Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and remdesivir against symptomatic treatment in high-risk COVID-19 outpatients to prevent hospitalization or death during the Omicron era: a propensity score-matched study.

Background: Even though worldwide death rates from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have decreased, the threat of disease progression and death for high-risk groups continues. Few direct comparisons between the available severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antivirals have been made. Objective: We aimed to compare two SARS-CoV-2 antivirals (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and remdesivir) against all-cause hospitalization or death. Design: This is a propensity score-matched cohort study. Methods: We included all high-risk outpatients with COVID-19 in a tertiary referral center in Mexico City from 1 January 2022 to 31 July 2023. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalization or death 28 days after symptom onset. The secondary outcome was COVID-19-associated hospitalization or death 28 days after symptom onset. Logistic regression analysis for characteristics associated with the primary outcome and a multi-group comparison with Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were performed. Results: Of 1566 patients analyzed, 783 did not receive antiviral treatment, 451 received remdesivir, and 332 received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. The median age was 60 years (interquartile range: 46-72), 62.5% were female and 97.8% had at least one comorbidity. The use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was associated with an absolute risk reduction of 8.8% and a relative risk reduction of 90% for all-cause hospitalization or death. The use of remdesivir was associated with an absolute risk reduction of 6.4% and a relative risk reduction of 66% for all-cause hospitalization or death. In multivariable analysis, both antivirals reduced the odds of 28-day all-cause hospitalization or death [nirmatrelvir/ritonavir odds ratio (OR) 0.08 - 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.03-0.19, remdesivir OR 0.29 - 95% CI: 0.18-0.45]. Conclusion: In high-risk COVID-19 outpatients, early antiviral treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or remdesivir was associated with lower 28-day all-cause hospitalization or death.

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and remdesivir against symptomatic treatment in high-risk COVID-19 outpatients In this study, we included high-risk non-hospitalized patients with confirmed mild COVID-19. We compared those who received antiviral treatment (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or remdesivir) against those who only received symptomatic treatment. The aim was to detect differences in hospitalization or death 28 days after symptom onset. We analyzed 1566 patients: 783 did not receive antiviral treatment, 451 received remdesivir, and 332 received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Most patients were female and over 60 years old. The most common comorbidities were chronic hypertension (44%), diabetes mellitus (26%), and autoimmune diseases (25%); systemic immunosuppression was registered in 35% of patients. Hospitalization or death 28 days after symptom onset occurred in 168 patients (136 in the symptomatic treatment group, 27 in the remdesivir group, and 5 in the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir group). Considering multiple variables like age, sex, comorbidities, and previous vaccination, both antivirals significantly reduced the odds of hospitalization or death (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir odds ratio 0.08, 95% confidence interval 0.03-0.19; remdesivir odds ratio 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.18-0.45).

Cephalotin Versus Dicloxacillin for the Treatment of Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus Bacteraemia: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: First-line treatments for methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) bacteraemia are nafcillin, oxacillin, or cefazolin. Regional shortages of these antibiotics force clinicians to use other options like dicloxacillin and cephalotin. This study aims to describe and compare the safety and efficacy of cephalotin and dicloxacillin for the treatment of MSSA bacteraemia. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted in a referral centre in Mexico City. We identified MSSA isolates in blood cultures from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2022. Patients ≥ 18 years of age, with a first episode of MSSA bacteraemia, who received cephalotin or dicloxacillin as the definitive antibiotic treatment, were included. The primary outcome was in-hospital all-cause mortality. RESULTS: We included 202 patients, of which 48% (97/202) received cephalotin as the definitive therapy and 52% (105/202) received dicloxacillin. In-hospital all-cause mortality was 20.7% (42/202). There were no differences in all-cause in-hospital mortality between patients receiving cephalotin or dicloxacillin (20% vs. 21%, p = 0.43), nor in 30-day all-cause mortality (14% vs. 18%, p = 0.57) or 90-day all-cause mortality (24% vs. 22%, p = 0.82). No severe adverse reactions were associated with either antibiotic. CONCLUSIONS: Cephalotin and dicloxacillin were equally effective for treating MSSA bacteraemia, and both showed an adequate safety profile.

