Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 8 de 8
Filtrar
1.
Pediatr Crit Care Med ; 21(3): e143-e151, 2020 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31851126

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of children with complex chronic conditions in PICUs in Argentina. To describe the demographic profile, clinical course and outcomes in PICU of children with complex chronic condition in comparison to previously healthy children. DESIGN: Prospective, observational multicenter study. SETTING: Nineteen PICUs located in Argentina belonging to public and private institutions. PATIENTS: All children admitted to the participating PICUs between March 1, 2015, and February 28, 2016. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: We analyzed 3,483 PICU admissions. The prevalence of complex chronic condition was 48.06% (95% CI, 46.39-49.72). Cardiovascular complex chronic condition was predominant (22.24% [421/1,893]), followed by neuromuscular complex chronic condition (18.75% [355/1,893]) and malignant disease 17.7% (335/1,893). Technologic dependence was present in 22.22% of the patients (372 of 1,674). Predominant admission diagnosis was postoperative (36.6%) and respiratory disease (28.32%). Children with complex chronic condition had higher mortality than previously healthy patients (odds ratio, 2.74; 95% CI, 2.01-3.73). The risk of prolonged stay (≥ 26 d) was also higher (odds ratio, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.10-1.89). Rate utilization of the following devices was higher in patients with complex chronic condition: mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.12-1.63), central venous catheter (odds ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.04-1.48), and arterial monitoring (odds ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.09-1.63). CONCLUSIONS: We observed a high prevalence of patients with complex chronic condition in this sample of argentine PICUs. These patients presented higher mortality and resource use than previously healthy children. This information is valuable to understand the impact that patients with complex chronic condition have on PICU performance and enables proper planning of care.


Asunto(s)
Unidades de Cuidado Intensivo Pediátrico/estadística & datos numéricos , Afecciones Crónicas Múltiples/epidemiología , Adolescente , Factores de Edad , Argentina/epidemiología , Niño , Preescolar , Femenino , Humanos , Lactante , Masculino , Oportunidad Relativa , Prevalencia , Estudios Prospectivos , Características de la Residencia , Factores de Riesgo , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Factores Sexuales , Factores Socioeconómicos , Adulto Joven
2.
Pediatr Crit Care Med ; 19(12): e653-e661, 2018 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30277895

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of the Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 score in a population of children admitted to PICUs in Argentina. DESIGN: Prospective, national, multicenter study. SETTING: Forty-nine PICUs located in Argentina belonging to public and private institutions. PATIENTS: All children between 1 month and 16 years old admitted to the participating PICUs between May 15, 2016, and February 15, 2017. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 6,602 patients were enrolled in the study. The observed mortality was 8% (531/6,602), whereas mortality predicted by Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 was 6.16% (407 deaths). The standardized mortality rate was 1.3 (95% CI, 1.20-1.42). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.82-0.85). The Hosmer-Lemeshow test showed that the difference between the mortality observed and the mortality predicted by Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 was statistically significant (χ, 135.63; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 score adequately discriminated patients who died from those who survived in our population. However, the observed mortality was higher than predicted by the score. The use of an updated instrument such as Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 will allow an actual comparison between pediatric intensive care provided in the country and care provided internationally. This might also allow future planning of pediatric intensive care services in Argentina.


Asunto(s)
Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Unidades de Cuidado Intensivo Pediátrico/estadística & datos numéricos , Indicadores de Calidad de la Atención de Salud , Adolescente , Distribución por Edad , Área Bajo la Curva , Argentina/epidemiología , Niño , Preescolar , Enfermedad Crítica/mortalidad , Estudios Transversales , Femenino , Humanos , Lactante , Masculino , Estudios Prospectivos , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Ajuste de Riesgo , Medición de Riesgo
3.
J Crit Care ; 30(6): 1324-30, 2015 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26337557

