predicting ICU mortality. Logistic regression identified SOFA score at 48th hours, LAR, and requirement of mechanical ventilation as independent predictors of ICU mortality. CONCLUSION: LAR demonstrates promising prognostic utility in predicting ICU mortality among critically ill cirrhotic patients, complementing established scoring systems. Early reassessment using SOFA score at 48th hours may guide therapeutic interventions and improve patient outcomes. Further prospective studies are warranted to validate these findings and optimize clinical management strategies.

Can treating critically-ill haematological malignancy patients in a separate intensive care unit decrease intensive care unit mortality?

Background/aim: The aim of the study was to investigate whether treating haematological malignancy (HM) patients in a separate intensive care unit (ICU) would reduce ICU mortality. Materials and methods: HM patients treated by the same ICU team in a general medical ICU (GM-ICU) and a separate haematology ICU (H-ICU) were included in this study. Patients' demographic characteristics and ICU data were recorded retrospectively. Differences in the ICU course and prognosis between these two groups were determined. Results: A total of 251 patients (102 from GM-ICU, 149 from H-ICU) were included in this study. The disease severity and organ failure scores at ICU admission and underlying HMs were not different between the two groups. Patients waited longer for admission to GM- ICU. Therapeutic procedures were performed significantly more frequently in GM-ICU. ICU complications were not different between the groups. ICU mortality rates were higher in GM-ICU (59.8% vs 37.6%, p = 0.006). Conclusion: A separate ICU allocated for haematology patients will allow timely and rapid admission of HM patients to ICU. Thus, mortality rates of HM patients needing ICU care will decline.

The factors predicting pneumonia in COVID-19 patients: preliminary results from a university hospital in Turkey

Background/aim: Pneumonia is the most serious clinical presentation of COVID-19. This study aimed to determine the demographic, clinical, and laboratory findings that can properly predict COVID-19 pneumonia. Materials and methods: This study was conducted in the Gazi University hospital. All hospitalized patients with confirmed and suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection between 16 March 2020 and 30 April 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. COVID-19 patients were separated into two groups, pneumonia and nonpneumonia, and then compared to determine predicting factors for COVID-19 pneumonia. Variables that had a P-value of less than 0.20 and were not correlated with each other were included in the logistic regression model. Results: Of the 247 patients included in the study 58% were female, and the median age was 40. COVID-19 was confirmed in 70.9% of these patients. Among the confirmed COVID-19 cases, 21.4% had pneumonia. In the multivariate analysis male sex (P = 0.028), hypertension (P = 0.022), and shortness of breath on hospital admission (P = 0.025) were significant factors predicting COVID-19 pneumonia. Conclusion: Shortness of breath, male sex, and hypertension were significant for predicting COVID-19 pneumonia on admission. Patients with these factors should be evaluated more carefully for diagnostic procedures, such as thorax CT.

Erratum: Evaluation of prevalence and risk factors for bloodstream infection in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients - CORRIGENDUM.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1017/ash.2021.254.].

Evaluation of prevalance and risk factors for bloodstream infection in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.

Objectives: In this study, we sought to determine the prevalence of bloodstream infection (BSI) in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and to determine the risk factors of BSI in critical COVID-19 patients. Design: Retrospective, descriptive study between March 2020 and January 2021. Setting: An 1,007-bed university hospital. Participants: Patients who were hospitalized due to severe COVID-19 disease and had an aerobic blood culture taken at least once during hospitalization. Methods: Case definitions were made according to National Institutes of Health clinical definitions. According to the blood culture results, the patients were grouped as with and without BSIs, and compared for BSIs risk factors. Results: In total, 195 patients were included in the study. Blood culture positivity was detected in 76 (39.0%) of 196 patients. Excluding blood culture positivity considered as contamination, the prevalence of BSI in all severe COVID-19 cases was 18.5% (n = 36). In intensive care unit patients the prevalence of BSI was 30.6% (n = 26). In multivariate analyses, central venous catheter (odds ratio [OR], 8.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.46-27.1; P < .01) and hospitalization in the multibed intensive care unit (OR, 4.28; 95% CI, 1.28-14.3; P < .01) were risk factors associated with the acquisition of BSI. Conclusion: The prevalence of BSI in COVID-19 patients is particularly high in critically ill patients. The central venous catheter and multibed intensive care follow-up are risk factors for BSI. BSIs can be reduced by increasing compliance to infection control measures and central venous catheter insertion-care procedures. The use of single-bed intensive care units where compliance can be achieved more effectively is important for the prevention of BSIs.