Fungal Infections in the ICU during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Mexico.

Background: Invasive Fungal Infections (IFI) are emergent complications of COVID-19. In this study, we aim to describe the prevalence, related factors, and outcomes of IFI in critical COVID-19 patients. Methods: We conducted a nested case-control study of all COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) who developed any IFI and matched age and sex controls for comparison (1:1) to evaluate IFI-related factors. Descriptive and comparative analyses were made, and the risk factors for IFI were compared versus controls. Results: We found an overall IFI prevalence of 9.3% in COVID-19 patients in the ICU, 5.6% in COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA), and 2.5% in invasive candidiasis (IC). IFI patients had higher SOFA scores, increased frequency of vasopressor use, myocardial injury, and more empirical antibiotic use. CAPA was classified as possible in 68% and 32% as probable by ECMM/ISHAM consensus criteria, and 57.5% of mortality was found. Candidemia was more frequent for C. parapsilosis Fluconazole resistant outbreak early in the pandemic, with a mortality of 28%. Factors related to IFI in multivariable analysis were SOFA score > 2 (aOR 5.1, 95% CI 1.5-16.8, p = 0.007) and empiric antibiotics for COVID-19 (aOR 30, 95% CI 10.2-87.6, p = <0.01). Conclusions: We found a 9.3% prevalence of IFIs in critically ill patients with COVID-19 in a single center in Mexico; factors related to IFI were associated with higher SOFA scores and empiric antibiotic use for COVID-19. CAPA is the most frequent type of IFI. We did not find a mortality difference.

Gaps in the continuum of care in HIV-positive adults and the need for caution in those returning to care after loss to follow-up.

Loss to follow-up (LTFU) and interruption of antiretroviral therapy (ART) are associated with worse outcomes in people with HIV (PWH). Little is known about gaps in the continuum of care. We conducted a retrospective cohort study including adult PWH with at least one clinical visit during 2000-2017. Three groups of care were defined: those constantly retained in care (constantly-RIC), definitively LTFU (dLTFU), and those who returned to care (RTC) after being LTFU for 1 year. We analyzed characteristics of individuals at enrollment. Among 2967 patients, 1565 (53%) were constantly-RIC, 826 (28%) dLTFU, and 576 (19%) RTC. CD4+ ≥350 cells/µL at enrollment was more frequent in RTC patients (43% vs 28% in both constantly-RIC and dLTFU groups, p < 0.01). Time since enrollment to ART initiation was longer in dLTFU (3.3 weeks) and RTC groups (6.0 weeks) in comparison with constantly-RIC patients (2.0 weeks, p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis showed significant differences between groups. Older and ART-naïve patients at enrollment were less likely to have gaps in the continuum of care. Those with non-MSM transmission were less likely to RTC. Patients with CD4+ ≥350 cells/µL at enrollment were more likely to reengage in care. Interventions should be tailored for those at risk of LTFU.

Predictors of Poor Outcomes in Young Non-Comorbid Patients with COVID-19.

Background: Prognostic factors in previously healthy young patients with COVID-19 remained understudied. Objectives: The objective of the study was to identify factors associated with in-hospital death or need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in young (aged ≤ 65 years) and previously healthy patients with COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study that included patients admitted with COVID-19. The primary outcome was in-hospital death/need for IMV. Secondary outcomes included need for IMV during follow-up, days on IMV, length of stay (LOS), hospital-acquired pneumonia/ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP/VAP), and pulmonary embolism (PE). Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Results: Among 92 patients, primary outcome occurred in 16 (17%), death in 12 (13%), need for IMV in 16 (17%), HAP/VAP in 7 (8%), and PE in 2 (2%). Median LOS and IMV duration were 7 and 12 days, respectively. Independent associations were found between the primary outcome and male sex (Adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 7.1, 95%CI 1.1-46.0, p < 0.05), D-dimer levels > 1000ng/mL (aOR 9.0, 95%CI 1.6-49.1, p < 0.05), and RT-PCR Ct-value ≤ 24 on initial swab samples (aOR 14.3, 95%CI 2.0-101.5, p < 0.01). Conclusions: In young and non-comorbid COVID-19 patients, male sex, higher levels of D-dimer, and low SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Ct-value on an initial nasopharyngeal swab were independently associated with increased in-hospital mortality or need for IMV. (Rev Invest Clin. 2022;74(5):268-75).