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to asses the performance of the Pediatric Index of Mortality 2 (PIM2) score in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) in Latin America. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective, observational, multicenter study. We included patients aged 1 month to 16 years old admitted consecutively during 1 year to 34 PICUs in 9 Latin American countries. Discrimination and calibration tests were performed to validate the performance of PIM2 in the entire sample and in different subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 7391 patients were analyzed. Pediatric Index of Mortality 2 predicted 573 deaths, whereas the observed deaths were 663 (P < .001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the entire population was 0.817 (95% confidence interval, 0.808-0.825). The score showed good discrimination. Instead, calibration was inadequate. The difference between observed and predicted deaths for the entire population and across different risk intervals was statistically significant (χ(2) = 121.87; df = 8; P < .001). Pediatric Index of Mortality 2 did not predict mortality correctly in different diagnostic categories (injury, postoperative, and miscellaneous), in children younger than 12 months, adolescents, and patients with chronic complex conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric Index of Mortality 2 showed good discrimination, but calibration was inadequate. To use PIM2 for monitoring PICU performance in Latin America, it might be necessary to recalibrate the score locally.


Asunto(s)
Mortalidad del Niño , Enfermedad Crítica/mortalidad , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Unidades de Cuidado Intensivo Pediátrico/estadística & datos numéricos , Adolescente , Niño , Preescolar , Femenino , Hospitalización , Humanos , Lactante , América Latina/epidemiología , Tiempo de Internación , Masculino , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Estudios Prospectivos , Curva ROC , Medición de Riesgo
4.
Arch Argent Pediatr ; 113(5): 469-72, 2015 Oct.
Artículo en Español | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26294153

RESUMEN

Patient safety and quality of care has become a challenge for health systems. Health care is an increasingly complex and risky activity, as it represents a combination of human, technological and organizational processes. It is necessary, therefore, to take effective actions to reduce the adverse events and mitigate its impact. This glossary is a local adaptation of key terms and concepts from the international bibliographic sources. The aim is providing a common language for assessing patient safety processes and compare them.


Asunto(s)
Seguridad del Paciente , Niño , Humanos
5.
Arch. argent. pediatr ; 113(3): 221-228, jun. 2015. graf, tab
Artículo en Inglés, Español | LILACS, BINACIS | ID: lil-750467

RESUMEN

Introducción. El índice pediátrico de mortalidad 2 (Pediatric Index of Mortality 2; PIM2, por sus siglas en inglés) es uno de los puntajes más utilizados para la predicción de la mortalidad en pacientes ingresados en las Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos Pediátricos (UCIP) argentinas. El objetivo de este estudio fue validar el puntaje PIM2 en las UCIP integrantes del Programa de Calidad de Atención de la Sociedad Argentina de Terapia Intensiva. Población y métodos. Estudio multicéntrico, prospectivo, observacional, de corte transversal. Se incluyeron todos los pacientes de entre 1 mes y 16 años de edad, ingresados en las UCIP participantes entre el 01-01-2009 y el 31-122009. Se evaluó la discriminación y calibración del puntaje PIM2 en toda la población y en diferentes subgrupos (riesgo de mortalidad, edad, diagnósticos de ingreso). Resultados. Se incluyeron 2832 pacientes. El PIM2 predijo 246 muertes; sin embargo, fallecieron 297 pacientes (p <0,01). La razón de mortalidad estandarizada fue 1,20 (IC 95%: 1,01-1,43). El área bajo la curva ROC fue 0,84 (IC 95%: 0,82-0,86). Se detectaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre las muertes observadas y las predichas para toda la población y en los distintos intervalos de riesgo (χ² 71,02; df 8; p <0,001). También se detectaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre las muertes observadas y esperadas en los pacientes adolescentes (37/22, p= 0,03) y en aquellos ingresados con patología respiratoria (105/81, p= 0,03). Conclusiones. El puntaje PIM2 permite diferenciar adecuadamente los pacientes que sobreviven de aquellos que fallecen. Sin embargo, subvalora el riesgo de muerte en forma global, especialmente en los pacientes adolescentes y en aquellos ingresados por causa respiratoria. Es fundamental considerar estas diferencias al interpretar los resultados.


