Validation of the INCREMENT-SOT-CPE score in a large cohort of liver transplant recipients with carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales infection.

BACKGROUND: Management of infections due to carbapenemase-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients remains a difficult challenge. The INCREMENT-SOT-CPE score has been specifically developed from SOT recipients to stratify mortality risk, but an external validation is lacking. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective cohort study of liver transplant (LT) recipients colonized with CRE infection who developed infection after transplant over 7-year period. Primary endpoint was all-cause 30-day mortality from infection onset. A comparison between INCREMENT-SOT-CPE and other selected scores was performed. A two-level mixed effects logistic regression model with random effects for the center was fitted. Performance characteristics at optimal cut-point were calculated. Multivariable Cox regression analysis of risk factors for all-cause 30-day mortality was carried out. RESULTS: Overall, 250 CRE carriers developed infection after LT and were analyzed. The median age was 55 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 46-62) and 157 were males (62.8%). All-cause 30-day mortality was 35.6%. A sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score ≥ 11 showed a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of 69.7%, 76.4%, 62.0%, 82.0%, and 74.0%, respectively. An INCREMENT-SOT-CPE ≥ 11 reported a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of 73.0%, 62.1%, 51.6%, 80.6% and 66.0%, respectively. At multivariable analysis acute renal failure, prolonged mechanical ventilation, INCREMENT-SOT-CPE score ≥ 11 and SOFA score ≥ 11 were independently associated with all-cause 30-day mortality, while a tigecycline-based targeted regimen was found to be protective. CONCLUSIONS: Both INCREMENT-SOT-CPE ≥ 11 and SOFA ≥ 11 were identified as strong predictors of all-cause 30-day mortality in a large cohort of CRE carriers developing infection after LT.

Frequency, risk factors, and outcomes of hospital readmissions of COVID-19 patients.

To determine the proportion of patients with COVID-19 who were readmitted to the hospital and the most common causes and the factors associated with readmission. Multicenter nationwide cohort study in Spain. Patients included in the study were admitted to 147 hospitals from March 1 to April 30, 2020. Readmission was defined as a new hospital admission during the 30 days after discharge. Emergency department visits after discharge were not considered readmission. During the study period 8392 patients were admitted to hospitals participating in the SEMI-COVID-19 network. 298 patients (4.2%) out of 7137 patients were readmitted after being discharged. 1541 (17.7%) died during the index admission and 35 died during hospital readmission (11.7%, p = 0.007). The median time from discharge to readmission was 7 days (IQR 3-15 days). The most frequent causes of hospital readmission were worsening of previous pneumonia (54%), bacterial infection (13%), venous thromboembolism (5%), and heart failure (5%). Age [odds ratio (OR): 1.02; 95% confident interval (95% CI): 1.01-1.03], age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index score (OR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.06-1.21), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.26-2.69), asthma (OR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.04-2.22), hemoglobin level at admission (OR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.86-0.99), ground-glass opacification at admission (OR: 0.86; 95% CI:0.76-0.98) and glucocorticoid treatment (OR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.00-1.66) were independently associated with hospital readmission. The rate of readmission after hospital discharge for COVID-19 was low. Advanced age and comorbidity were associated with increased risk of readmission.

Hospital Readmissions of Discharged Patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the rate of occurrence and the clinical variables associated with readmission of patients who had previously been discharged after admission for COVID-19. SETTING: University hospital in Madrid (Spain). PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-one patients (74% male) who presented COVID-19 were readmitted during the 3 weeks after discharge from hospital. INTERVENTIONS: Nested case-control study paired (1:1 ratio) by age, sex and period of admission. OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of readmission rate of patients discharged after suffering COVID-19 and identification of the clinical variables associated with it. RESULTS: Out of 1368 patients who were discharged during the study period, 61 patients (4.4%) were readmitted. Immunocompromised patients (N=10.2%) were at increased risk for readmission (p=0.04). There was also a trend towards a higher probability of readmission in hypertensive patients (p=0.07). Cases had had a shorter hospital stay and a higher prevalence of fever during the 48 hours prior to discharge. There were no significant differences in oxygen levels measured at admission and discharge by pulse oximetry intra-subject or between the groups. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio at hospital admission tended to be higher in cases than in controls (p=0.06). Neither glucocorticoids nor anticoagulants prescribed at hospital discharge were associated with a lower readmission rate. Patients who were readmitted due to a thrombotic event (8 patients, 13.1%) presented a higher level of D-dimer at discharge of initial admission. CONCLUSION: The rate of readmission after discharge from hospital for COVID-19 was low. Immunocompromised patients and those presenting with fever during the 48 hours prior to discharge were at greater risk of readmission to hospital.

Appropriateness of the use of proton pump inhibitors in the Emergency Department of a Spanish university hospital

Background: the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) has increased substantially during the last years, possibly due to a significant proportion of prescriptions that do not follow the approved indications. Objective: to assess the prevalence of PPI prescription and the appropriateness of the prescription within the Emergency Department (ED) of a Spanish university hospital. Materials and methods: a cross-sectional, retrospective prescription-indication drug-use study was performed, which selected 384 patients that presented to the ED over two days in January 2016. Results: of the total cohort, 23.2% were taking PPI before their hospital visit and only 20.2% had a correct indication and dosage; 2.9% of the patient cohort had an indication for PPI treatment but had not been prescribed them. A drug other than omeprazole was used in 25% of cases; 30.47% of the patients were discharged with a PPI and only 28.2% of them had the correct indication and dosage. Finally, 5.7% were not prescribed PPI even though it was warranted. PPI prescription increased with age whereas the indication for the prescription decreased. Furthermore, the use of these drugs was higher in hospitalized patients compared to discharged patients. Conclusions: these results are in line with similar studies, which demonstrate the existence of an over-prescription of PPI. PPI prescription needs to be improved, thereby reducing drug interactions, adverse effects and unnecessary economical expenses

No disponible

Appropriateness of the use of proton pump inhibitors in the Emergency Department of a Spanish university hospital.

BACKGROUND: the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) has increased substantially during the last years, possibly due to a significant proportion of prescriptions that do not follow the approved indications. OBJECTIVE: to assess the prevalence of PPI prescription and the appropriateness of the prescription within the Emergency Department (ED) of a Spanish university hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: a cross-sectional, retrospective prescription-indication drug-use study was performed, which selected 384 patients that presented to the ED over two days in January 2016. RESULTS: of the total cohort, 23.2% were taking PPI before their hospital visit and only 20.2% had a correct indication and dosage; 2.9% of the patient cohort had an indication for PPI treatment but had not been prescribed them. A drug other than omeprazole was used in 25% of cases; 30.47% of the patients were discharged with a PPI and only 28.2% of them had the correct indication and dosage. Finally, 5.7% were not prescribed PPI even though it was warranted. PPI prescription increased with age whereas the indication for the prescription decreased. Furthermore, the use of these drugs was higher in hospitalized patients compared to discharged patients. CONCLUSIONS: these results are in line with similar studies, which demonstrate the existence of an over-prescription of PPI. PPI prescription needs to be improved, thereby reducing drug interactions, adverse effects and unnecessary economical expenses.