Early Outpatient Treatment With Remdesivir in Patients at High Risk for Severe COVID-19: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Background: Early treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with remdesivir in high-risk patients, including those with immunosuppression of different causes, has not been evaluated. The objective of this study was to assess the clinical effectiveness of early remdesivir treatment among patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at high risk of progression. Methods: This prospective cohort comparative study was conducted in a tertiary referral center in Mexico City. Patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at high risk for progression were treated with an ambulatory 3-day course of remdesivir. The primary efficacy composite outcome was hospitalization or death at 28 days after symptom onset. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to identify associations with the primary outcome. Results: From December 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022, a total of 196 high-risk patients were diagnosed with COVID-19, of whom 126 were included in this study (43%, 54/126, received remdesivir; 57%, 72/126, did not receive remdesivir). Baseline clinical characteristics were similar between groups; autoimmune diseases (39/126), solid organ transplant (31/126), and malignant neoplasms (24/126) were the most common immunocompromising conditions. Diabetes mellitus was strongly associated with the primary outcome in both groups. Prior severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection or vaccination was not independently associated with COVID-19 progression. Treatment with remdesivir significantly reduced the odds of hospitalization or death (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06-0.44; P < .01). Conclusions: Early outpatient treatment with remdesivir significantly reduces hospitalization or death by 84% in high-risk, majority immunosuppressed patients with Omicron variant COVID-19.

Predictors of poor outcomes in young non-comorbid patients with COVID-19

ABSTRACT Background: Prognostic factors in previously healthy young patients with COVID-19 remained understudied. Objective: The objective of the study was to identify factors associated with in-hospital death or need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in young (aged ≤ 65 years) and previously healthy patients with COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study that included patients admitted with COVID-19. The primary outcome was in-hospital death/need for IMV. Secondary outcomes included need for IMV during follow-up, days on IMV, length of stay (LOS), hospital-acquired pneumonia/ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP/VAP), and pulmonary embolism (PE). Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Results: Among 92 patients, primary outcome occurred in 16 (17%), death in 12 (13%), need for IMV in 16 (17%), HAP/VAP in 7 (8%), and PE in 2 (2%). Median LOS and IMV duration were 7 and 12 days, respectively. Independent associations were found between the primary outcome and male sex (Adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 7.1, 95%CI 1.1-46.0, p < 0.05), D-dimer levels > 1000ng/mL (aOR 9.0, 95%CI 1.6-49.1, p < 0.05), and RT-PCR Ct-value ≤ 24 on initial swab samples (aOR 14.3, 95%CI 2.0-101.5, p < 0.01). Conclusions: In young and non-comorbid COVID-19 patients, male sex, higher levels of D-dimer, and low SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Ct-value on an initial nasopharyngeal swab were independently associated with increased in-hospital mortality or need for IMV.

Outcomes in Temporary ICUs Versus Conventional ICUs: An Observational Cohort of Mechanically Ventilated Patients With COVID-19-Induced Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, thousands of temporary ICUs have been established worldwide. The outcomes and management of mechanically ventilated patients in these areas remain unknown. OBJECTIVES: To investigate mortality and management of mechanically ventilated patients in temporary ICUs. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational cohort study in a single-institution academic center. We included all adult patients with severe COVID-19 hospitalized in temporary and conventional ICUs for invasive mechanical ventilation due to acute respiratory distress syndrome from March 23, 2020, to April 5, 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: To determine if management in temporary ICUs increased 30-day in-hospital mortality compared with conventional ICUs. Ventilator-free days, ICU-free days (both at 28 d), hospital length of stay, and ICU readmission were also assessed. RESULTS: We included 776 patients (326 conventional and 450 temporary ICUs). Thirty-day in-hospital unadjusted mortality (28.8% conventional vs 36.0% temporary, log-rank test p = 0.023) was higher in temporary ICUs. After controlling for potential confounders, hospitalization in temporary ICUs was an independent risk factor associated with mortality (hazard ratio, 1.4; CI, 1.06-1.83; p = 0.016).There were no differences in ICU-free days at 28 days (6; IQR, 0-16 vs 2; IQR, 0-15; p = 0.5) or ventilator-free days at 28 days (8; IQR, 0-16 vs 5; IQR, 0-15; p = 0.6). We observed higher reintubation (18% vs 12%; p = 0.029) and readmission (5% vs 1.6%; p = 0.004) rates in conventional ICUs despite higher use of postextubation noninvasive mechanical ventilation (13% vs 8%; p = 0.025). Use of lung-protective ventilation (87% vs 85%; p = 0.5), prone positioning (76% vs 79%; p = 0.4), neuromuscular blockade (96% vs 98%; p = 0.4), and COVID-19 pharmacologic treatment was similar. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We observed a higher 30-day in-hospital mortality in temporary ICUs. Although both areas had high adherence to evidence-based management, hospitalization in temporary ICUs was an independent risk factor associated with mortality.

Effect of Tocilizumab in Mortality among Patients with Severe and Critical Covid-19: Experience in a Third-Level Medical Center.

BACKGROUND: Trials evaluating safety and efficacy of tocilizumab in coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) show contradictory results. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the effect of tocilizumab in hospital mortality among patients with severe COVID-19 in a third-level medical center. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included patients with severe and critical COVID-19. Primary outcome was death during hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), days on IMV, ventilator-free days (VFDs), length of hospital stay (LOS), and development of hospitalacquired infections (HAIs). Bivariate, multivariate, and propensity score matching analysis were performed. RESULTS: During the study period, 99/794 (12%) patients received tocilizumab. Male patients, health care workers, and patients with increased inflammatory markers received tocilizumab more frequently. No difference in hospital mortality was observed between groups (34% vs. 34%, p = 0.98). Tocilizumab was not independently associated with mortality. No significant treatment effects were observed in propensity score analysis. IMV was more frequent (46% vs. 11%, p < 0.01) and LOS was longer (12 vs. 7 days, p < 0.01) in the tocilizumab group, reflecting increased severity. Although HAIs were more frequent in the tocilizumab group (22% vs. 10%, p < 0.01), no difference was seen after adjusting for IMV (38% vs. 40%, p = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, tocilizumab was not associated with decreased hospital mortality among patients with severe COVID-19.

Outcomes of patients with severe and critical COVID-19 treated with dexamethasone: a prospective cohort study.

Dexamethasone implementation for COVID-19 management represented a milestone but data regarding its impact and safety have not been consistently reproduced. We aimed to evaluate in-hospital mortality before and after the implementation of corticosteroid treatment (CS-T) for severe and critical COVID-19. We conducted a cohort study that included patients admitted with severe and critical COVID-19. The primary outcome was death during hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included the length of stay (LOS), need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), time to IMV initiation, IMV duration, and development of hospital-acquired infections (HAIs). Bivariate, multivariate, and propensity-score matching analysis were performed. Among 1540 patients, 688 (45%) received CS-T. Death was less frequent in the CS-T group (18 vs 31%, p < .01). Among patients on IMV, death was also less frequent in the CS-T group (25 vs 55%, p < .01). The median time to IMV was longer in the CS-T group (5 vs 3 days, p < .01). HAIs occurred more frequently in the CS-T group (20 vs 10%, p < .01). LOS, IMV, and IMV duration were similar between groups. Multivariate analysis revealed an independent association between CS-T and lower mortality (aOR 0.26, 95% CI 0.19-0.36, p < .001). Propensity-score matching analysis revealed that CS-T was independently associated with lower mortality (aOR 0.33, 95% CI 0.22-0.50, p < .01). Treatment with corticosteroids was associated with reduced in-hospital mortality among patients with severe and critical COVID-19, including those on IMV.

Adaptive Metabolic and Inflammatory Responses Identified Using Accelerated Aging Metrics Are Linked to Adverse Outcomes in Severe SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

BACKGROUND: Chronological age (CA) is a predictor of adverse coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes; however, CA alone does not capture individual responses to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Here, we evaluated the influence of aging metrics PhenoAge and PhenoAgeAccel to predict adverse COVID-19 outcomes. Furthermore, we sought to model adaptive metabolic and inflammatory responses to severe SARS-CoV-2 infection using individual PhenoAge components. METHOD: In this retrospective cohort study, we assessed cases admitted to a COVID-19 reference center in Mexico City. PhenoAge and PhenoAgeAccel were estimated using laboratory values at admission. Cox proportional hazards models were fitted to estimate risk for COVID-19 lethality and adverse outcomes (intensive care unit admission, intubation, or death). To explore reproducible patterns which model adaptive responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, we used k-means clustering using PhenoAge components. RESULTS: We included 1068 subjects of whom 222 presented critical illness and 218 died. PhenoAge was a better predictor of adverse outcomes and lethality compared to CA and SpO2 and its predictive capacity was sustained for all age groups. Patients with responses associated to PhenoAgeAccel >0 had higher risk of death and critical illness compared to those with lower values (log-rank p < .001). Using unsupervised clustering, we identified 4 adaptive responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection: (i) inflammaging associated with CA, (ii) metabolic dysfunction associated with cardiometabolic comorbidities, (iii) unfavorable hematological response, and (iv) response associated with favorable outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Adaptive responses related to accelerated aging metrics are linked to adverse COVID-19 outcomes and have unique and distinguishable features. PhenoAge is a better predictor of adverse outcomes compared to CA.

Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns and Antibiotic Use during Hospital Conversion in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To describe empirical antimicrobial prescription on admission in patients with severe COVID-19, the prevalence of Hospital-Acquired Infections, and the susceptibility patterns of the causing organisms. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study in a tertiary care center in Mexico City, we included consecutive patients admitted with severe COVID-19 between March 20th and June 10th and evaluated empirical antimicrobial prescription and the occurrence of HAI. RESULTS: 794 patients with severe COVID-19 were admitted during the study period. Empiric antibiotic treatment was started in 92% of patients (731/794); the most frequent regimes were amoxicillin-clavulanate plus atypical coverage in 341 (46.6%) and ceftriaxone plus atypical coverage in 213 (29.1%). We identified 110 HAI episodes in 74/656 patients (11.3%). Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) was the most frequent HAI, in 56/110 (50.9%), followed by bloodstream infections (BSI), in 32/110 (29.1%). The most frequent cause of VAP were Enterobacteriaceae in 48/69 (69.6%), followed by non-fermenter gram-negative bacilli in 18/69 (26.1%). The most frequent cause of BSI was coagulase negative staphylococci, in 14/35 (40.0%), followed by Enterobacter complex in 7/35 (20%). Death occurred in 30/74 (40.5%) patients with one or more HAI episodes and in 193/584 (33.0%) patients without any HAI episode (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: A high frequency of empiric antibiotic treatment in patients admitted with COVID-19 was seen. VAP and BSI were the most frequent hospital-acquired infections, due to Enterobacteriaceae and coagulase negative staphylococci, respectively.

CLINICAL AND EPIDEMIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PATIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH COVID-19 IN A TERTIARY CARE CENTER IN MEXICO CITY: A PROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY.

BACKGROUND: Regional information regarding the characteristics of patients with coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 is needed for a better understanding of the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study to describe the clinical features of COVID-19 patients diagnosed in a tertiary-care center in Mexico City and to assess differences according to the treatment setting (ambulatory vs. hospital) and to the need of intensive care (IC). METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort, including consecutive patients with COVID-19 from February 26, 2020 to April 11, 2020. RESULTS: We identified 309 patients (140 inpatients and 169 outpatients). The median age was 43 years (interquartile range, 33-54), 59.2% men, and 18.6% healthcare workers (12.3% from our center). The median body mass index (BMI) was 29.00 kg/m2 and 39.6% had obesity. Compared to outpatients, inpatients were older, had comorbidities, cough, and dyspnea more frequently. Twenty-nine (20.7%) inpatients required treatment in the IC unit (ICU). History of diabetes (type 1 or 2) and abdominal pain were more common in ICU patients compared to non-ICU patients. ICU patients had higher BMIs, higher respiratory rates, and lower room-air capillary oxygen saturations. ICU patients showed a more severe inflammatory response as assessed by white blood cell count, neutrophil and platelet count, C-reactive protein, ferritin, procalcitonin, and albumin levels. By the end of the study period, 65 inpatients had been discharged because of improvement, 70 continued hospitalized, and five had died. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with comorbidities, either middle-age obese or elderly complaining of fever, cough, or dyspnea, were more likely to be admitted. At admission, patients with diabetes, high BMI, and clinical or laboratory findings consistent with a severe inflammatory state were more likely to require IC.

Clinical and epidemiological characteristics of patients diagnosed with covid-19 in a tertiary care center in Mexico City: a prospective cohort study

ABSTRACT Background: Regional information regarding the characteristics of patients with coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 is needed for a better understanding of the pandemic. Objective: The objective of the study to describe the clinical features of COVID-19 patients diagnosed in a tertiary-care center in Mexico City and to assess differences according to the treatment setting (ambulatory vs. hospital) and to the need of intensive care (IC). Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort, including consecutive patients with COVID-19 from February 26, 2020 to April 11, 2020. Results: We identified 309 patients (140 inpatients and 169 outpatients). The median age was 43 years (interquartile range, 33-54), 59.2% men, and 18.6% healthcare workers (12.3% from our center). The median body mass index (BMI) was 29.00 kg/m2 and 39.6% had obesity. Compared to outpatients, inpatients were older, had comorbidities, cough, and dyspnea more frequently. Twenty-nine (20.7%) inpatients required treatment in the IC unit (ICU). History of diabetes (type 1 or 2) and abdominal pain were more common in ICU patients compared to non-ICU patients. ICU patients had higher BMIs, higher respiratory rates, and lower room-air capillary oxygen saturations. ICU patients showed a more severe inflammatory response as assessed by white blood cell count, neutrophil and platelet count, C-reactive protein, ferritin, procalcitonin, and albumin levels. By the end of the study period, 65 inpatients had been discharged because of improvement, 70 continued hospitalized, and five had died. Conclusions: Patients with comorbidities, either middle-age obese or elderly complaining of fever, cough, or dyspnea, were more likely to be admitted. At admission, patients with diabetes, high BMI, and clinical or laboratory findings consistent with a severe inflammatory state were more likely to require IC.

Changes in Radial Artery Pulse Pressure During a Fluid Challenge Cannot Assess Fluid Responsiveness in Patients With Septic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Arterial blood pressure is the most common variable used to assess the response to a fluid challenge in routine clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the change in the radial artery pulse pressure (rPP) to detect the change in cardiac output after a fluid challenge in patients with septic shock. METHODS: Prospective observational study including 35 patients with septic shock in which rPP and cardiac output were measured before and after a fluid challenge with 400 mL of crystalloid solution. Cardiac output was measured with intermittent thermodilution technique using a pulmonary artery catheter. Patients were divided between responders (increase >15% of cardiac output after fluid challenge) and nonresponders. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), Pearson correlation coefficient and paired Student t test were used in statistical analysis. RESULTS: Forty-three percent of the patients were fluid responders. The change in rPP could not neither discriminate between responders and nonresponders (AUROC = 0.52; [95% confidence interval: 0.31-0.72] P = .8) nor correlate (r = .21, P = .1) with the change in cardiac output after the fluid challenge. CONCLUSIONS: The change in rPP neither discriminated between fluid responders and nonresponders nor correlated with the change in cardiac output after a fluid challenge. The change in rPP cannot serve as a surrogate of the change in cardiac output to assess the response to a fluid challenge in patients with septic shock.