Introduction. The Pediatric Index of Mortality 2 (PIM2) is one of the most commonly used scoring systems to predict mortality in patients admitted to pediatric intensive care units (PICU) in Argentina. The objective of this study was to validate the PIM2 score in PICUs participating in the Quality of Care Program promoted by the Argentine Society of Intensive Care.Population and Methods. Multicenter, prospective, observational, cross-sectional study.All patients between 1 month and 16 years old admitted to participating PICUs between January 1st, 2009 and December 31st, 2009 were included. The discrimination and calibration of the PIM2 score were assessed in the entire population and in different subgroups (risk of mortality, age, diagnoses on admission).Results. Two thousand, eight hundred and thirty-two patients were included. PIM2 predicted 246 deaths; however, 297 patients died (p < 0.01). The standardized mortality ratio was 1.20 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.43). The area under the ROC curve was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.82-0.86). Statistically significant differences were detected between the observed and the predicted mortality for the entire population and for the different risk intervals (χ²: 71.02, df: 8, p < 0.001). Statistically significant differences were also found between observed and predicted mortality in adolescent patients (37/22, p = 0.03) and in those hospitalized due to respiratory disease (105/81, p = 0.03).Conclusions. The PIM2 score adequately discriminates survivors from non-survivors. However, it underscores the overall risk of death, especially in adolescent patients and those hospitalized due to respiratory disease. It is critical to take such differences into account when interpreting results.


Asunto(s)
Humanos , Lactante , Preescolar , Niño , Adolescente , Pediatría , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Unidades de Cuidado Intensivo Pediátrico , Mortalidad , Benchmarking
6.
Arch. argent. pediatr ; 113(3): 221-228, jun. 2015. graf, tab
Artículo en Español | BINACIS | ID: bin-134131

RESUMEN

Introducción. El índice pediátrico de mortalidad 2 (Pediatric Index of Mortality 2; PIM2, por sus siglas en inglés) es uno de los puntajes más utilizados para la predicción de la mortalidad en pacientes ingresados en las Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos Pediátricos (UCIP) argentinas. El objetivo de este estudio fue validar el puntaje PIM2 en las UCIP integrantes del Programa de Calidad de Atención de la Sociedad Argentina de Terapia Intensiva. Población y métodos. Estudio multicéntrico, prospectivo, observacional, de corte transversal. Se incluyeron todos los pacientes de entre 1 mes y 16 años de edad, ingresados en las UCIP participantes entre el 01-01-2009 y el 31-122009. Se evaluó la discriminación y calibración del puntaje PIM2 en toda la población y en diferentes subgrupos (riesgo de mortalidad, edad, diagnósticos de ingreso). Resultados. Se incluyeron 2832 pacientes. El PIM2 predijo 246 muertes; sin embargo, fallecieron 297 pacientes (p <0,01). La razón de mortalidad estandarizada fue 1,20 (IC 95%: 1,01-1,43). El área bajo la curva ROC fue 0,84 (IC 95%: 0,82-0,86). Se detectaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre las muertes observadas y las predichas para toda la población y en los distintos intervalos de riesgo (χ² 71,02; df 8; p <0,001). También se detectaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre las muertes observadas y esperadas en los pacientes adolescentes (37/22, p= 0,03) y en aquellos ingresados con patología respiratoria (105/81, p= 0,03). Conclusiones. El puntaje PIM2 permite diferenciar adecuadamente los pacientes que sobreviven de aquellos que fallecen. Sin embargo, subvalora el riesgo de muerte en forma global, especialmente en los pacientes adolescentes y en aquellos ingresados por causa respiratoria. Es fundamental considerar estas diferencias al interpretar los resultados.(AU)


.(AU)

7.
Arch Argent Pediatr ; 113(3): 221-8, 2015 06.
Artículo en Inglés, Español | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25996320

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: The Pediatric Index of Mortality 2 (PIM2) is one of the most commonly used scoring systems to predict mortality in patients admitted to pediatric intensive care units (PICU) in Argentina. The objective of this study was to validate the PIM2 score in PICUs participating in the Quality of Care Program promoted by the Argentine Society of Intensive Care. POPULATION AND METHODS: Multicenter, prospective, observational, cross-sectional study. All patients between 1 month and 16 years old admitted to participating PICUs between January 1st, 2009 and December 31st, 2009 were included. The discrimination and calibration of the PIM2 score were assessed in the entire population and in different subgroups (risk of mortality, age, diagnoses on admission). RESULTS: Two thousand, eight hundred and thirty-two patients were included. PIM2 predicted 246 deaths; however, 297 patients died (p < 0.01). The standardized mortality ratio was 1.20 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.43). The area under the ROC curve was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.82-0.86). Statistically significant differences were detected between the observed and the predicted mortality for the entire population and for the different risk intervals (χ2: 71.02, df: 8, p < 0.001). Statistically significant differences were also found between observed and predicted mortality in adolescent patients (37/22, p = 0.03) and in those hospitalized due to respiratory disease (105/81, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The PIM2 score adequately discriminates survivors from non-survivors. However, it underscores the overall risk of death, especially in adolescent patients and those hospitalized due to respiratory disease. It is critical to take such differences into account when interpreting results.


Asunto(s)
Mortalidad del Niño , Adolescente , Argentina/epidemiología , Niño , Preescolar , Estudios Transversales , Femenino , Humanos , Lactante , Unidades de Cuidado Intensivo Pediátrico , Masculino , Estudios Prospectivos
8.
Intensive Care Med ; 36(6): 1015-22, 2010 Jun.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20237757

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To determine the epidemiological features, course, and outcomes of critically ill pediatric patients with Influenza A (H1N1) virus. DESIGN: Prospective cohort of children in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) due to Influenza A (H1N1) virus infection. SETTING: Seventeen medical-surgical PICUs in tertiary care hospital in Argentina. PATIENTS: All consecutive patients admitted to the PICUs with influenza A (H1N1) viral infection from 15 June to 31 July 2009. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 437 patients with acute lower respiratory infection in PICUs, 147 (34%) were diagnosed with influenza A (H1N1) related to critical illness. The median age of these patients was 10 months (IQR 3-59). Invasive mechanical ventilation was used in 117 (84%) on admission. The rate of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was 80% (118 of 147 patients). Initial non-invasive ventilation failed in 19 of 22 attempts (86%). Mortality at 28 days was 39% (n = 57). Chronic complex conditions (CCCs), acute renal dysfunction (ARD) and ratio PaO(2)/FiO(2) at day 3 on MV were independently associated with a higher risk of mortality. The odds ratio (OR) for CCCs was 3.06, (CI 95% 1.36-6.84); OR for ARD, 3.38, (CI 95% 1.45-10.33); OR for PaO(2)/FiO(2), 4 (CI 95% 1.57-9.59). The administration of oseltamivir within 24 h after admission had a protective effect: OR 0.2 (CI 95% 0.07-0.54). CONCLUSIONS: In children with ARDS, H1N1 as an etiologic agent confers high mortality, and the presence of CCCs in such patients increases the risk of death.


Asunto(s)
Subtipo H1N1 del Virus de la Influenza A/aislamiento & purificación , Gripe Humana , Unidades de Cuidado Intensivo Neonatal , Argentina/epidemiología , Estudios de Cohortes , Enfermedad Crítica/epidemiología , Femenino , Humanos , Lactante , Recién Nacido , Gripe Humana/diagnóstico , Gripe Humana/tratamiento farmacológico , Gripe Humana/epidemiología , Gripe Humana/fisiopatología , Masculino , Estudios Prospectivos , Análisis de Supervivencia , Resultado del Tratamiento
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA