Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
1.
Int J Infect Dis ; 146: 107142, 2024 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38901729

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Identifying host response biomarkers implicated in the emergence of organ failure during infection is key to improving the early detection of this complication. METHODS: Twenty biomarkers of innate immunity, T-cell response, endothelial dysfunction, coagulation, and immunosuppression were profiled in 180 surgical patients with infections of diverse severity (IDS) and 53 with no infection (nIDS). Those better differentiating IDS/nIDS in the area under the curve were combined to test their association with the sequential organ failure assessment score by linear regression analysis in IDS. Results were validated in another IDS cohort of 174 patients. RESULTS: C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, pentraxin-3, lipocalin-2 (LCN2), tumoral necrosis factor-α, angiopoietin-2, triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1 (TREM-1) and interleukin (IL)-15 yielded an area under the curve ≥0.75 to differentiate IDS from nIDS. The combination of LCN2, IL-15, TREM-1, angiopoietin-2 (Dys-4) showed the strongest association with sequential organ failure assessment score in IDS (adjusted regression coefficient; standard error; P): Dys-4 (3.55;0.44; <0.001), LCN2 (2.24; 0.28; <0.001), angiopoietin-2 (1.92; 0.33; <0.001), IL-15 (1.78; 0.40; <0.001), TREM-1(1.74; 0.46; <0.001), tumoral necrosis factor-α (1.60; 0.31; <0.001), pentraxin-3 (1.12; 0.18; <0.001), procalcitonin (0.85; 0.12; <0.001). Dys-4 provided similar results in the validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: There is a synergistic impact of innate immunity hyper-activation (LCN2, IL-15, TREM-1) and endothelial dysfunction (angiopoietin-2) on the magnitude of organ failure during infection.


Assuntos
Angiopoietina-2 , Biomarcadores , Proteína C-Reativa , Imunidade Inata , Insuficiência de Múltiplos Órgãos , Sepse , Humanos , Masculino , Feminino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Biomarcadores/sangue , Insuficiência de Múltiplos Órgãos/imunologia , Sepse/imunologia , Proteína C-Reativa/análise , Proteína C-Reativa/metabolismo , Angiopoietina-2/sangue , Idoso , Receptor Gatilho 1 Expresso em Células Mieloides , Componente Amiloide P Sérico/metabolismo , Pró-Calcitonina/sangue , Lipocalina-2/sangue , Interleucina-15/sangue , Fator de Necrose Tumoral alfa/sangue , Adulto
2.
J Clin Med ; 11(1)2021 Dec 30.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35011938

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The evidence for the efficacy of glucocorticoids combined with tocilizumab (TCZ) in COVID-19 comes from observational studies or subgroup analysis. Our aim was to compare outcomes between hospitalized COVID-19 patients who received high-dose corticosteroid pulse therapy and TCZ and those who received TCZ. METHODS: A retrospective single-center study was performed on consecutive hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 between 1 March and 23 April 2020. Patients treated with either TCZ (400-600 mg, one to two doses) and methylprednisolone pulses (MPD-TCZ group) or TCZ alone were analyzed for the occurrence of a combined endpoint of death and need for invasive mechanical ventilation during admission. The independence of both treatment groups was tested using machine learning classifiers, and relevant variables that were potentially different between the groups were measured through a mean decrease accuracy algorithm. RESULTS: An earlier date of admission was significantly associated with worse outcomes regardless of treatment type. Twenty patients died (27.0%) in the TCZ group, and 33 (44.6%) died or required intubation (n = 74), whereas in the MPD-TCZ group, 15 (11.0%) patients died and 29 (21.3%) patients reached the combined endpoint (n = 136; p = 0.006 and p < 0.001, respectively). Machine learning methodology using a random forest classifier confirmed significant differences between the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: MPD and TCZ improved outcomes (death and invasive mechanical ventilation) among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, but confounding variables such as the date of admission during the COVID-19 pandemic should be considered in observational studies.

3.
J Clin Anesth ; 40: 91-98, 2017 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28625460

RESUMO

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Clinical repercussions of perioperative treatment with ACEIs/ARBs. DESIGN: Systematic review according to PRISMA statement. SETTING: Perioperative period. PATIENTS: 29 studies 11 cases/cases series, 12 observational studies and 6 randomized studies. MEASUREMENTS: Arterial blood pressure differences, refractory hypotension, other comorbidities. MAIN RESULTS: The studies show different results regarding the topics measured. They are divided in the results regarding blood pressure, long term morbidities and effects in neuraxial anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: Withholding AECI/ARBs on the morning prior to surgery could be recommended as a potentially effective measure, with a low level of evidence, in order to reduce the appearance of hypotension in the perioperative period of non-cardiac surgery.


Assuntos
Antagonistas de Receptores de Angiotensina/efeitos adversos , Inibidores da Enzima Conversora de Angiotensina/efeitos adversos , Hipotensão/induzido quimicamente , Complicações Intraoperatórias/induzido quimicamente , Assistência Perioperatória/métodos , Anestesia/efeitos adversos , Anestesia/métodos , Antagonistas de Receptores de Angiotensina/administração & dosagem , Inibidores da Enzima Conversora de Angiotensina/administração & dosagem , Esquema de Medicação , Humanos , Projetos de Pesquisa
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA