[Impact of days elapsed from the onset of symptoms to hospitalization in COVID-19 in-hospital mortality: Time matters]. / Impacto de los días transcurridos desde el inicio de los síntomas hasta la hospitalización en la mortalidad hospitalaria por COVID-19: el tiempo importa.

Background: COVID-19 shows different clinical and pathophysiological stages over time. Theeffect of days elapsed from the onset of symptoms (DEOS) to hospitalization on COVID-19prognostic factors remains uncertain. We analyzed the impact on mortality of DEOS to hospital-ization and how other independent prognostic factors perform when taking this time elapsedinto account. Methods: This retrospective, nationwide cohort study, included patients with confirmed COVID-19 from February 20th and May 6th, 2020. The data was collected in a standardized online datacapture registry. Univariate and multivariate COX-regression were performed in the generalcohort and the final multivariate model was subjected to a sensitivity analysis in an earlypresenting (EP; < 5 DEOS) and late presenting (LP; ≥5 DEOS) group. Results: 7915 COVID-19 patients were included in the analysis, 2324 in the EP and 5591 in theLP group. DEOS to hospitalization was an independent prognostic factor of in-hospital mortalityin the multivariate Cox regression model along with other 9 variables. Each DEOS incrementaccounted for a 4.3% mortality risk reduction (HR 0.957; 95% CI 0.93---0.98). Regarding variationsin other mortality predictors in the sensitivity analysis, the Charlson Comorbidity Index onlyremained significant in the EP group while D-dimer only remained significant in the LP group. Conclusion: When caring for COVID-19 patients, DEOS to hospitalization should be consideredas their need for early hospitalization confers a higher risk of mortality. Different prognosticfactors vary over time and should be studied within a fixed timeframe of the disease.

Impacto de los días transcurridos desde el inicio de los síntomas hasta la hospitalización en la mortalidad hospitalaria por COVID-19: el tiempo importa / Impact of days elapsed from the onset of symptoms to hospitalization in COVID-19 in-hospital mortality: Time matters

Antecedentes La COVID-19 muestra diferentes fases clínicas y fisiopatológicas a lo largo del tiempo. El efecto de los días transcurridos desde el comienzo de los síntomas (DTCS) hasta la hospitalización sobre los factores pronósticos de la COVID-19 sigue siendo incierto. Analizamos el impacto en la mortalidad de los DTCS hasta la hospitalización y cómo se comportan otros factores pronósticos independientes al tener en cuenta dicho tiempo transcurrido. Métodos En este estudio de cohortes nacional retrospectivo se incluyó a pacientes con COVID-19 confirmada entre el 20 de febrero y el 6 de mayo de 2020. Los datos se recopilaron en un registro normalizado de captura de datos en línea. Se realizó una regresión de Cox uni y multifactorial en la cohorte general y el modelo multifactorial final se sometió a un análisis de sensibilidad en un grupo de presentación precoz (PP) < 5 DTCS y otro de presentación tardía (PT) ≥ 5 DTCS). Resultados En el análisis se incluyó a 7.915 pacientes con COVID-19, 2.324 en el grupo de PP y 5.591 en el de PT. Los DTCS hasta la hospitalización fueron un factor pronóstico independiente de mortalidad intrahospitalaria en el modelo de regresión de Cox multifactorial junto con otras nueve variables. Cada incremento en un DTCS supuso una reducción del riesgo de mortalidad del 4,3% (RRI = 0,957; IC 95%, 0,93-0,98). En cuanto a las variaciones de otros factores predictivos de la mortalidad en el análisis de sensibilidad, únicamente el índice de comorbilidad de Charlson siguió siendo significativo en el grupo de PP, mientras que únicamente el dímero D lo siguió siendo en el grupo de PT. Conclusiones Al atender a pacientes con COVID-19 hay que tener en cuenta los DTCS hasta la hospitalización porque la necesidad de hospitalización precoz confiere un mayor riesgo de mortalidad. Los diferentes factores pronósticos varían con el tiempo y deberían estudiarse dentro de un marco temporal fijo de la enfermedad (AU)

