Calculated Versus Measured Urine Osmolarity: Accuracy of Estimated Urine Density.

BACKGROUND: Urine osmolarity (OsmU) is the gold standard for the evaluation of the kidney's urine concentration capacity; nevertheless, urinary density (UD) is often used as a surrogate for its estimation. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to analyze the accuracy of UD in estimating OsmU. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A transversal study including patients with simultaneous determination of UD measured with refractometry and OsmU measured by osmometer (OsmUm). We multiplied the last two digits of the UD by 35, 30, 32, 33.5, and 40 to estimate OsmU; the estimates were considered precise if the value was ± 30 mOsm/kg from the OsmUm. A Bland-Altman analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Among 205 patients, there was no difference between OsmUm and the estimated form when using a factor of 33.5 (p = 0.578). When analyzing by the absence or presence of proteinuria and/or glycosuria, there were no differences when using the factors 35 (p = 0.844) and 32 with adjusted UD (p = 0.898). In the linear correlation analysis, values for Pearson's r = 0.788 and r2 = 0.621 were obtained (p < 0.001). The areas under the curve obtained by the receiver operating characteristics curves to estimate urine osmolarity values < 100 and > 600 mOsm/kg were > 0.90. CONCLUSION: The estimation of the OsmU from UD showed adequate performance. If an osmometer is unavailable, we recommend using the factor 35 for clean samples and 32 with adjusted UD for samples with proteinuria and/or glycosuria.

Delirium and Associated Factors in a Cohort of Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic dramatically increased the number of patients requiring treatment in an intensive care unit or invasive mechanical ventilation worldwide. Delirium is a well-known neuropsychiatric complication of patients with acute respiratory diseases, representing the most frequent clinical expression of acute brain dysfunction in critically ill patients, especially in those undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation. Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, delirium incidence ranges from 11% to 80%, depending on the studied population and hospital setting. OBJECTIVE: To determine risk factors for the development of delirium in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: We retrospectively studied consecutive hospitalized adult (≥18 y) patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia from March 15 to July 15, 2020, in a tertiary-care hospital in Mexico City. Delirium was assessed by the attending physician or trained nurse, with either the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit or the Confusion Assessment Method brief version, according to the appropriate diagnostic tool for each hospital setting. Consultation-liaison psychiatrists and neurologists confirmed all diagnoses. We calculated adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using a Cox proportional-hazards regression model. RESULTS: We studied 1017 (64.2% men; median age, 54 y; interquartile range 44-64), of whom 166 (16.3%) developed delirium (hyperactive in 75.3%); 78.9% of our delirium cases were detected in patients under invasive mechanical ventilation. The median of days from admission to diagnosis was 14 (interquartile range 8-21) days. Unadjusted mortality rates between delirium and no delirium groups were similar (23.3% vs. 24.1; risk ratio 0.962, 95% CI 0.70-1.33). Age (aHR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.04; P = 0.006), an initial neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio ≥9 (aHR 1.81, 95% CI 1.23-2.65; P = 0.003), and requirement of invasive mechanical ventilation (aHR 3.39, 95% CI 1.47-7.84; P = 0.004) were independent risk factors for in-hospital delirium development. CONCLUSIONS: Delirium is a common in-hospital complication of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, associated with disease severity; given the extensive number of active COVID-19 cases worldwide, it is essential to detect patients who are most likely to develop delirium during hospitalization. Improving its preventive measures may reduce the risk of the long-term cognitive and functional sequelae associated with this neuropsychiatric complication.

Impacto de las asincronías en el pronóstico del paciente bajo ventilación mecánica invasiva / Prognosis impact of the asynchronies in the mechanical ventilated patient / Impacto das assincronias no prognóstico do paciente com ventilação mecânica invasiva

Resumen: La ventilación mecánica es común en pacientes críticos. La asincronía paciente-ventilador existe cuando las fases de la respiración administradas por el ventilador no coinciden con las del paciente. Las asincronías son frecuentes e infradiagnosticadas, éstas se han asociado con desenlaces desfavorables como son: mayor duración de ventilación mecánica, estancia en la unidad de terapia intensiva, mortalidad, incomodidad del paciente, alteraciones del sueño y disfunción diafragmática. Esta revisión describe los desenlaces adversos reportados que se han asociado a la presencia de asincronías en pacientes adultos bajo ventilación mecánica invasiva. La evidencia actual sugiere que el mejor enfoque para manejar las asincronías es ajustar la configuración del ventilador y mejorar su detección. Si bien la mayoría de la evidencia proviene de estudios observacionales y ensayos clínicos aleatorizados realizados en poblaciones heterogéneas y con un número limitado de pacientes, los resultados sugieren desenlaces desfavorables clínicamente significativos en los pacientes que experimentan un índice de asincronía elevado. Por lo anterior, es necesario generar mayor evidencia en este tópico.

Abstract: Mechanical ventilation is common in critically ill patients. Patient-ventilator asynchrony exists when the breathing phases administered by the ventilator do not match those of the patient. They are frequent but underdiagnosed, and have been associated with worse outcomes because they negatively affect patient comfort, length of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit and mortality. This review describes the negative outcomes associated with the presence of asynchronies in adult patients with invasive mechanical ventilation. Current evidence suggests that the best approach to handle asynchronies is to adjust the fan settings and improve the quality of detection. While most of this evidence comes from observational studies and randomized clinical trials which were done with heterogeneous populations and a limited number of patients, the results suggest less favorable clinically significant outcomes in patients with asynchronies. So it is necessary to generate more evidence in this topic.

Resumo: A ventilação mecânica é comum em pacientes críticos. A assincronia paciente-ventilador existe quando as fases da respiração fornecida pelo ventilador não coincidem com as do paciente. As assincronas são frequentes e subdiagnosticadas, tendo sido associadas a desfechos desfavoráveis como: maior tempo de ventilação mecânica, permanência em unidade de terapia intensiva, mortalidade, desconforto do paciente, distúrbios do sono e disfunção diafragmática. Esta revisão descreve os resultados adversos relatados que foram associados à presença de assincronia em pacientes adultos sob ventilação mecânica invasiva. A evidência atual sugere que a melhor abordagem para gerenciar assincronias é ajustar as configurações do ventilador e melhorar a detecção do ventilador. Embora a maioria das evidências provenha de estudos observacionais e ensaios clínicos randomizados conduzidos em populações heterogêneas e com um número limitado de pacientes, os resultados sugerem resultados clinicamente desfavoráveis significativos em pacientes que apresentam uma alta taxa de assincronia. Portanto, é necessário gerar mais evidências sobre este tema.

Primera crisis epiléptica en pacientes adultos / First seizures in adult patients

Resumen: Una primera crisis epiléptica en pacientes adultos es un problema común en la práctica clínica y su manejo representa un desafío para los médicos. El objetivo de esta revisión es proporcionar un abordaje clínico sistemático para la clasificación, diagnóstico y tratamiento de los pacientes que han experimentado una primera crisis porque ello podría auxiliar al clínico a reconocer y tratar apropiadamente esta afección. Debido a que una primera crisis puede tener diversas causas, es esencial identificar si el evento correspondió a una crisis provocada (sintomática aguda) o no provocada. Por tanto, la clasificación adecuada de la crisis es fundamental para establecer la duración del abordaje diagnóstico, la necesidad de una intervención terapéutica y el pronóstico en cada caso. Los pacientes diagnosticados con una crisis única no provocada requieren la realización de un electroencefalograma y una resonancia magnética para estimar el riesgo de recurrencia e identificar a los pacientes que cumplen criterios diagnósticos de epilepsia. Asimismo, se recomienda individualizar el tratamiento con fármacos antiepilépticos para reducir el riesgo de recurrencia temprana (≤ 2 años), debido a que esto puede producir efectos adversos. Por último, señalamos algunas áreas de incertidumbre para incentivar la investigación a futuro en este tema.

Abstract: First seizures in adult patients are a common problem in clinical practice, and their management represents a challenge for physicians. The aim of this review is to develop a systematic clinical approach for the classification, diagnosis and treatment of patients who have experienced a first seizure, which could help clinicians to recognize and treat this condition appropriately. Because these seizures can arise from several etiologies, it is essential to know if the event was a provoked (acute symptomatic) or an unprovoked seizure. Thus, an adequate classification is of utmost importance to establish the length of the diagnosis approach, the necessary treatment and the individual prognosis. Patients diagnosed with a single unprovoked seizure require an electroencephalogram and a brain magnetic resonance imaging to assess the risk of recurrence as well as to identify those patients who meet the diagnosis criteria for epilepsy. We recommend individualized antiepileptic drug therapy to reduce early seizure recurrence (≤ 2 years), even if it can produce some adverse effects. Finally, there are still certain areas of uncertainty to promote future research in this topic.