Background COVID-19 shows different clinical and pathophysiological stages over time. Theeffect of days elapsed from the onset of symptoms (DEOS) to hospitalization on COVID-19prognostic factors remains uncertain. We analyzed the impact on mortality of DEOS to hospital-ization and how other independent prognostic factors perform when taking this time elapsedinto account. Methods This retrospective, nationwide cohort study, included patients with confirmed COVID-19 from February 20th and May 6th, 2020. The data was collected in a standardized online datacapture registry. Univariate and multivariate COX-regression were performed in the generalcohort and the final multivariate model was subjected to a sensitivity analysis in an earlypresenting (EP; <5 DEOS) and late presenting (LP; ≥5 DEOS) group. Results 7915 COVID-19 patients were included in the analysis, 2324 in the EP and 5591 in theLP group. DEOS to hospitalization was an independent prognostic factor of in-hospital mortalityin the multivariate Cox regression model along with other 9 variables. Each DEOS incrementaccounted for a 4.3% mortality risk reduction (HR 0.957; 95% CI 0.93---0.98). Regarding variationsin other mortality predictors in the sensitivity analysis, the Charlson Comorbidity Index onlyremained significant in the EP group while D-dimer only remained significant in the LP group. Conclusion When caring for COVID-19 patients, DEOS to hospitalization should be consideredas their need for early hospitalization confers a higher risk of mortality. Different prognosticfactors vary over time and should be studied within a fixed timeframe of the disease (AU)

Impact of days elapsed from the onset of symptoms to hospitalization in COVID-19 in-hospital mortality: time matters.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 shows different clinical and pathophysiological stages over time. The effect of days elapsed from the onset of symptoms (DEOS) to hospitalization on COVID-19 prognostic factors remains uncertain. We analyzed the impact on mortality of DEOS to hospitalization and how other independent prognostic factors perform when taking this time elapsed into account. METHODS: This retrospective, nationwide cohort study, included patients with confirmed COVID-19 from February 20th and May 6th, 2020. The data was collected in a standardized online data capture registry. Univariate and multivariate COX-regression were performed in the general cohort and the final multivariate model was subjected to a sensitivity analysis in an early presenting (EP; <5 DEOS) and late presenting (LP; ≥5 DEOS) group. RESULTS: 7915 COVID-19 patients were included in the analysis, 2324 in the EP and 5591 in the LP group. DEOS to hospitalization was an independent prognostic factor of in-hospital mortality in the multivariate Cox regression model along with other 9 variables. Each DEOS increment accounted for a 4.3% mortality risk reduction (HR 0.957; 95% CI 0.93-0.98). Regarding variations in other mortality predictors in the sensitivity analysis, the Charlson Comorbidity Index only remained significant in the EP group while D-dimer only remained significant in the LP group. CONCLUSION: When caring for COVID-19 patients, DEOS to hospitalization should be considered as their need for early hospitalization confers a higher risk of mortality. Different prognostic factors vary over time and should be studied within a fixed timeframe of the disease.

[Incidence of intravenous colistin nephrotoxicity in hospitalized patients]. / Incidencia de nefrotoxicidad inducida por colistina intravenosa en pacientes hospitalizados.

OBJECTIVE: The increase in infections with multidrug resistant bacteria has forced to return to the use of colistin, antibiotic with known nephrotoxicity. The aim of the study is to determine the incidence of colistin nephrotoxicity nowadays. METHODS: Retrospective-observational-unicentric study was collected hospitalized patients in intravenous colistin treatment during the years 2018-2019. Nephrotoxicity was defined according to the RIFLE scale. The variables to determine it were serum creatinine (sCr) and glomerular filtration (GF). The variables analyzed were age, sex, treatment duration, loading and cumulative dose, empirical/targeted treatment, chronic kidney disease, concomitant use of intravenous contrast and nephrotoxic drugs. RESULTS: A total of 90 patients (60% men) were included, with an average age of 58.2±18.1 years. The mean duration of treatment was 9±8.3 days, with an average cumulative dose of 69.8±71MU. There were no differences between sCr and GF at the beginning and end of treatment. The incidence of nephrotoxicity was 1.73 cases/100 days of treatment (prevalence of 15.56%). CONCLUSIONS: Colistin nephrotoxicity has an important incidence, without developing severe illness.

Humanizar los cuidados reduce la mortalidad en el enfermo crítico / Humanizing care reduces mortality in critically ill patients

No disponible

Clinical Predictive Model of Multidrug Resistance in Neutropenic Cancer Patients with Bloodstream Infection Due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

We aimed to assess the rate and predictive factors of bloodstream infection (BSI) due to multidrug-resistant (MDR) Pseudomonas aeruginosa in neutropenic cancer patients. We performed a multicenter, retrospective cohort study including oncohematological neutropenic patients with BSI due to P. aeruginosa conducted across 34 centers in 12 countries from January 2006 to May 2018. A mixed logistic regression model was used to estimate a model to predict the multidrug resistance of the causative pathogens. Of a total of 1,217 episodes of BSI due to P. aeruginosa, 309 episodes (25.4%) were caused by MDR strains. The rate of multidrug resistance increased significantly over the study period (P = 0.033). Predictors of MDR P. aeruginosa BSI were prior therapy with piperacillin-tazobactam (odds ratio [OR], 3.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.29 to 5.30), prior antipseudomonal carbapenem use (OR, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.65 to 3.87), fluoroquinolone prophylaxis (OR, 2.99; 95% CI, 1.92 to 4.64), underlying hematological disease (OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.26 to 3.44), and the presence of a urinary catheter (OR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.65 to 3.91), whereas older age (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97 to 0.99) was found to be protective. Our prediction model achieves good discrimination and calibration, thereby identifying neutropenic patients at higher risk of BSI due to MDR P. aeruginosa The application of this model using a web-based calculator may be a simple strategy to identify high-risk patients who may benefit from the early administration of broad-spectrum antibiotic coverage against MDR strains according to the local susceptibility patterns, thus avoiding the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics in patients at a low risk of resistance development.

Revisión narrativa sobre humanización en cuidados intensivos pediátricos: ¿dónde estamos? / Narrative review of pediatric critical care humanization: Where we are?

La corriente humanizadora surge como respuesta a un hecho que parece indiscutible: el desarrollo científico y tecnológico de las Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos. Este ha mejorado el cuidado del paciente crítico en términos cuantitativos y ha relegado, quizá, las necesidades humanas y emocionales de pacientes, familias y profesionales a un segundo plano. La humanización debe ser objeto de debate, sin que esto se confunda con poner en duda la humanidad desplegada por los profesionales. Se analizan y describen en este trabajo las líneas estratégicas sobre las que pivota el cuidado humanizado del paciente crítico, adaptándolas al ámbito pediátrico

The humanization of care emerges as a response to something that seems indisputable: the scientific and technological developments in Intensive Care Units. Such development has improved the care of the critically ill patient in quantitative terms, but has perhaps caused the emotional needs of patients, families and professionals to be regarded as secondary concerns. The humanization of healthcare should be discussed without confusing or discussing the humanity displayed by professionals. In this paper we review and describe the different strategic lines proposed in order to secure humanized care, and adopt a critical approach to their adaptation and current status in the field of pediatric critical care

Dígame qué necesita. Le escucho / Tell me what you need. I hear you

No disponible

Narrative review of pediatric critical care humanization: Where we are? / Revisión narrativa sobre humanización en cuidados intensivos pediátricos: ¿dónde estamos?

The humanization of care emerges as a response to something that seems indisputable: the scientific and technological developments in Intensive Care Units. Such development has improved the care of the critically ill patient in quantitative terms, but has perhaps caused the emotional needs of patients, families and professionals to be regarded as secondary concerns. The humanization of healthcare should be discussed without confusing or discussing the humanity displayed by professionals. In this paper we review and describe the different strategic lines proposed in order to secure humanized care, and adopt a critical approach to their adaptation and current status in the field of pediatric critical care.

Principales demandas informativas de los familiares de pacientes ingresados en Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos / Main information requests of family members of patients in Intensive Care Units

OBJETIVO: Elaborar un catálogo de demandas informativas priorizadas por los familiares, conocer qué profesionales consideran estos que pueden responder a estas demandas y explorar las diferencias de criterio entre familiares y profesionales. DISEÑO: Análisis cualitativo de validación de contenido; estudio descriptivo transversal. Ámbito: Cuarenta y una UCI españolas. PARTICIPANTES: Familiares, médicos y enfermeras/os de pacientes críticos. Intervención: De un listado inicial de preguntas extraído de revisión de la literatura, médicos, enfermeras/os y familiares de pacientes críticos incorporaron cuestiones que consideraron no incluidas. Tras análisis de validación de contenido, se obtuvo un nuevo listado que fue valorado nuevamente por los participantes para determinar el nivel de importancia que asignaban a cada pregunta y qué profesional consideraban adecuado para responderla. RESULTADOS: Cuestiones más importantes para los familiares: preocupación por la situación clínica, medidas a tomar, pronóstico e información. Existió coincidencia entre familiares y profesionales en las cuestiones prioritarias para las familias. Existieron diferencias significativas en la importancia dada a cada pregunta: entre médicos y familiares (72/82 preguntas) y entre enfermeras/os y familiares (66/82 cuestiones) (p < 0,05). Para los familiares, el 63% de las preguntas podrían ser contestadas por médicos o enfermeras/os indistintamente, el 27% preferentemente por los médicos y 10% por las enfermeras/os. CONCLUSIONES: Las cuestiones más relevantes para las familias fueron pronóstico y gravedad, pero también la necesidad de información. Los profesionales sanitarios tendemos a subestimar la importancia de muchas de las cuestiones que preocupan a las familias. Los familiares consideran que la mayoría de sus inquietudes pueden ser resueltas indistintamente por médicos o enfermeras/os

OBJECTIVE: To compile an inventory of information requests prioritized by the family members, to find out which professionals them consider able to respond these requests, and to explore the differences in perception between family members and professionals. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of content validation and descriptive cross-sectional study. Scope: 41 Spanish ICU. PARTICIPANTS: Relatives, physicians and nurses of critical patients. Intervention: From an initial list of questions extracted from literature review, physicians, nurses, and relatives of critical patients incorporated issues that they considered not included. After analyzing content validity, a new list was obtained, which was again submitted to the participants' assessment to evaluate the level of importance that they assigned to each question and which professional they considered appropriate to answer it. RESULTS: most important questions for the relatives: concern about the clinical situation, measures to be taken, prognosis and information. There was a coincidence between relatives and professionals in the priority issues for families. There were significant differences in the importance given to each question: between doctors and relatives (72/82 questions), and between nurses and relatives (66/82 questions) (P<.05). For the relatives, 63% of the questions could be answered by doctors or nurses, 27% preferably by doctors and 10% by nurses. CONCLUSIONS: The most relevant issues for families were prognosis and severity, but also the need for information. Healthcare professionals tend to underestimate the importance of many of the questions that concern families. Relatives feel that most of their concerns can be resolved either by doctors or nurses

Main information requests of family members of patients in Intensive Care Units. / Principales demandas informativas de los familiares de pacientes ingresados en Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos.

OBJECTIVE: To compile an inventory of information requests prioritized by the family members, to find out which professionals them consider able to respond these requests, and to explore the differences in perception between family members and professionals. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of content validation and descriptive cross-sectional study. SCOPE: 41 Spanish ICU. PARTICIPANTS: Relatives, physicians and nurses of critical patients. INTERVENTION: From an initial list of questions extracted from literature review, physicians, nurses, and relatives of critical patients incorporated issues that they considered not included. After analyzing content validity, a new list was obtained, which was again submitted to the participants' assessment to evaluate the level of importance that they assigned to each question and which professional they considered appropriate to answer it. RESULTS: most important questions for the relatives: concern about the clinical situation, measures to be taken, prognosis and information. There was a coincidence between relatives and professionals in the priority issues for families. There were significant differences in the importance given to each question: between doctors and relatives (72/82 questions), and between nurses and relatives (66/82 questions) (P<.05). For the relatives, 63% of the questions could be answered by doctors or nurses, 27% preferably by doctors and 10% by nurses. CONCLUSIONS: The most relevant issues for families were prognosis and severity, but also the need for information. Healthcare professionals tend to underestimate the importance of many of the questions that concern families. Relatives feel that most of their concerns can be resolved either by doctors or nurses.

Tratamiento laparoscópico de masas anexiales en el embarazo: reporte de dos casos / Laparoscopic management of adnexal masses in pregnancy: Report of two cases

Resumen ANTECEDENTES Las masas ováricas detectadas durante el embarazo tienden a la desaparición espontánea. Casi siempre se trata de quistes funcionales, foliculares, cuerpos lúteos y quistes tecaluteínicos. CASO CLÍNICO Se reportan dos casos de pacientes en el segundo trimestre del embarazo en quienes se estableció el diagnóstico de masas anexiales en la ecografía del primer trimestre, con aumento del tamaño y dolor. CONCLUSIONES El riesgo de malignidad en pacientes con masas anexiales es muy bajo y el tratamiento quirúrgico está determinado por los síntomas de dolor o crecimiento rápido. En estas pacientes el acceso laparoscópico es factible y debe considerarse una alternativa segura.

Abstract BACKGROUND Ovarian masses detected during pregnancy tend to spontaneously disappear. It is almost always functional cysts, follicular, corpora lutea and tecaluteinic cysts. CLINICAL CASE Two cases of patients in the second trimester of pregnancy were reported in whom the diagnosis of adnexal masses was established in the ultrasound of the first trimester, with an increase in size and pain. CONCLUSIONS The risk of malignancy in patients with adnexal masses is very low and surgical treatment is determined by symptoms of pain or rapid growth. In these patients, laparoscopic access is feasible and should be considered a safe alternative.

Effects of early administration of acetazolamide on the duration of mechanical ventilation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or obesity-hypoventilation syndrome with metabolic alkalosis. A randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic alkalosis (MA) inhibits respiratory drive and may delay weaning from mechanical ventilation (MV). MA is common in CO2-retainer patients that need MV. Acetazolamide (ACTZ) decreases serum bicarbonate concentration and stimulates respiratory drive. This study evaluated the effects of ACTZ on the duration of MV in patients with MA and COPD or obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS) intubated with acute respiratory failure. METHODS: Multicenter, randomized, controlled, double-blind study, with COPD or OHS patients with MV < 72 h and initial bicarbonate >28 mmol/L and pH > 7.35. Test-treatment, ACTZ 500 mg or placebo, was daily administered if pH > 7.35 and bicarbonate >26 mmol/L. Clinical, respiratory and laboratory parameters were recorded. RESULTS: 47 patients (36 men) were randomized. There were no significant differences between groups in comorbidities, baseline characteristics or arterial blood gases at inclusion. The mean difference in the duration of MV between placebo and ACTZ group was 1.3 days (95%CI, -2.1-4.8; p = 0.44). Kaplan-Meier curves showed no differences in the duration of MV (Log-Rank p = 0.41). Between-group comparison of estimated marginal means (CI 95%) during MV were, respectively: PaCO2 55 (51-59) vs 48 (47-50) mm Hg, p = 0.002; bicarbonate concentration 34 (32-35) vs 29 (28-30) mmol/L, p < 0.0001; and minute volume 9.7 (8.9-10.4) vs 10.6 (9.2-12.0) L/min, p = 0.26. There were no severe adverse effects with ACTZ administration. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with MA and COPD or OHS, early treatment with ACTZ did not shorten significantly the duration of MV compared with placebo. TRIAL REGISTRY: clinical.trials.gov; NCT01499485; URL:.www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Clinical efficacy of ß-lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitor combinations for the treatment of bloodstream infection due to extended-spectrum ß-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in haematological patients with neutropaenia: a study protocol for a retrospective observational study (BICAR).

INTRODUCTION: Bloodstream infection (BSI) due to extended-spectrum ß-lactamase-producing Gram-negative bacilli (ESBL-GNB) is increasing at an alarming pace worldwide. Although ß-lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitor (BLBLI) combinations have been suggested as an alternative to carbapenems for the treatment of BSI due to these resistant organisms in the general population, their usefulness for the treatment of BSI due to ESBL-GNB in haematological patients with neutropaenia is yet to be elucidated. The aim of the BICAR study is to compare the efficacy of BLBLI combinations with that of carbapenems for the treatment of BSI due to an ESBL-GNB in this population. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multinational, multicentre, observational retrospective study. Episodes of BSI due to ESBL-GNB occurring in haematological patients and haematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients with neutropaenia from 1 January 2006 to 31 March 2015 will be analysed. The primary end point will be case-fatality rate within 30 days of onset of BSI. The secondary end points will be 7-day and 14-day case-fatality rates, microbiological failure, colonisation/infection by resistant bacteria, superinfection, intensive care unit admission and development of adverse events. SAMPLE SIZE: The number of expected episodes of BSI due to ESBL-GNB in the participant centres will be 260 with a ratio of control to experimental participants of 2. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol of the study was approved at the first site by the Research Ethics Committee (REC) of Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge. Approval will be also sought from all relevant RECs. Any formal presentation or publication of data from this study will be considered as a joint publication by the participating investigators and will follow the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). The study has been endorsed by the European Study Group for Bloodstream Infection and Sepsis (ESGBIS) and the European Study Group for Infections in Compromised Hosts (ESGICH).

HUCI se escribe con H de HUMANO / HUCI is written with H as in HUMAN

No disponible

Síndrome de platipnea-ortodeoxia / Platypnea-orthodeoxia syndrome

No disponible